Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The Cinema
  3. Shown on UK TV

Shown on UK TV

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Cinema
23 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote last edited by
    #21

    askilaun — 11 years ago(July 21, 2014 09:53 AM)

    Presumably, a much larger cheque for the rights to the story had positively influenced Ms Hill's opinion of the more recent movie. I thought the Hammer picture was okay, but the Channel 4 TV movie was much better.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote last edited by
      #22

      DreTam2000 — 13 years ago(October 27, 2012 03:15 PM)

      She likely had a better business relationship with the producers of the new version, which leads her to being less bitter about the adaptation. Like most novelists, she probably had to get over her initial disappointment with deviations from her work in a film adaptation back in 1989. So, with this new production, she already had it in mind to be prepared for disappointment. So her expectations were low going into this newer adaptation to begin with, which brightened her mood in the long-run.
      Basically, what I'm saying is that, whatever the first adaptation of her work was, it was destined to be the one she hated, until she could get over her disappiontment in time for another adaptation of her work, despite whichever one is superior. It's a shame that this basically means the '89 version is the one that must suffer for this. There's no way she gripes over the original and not the newer version, which has the same "faults" she described of the former (and
      then
      some).
      If the production company is smart, they'll work out a deal and give this (clearly great film) its fair shot at the light of day again. It clearly has its number of fans and it seems even that number is growing. Unless the execs are total retards, they can see that this version is clearly a great film. Why make money only on the newer version when they could just as readily make money on the both of them? If money is the issue (as it almost always is), then why not capitalize? Since when do companies turn down the chance at making more money just for the sake of the artist at hand's personal feelings? That would be a new one on me
      I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote last edited by
        #23

        eveyee91 — 12 years ago(October 24, 2013 12:03 AM)

        The only reason I would watch this ever again would be for a charitable event, sponsored to do so in an old creepy house.., I have NEVER, forgotton that sudden grinning, banshee that comes from nohere, with those horrendous nashers that make Mrs Bates' fruit cellar dentures look like fairground chattering teeth!

        1 Reply Last reply
        0

        • Login

        • Don't have an account? Register

        Powered by NodeBB Contributors
        • First post
          Last post
        0
        • Categories
        • Recent
        • Tags
        • Popular
        • Users
        • Groups