North and South III
Unknown
From: (JL)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Followup-To: rec.arts.tv
Distribution: world
Subject: North and South III
I have seen the first two mini-series many times and the continuity between
them is excellent (considering they were made back to back). However when I
saw the third one I noticed a lot of sloppiness.
1) This one was considerably shorter than the first two. In fact this one
was about half as long as the first and second series.
2) Charles Main was played by another actor (why???) who looked nothing
like the first and the way he played him changed the character too much.
3) Billy Hazard wasn't even mentioned in this one and Bret showed up for a
brief appearance. Why??? Also they never explain what happened to the
drummer boy Tommy from the second series. Why???
4) What happened to James Huntoon?
5) Also the burned down remnants of Mt. Royal looked different than the one
they used at the end of Book II. In fact that didn't even look like South
Carolina. In fact they filmed it in San Antonio Texas which looks nothing
like South Carolina. Why???
6) The music was not as good as usual. What happened to Bill Conti, the
composer for the first two series???
7) Why does Cooper all of a sudden show up now, when the televised versions
of the first two books left him out completely???
8) Why wasn't Patrick Swayze in it at all??? (I don't count the old clips
and the double they used for his death scene) I would think that he would
have been happy to reprise the role that shot him to stardom and the one
where he did his best acting (he knows it too) even if it was only for a
short scene.
9) WHY WAS IT NOT AS GOOD AS THE FIRST TWO SERIES!?!?!?!?!?!?
Anyway if any of you have answers or thoughts or opinions to these
questions please respond.
-JL
Quinn Thomas McCord
>
> I have seen the first two mini-series many times and the continuity between
> them is excellent (considering they were made back to back). However when I
> saw the third one I noticed a lot of sloppiness.
>
> 1) This one was considerably shorter than the first two. In fact this one
> was about half as long as the first and second series.
Agreed. Fitting the first two books into 12 hour shows
a piece was hard enough. There's no way that Heaven and Hell
could competently be compressed into 6 hours.
>
> 2) Charles Main was played by another actor (why???) who looked nothing
> like the first and the way he played him changed the character too much.
>
Don't know why, but I liked the first Charles better.
Charlie is supposed to be a real scrapper, boardering on
hick-ishness. This Charlie looked like some Californian
pretty-boy. Anyways, the first Charles was played by Lewis
Smith.
> 3) Billy Hazard wasn't even mentioned in this one and Bret showed up for a
> brief appearance. Why??? Also they never explain what happened to the
> drummer boy Tommy from the second series. Why???
>
I can't fault them for not resurrecting such a minor
character such as this guy.
> 4) What happened to James Huntoon?
>
I can't remember what happened to him by the end of the
2nd mini-series, but by the end of the second book he was
dead.
> 5) Also the burned down remnants of Mt. Royal looked different than the one
> they used at the end of Book II. In fact that didn't even look like South
> Carolina. In fact they filmed it in San Antonio Texas which looks nothing
> like South Carolina. Why???
My memory isn't great, but I thought Mt. Royal looked
reasonably like the first one.
>
> 6) The music was not as good as usual. What happened to Bill Conti, the
> composer for the first two series???
>
Don't know, but I agree.
> 7) Why does Cooper all of a sudden show up now, when the televised versions
> of the first two books left him out completely???
>
The is one reason why I thought the third book would
never be filmed. The miniseries had simply strayed too far
from books. Although it was unfortunate that they chose not to
use the character for the first two miniseries, they really
had no choice for the 3rd one (Remember, they hadn't originally
planned to film the 3rd one.)
> 8) Why wasn't Patrick Swayze in it at all??? (I don't count the old clips
> and the double they used for his death scene) I would think that he would
> have been happy to reprise the role that shot him to stardom and the one
> where he did his best acting (he knows it too) even if it was only for a
> short scene.
>
Maybe he was too expensive, even for a cameo. Or maybe
he DID refuse.
> 9) WHY WAS IT NOT AS GOOD AS THE FIRST TWO SERIES!?!?!?!?!?!?
>
Main reason: Too short.
Secondary reasons: Just not written as well, and they also had
to somehow re-mend the televised version closer to the way
things were presented in the book.
As much as I love the novels, I wish they just hadn't
filmed Heaven and Hell. I'd recommend all three books to
anyone, however.
-Quinn