Given up

[Ar]

So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.

[JNugent]

On 15/03/2022 09:08 pm, Ar wrote:

> So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.

Why not start a discussion about something TV-related? ;-)

The current remake of "The Ipcress File", perhaps?

[Mike Swift]

In article <j9cmjk...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

>> So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.
>
>Why not start a discussion about something TV-related? ;-)
>
>The current remake of "The Ipcress File", perhaps?

I've not bothered to watch it as they will have messed it about and
"re-imagined" it.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[Jeff Layman]

On 16/03/2022 01:19, Mike Swift wrote:
> In article <j9cmjk...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes
>>> So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.
>>
>> Why not start a discussion about something TV-related? ;-)
>>
>> The current remake of "The Ipcress File", perhaps?
>
> I've not bothered to watch it as they will have messed it about and
> "re-imagined" it.

Then you're missing out. Interestingly, the reviews on IMDB show it as a
Marmite. Some love it, some hate it, and it doesn't seem to matter if
the original was loved or not by the reviewer. I can remember that when
I first saw the film in 1965 I thought it very good indeed. I haven't
seen it for at least 40 years and have forgotten it - perhaps
fortunately as comparisons are invidious.

I find it very good, and far better than (to my mind highly overrated)
"This is going to hurt", which I gave up on halfway through the second
episode, wondering when Sir Lancelot Spratt was going to appear.

--

Jeff

[Mike Swift]

In article <t0s6ln$42k$1...@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman
<jmla...@invalid.invalid> writes

>Then you're missing out. Interestingly, the reviews on IMDB show it as a
>Marmite. Some love it, some hate it, and it doesn't seem to matter if the
>original was loved or not by the reviewer. I can remember that when I first
>saw the film in 1965 I thought it very good indeed. I haven't seen it for at
>least 40 years and have forgotten it - perhaps fortunately as comparisons
>are invidious.

During lockdown with so many repeats on TV we've watched a lot of my
collection of series and films "acquired" over the years.
We watched the first three Harry Palmer films recently and although a
bit dated they were still enjoyable.
There have been several remakes over the last year or so which I watched
and hated, Dracula, War of the Worlds and the recent Around the World in
80 Days which might as well have been called A Trip Around the World
loosely based on a novel by Jules Verne.
I suppose it's a generation thing but many remakes fall far short of the
original IMHO.

[JNugent]

On 16/03/2022 01:19 am, Mike Swift wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

>>> So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.
>
>> Why not start a discussion about something TV-related? ;-)
>
>> The current remake of "The Ipcress File", perhaps?
>
> I've not bothered to watch it as they will have messed it about and
> "re-imagined" it.

The writers have expanded the back-story somewhat, but only (so far) in
a way broadly compatible with the original novel. The film's weakest
point - the "sci-fi" experience in that cubicle - has not figured yet.

I see that someone called Deighton (presumably a relative) is an
executive producer.

[Calum]

On 16/03/2022 01:19, Mike Swift wrote:

> I've not bothered to watch it as they will have messed it about and
> "re-imagined" it.

Well, there wouldn't be much point remaking it if they hadn't.

[Mike Swift]

In article <t0sonl$1e12$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Calum
<com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> writes

>> I've not bothered to watch it as they will have messed it about and
>> "re-imagined" it.
>
>Well, there wouldn't be much point remaking it if they hadn't.

Surely the author wrote it in a certain way, altering it is a bit of an
arrogant insult the them?

[Jeff Layman]

On 16/03/2022 13:35, Mike Swift wrote:
> In article <t0sonl$1e12$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Calum
> <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> writes
>>> I've not bothered to watch it as they will have messed it about and
>>> "re-imagined" it.
>>
>> Well, there wouldn't be much point remaking it if they hadn't.
>
> Surely the author wrote it in a certain way, altering it is a bit of an
> arrogant insult the them?

So the interpretations of Shakespeare over the last 400 years are all
bad if they didn't follow the original to the letter? One of my
favourite films is "The Forbidden Planet", a remarkable science fiction
film for its time. In the credits it states it is based on The Tempest,
but I wonder how many Shakespeare purists would identify it as such or
appreciate it.

Providing what the author or writer intended in followed in a general
way, I don't see a problem; it's the overall way it is carried out which
is important. In a way, it's little different from the way symphonies
and concertos are interpreted by conductors and soloists.

--

Jeff

[JNugent]

On 16/03/2022 01:55 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:

> Mike Swift wrote:
>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> writes

[re: "The Ipcress File":]

>>>> I've not bothered to watch it as they will have messed it about and
>>>> "re-imagined" it.
>
>>> Well, there wouldn't be much point remaking it if they hadn't.
>
>> Surely the author wrote it in a certain way, altering it is a bit of an
>> arrogant insult the them?
>
> So the interpretations of Shakespeare over the last 400 years are all
> bad if they didn't follow the original to the letter?

The majority do! "The Tempest" is the shortest of the plays and rarely
cut (whereas "Hamlet" - the longest - is frequently cut so that
audiences can get the last bus).

> One of my
> favourite films is "The Forbidden Planet", a remarkable science fiction
> film for its time. In the credits it states it is based on The Tempest,
> but I wonder how many Shakespeare purists would identify it as such or
> appreciate it.

If one knows and is familiar with "The Tempest", the plot (and some of
the incident) of "Forbidden Planet" are easy enough to spot.

But it is not a production of "The Tempest", any more than "West Side
Story" is a production of the Verona play.

> Providing what the author or writer intended in followed in a general
> way, I don't see a problem; it's the overall way it is carried out which
> is important. In a way, it's little different from the way symphonies
> and concertos are interpreted by conductors and soloists.

Shakespeare didn't conceive the plots of "Hamlet" and several others of
his plays. He re-wrote Holinshead and others for the plots of his ten
(English) history plays. But he didn't purport to be presenting anyone
else's work. Whatever had gone before, this was "Xxxxxx by William
Shakespeare" - something new - and unless we may one day yet be amazed
by a discovery in some forgotten dusty library - immeasurably better.

[Jeff Layman]

On 16/03/2022 15:02, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/03/2022 01:55 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> Mike Swift wrote:
>>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> writes
>
> [re: "The Ipcress File":]
>
>>>>> I've not bothered to watch it as they will have messed it about and
>>>>> "re-imagined" it.
>>
>>>> Well, there wouldn't be much point remaking it if they hadn't.
>>
>>> Surely the author wrote it in a certain way, altering it is a bit of an
>>> arrogant insult the them?
>>
>> So the interpretations of Shakespeare over the last 400 years are all
>> bad if they didn't follow the original to the letter?
>
> The majority do! "The Tempest" is the shortest of the plays and rarely
> cut (whereas "Hamlet" - the longest - is frequently cut so that
> audiences can get the last bus).
>
>> One of my
>> favourite films is "The Forbidden Planet", a remarkable science fiction
>> film for its time. In the credits it states it is based on The Tempest,
>> but I wonder how many Shakespeare purists would identify it as such or
>> appreciate it.
>
> If one knows and is familiar with "The Tempest", the plot (and some of
> the incident) of "Forbidden Planet" are easy enough to spot.
>
> But it is not a production of "The Tempest", any more than "West Side
> Story" is a production of the Verona play.

Where do you place modern-day versions of his plays in Shakespearian
English, or versions of his time in modern English? Are they acceptable
interpretations?

>> Providing what the author or writer intended in followed in a general
>> way, I don't see a problem; it's the overall way it is carried out which
>> is important. In a way, it's little different from the way symphonies
>> and concertos are interpreted by conductors and soloists.
>
> Shakespeare didn't conceive the plots of "Hamlet" and several others of
> his plays. He re-wrote Holinshead and others for the plots of his ten
> (English) history plays. But he didn't purport to be presenting anyone
> else's work. Whatever had gone before, this was "Xxxxxx by William
> Shakespeare" - something new - and unless we may one day yet be amazed
> by a discovery in some forgotten dusty library - immeasurably better.

Well, Robert Greene (who?) didn't think so:
<https://www.literarygenius.info/william-shakespeare-upstart-crow.htm>
But that was just sour grapes, I guess.

--

Jeff

[JNugent]

Modern dress and modern sets and settings are fine. It's only what
Shakespeare's actors (dressed in Elizabethan or Jacobean dress) would
have done, even for a Greek or Roman play.

But the language is inviolable. Dumbing it down for a bunch of stroppy
teenagers (or similar) is a crime.

If someone doesn't like it, they don't like it. If they can't understand
it, they can't understand it.

It's their loss.

>>> Providing what the author or writer intended in followed in a general
>>> way, I don't see a problem; it's the overall way it is carried out which
>>> is important. In a way, it's little different from the way symphonies
>>> and concertos are interpreted by conductors and soloists.
>
>> Shakespeare didn't conceive the plots of "Hamlet" and several others of
>> his plays. He re-wrote Holinshead and others for the plots of his ten
>> (English) history plays. But he didn't purport to be presenting anyone
>> else's work. Whatever had gone before, this was "Xxxxxx by William
>> Shakespeare" - something new - and unless we may one day yet be amazed
>> by a discovery in some forgotten dusty library - immeasurably better.
>
> Well, Robert Greene (who?) didn't think so:
> <https://www.literarygenius.info/william-shakespeare-upstart-crow.htm>
> But that was just sour grapes, I guess.

It was, and is widely regarded and agreed as being so.

[Mike Swift]

In article <t0tb9r$sea$1...@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman
<jmla...@invalid.invalid> writes

>Where do you place modern-day versions of his plays in Shakespearian
>English, or versions of his time in modern English? Are they acceptable
>interpretations?

Personally I don't like the modernisation of Shakespeare, but then some
do.

[JNugent]

On 17/03/2022 11:43 am, Martin wrote:

> Mike Swift <mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

[in response to:]

>>>> So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.
>
>>> Why not start a discussion about something TV-related? ;-)
>>> The current remake of "The Ipcress File", perhaps?
>
>> I've not bothered to watch it as they will have messed it about and
>> "re-imagined" it.
>

> We watched the film after episode1 of the TV version. The TV version is much
> better than the original film, so far.

I don't know that I'd go that far, but the TV version is pretty good. Of
course, it borrows a fair amount from the style of the 1965 film while
expanding the Palmer back-story.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:j9cmjk...@mid.individual.net...

It's noticeable in the original, in the opening credits where he's
making his breakfast, that the white plug socket is coming away
from the pine clad wall.


bb

[Ar]

I've not seen it, and reading the newspaper reviews, a lot of people
also wish they hadn't seen it.

You can't remake a Michael Cane film. Case in point "The Italian Job",
the remake is crap.

[JNugent]

On 18/03/2022 06:53 am, billy bookcase wrote:

> "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 15/03/2022 09:08 pm, Ar wrote:
>
>>> So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.
>
>> Why not start a discussion about something TV-related? ;-)
>> The current remake of "The Ipcress File", perhaps?
>
> It's noticeable in the original, in the opening credits where he's
> making his breakfast, that the white plug socket is coming away
> from the pine clad wall.

I'll have to have another look at that (if I've got it).

[JNugent]

Don't be so hasty.

I am as much of a critic of deliberate undermining of stories (eg, with
wokism) as anyone, but this one is pretty good.

And at least we're discussing it!

[JNugent]

On 18/03/2022 09:12 am, Martin wrote:

> Ar <A...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> On 15/03/2022 23:42, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 15/03/2022 09:08 pm, Ar wrote:
>
>>>> So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.
>
>>> Why not start a discussion about something TV-related? ;-)
>>> The current remake of "The Ipcress File", perhaps?
>
>> I've not seen it, and reading the newspaper reviews, a lot of people
>> also wish they hadn't seen it.
>

> The reviews I read were positive;

Indeed.

>> You can't remake a Michael Cane film. Case in point "The Italian Job",
>> the remake is crap.

> The original Italian Job was a better made film than Ipcress File. The Ipcress
> File film looks like a low budget film.

It was a low-budget film. But the only bit that really suffered from
that was the improbably damaging psycho-torture sequence.

[JNugent]

On 19/03/2022 09:11 am, Martin wrote:

> I can't remember the book after more than 50 years, but I assume in the book he
> did actually go to Germany. He does in the TV version and doesn't in the film.
> The significance of him being one of the Glorious Gloucesters is probably lost
> on the younger generation. They were captured by the N Koreans and tortured,

I take it you've watched the whole thing?

I haven't done that.

[Richard Evans]

On 15/03/2022 21:08, Ar wrote:
> So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.

This Newsnet groups is very busy compared to most other groups!

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[JNugent]

On 19/03/2022 02:32 pm, Richard Evans wrote:

> On 15/03/2022 21:08, Ar wrote:

>> So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.

> This Newsnet groups is very busy compared to most other groups!

Well, this week, at least!

If only there were a few more good TV programmes to discuss...

[Mike Swift]

In article <j9mao9...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

>>> So everyone's given up with this group? Sad.
>
>> This Newsnet groups is very busy compared to most other groups!
>
>Well, this week, at least!
>
>If only there were a few more good TV programmes to discuss...

Indeed, we've resorted to watching my collection of Stargate SG1 as the
output from the multiple channels we have is so poor.

[Richard Evans]

On 19/03/2022 15:21, JNugent wrote:
>
> If only there were a few more good TV programmes to discuss...
>

I've been enjoying a few old shows on Forces TV. (on Com7).
Although it can be a bit hard to receive it on Freeview these days.
I get a good signal (From Crystal Palace), but it's an SFN without
enough guard interval.

I think I was getting interference from Oxford and Sandy Heath.
I repositioned my aerial to get rid of Oxford. This improve things
a lot, but I still have problems when we get a bit of lift. Probably
from Sandy Heath.