Turn it On Again*

Several book series have been adapted for television, and plenty of fans of those series love watching those shows. If you’ve tuned into any of them yourself, you’ll know that some are extremely faithful to the original series. Others use the main characters but create entirely new plots for them. And that choice does divide readers. Some don’t mind at all, and others dislike it.

There’ve been a number of adaptations of Agatha Christie’s work. One of them features David Suchet as Hercule Poirot. This show lasted for 13 series and included her short stories as well as her novels. In some of them (e.g. Murder in the Mews), the characters and plot line stay fairly close to the original story. In others, there are major changes. For instance, in the novel Death in the Clouds, Jane Grey is a London hairdresser who wins the lottery and chooses to take a holiday in France. That’s how she ends up on a flight during which another passenger is killed. In the television adaptation, she is a flight attendant. There are other changes, too, some of them important, between the Christie books and some of the episodes. When the television production strays from the original plot, that bothers some fans, but not others.

Erle Stanley Gardner’s Perry Mason series is often considered a classic of the legal mystery sub-genre. It’s drawn millions of fans to crime fiction, too. Beginning in 1957, a television adaptation of the show, starring Raymond Burr in the titular role and Barbara Hale as Della Street, was aired for nine seasons. In fact, it’s television’s longest-running legal drama. There was also a series of Perry Mason television films aired between 1985 and 1995, also starring Raymond Burr and Barbara Hale. Some of the episodes are quite faithful to the novels. Others, though, were written specifically for the TV series, and are not based on the novels (although they do, of course, feature Perry Mason and Della Street). Apparently, the show was popular enough, and long-running enough, that the writers needed to create new material.

Some of Gail Bowen’s Joanne Kilbourn novels have been adapted for television, too. Like the book series, the television series features Joanne as a single mother and university professor who is drawn into investigating murders. In this case, there are some major differences between the series as Bowen has written it, and the television series. For one thing, the television series gives Joanne a different backstory (she’s a former police officer in the TV series, but not in the books). It also features a major character (Joanne’s former police partner) who doesn’t exist in the books, so some of the plots are quite different.. The television series also takes place in Ontario, rather than in Regina, which is the setting for the books. For some people, those changes are not a problem; for others, though, they detract from the adaptation.

Ann Cleeves’ Vera Stanhope book series has been extremely successful, both commercially and critically. The television adaptation has also done very well, is considered of high quality, and has lots of fans. Many of the episodes are based on the novels and stay fairly close to them. Others, though, are not based on the books, although they do feature the main characters in the books. For many fans, this is fine; they love the show, they love Brenda Blethyn in the role of Vera Stanhope, and they think the TV plots are engaging and absorbing. There are those who’d like the show to stay closer to the books, but it’s been a highly regarded television show overall.

I don’t think I could do a post on television adaptations without mentioning the Inspector Morse series starring John Thaw as Morse. The show aired from 1987 to 1993, and overall, stayed quite faithful to the books on which it was based. That could very well be because Colin Dexter, who wrote the series, was deeply involved in the television production, even helping to choose Thaw for the main role. Since then, there’ve been two spinoffs of the show:  Lewis, which follows the story of Sergeant (later Inspector) Lewis after his career with Morse; and Endeavour, a sort of prequel to the Morse series. Those shows are based on Dexter’s characters, but otherwise not based on the books. They’ve been very popular and critically praised as well. Fans don’t mind that they are not based on books.

And that’s the thing. Some television series stay very close to the original source. Others, on the other hand, stray, some quite far, from the original novels. There are many, many more I could have mentioned. I know, I know, fans of the Dalziel and Pascoe series, the Rizzoli and Isles series, and the Inspector Rebus series, and so many others. They vary in how closely they follow the books, but they have in common that they become quite popular, and they draw fans to the genre.

What’s your take on this? Is it important for you that a TV adaptation stay very close to the novels on which it’s based? Are you content letting a television series be its own entity, even if it has the same characters as a book series? I’d love to read your views on this.

*NOTE: the title of this post is the title of song by Genesis.


6 thoughts on “Turn it On Again*

  1. Having a terrible memory for books means I often don’t notice changes unless I’ve read the book very recently. It was only recently I realised how much the Suchet Poirots diverged from the original when I tried to watch one just after I’d read the book. Although I usually love the Suchet adaptations, I had to give up on that one because the changes were annoying me so much. With Dalziel and Pascoe I got along with the adaptations OK until Elly was written out – the books would have been unthinkable without her and I couldn’t accept that change in the TV storyline. As for Rebus, he will always be Ken Stott to me, so none of the other adaptations have worked for me at all!

    Like

    1. I really didn’t like the way the David Suchet Poirot episodes strayed from the books, either, FictionFan. I could accept a few changes with no problem. After all, there almost have to be some differences to make the adaptation more appealing visually. But some of those episodes were so far from the books that I couldn’t enjoy them at all. Same with Dalziel and Pascoe after Elly left. She really is essential to the stories, isn’t she? And it’s funny how we get attached to one actor (e.g. Kenn Stott is Rebus; John Thaw was Morse). For me, no Sherlock Holmes production has equaled Jeremy Brett’s portrayal. That may be just me, but…

      Liked by 1 person

  2. It can be a tricky one, because often a book doesn’t transfer completely well to TV. I know the Suchet ones veered, but I too have a terrible memory for plots and so it often doesn’t matter. Frankly, his portrayal was so excellent I would have forgiven them just about anything!!

    Like

    1. You’re right, KBR. Sometimes a story doesn’t transfer really well to the screen without some changes. And some of those changes aren’t so bad. Some of them, though… At any rate, I agree with you about David Suchet. His portrayal is Poirot to me, so yes, it’s easy to forgive!

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Margot: You highlight the huge problems with the T.V. movie adaptations of Gail Bowen’s books. I watched a couple and refuse to watch again. The producers turned the Joanne Kilbourn mysteries into generic below average movies. I could accept Wendy Crewson as Joanne. I cannot think of a worse adaptation.

    The movie adaptation of Louise Penny’s first book Still Life was average. Its greatest flaw was casting Nathaniel Parker as Armand Gamache. He was not my Armand.

    The T.V. series, Three Pines, was much better. Alfred Molina was a great Gamache. I remain disappointed it was not renewed.

    Like

    1. I wonder sometimes, Bill, why produces and directors, etc., have to make so many drastic changes to a book or series, as they did with the Joanne Kilbourn mysteries. It wasn’t, in my opinion, necessary to move the series to Toronto, etc.. I’ve often felt that way with other adaptations, too. I can see why you decided not to watch the rest of the series.

      You make an interesting point, too, about casting. It’s so important to choose the actors carefully, as miscasting can really detract from a show. Some people just aren’t the best choice for a role, and your feelings about Nathaniel Parker and Alfred Molina show what a difference casting makes.

      Like

Leave a reply to kaggsysbookishramblings Cancel reply