Well there are clearly very many of us who doubt the 'strength' of your argument, but I do wish you'd just stop saying the same thing over and over again because, quite frankly, it's getting a little dull now. YES, Agatha Christie made changes to her work - but I agree with hobbit, Sanatonix, murderisannounced and winnebago that it was HER WORK to change and that makes it acceptable. The fact that modern day screenwriters are practically re-writing the stories is totally different and for reasons so obvious I'm sure you must be able to see them.

Of course I'm not saying Agatha Christie wasn't a gifted writer - in your own words 'I said no such thing'. A major re-write is never necessary; one might as well just adapt something else and bill it as 'based on an idea by Agatha Christie' or 'based on a title by Agatha Christie'.

I barely know why I'm bothering to respond, as its clearly very important to you that you have the last word on this topic. Please - tell us for the sixth time that 'Agatha Christie made changes to her own work', so we may further bask in the brilliance of your argument.

How is it different? A change is a change no matter who made the change. If a major re-write is never necessary, why did Agatha Christie re-write the ending of And Then There Were None? And yes, you did say (indirectly) Agatha Christie was not a gifted writer by stating “To me the hallmark of a gifted writer would be one who could blend changes in seamlessly with the original story - as opposed to practically re-writing it!”

Your argumentum ad nauseam is really beginning to grate. The change to ATTWN was hardly a major re-write (just the very ending I believe). AC wrote ATTWN herself, and took the judgement herself that the ending wouldn't work on stage. That was her rightful decision to make.

If you wish further clarification as to why that's different to what the scriptwriters of 'Marple' have done then re-read previous posts in the thread. I've made my feelings clear on this matter.

Changing the ending is major re-write, just like the change in The Body in Library was a major re-write. Now continuing this train of thought, if Agatha Christie (on occasion) had to make changes, doesn’t logic dictate that any one adapting these novels might at some point need to make a small or large change for whatever reason? The answer is yes. Ergo there is no difference if the original author (in this case Agatha Christie) or a screenwriter makes said change(s).

Alright S Sigerson. You have the last word. ;)

Sorry Dale to keep on but S Sigerson I think your logic is flawed, An Auth has the right to change her work but I can't for the life of me understand why anybody adapting her work or the work of any other writer come to think of it has the right to do so, having said that I can only think of afew occasssions when it has actually offended me, they were 'Cards On The Table' the 'Marple versions of Body in The Library' and 'Sleeping Murder', I haven't read Nemesis yet but if the JH version was faithful to I will be adding the GM version to the list as well as the 'Marple' versions that shouldn't have Miss Marple in them

I always believed that AC changed the ending of ATTWN for the stage version because she believed that book ending would be impossible to reproduce on the stage. She also dropped Poirot from her stage adapatations because she felt he was more a series of mannerisms than a fully rounded character (That theory has been disproven by Suchet's Poirot). However, she,as the author felt that both changes were necessary and permissable for the benefit of the plays. Whether one agrees or disagrees with those decisions, one can hardly object to the writer's right to alter their own work. Compare those reasons to the changes in the McEwan Marples. In Body In The Library, the identity of the one of the murderers was changed and their sexuality was changed. In Nemesis, the Bradbury Scott sisters were turned into nuns. I dont think those type of changes add anything to the original and have purely a gimmick value. I find the changes made in the recent Poirots harder to take than the sweeping changes to the Marples. I suppose, for me, the JH series was made in the last 25 years and I have my complete collection to watch if I want to see a definitive version. As the previous series was made in fairly recent history, I can understand why the producers of the current Marples might want to do something different - hence the casting of several comedians; the garish photography etc. The Poirots are different and I find the changes made in the last two series harder to stomach. Watching Third Girl again the other night, I found myself feeling sorry for Suchet who has expressed his desire to film the whole body of Poirot work and is now saddled with writers obsessed with bringing in Nazi sub-plots and gratitous changes.

squatty I wasn't aware of a satisfactory and beliveable excuse for the changes in the ITV 'Marple' series, If ITV felt so deeply that they should do something different perhaps they shouldn't have bought the writes to Agatha Christie's books or chosen a different Character. and as for 'Poirot' I thought David Suchet was Executive Producer of the series so if I am right he must condone the changes.

From what I understand Agatha Christie changed the ending because people around her said the audience (at the time) would not go for such a bleak ending. She agreed with this assessment and changed the ending. She was a clever writer so I seriously doubt she could not have come up with a way to adapt the novel keeping the original ending had she really wanted to do so. All because people like David Suchet’s Hercule Poirot and the television adaptations in general does not mean the audience of – let us say the 1940’s – would have felt the same way. Once again Agatha Christie was adapting the novels for the different audience. What works now might not work then and vice versa.

S Sigerson - I want to ask a question. Lets assume that you are correct about AC's decision to change her novels when adapting them for the stage and that her primary motive was to appeal to the audience at the time. If you have seen the recent TV adaptations of Nemesis and Appoinment With Death, what would your argument be for the many changes made to the original books. Nemesis had only Miss Marple surviving from the book and all the other characters were changed dramatically or new characters introduced. Appointment with Death, also introduced several new characters and had a bewildering array of sub-plots. Do you believe, the new versions are more appealing to a 21st Century audience than the orginals?

I do not write for television. I am sure changes were made in the version of Nemesis with Joan Hickson. Are those changes any better or any worse than the changes made in the version with Geraldine McEwan? No, they are just different changes, just a new interpretation. Full length novels and short stories written by Agatha Christie are available. Those are the "originals".

What a wonderfully evasive answer! Sorry, S Sigerson, I just couldn't resist - having been away from the chatter for a bit. I think most on this site would argue that the changes made to the McEwan version WERE worse and were not just a 'new interpretation' but a total re-write. However I shall not present that argument myself because, as Mr Cooper pointed out, you'll probably just come back with the information that Agatha Christie herself actually made a few changes to her work (for example, doctering the ending to And Then There Were None).

Instead I shall present you with a question of my own. Are you a screenwriter for the new Marple series?

I know you've said that you do not write for television (three times in fact!!) but it's occured to me that perhaps you might rather protest too much...? I hope, if this is the case, none of has given offence with our comments. I said myself that the recent series has many merits for which it can and must be lauded. I apologise profusely if you are in fact NOT a screenwriter for Marple, but it certainly would explain the vehemence with which you make your point (perhaps ad nauseam, perhaps not - I shall not judge!)

Hobbit 

I agree with Hobbit in the sense that the Changes in the ITV Series is MUCH worse, I haven't read Nemesis but if the BBC version is closer to the book the ITV version does look like 'Murder On The Coach' and the inclusion of the Theatre Group in 'Sleeping Murder' (Which I have read) was just plain stupid the change of Identity of one of the Murderers and subsequent Lesbian aspect in 'Body In The Library' was just nasty, If you don't write for Television as you make out and you aren't a screenwriter like hobbit suggests Are you the either the person who suggests the changes or a relative of someone who commissioned the series or works on the series and am defending them so strongly as you are taking it personally? I say this as I know we fight for our loved ones more than we fight for ourselves don't we? While I do not wish you or your relative (If I am right any ill-will I will stop short of saying I hope no comments have caused offence as I stand by my belief that if ITV didn't like the books as they were written and felt that they MUST include stories Miss Marple doesn't appear in ITV should never have started the series and you seem a very strong person your relative should have used that strength which would have been bound nto rub off on them and explained to ITV that the changes are at best incredibly stupid and at worse very hurtful and insulting.

winnebago, you took the words right out of my mouth!

I am glad we agree hobbit

I'd still like to know how the latest adaptations are more attractive to a 21st century audience. I remember the publicity before the first episode of the GM Marples (The Body In The Library). The press focused on three things; 1) Introducing a love interest for Miss Marple 2) Changing the identity of the murderer and making her a lesbian 3) The casting of comedians (David Walliams), or people not usually associated with drama (Jamie Theakston). My feeling was that all three decisions were to create the maximum impact possible because the producers hadn't enough confidence in the material and believed they had to have a shock element to win ratings.

I think that's right, squatty. It would, of course, be silly of the producers to decide not to shock the audience and not to try and win ratings. To be honest I actually have very little problem with the three things you listed. The casting of comedians is fine as long as they can handle the material - I personally had no problem with Jamie Theakston's turn in 'The Body in the Library'. The lesbian twist was a bit of an obvious ratings pull, though quite a well acted one from the two women I thought. I think the fact that up untill then the adaptation was pretty faithful helped me accept the change more easily. To be honest, I'd rather they made that sort of change than say a change in motive (like in 'Nemesis' for example). The love interest to which you refer is presumably the flashbacks in 'Murder at the Vicarage', well...I didn't like them but it was pretty easy to just dismiss them or simply pretend they were never there (I mean they didn't really play a role in the actual plot itself). Plus, deep down we all want some explanation as to why Miss Marple never married (though the one they gave did seem out of character at least for the Miss Marple AC wrote, if not the one Geraldine McEwan portrayed).

I actually found the first series of 'Marple' rewarding viewing. 'The Body in the Library' was very faithful up till the last twist, 'The Murder at the Vicarage' seemed to follow my memory of the novel (though doubtless there were a few changes) and, to be honest, I actually thought the other two adaptations ('4.50' and 'Murder is Announced') were MORE enjoyable than the JH versions (particularly '4.50').

It's only the most recent series, with its original screenplays sharing nothing but a name with the books AC wrote, that have really got my back up. They are re-writes - plain and simple!

Hobbit

Yes - I'm not disputing that the producers will want to go all out for good ratings. And I also agree that the first season of Marples were pretty good. The main point of my post was to challenge the assertion of s sigerson. He claimed that AC changed her novels when adapting them for the stage to make them more attractive to the audience of the day and infered that was the same reason why the current series have been so massively re-written. I was using those examples to try and understand what about the current productions are so appealing to a modern audience. Personally, I dont think that any of the many changes to Nemesis were made with a modern audience in mind - they were just changes to pander to the writers/producers egos. I wrote in another thread that I quite enjoyed Nemesis as a stand alone drama but feel the producers take liberties by attaching the AC name to what was a completely different story to the one AC wrote. So, my original question remains - what is it about the current adaptations that makes them more attractive and relevant to a 2009 audience, than say the early Poirots or the JH Marples

I also Like the choice of Comedian in SOME of the 'MARPLE' Episodes I thought Catherine Tate in 'A MURDER IS ANNOUNCED' was very good and well cast and David Walliams was Excellent in 'BODY IN THE LIBRARY' in fact both he and the Actor who played the same Character in the JH version would be top of my list when choosing who to play that Character (Sorry I can't remember or find the name of the Character or the Actor in the JH version), Although the acting was fine from the Actresses in 'BODY IN THE LIBRARY' I am afraid I still cannot forgive the change of one of the Killers in that one but hey-ho I don't have to watch it again and if I do I will be warned, Like hobbit I too have secretly wondered why Miss Marple stayed a spinster but had my own theories and could have done without ITVs idea of her having an affair with a Married Man although people do have affairs with Married people I have always liked to think Miss Marple is someone who wouldn't. My own theory (If anyone wants to know) is that she had a Romance with Colonel Clithering which didn't qwuitew work out but they remained friends OR and this is probably more believable Miss Marple had a relationship with Colonel Clithering's brother who died on the Battlefield and Clithering kept in Contact with Miss Marple as a way of looking after her for his Brother. Squatty, I am afraid we will never know what makes these Productions attractive and relevent to people in 2009 and I am afraid until someone from the Series comes on here to answer that and explain why changes were made along with evidence please that it has worked I am afraid we will never know, I know I am asking the impossible but I would like proof that the Productions would not be popular if the changes had not been made, If that were possible it would in some small way make up for ruining the books.

Ideally it would be great if a member of the production team would comment but all the members of the forum are living in the 21st century, so it would be nice to hear from any members why they feel the recent productions are more relevant to the 21st century (including you - s sigerson lol)