I think that changes are perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances:

1)Time constraints.

2)A storyline is so complex it would be confusing (Christie herself stressed the importance of simplification).

3)A scene no longer works for various reasons (For example, many books being adapted today with scenes at the World Trade Center have reworked these scenes in light of 9/11.  This example doesn't have anything to do with Christie, but you get the idea.)

4)Expenses make something too costly to film.

5)Some living person might somehow be hurt or slandered due to the original plot.  (This may not affect Christie, but many mysteries have fictionalized crimes to accuse thinly veiled real-life people of real crimes, but evidence later came to light proving the innocence of the targeted persons.)

6)The storyline just doesn't work.  This is the most subjective one.  It is true that some things work great in a book but not on screen, but what screenwriters come up with as replacements often is worse.

GKCfan basically summed my thoughts up completely and left me nothing to add.

Yes, GKCfan. I agree with you completely. But as far as Agatha Christie's works go, except for the points about time constraints and expenses make something too costly to film, most of the other points are not applicable. I don't believe Christie ever wrote anything that was too confusing and complex. None of her books seem (at least to me) to contain scenes that may no longer work for some reason or accusations of crimes against real people in a fictionalized way. I also agree with you on the last point. Sometimes the storyline may not work. But as you so rightly have said "what screenwriters come up with as replacements often is worse". So, while I totally agree with you, I still think changing Agatha Christie's plotlines or characters or motives without any valid reasons, such as cost or time constraints, is just unacceptable. BTW, GKCfan, I really like reading your posts. They are informative but at the same time enjoyable. You put things very precisely. I appreciate that. Most people these days are so random in the way they speak or write!

Thank you, Frndorfoe!  That's very kind of you!

The ratio of OK/bad modifications I saw in all (not only AC's) movies based on books is 20/80 percent. Meaning that while sometimes modifications are acceptable because is corrects some bad things in the original material, sometimes they are acceptable just because of change of presentation, but in general, the adapters need to control their creative urges a bit.

I think that time constraint is the most acceptable reason to make changes.  THis can include scenes and/or characters.  In the Suchet version of Roger Ackroyd, they dropped one of my favorite characters (Major Blunt).  Even though he is a favorite of mine, dropping him altered the story very little, but saved time.  (Unfortunately, they made other changes which were less benign.)

I also don't mind some politically correct changes.  I really don't need to hear Mediterraneans and South Americans being referred to as "dagos" to enjoy Christie.

Other than these, and the second is rarely needed, I dislike changes for almost any other reason.

You're welcome, GKCfan! To Boomcoach, about the politically correct changes, I never really even notice these remarks in the books of Christie or any of other non-contemporary writers because these remarks often reflect how most people felt in those times and all that seems too far away in time to me to be bothered about them. I'm sure some of these writers didn't even feel the same way about these things.  Unless it is blatant racism on the part of the writer or that kind of language is used by a present-day writer in a story set in contemporary times (which reflects the writer's own racism), I don't think it really matters. Times change and people's opinion about what is acceptable changes with it. Besides we must remember it is not Christie herself who is saying these things, some of her characters are and most of the times these kinds of characters are not even that important or are mere caricatures.

If a story like The Clocks is boring then I think the screenwriters could spice up certain scenes in the book w/o altering the overall plot - so I still think it should be faithful.

And I agree w/ you in all of your scenarios but #6, GKC. Remember "One Two Buckle My Shoe" w/ Suchet? That was probably one of the hardest of the AC books to film yet it still stayed almost completely faithful to the novel while still being very entertaining. So it can be done I just think some of the screen writers choose to put their own spin on things.

I thought I had commented on this topic but obviously not, I think that Adding Japp, Hastings orf Miss Lemon is probably not too bad as they are great Characters and changing bits to avoid offence like the poem in ATTWN is a good idea but changing Plot's and Motives and changing Characters and altering personalities is really stupid and shouldn't be done although I can see how TMORA could have been done properly I like the way it was done.

Britain hasn't seen 'The Clocks' yet but I loved the book and if it has been Changed Drastically I think it is a real shame and I will be Gutted, the only thing I can see wrong with it is that it didn't really need Poirot, although I enjoyed his partcipation I would have liked it if Colin and Hardcastle had solved it themselves, In that respect it reminded me of The Moving Finger, it would have been nice if MM hadn't have been in it and Gerry and Suot Burton had solved it themselves. 

After seeing The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and Hercule Poirot's Christmas, I stopped supporting the appearances of Japp, Hastings, and Miss Lemon when they did not appear. Sure, it worked well in the short story adaptations (How much fun are Sherlock Holmes short stories without Dr. Watson? Holmes himself narrates one or two, and I found it rather dull.), but not in the feature films.

I love the feel of the new Poirot. It is much darker, more serious, and more of a detective film in the first place (although, recently, Poirot has turned into Jessica Fletcher, conjuring accusations out of nowhere, while the guilty party conveniently confesses or commits suicide- refer to Appointment With Death). Miss Lemon and Japp would be out of place in Cat Among the Pigeons, for instance. Hastings did nothing but gape stupidly in Murder in Mesopotamia. I'd love to see them return in Curtain, The Big Four, and other stories that featured them in the first place. But rewriting stories just for the sake of Poirot's camaraderie is pointless, and I find it ineffective nine times out of ten. The best adaptation that includes them (when they weren't in the novel) is Evil Under the Sun.

I don't mind if Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon are in Adaptations they shouldn't be in, I do object them not being in when they should be (Third Girl) and Hope Japp and Hastings are in The Big Four, I think it is a pity they did away with the Signature Tune which was used in the Hour-long Series and ABC (And probably more but I can't remember), The New feel of the series took a bit of getting used to but the new feel doesn't spoil my enjoyment and in the case of Third Girl, appropriate as that is a heavier book and suits the style, I don't see your point about Poirot being more like Jesica Fletcher lately and if I did I wouldn't mind as I like Murder She Wrote, I agree there would be no place for Japp or Miss Lemon in Cat Among The Pigeons but could have seen Hastings in After The Funeral - He could be an Executor of the Will but I suppose that would have made it too much Like Murder She Wrote for you, I can't comment on Murder in Mesopotamia as I haven't read it but agree with you with Evil Under The Sun, By the Way, What do you make Key words Darker? 

I think Go leafs is highlighting AC's books and putting emphasis on certain words i.e. feel :-).

Sometimes I really don't mind Miss Lemon in a lot of the early adaptations b/c it would seem plausible for Poirot to use her for certain cases, and after all she is his secretary - you would expect to see her regularly. But other times it's a bit much: I mean goodness, does she ever get a day off!?!? But for Japp (even though I like him very much) to be the only chief, detective, what have you, to be involved in every single case that Poirot is involved w/ is beyond a coincidence! I mean, how many times can you use the excuse of "What are you doing here Poirot?" It gets old after a while. And his constant appearance makes the mysteries feel less real. As for Hastings, well he is Poirot's partner in crime so it makes much more sense for him to make more appearances than Japp. But at the same time, sometimes it ceases to be a treat to see Hastings.

I'm probably sounding really harsh here. But it is only because I am so keen on adaptations staying faithful to novels. I really do adore Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon. I guess what I am trying to say is-is that there constant appearance is too much of a good thing!

I didn't mind the exclusion of Miss Lemon in Third Girl. First off, we have Georges now. Second off, she was only in 3 pages in the first place. Since there are still several non-Hastings/Lemon/Japp novels to film, it's wiser to keep Pauline Moran, Hugh Fraser, and Philip Jackson offscreen when their characters appeared in cameos in the book.

Personally, I think that original AC novels contained perfect balance between books with Hastings and co. and books without them. I'm not a fan of adding or removing them, in general.

I hadn't thought of it that way go_leafs but I think you are right about leaving Pauline Moran, Hugh Fraser and Philip Jackson off screen unless their Characters appear in the Books, although I liked the use of them in Evil Under The Sun.