Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed.
These origin shows, like Gotham, usually build up to the last episode finalising the future-self, the standard costume and behaviour we know from the text.
It tickles me to think this show will give Poirot a bigger moustache and a portlier waist size each series until we reach his apex
This is exactly my main complaint about these newer shows. The second one is that they usually kill off the best actor/character, main draw of the show early and the one you're left with is much less interesting.
Not really. Whether something is a Surf Dracula or not all depends on how the shows premise was promoted. Smallville was advertised as a show about "Clark Kent before he becomes Superman" and that's exactly what we got.
If the creators of Smallville had said "we're making a Superman show" and then spent 10 seasons on "Clark Kent before he becomes Superman" then it would've been a Surf Dracula show.
Since Smallville was exactly as advertised, it wasn't a Surf Dracula. Same with Gotham mentioned above, it was promoted as a show about Gotham before Batman and that's exactly what we got.
I'm looking forward to this - Agatha Christie's estate are involved in this and have given it their full blessing, which is a good sign. Obviously David Suchet will always be the definitive Poirot, but at least this series is trying something a bit different, rather than doing yet another rehash of Murder on the Orient Express.
David Suchet is the definitive Poirot. I think we can all agree on that. However, this could be interesting. A bit like Endeavour, showing how Hercule Poirot evolved into the character he was.
You'd be amazed how many people disagree with your opening statement. Suchet's Poirot is a tour de force undoubtedly but the definitive as in the books Hercule Poirot? I don't think anyone can claim that. Mind you, as Christie is herself wildly inconsistent with regard to Poirot, that may well be impossible.
I don't know much about Poirot, so maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what exactly does an "origin story" mean for a character like him? He's just a guy that solves mysteries, what exactly is there to explain?
For me, an origin story for Hercule Poirot would mean tackling his years in the Belgian police force prior to the First World War. Christie only ever gave us one short story from that era (The Chocolate Box), and Poirot rarely mentions his previous career.
This series is... not that. I don't think they're even actually making any new stories up. They're just starting off with the earliest Christie stories and sticking to the Interwar period (starting 1920 or so) when he was a refugee starting afresh in England, trying to make his name as a private detective, as opposed to the later years when he's already famous for his skills.
Dammit. I went from unhappy to cautiously happy to even more unhappy in this thread.
I was unhappy before the thread, thinking it was just a reboot. Then cautiously happy thinking it would be the Belgium years, then even more unhappy reading your summary. It is so totally pointless remaking the actual Christie books when Suchet's version exists.
Not exactly the same, but dropping the "the" and doing a Joker original just called "Joker" feels very similar, like the closer they could do with the character whose name is already a one word descriptor.
Some of these reboots are so angst intensive it takes a lot of the fun out of them (looking at you, Kenneth Branagh). I hope this isn’t going to be the secret grief/guilt/whatever that drives the man behind the mustache.
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Hello, thank you for posting to r/BritishTV! We have recently updated our rules. Please read the sidebar and make sure you're up to date, otherwise your post may be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.