A Christmas Carol - BBC/FX

CastorTroy

Just saw the trailer for this 3 part production starring Guy Pearce and Stephen Graham.
I've seen many versions of this story, but I think this version is what Frank wanted in Scrooged. (It's no "The Night the Reindeer Died" though)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLqKmN3zAkQ

Will just post link to the second darker and more NSFW trailer as the thumbnail may be upsetting to some.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHt8OMsQQhY

Tom Mann Centuria

Guy Pearce or Guy Ritchie, or both?

CastorTroy

Pearce. Corrected, thanks

brian_t

Starts on BBC1 on Sunday 22nd Dec at 9m.

JP Liz V1

OmegaGene wrote: »

Stephen graham you say ? I’m in

Also has Andy Serkis in it and produced by Steven Knight, Tom Hardy and Ridley Scott

pixelburp

I wonder why the Victorian era is always returned to; obviously the book is contemporaneous with that time, but I'm surprised how seldom this otherwise commonly adapted book has ever moved its setting. Off the top of my head I can only think of "Scrooged".

CastorTroy

You need to watch those Christmas movie channels where you'll see multiple modern day settings.

Think it airs on FX on Dec 19th

CastorTroy

This has aired in the States already and will air on BBC over 3 nights from tomorrow.

I just finished watching and as far as adaptations go, it's not very loyal. Seemed more like they took ideas from the story and decided to try and make it grittier.

They left out a lot of what I consider important parts and added parts that really weren't needed.

Yet I managed to watch all ~3 hours and it didn't feel like a chore. I watched it between last night and today, only because I started late last night.
So was grand for what it was but as a fan of the story, I felt they made a lot of strange decisions.

Millicently

I've enjoyed the BBC version over the past 2 nights. Yes it's very different from the traditional version but I think it works very well. I've seen it described as very PC but as someone who isn't PC I don't think it is.

Scrooge is portrayed as a man who has Aspergers/Autism. The victim of sexual abuse by a pedophile teacher at a boarding school which was authorised by his father in exchange for his private school fees being waived. A victim of a violent and abusive father.

Essentially the viewer sympathises with his character which is as different from the original character as one can get.



Bob Cratchitt on the other hand comes across as a man who has violence simmering away underneath his nice veneer. Paranoia about his wife and whether or not she is guilty of infidelity.

There's a feeling that he's just about ready to break and do harm.The ghost of Christmas past is very sinister and watching him throwing old Christmas trees and Christmas toys onto a perpetual bonfire is creepy.

Beechwoodspark

Watched it. It’s ok, average, meh.

Millicently

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Watched it. It’s ok, average, meh.

Really? I find it refreshing from the annual rehash of the same thing. It's interesting to see the characters of Scrooge and Bob Cratchitt explored from different angles and not sticking to the black and white good and bad. It's nice to see the shades of grey where nothing is as cut and dried as people would like it to be. There are moments of comedy, tragedy and horror, some that make the viewer feel uncomfortable and that are hard to watch.

Happy4all

Couldn't get into it. A bit too dark for me personally.

The Black Oil

Threads merged.

Millicently

Happy4all wrote: »

Couldn't get into it. A bit too dark for me personally.

I think that's why I like it. The BBC have gotten better at the Christmas Ghost Story over the past couple of years. Martin's Close is on BBC 4 tonight and I'm recording that.

Tom Mann Centuria

Millicently wrote: »

Really? I find it refreshing from the annual rehash of the same thing. It's interesting to see the characters of Scrooge and Bob Cratchitt explored from different angles and not sticking to the black and white good and bad. It's nice to see the shades of grey where nothing is as cut and dried as people would like it to be. There are moments of comedy, tragedy and horror, some that make the viewer feel uncomfortable and that are hard to watch.

A whole new Christmas story would have been refreshing, not a "reimagining" of a classic that didn't need touching.

Lazy imo.

Millicently

The Black Oil wrote: »

Threads merged.

Sorry, I didn't realise there was already a thread.

Millicently

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

A whole new Christmas story would have been refreshing, not a "reimagining" of a classic that didn't need touching.

Lazy imo.

Each to their own. The foundations of the story are still there just explored from a different angle. Bob Cratchett having a dark side and Scrooge being a victim make a refreshing change. No adaptation of the story will ever better the book but it's nice to see a different spin on the characters. Life is shades of grey.

Raconteuse

It's described as "pc"? Crikey, It's decidedly the opposite.

Raconteuse

CastorTroy wrote: »

I think this version is what Frank wanted in Scrooged. (It's no "The Night the Reindeer Died" though)

Hangdogroad

Hmmm, so Scrooge was the Victorian Weinstein?

Spon Farmer

I only just found out about this. Not sure if it m in the mood for it after Christmas Eve has passed but I see the US had it as a TV movie and according to Wikipedia it was 5 minutes longer than the BBC’s three episodes

Did the States have extra footage or is that 5 five minutes a technical thing? I know PAL and NTSC DVD/blu-ray can differing runtimes. I’d it the same in TV?

Millicently

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I only just found out about this. Not sure if it m in the mood for it after Christmas Eve has passed but I see the US had it as a TV movie and according to Wikipedia it was 5 minutes longer than the BBC’s three episodes

Did the States have extra footage or is that 5 five minutes a technical thing? I know PAL and NTSC DVD/blu-ray can differing runtimes. I’d it the same in TV?

I don't know about the 5 minutes extra. I thoroughly enjoyed the remake and I think the re imagining of the character made more sense than the original. It's hard to say much without giving things away. I'm not usually a fan of re imaginings of classics but for me this one actually worked better than the book as I think the ending is more true to the nature of Scrooge.

Spon Farmer

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

A whole new Christmas story would have been refreshing, not a "reimagining" of a classic that didn't need touching.

Lazy imo.

Taking a different approach to the story takes extra work and is therefore is not lazy at all.

Just doing the same version over is what is lazy.

There is no shortage of Christmas movies and new ones pop up a lot but more are always welcome.

Spon Farmer

Millicently wrote: »

I don't know about the 5 minutes extra. I thoroughly enjoyed the remake and I think the re imagining of the character made more sense than the original. It's hard to say much without giving things away. I'm not usually a fan of re imaginings of classics but for me this one actually worked better than the book as I think the ending is more true to the nature of Scrooge.

I’ll go with the FX movie. I’d rather sit through an epic three hours than be interrupted by credits.

I’ll probably end up saving it until next year in the days before Christmas.

is_that_so

Well, very mixed feelings about this, mostly negative. Thought it was far too long, could have done without the extended Guy Pearce cold-eyed moping and WTF is up with the swearing? Some aspects of the story were never in Dickens and I did miss his ability to create pictures with words rather than the in your face visual story telling employed here. As for Andy Serkis!:rolleyes: Can't see it becoming a perennial favourite in the way other versions of the story might be rolled out.