New All Creatures Great and Small Channel 5

[icelolly99]

Anyone else looking forward to this? Starts tonight at 9pm.

Which horse story is this? If it's the one with the twisted gut then it's from the first book.

The horse was at the very beginning of the first book “if only they could talk.” But the story was vastly different to last night’s. It was the first time Siegfried had left him alone and it was a night call. Mr Soames was there but it was nighttime and Lord Hulton was on holiday. James was certain it was a torsion and put the horse down.

Then Siegfried did the PM the next morning.

But in this series they obviously brought in this race meeting and the story about the horse being the favourite to win etc for extra drama.

It’s worth bearing in mind that the books are only partly true, and some of the details etc have been changed as to when and how things happened.

But I’ve read all the books and am in the process of re-reading them. Also watching the first series on YouTube...

Yes, it is the horse I thought. I don't even remember it being a racehorse in the book, and no, there was certainly no race meeting; he goes to the farm/estate to see it.

He also seems very sure in the book that the horse needs to be put out of its suffering straight away. There's no hesitation at all when he goes and gets, and uses, the humane killer (is that what he calls it?).

I was very moved by last night's episode when James had to put that beautiful horse down and he broke down crying on the way home

I think I do remember Tristan and a barmaid and betting being connected in one anecdote, just not this one.

It's close enough to my memories to not be too out there!

I think all the cast are good.

God, that's not Tristan! Real miscast there, that actor is playing him as a petulant little upstart.

I'm at a loss as to why they remake series like this. Why not just dig out the original and re-screen it?

Me too.

@Thisismytimetoshine

Me too.

I think it's because some younger people don't like watching old versions with actors they don't know. I tried to watch the old series but I couldn't get into it (I'm certainly not that young).

I'm not saying this is every younger person but some.

Yes, that's probably true enough.

I think the old version had it's flaws. Some characters were miscast, the women's roles were not very well written and some of the scenes were a bit cringey and not well acted. It was probably due for a reboot and I think on balance it's an improvement.

I am old enough to remember the first tv version first time round and I never did like it, it wasn't a patch on the books and I certainly wouldn't watch it now. I'm enjoying this series though, I think the fact that I haven't read the books for 40 years helps, although I still remember so much from them.

I thought the saturation of Channel 5 with trailers was very good: the first one I saw, I thought, "Oh, it won't be able to compete with that classic production." but by the time it came around, I'd seen the trailers often enough to think I would give it a go.

I've been pleasantly surprised - and I agree, I think that the female characters are much better written (and cast ) than the original series. And I actually think I prefer the new male actors too.

I've never read the books, so I have no mental images to compete with either series.

I have no issue with successful adaptations being remade: if you followed that argument, then the 1993 Pride and Prejudice adaptation would never have been made as there had been good earlier versions Different generations extract different messages.

I don’t like it - they’re adding in too much melodrama and everyone is horrible to each other all the time. James is far too stiff and awkward and up himself, and if he’s not doing that he’s crying openly in a very non-1930s way. Everyone always has to explain what they’re feeling rather than showing it through the acting. I did warm to Siegfried in the third episode, but I don’t see why they didn’t show his human side of going off with an old mate to get pissed and failing the job interview that way.

I'm enjoying the series and the beautiful setting and really like Siegfried and James. However I'm reading the books from the beginning and it's slightly annoying when things are changed around! The woman farmer with the cow with lead poisoning was a man in the book, and a likeable and entertaining character. I don't understand why he's been replaced by an unpleasant ('horse killer') woman.

It's pretty awful. Tristan is unrecognisable and unpleasant. James is wet and too modern - I watched the equivalent 1970s episode of him putting the horse down and he was grown up and sure of himself and just did it - rather than making such a tearjerking melodrama over it.
I appreciate they are trying to put more women in the drama - upping Mrs Hall's role but it's not true to the stories or to the era to have her eating with them and playing boardgames, and Helen's little sister was yet another drama school 'urchin' over-acting.

What comes across from the old series is how knowledge about veterinary practice is communicated all the time in a bluff working relationship rather than cutting the script into melodramatic chunks that are meant to to always "prove a point" or lead to a dramatic development.

Samuel West as Siegfried is the best thing in it but it's thin and cheap fare compared to the old series.

I started watching the original series on YouTube but when you get to series 2 all the episodes are copywrite of the BBC and have been blocked.

And I disagree that the women should be playing a more prominent role. The series is supposed to be set in the 1930’s, that wasn’t how women were seen back then. You can’t rewrite the past IMO.

Good so it’s not just me saying that wouldn’t happen. Rewriting of history to match today’s standards imo is wrong. Women, such as Mrs Hall, didn’t have that sort of role then so why pretend that they did.

@ImAncient

Good so it’s not just me saying that wouldn’t happen. Rewriting of history to match today’s standards imo is wrong. Women, such as Mrs Hall, didn’t have that sort of role then so why pretend that they did.

No, it's not just you. It's complete nonsense to try to make things appear current when their entire point is that they reflect a bygone age. I read recently that the Bletchley Park museum is being renovated to be more relevant to young people. It's a fucking Museum!

I'm still enjoying it, and I really like Tristan, he's very funny. I like James, but agree the crying scene was a bit unnecessary.
.

I actually don't mind seeing more of Mrs Hall, although there's definitely a tragic backstory lurking...

She seems competent, sensible and not over-emotional, and her scenes actually move the plot on quite a bit. It would all be tears and soul-searching without her!

I'll tell you what I do think looks anachronistic, and actually bothers me more than Mrs Hall in the sitting room and James's new man act. Nobody is smoking — Siegfried has his pipe, but that's about it. I realise that you don't want to glamourise smoking, but in the books they smoked a lot. In most other dramas set at the same time they will show smoking too.

I read recently that the Bletchley Park museum is being renovated to be more relevant to young people.
It's a fucking Museum!
Maybe they're just bringing in some new exhibits or ways of interacting with the exhibits and info? I'm not a young person but I quite enjoy museums where you can get hands-on. I don't think it will necessarily take away from the experience or denigrate the original material.

@IntermittentParps

I read recently that the Bletchley Park museum is being renovated to be more relevant to young people. It's a fucking Museum! Maybe they're just bringing in some new exhibits or ways of interacting with the exhibits and info? I'm not a young person but I quite enjoy museums where you can get hands-on. I don't think it will necessarily take away from the experience or denigrate the original material.

Yes, perhaps. I should have tried harder to look through the red mist