kathy5353853

//I just read all the other reviews. I appreciate the ones that compare and contrast to the 1970s first TV version, as well as the wonderful books by Winston Graham.//

When the Robin Ellis version first aired in the USA, I was too busy with school and such to be able to catch them all. Then in the nineties my local PBS station replayed them all; two hours every Sunday afternoon until the end! I was in heaven. I tape-recorded every episode. After that I went to my local library and tore through every single Poldark novel. So much great history interwoven through the characters' stories. When they put them on DVD for sale a few years back, I bought the series. Needless to say I really appreciate the books and the original series.

So, I have approached this version with trepidation. It is a testament to the superb production of the original series that it has taken so many years to make a proper new serialization.

The first thing that stood out to me was that this Demelza was too silent. In the book and as played by Angharad Rees, this character is spirited, feisty, and never able to !not! speak her mind. This interpretation has not shown us this so far (3 episodes). It was apparent from the first episode that they would be condensing this version more. They seem to have gone for a stylized camera to bridge some time gaps. The difficulty is that they don't quite help us become aware of how much time is supposed to have passed. The book describes Demelza with black hair. But Rees' character was so indelible with flaming red hair that this production made the same change from the novel. Both versions give us a lovely, heavily romantic first love scene between Ross and Demelza. Interestingly, the current one is the one taken from the book. My criticism of this important interaction (Tomlinson and Turner) is that I never felt that familial camaraderie, accompanied with sexual flirtation. All of a sudden - there they were in bed.

And even though Ross is supposed to be moody, I feel that Turner could let go a bit. Lighten up more. I think Aiden Turner is good. But Ross from the book and from Robin Ellis, laughed more, knew his mind and spoke it more, was obviously still tender towards his cousin Francis. I hope we get to see this more often in the ensuing episodes. And as I write this I begin to think that the "non-speakingness" of both Demelza and Ross, and maybe all of the characters, is part of the "style" that this production is using. It must be inherent to the screen-play, to the writing.

I think that the casting, in general, hearkens back to the 1975 production. If you saw that one, you think of them when you see Elizabeth, Francis, Jud, etc., in this one. Some other reviewers commented on a few better castings and some not so spot on, and I would agree.

I am thinking that with the comments of the UK people who have seen the entire year's series, they intend more years ahead to tell the story that the further novels contain. I believe they will keep a good audience in the USA, as well as other countries. Considering the popularity of "Downtown Abbey", this version could keep on going if these actors remain available for the next 7 years (the first generation of Poldarks took up the first 7 books). Guess we will see.

I find this series to be thoroughly enjoyable. It is well built, from the mystery in the beginning, to the quickly but solidly put together relationship of the threesome of Jason, Pythagoras and Hercules. They incorporate just the right amount of humor too.

The reviewers and commentators who dislike the show for lack of "correctness" in the telling of the Greek mythology stories, I believe, are missing the point. It stirs up enough interest in those names and incidents to, perhaps, encourage those who are not familiar to look up a few of the classical myth books. Or, those like me, to refresh my memory with parts of the old tales themselves.

||Besides which, technically speaking, there is scholarly opinion arguing that the accepted author of the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey', Homer, was not an historical person. That there were many stories combined into a canonical text by several people. This is called "the Homeric question". It is still debated. Not to mention that there are more than one version of many of the stories and "history" of the various Greek gods origins.||

So, no one must delve into the original texts to find this TV show has an intriguing setting, along with a basic adventure/(light)action element. The stories are not meant to be heavy, correct and ancient. It reminds me of one of our shows here in the U.S., called "Once Upon A Time". They take any and all fairy-tale versions: Original form, Disney, Author-specific (i.e.,Peter Pan). They use them, transform them, turn them inside out, add onto, create new back stories, etc.

Atlantis is doing the same thing with the ancient Greek stories. They add excitement, humor, thwarted relationships, mended relationships, mystery (i.e., The Oracle) and more. Sometimes Jason is super strong and super quick, sometimes he is beaten with no extra help. You just never know. A viewer has to take it for what it is. It is fun. It is sad. They find solutions. Or they do not. It keeps many of us coming back to watch the next week. Each episode can be enjoyed as it's own story. Yet, there are threads woven throughout that lead us to expect further developments in later shows.

Do we want Jason to be beautiful? Yes. Do we find it curious and amusing that Hercules is an "ordinary man" and not a body-builder? Sure, why not. Pythagorus loves triangles, but they give him the human interest of a flawed past with his family. Good. They add to; take away from; create anew; give to it a modern speech and a modern twist. . . In other words, they have created their own world for us to watch and follow.

I really like it!!!

I have looked forward to the Academy Awards telecast every year for as long as I can remember and I am 57. The best part of this particular year was replaying Bob Hope EmCeeing ("Master of Ceremonies"), and being introduced by one of the very best more recent EmCee's, Billy Crystal. However, showing those two, merely made the point that this year was a disaster.

It was not the fault of Anne Hathaway and James Franco, I don't believe. It was the writing behind it all. Hathaway and Franco tried so hard. And a good EmCee should never have to do that. By comparison to the telecasts of the Golden Globes, SAGs, and BAFTA Award shows of this year, the "Oscars" were pretty pitiful. The writers took away so many of the awards formerly given at the big night, and put them in special, separate ceremonies. One would think that this would shorten the length of the "Oscar Night" show, yet it did not. I found it an especially *bad* decision that they separated out the "Lifetime Achievement Award" and the "Irving Thalberg Award" from that special night. It was a disgrace.

I also found it irritating that Halle Berry got to give a special "In memoriam" to her idol, Lena Horne, yet there was nothing special for that absolutely, spectacularly special movie musician, John Barry. Jane Seymour was a personal friend. She could have been asked to give a special tribute to him. The BAFTA show had one of his award winning pieces behind their montage of those who passed away. I know Barry was English, but he won four Oscars, and countless other music, film, and television music awards here in the USA.

Here is a thought for next year...Tina Fey. Or Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin (both have been in movies). Or Tina Fey and Steve Carell (both have been in movies). Or Tina Fey and *anybody else*!!!. Those people are naturally funny, can wing it like Crystal used to, they can write their own stuff, or make someone else's funny, and they all know how to behave as Master (or Mistress) of Ceremonies!!!!