• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Day Of The Triffids

I love the book, and remember being scared of the original tv series. (Also loved the triffid guns from the original!) I thought the beeb did well with the new version. Eddie Izzard was menacing, which is an impressive feat from a short, cross-dressing comedian. :)

The triffids were well done too, I especially liked the 'cowl of the grim reaper' feel to their heads. Enjoyed it.
 
This version hasn't been on here, yet. I may yet find a way to watch it before I go overseas shortly.

I did kind of like the 80s series. It managed to update it without being too silly about it, and retained most of the elements of the book.
 
I liked this latest version.

It was good Science Fiction, with various environmental and ethical dilemmas well presented.

It also didn't resort to 'evil (and rather ridiculous) aliens' as humanity's foe, but focussed on our own human weaknesses.

(Could quibble with many of the details, or of the plot itself, but if it gets you thinking, it's good drama.)
 
Here's the 1981 BBC mini series, all official on youtube, for your entertainment:

http://www.youtube.com/show/dayofthetriffids
(BBC tends to mean UK only but there are other sources on youtube if you are elsewhere)






SPOILERS








To be honest, I found the recent version rather clunking with some serious shoehorning of certain elements of plot.

It started of promisingly (ignoring the solar event's ability to blind the whole planet instantaneously) & I was looking forward to the 2nd part.

However, the moment the great Brian Cox quips "That reminds me, I must feed the Triffid. Back in a tick" (or words to that effect) all was lost, I realised I'd been fending off the uneasy feeling that something wasn't quite right. But what was wrong?

Incredible source material - Check
Enough time to tell the story: 3 hours (same length as 1981 series) - Check
Plenty of room for a fresh interpretation - Check
BBC budget strength set to strong - Check
Stellar cast - Check
Someone in charge of making sure dialogue isn't silly - Damn it!
Someone in charge of making sure very silly moments hit the cutting room floor - Bugger!

The Triffid mascara through the mask realisation dialogue was unbelievably weak. I welcome an explanation of how it is supposed to work.

The Nun's sacrificial sect was very different to the book (their version, their choice) but it seemed very familiar to me - can't quite place it though.

It all seemed to take place within a week.

Where did all the blind people go?

And that last line....



OK, I'm stopping. It wasn't all bad. There were some good moments which is why the naff moments really stand out. They let themselves down. It could have been great.

I hadn't seen the 1981 version since it's first airing. I was about 8 years old & it scared the hell out of me. Tonight I found it on youtube & watched the whole thing. It stands up very, very well. Enjoy :D
 
I'm just discovering the 1981 version on YT too - haven't seen the new one yet - and it's absolutely brilliant. Very dark.
 
Rarebird said:
It started of promisingly (ignoring the solar event's ability to blind the whole planet instantaneously) & I was looking forward to the 2nd part.

However, the moment the great Brian Cox quips "That reminds me, I must feed the Triffid. Back in a tick" (or words to that effect) all was lost, I realised I'd been fending off the uneasy feeling that something wasn't quite right.

...

OK, I'm stopping. It wasn't all bad. There were some good moments which is why the naff moments really stand out. They let themselves down. It could have been great.

Yes it started with promise but the second half let the side down - it was all very obvious and poorly handled.

I am also struggling to work out what the point of it was - you'd struggle to top the 1981 series with a straight reworking and broadcasting in an inferior version seems silly (especially as they own the earlier one), they might as well have repeated the original and saved a lot of money and effort.

Perhaps if they'd used it as a springboard to telling a different story (like they are doing with Survivors) might have been a better approach.
 
beakboo said:
Yes, what was all that stuff with the mask? :?
I think it was meant to be some sort of innoculation ritual. Not 'scientific', probably, but something the Africans had discovered empirically.

(It may even explain why Bill wasn't blinded by his triffid attack.)

I may be quite wrong - in which case you can beat me on the bottom with the Woman's Weekly... ;)
 
In the book Bill survives his big triffid attack because previous stings have boosted his immunity, so maybe that's the sort of thing they were after. :?
 
It was a serviceable remake, for sure, although in the cold light of day, you find yourself asking, as Emps says, what the point of it was. That said, for anyone who had never seen the 80s version, this would have been their first introduction to the story, and as such, it was fine.

I'm glad they didn't arse about with the story too much, like giving it a too-happy ending. Bill's dad and the mask nonsense were unnecessary, IMO, but didn't totally spoil things. I couldn't help wondering, though, why the survivors didn't just arm themselves with motorbike helmets. Pretty Triffid-proof, surely?
 
rynner2 said:
beakboo said:
Yes, what was all that stuff with the mask? :?
I think it was meant to be some sort of innoculation ritual. Not 'scientific', probably, but something the Africans had discovered empirically.

(It may even explain why Bill wasn't blinded by his triffid attack.)

I may be quite wrong - in which case you can beat me on the bottom with the Woman's Weekly... ;)

Thank goodness (as far as I'm concerned anyway) you seem to be on the money (or at least that was what I thought).

I assume it was to underline the idea that the natives in Zaire (?) had been co-existing with the wild Triffids perfectly well (and had developed ways to deal with them), while we were meddling with nature and ended up creating at least as big a disaster as we were hoping to avert (perhaps a nod towards the idea that some geoengineering solutions to global warming may themselves have disastrous consequences).

That said I can't explain how it worked - as the Triffids strike at the eyes does it somehow put them off? But they strike people elsewhere. Is it that they now smell of Triffid so are left alone? In which case you'd not need to put it into your eyes.
 
I have to admit, my first thought on reading that they were making another version of 'Day of the Triffids', was, 'Not again!'

Not that it's not a good story and a fine example of British middle-class, cosy catastrophe, science fiction. I first read the book over 35 years ago. I've seen the film version, the 80's BBC TV version and heard the BBC R4 radio play. This is one of those examples of a story done to death by over exposure.

There's tons of great British science fiction, some of it also written by John Wyndham. So, why keep remaking the one about the world spanning, humanity blinding, meteor shower and the poisonous, carnivorous, walking vegetables? Surely, one of the most unlikely sf stories ever written?

:confused:
 
I liked it. Give it a B minus.

Still like the old series. Its unfairly mocked at times, by using scenes out of context.
 
Heres a review by Jim Moody from the Weekly Worker. Tjeres a review of 2012 at the same link.

The day of the Triffids is an altogether more satisfying apocalyptic sci-fi experience. Although lacking the massive expenditure on special effects of 2012, it manages to convey much more menace, combined with some awareness of social responsibility. Unlike 2012, The day of the Triffids engages and questions.

For those of us who have read John Wyndham’s original book of the same title published in 1951 or indeed have seen the first film version (1962), the gripping power of the storyline has always been important. In his novel, Wyndham suggests that Soviet bio-engineering has brought the Triffids into existence, but that they have then been accidentally released into the wild, where they have rapidly multiplied.

In the 2009 film version, Zaire is the point of origin for the Triffids, which are somehow able to spread beyond Africa in a matter of a few years. How they came to originate in Zaire is not explained, though. Nonetheless, this version sticks reasonably closely to the spirit of Wyndham’s novel, while updating the plot for the early 21st century.

Not completely eschewing the ersatz science so redolent in 2012, Nick Copus presents a corporate world farming Triffids for a fuel oil substitute that has solved the current climate change emergency. The main company involved in this exploitation, Triffidoil, has tens of thousands of farms, each with thousands of giant Triffids. Yet what is unexplained is how burning hydrocarbons produced by plants can possibly be any better than burning hydrocarbons from fossil fuel oil and gas. After all, hydrocarbons produce CO2 in similar proportions when burnt.

Plant biologist and Triffid specialist Bill Masen (Dougray Scott) gets stung by a Triffid, but after prompt treatment survives, though sporting a scar on his temple from the attack. Luckily for him, his treatment involves having his eyes bandaged for 24 hours - just at the time when brilliant meteor storms blind the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.

Broadcaster Jo Playton (Joely Richardson) also avoids blindness, thanks to a work assignment. Bill and Jo join forces. Surviving a plane crash, megalomaniac Torrence (Eddie Izzard) sees his opportunity to rule the UK - or at least part of London - and recruits a brutal force of armed men to achieve it. Torrence sweet-talks Jo into broadcasting radio appeals for people to come to London, but when she discovers he lied about Bill dying she flees to find him.

Bill, although injured, has survived Torrence’s plans for his execution on Hampstead Heath, escaping with Coker (Jason Priestley), who had challenged Torrence’s brutality. Coker manages to get Bill to a convent. But mother superior Durrant (Vanessa Redgrave) has only kept the surrounding Triffids at bay by periodically sending one of her flock beyond the convent walls to be sacrificed to them. When Bill exposes her, she leaves; her autocracy overthrown, Durrant is unable to accept the democratic regime that replaces hers.

Bill joins his estranged father, Dennis (Brian Cox), together with two orphaned sisters, Susan (Jenn Murray) and Imogen (Julia Joyce). Dennis has already brought Jo to his isolated manor house-cum-laboratory, where he is close to breeding infertile Triffids, thus wiping them out worldwide. But Dennis dies of Triffid stings, Bill destroys the attacking lab Triffid, and there is therefore now no way of breeding Triffids. The two adults and two girls prepare to leave for the Isle of Wight, where Coker has established a Triffid-free community. Unfortunately, Torrence discovers where Bill and Jo are and, as London is now overrun with Triffids eager for human meat, brings a band of desperadoes to force him to devise means to combat them.

Political lessons are much more apparent in The day of the Triffids, to its credit. Here we see how humans come together in groups, post-apocalypse, for good and ill. But come together in community they must. The lesson becomes: only by depending on a thoroughgoing democracy can humanity survive. How selfless the survivors’ leaders may prove to be, how altruistic in truth, is for the viewer to surmise.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/799/apocalypse.php
 
Yet what is unexplained is how burning hydrocarbons produced by plants can possibly be any better than burning hydrocarbons from fossil fuel oil and gas. After all, hydrocarbons produce CO2 in similar proportions when burnt.
But, being plants, the triffids will have extracted the CO2 from the atmosphere in the first place. Thus they are only recycling atmospheric CO2, which is better than releasing CO2 from fossil fuels.

I hope that's clear! ;)
 
rynner2 said:
Yet what is unexplained is how burning hydrocarbons produced by plants can possibly be any better than burning hydrocarbons from fossil fuel oil and gas. After all, hydrocarbons produce CO2 in similar proportions when burnt.
But, being plants, the triffids will have extracted the CO2 from the atmosphere in the first place. Thus they are only recycling atmospheric CO2, which is better than releasing CO2 from fossil fuels.

I hope that's clear! ;)

Just tell him that the Triffids were producing Surplus Value and he'll understand you.
 
rynner2 said:
Yet what is unexplained is how burning hydrocarbons produced by plants can possibly be any better than burning hydrocarbons from fossil fuel oil and gas. After all, hydrocarbons produce CO2 in similar proportions when burnt.
But, being plants, the triffids will have extracted the CO2 from the atmosphere in the first place. Thus they are only recycling atmospheric CO2, which is better than releasing CO2 from fossil fuels.

I hope that's clear! ;)
Hence, 'carbon neutral'.

The problem with fossil carbon is that the Earth has been locking it away and storing, for the past 2, or 3 billion years, at least. That's a lot of carbon.

The atmosphere of the early earth apparently contained huge quantities of carbon dioxide. It was much hotter and poisonous to anything but the likes of blue green algae. It wasn't until much of the carbon had been removed from the atmosphere and replaced by oxygen, partially thanks to constant rainfall (carbonic acid rain) and later, to algae, plants and photosynthesis, that life, as we know it, had a chance of evolving.

In the last 2-300 years mankind has largely reversed that process.
 
So Triffids are good!

Where can we get some?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I have to admit, my first thought on reading that they were making another version of 'Day of the Triffids', was, 'Not again!'

Not that it's not a good story and a fine example of British middle-class, cosy catastrophe, science fiction. I first read the book over 35 years ago. I've seen the film version, the 80's BBC TV version and heard the BBC R4 radio play. This is one of those examples of a story done to death by over exposure.

There's tons of great British science fiction, some of it also written by John Wyndham. So, why keep remaking the one about the world spanning, humanity blinding, meteor shower and the poisonous, carnivorous, walking vegetables? Surely, one of the most unlikely sf stories ever written?

:confused:

I've always thought that Wyndham's The Kraken Wakes would make a good TV drama - or how about Keith Roberts' hommage to Wyndham The Furies? Giant man-eating alien wasps (but done with intelligence and style: not just a 'creature feature'). Come to think of it, Roberts wrote some short stories that would make good TV. Not just SF. He wrote good ghost stories, too.
 
Boulters_Canary1 said:
I've always thought that Wyndham's The Kraken Wakes would make a good TV drama - or how about Keith Roberts' hommage to Wyndham The Furies? Giant man-eating alien wasps (but done with intelligence and style: not just a 'creature feature'). Come to think of it, Roberts wrote some short stories that would make good TV. Not just SF. He wrote good ghost stories, too.
Not heard of Keith Roberts, but The Kraken Wakes was a great read, with some imagery that would look good on the screen...

It's always a mystery to me why certain books get made into films and others don't.
 
I never connected to The Kraken Wakes so much, found the characters quite irritating.
 
Day of the Triffids is probably a film that would benefit from a remake.
 
Day of the Triffids is probably a film that would benefit from a remake.
Indeed, if they can retain the mystery and tension without the need for drenching the thing in creature effects and exposition.
 
Around age twelve I was taken to a store (called Skaggs back then) and was allowed the treat of one paperback book. My choices narrowed down to either a horror/suspense novel, Crawlspace, or Day of the Triffids. Glad I chose the latter! I had read a few science fiction short stories before then -- and somehow worked my way through Clarke's 2001 -- but Triffids was essentially my introduction to literary SF. This was quickly followed by The Kraken Wakes, or Out of the Deeps, as it was called in the USA.

My little brain felt like an empty cave, back then, and these two books filled the void. I absorbed every detail of each the way some people memorized every detail of Tolkien or Doctor Who or Star Wars: The misuse of the almost-silent "triffid-guns" by smugglers, the birth and death of the Watsons' son in Kraken, which takes up maybe two sentences, the dozen or so alternate names the media tried out for the new plants before hitting upon "triffid" . . .

I used internal details in Triffids to suggest that the novel may have been set as late as 1980 or so (the time of the first mini-series adaptation). In Kraken, I noticed that over the ten-year-period during which the story takes place, radio news and plays slowly gave way to TV announcers and programmes -- a subtle and clever change, I thought.

The Monster Kid in me appreciates the 1963 film for what it is -- an in-your-face creature fest. I loved the 1981 adaptation, and I have the comic book version in Marvel Comic's Unknown Worlds. Haven't seen anything else. As for Kraken Wakes -- why isn't there a film or TV adaptation?!
 
The 1981 BBC series is coming to Blu Ray...

Ee1zpIZWoAMt3cd
 
Back
Top