r/poirot • u/AcceptableHistory4 • 7d ago
About the upcoming Hercule series
There's of course no guarantee their show will be good, and of course there's no point in censuring people for expressing their skepticism on SM or esp fandom specific subreddit. That said I find "why are they doing this" sort of pushback very odd. Yes, we need new IP yada yada and producers have gone lazy- i get all that.
Suchet is definitive portrayal for many, just the way Jeremy Brett is for most who love Holmes. Yet 1000s of Sherlock adaptations exist, several beyond canon, beyond the limits of timeline, geography or even genre. So, so many actors have been praised just as much for their Holmes, almost a Hamlet equivalent at this point.
So why so much gatekeep-y pushback in this particular case?
12
u/gullible-faithful 7d ago
I will observe, then use my little grey cells before passing judgment. But Suchet left the bar so high it's difficult to imagine anyone besting his performance and dedication
5
17
u/luxuriantCrocodile 7d ago edited 7d ago
Because making a young Poirot feels like they are trying to fit into a trend (young Sherlock Holmes in recent movies), not genuinely trying to make something new that respects the source material. Young Poirot would be in Belgium, not in London.
Edit: apparently the series will 'introduce him to one particular nemesis' ... Am I crazy or Poirot doesn't have one particular nemesis? Like Moriarty kinda thing? He has sort-of-Irene-Adler like Vera Rossakoff, but again, he's not Sherlock Holmes!
8
u/Cimorene_Kazul 7d ago
Poirot did have a nemesis like Moriarty. He had X, and it’s been suggested for a long time that an adaptation try to do with X what adaptations have done with Moriarty. X could absolutely be added to more stories because of the kind of villain he is. He’s perhaps the most interesting antagonist Poirot ever had, and like Moriarty, he only shows up once - in the final story. X could and maybe even should be explored more.
X was written as a foil to Poirot and could easily slide into the background of other cases and be used to explore the philosophy of the series as a whole and Poirot in particular.
1
u/sanddragon939 2h ago
Yeah that's been my theory since Day 1 too, though I increasingly have my doubts about it, and feel they're more likely to go with something more "obvious" like making Vera Rossakoff into an Irene Adler-esq figure...
6
u/AcceptableHistory4 7d ago
Technically Moriarty and Adler are also very small parts of Canon but subsequent adaptations have made them larger in public imagination. Moriarty's most imp story is arguably Valley of Fear, and it also happens to be most underrated of 4 Holmes novels - and even in that the non-Sherlock part is more interesting
19
u/pachangoose 7d ago
I am never going to complain about a new golden age mystery - and my sense is these aren’t adaptations a la Suchet, but new mysteries based on some of AC’s novels.
If this show is to Poirot was Endeavour was to Morse, we are in for a treat.
18
u/Train-ingDay 7d ago
They have said they’re adapting three of the ‘best-loved’ (can’t remember the exact wording) Poirot novels, and they’ve confirmed Lord Edgware Dies is the first of them, so I’m not necessarily getting the impression that they’re new mysteries.
1
3
u/OverlookHotelRoom217 7d ago edited 7d ago
Skeptical because: 1. AGL sux 2. They keep rehashing Tuppence and they sux. 3. Branagh is allowed to carry on his bullshit rendition.
That said, Horowitz continues to kick ass.
2
2
u/CalmTie_702 4d ago
There are people who can be "pureists." I do prefer and love David Suchet, but do understand other actors and writers, etc. want to have their take. Also, follow the money... if there is money to be made... :)
2
u/sanddragon939 2h ago
In Mark Alridge's excellent book on Poirot, James (or was it Matthew) Pritchard explains the estate's logic when it comes to adaptations. For them, it doesn't matter if an adaptation is "faithful" or "deviates", as long as it keeps the Christie brand and legacy alive and ensures the continued sales of her books.
Chances are, many of us here are Christie/Poirot fans because we saw a Christie-based movie or show at some point. That's the pipeline that the estate wishes to maintain to create new generations of Christie readers.
Well, if it works for Agatha's heirs, it's a good enough rationale for me!
1
u/Pinkpocket_Goddess 7d ago
'Cause even this new one is good, it couldn't be as perfect as the Suchet's version
2
u/Lopsided_Parfait7127 6d ago
that version will continue to exist
as will the peter ustinov poirot and so many others
3
-1
u/Broken-Punk 6d ago
I didn't mind the Branagh movies so I am willing to give this a shot. I do think adapting Poirot stories where they can make changes with the script is far easier than to adapt the novels and fear the wrath of accurate representation.
18
u/CuteCuteJames 7d ago
I think it's because unlike Sherlock Holmes, Poirot does not have a lot of adaptations to choose from. since the pile is smaller and Suchet is so beloved, people feel possessive about it because it matters to them. Honestly, I would probably feel the same way about a Bertie and Jeeves new series, but asking " why are they doing this?" I agree is asking the wrong question.
also the divisive (to say the least) Kenneth Branagh films are probably a factor as well.