Tuesday’s “Sky Living acquires Hannibal, Peter Capaldi to star in BBC1’s The Three Musketeers and Lindsay Lohan’s Anger Management” news

Happy Birthday, Lovely Wife!

UK TV

  • Peter Capaldi to star in BBC1’s The Three Musketeers. No sign of Grégory Fitoussi, malheureusement
  • Sky Living acquires Hannibal
  • Trailer for BBC3’s zombie show In The Flesh

US TV

US TV casting

New US TV shows

New US TV show casting




  • GYAD

    “The 10-part adaptation is described by screenwriter Adrian Hodges as a “grown-up” take on the novel by Alexandre Dumas, which will use it as a starting point to take them on a whole new series of adventures.”

    Why isn't enough for the BBC to straightforwardly adapt one of the most popular and enduring novels (and its sequels)?

    The Three Musketeers is already grown up enough and I doubt the BBC's new plots will have the staying power of the original.

    I'm sure it just means that we can look forward to our heroes losing faith in God, abandoning noblesse oblige and giving up on honour…like the terrible 2011 film version.

    There is generally a reason why classics are, well, classic.

  • Happy Birthday, Sarah!x

  • Thing is, the plot's relatively easy to condense down to a couple of hours, so if you're going to make a 10-part series, you're going to have to make up more plots unless you feel like doing a Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds or a Tripods, in which “they went into a village and stole some bread” in the book becomes an entire episode. And I imagine that 10 episodes is part of some new Danny Cohen drive to reverse once again BBC policy on the length of TV shows (cf the perpetual pendulum of “three or six are artistically sufficient” vs “international sales require 10-13” that commissioners alternate between every few years).

    That said, I'm pretty sure it'll be rubbish.

  • GYAD

    I don't know. The most faithful adaptation (the '73 film and its '74 sequel) got over three hours out of “The Three Musketeers” whilst skipping a lot of stuff. Add in the sequels, “Twenty Years After” and “The Vicomte of Bragelonne” (which is so long it is usually broken up into 3-4 separate books) and I'm sure you could get a healthy ten hours of television.

    Of course, it makes perfect sense for the BBC to simply make up new stories around a popular title but the worry is that you end up with the likes of “Young Blades”. But hey, it might surprise us all by actually being good.

  • Mark Carroll

    Bread-stealing was probably easier on the special effects resources. (-: I'm still annoyed they never finished making the trilogy.

  • But the sequels are set (no spoiler) 20 years after and they're effectively the end of the story. You'd want to hold off until season five or six with them when you're planning on wrapping them up. The aim is to get series not serials, I suspect.

  • I quite like the fact that the show ended the way it did at the end of the second series – it's all a lot bleaker, with the resistance having failed and it all having been for nothing, than if they'd carried on.

  • GYAD

    Well, it depends on how long they want to eke it out. Personally I prefer adaptations to be serials and original ideas as series.

  • Adaptations are favoured these days because they come with an existing fan base and a certain degree of free marketing, particularly if it's a classic, because people already have a degree of familiarity with the story. I suspect the age of the serial adaptation is gone, at least for this cycle.