I love Book One, and will always see Swayze, Down, and Read as Orry, Madeline, and George. That said, I would want to see truer adaptations of BOOK II and III, having not liked the adaptations very much. And I want to see Virgilia get the better resolution denied to her film counterpart.
The movies weren't perfect, but they were still good. I would have never heard of them had it not been for the movies and enjoying them so much, and if there hadn't been differences I might never have checked out the books. I am writing a fan fiction based on N&S so when I read there were differences, I got the books so my story would match up with the books. They definitely made mistakes, but overall I think they were good movies, especially the first one. And I like some of their casting decisions over how the characters appeared in the books.
I agree they messed up Virgilia's story. Especially the ending. It was odd because I felt like the second movie tried to make a happier ending for most characters, like letting Orry live, letting him and Madeline have a child, gave Ashton more dimension by giving her a conscience at the end, and let James live and stand up for himself.
But with Virgilia, they give her a tragic ending and she definitely didn't deserve that. It was awful what she did to that patient, but at least she felt guilt over it but maybe that wasn't until Book 3, I don't remember. But she never killed the Senator if I remember right, in fact I thought she seemed in love with him in the book? At least to a point. I remember she was disappointed that he was married and she couldn't be with him. It's a shame too because Virgilia was one of the most complex characters.
I know it is annoying to see changes, but I think it's inevitable even with closer adaptations. And even when it's produced by the writers. I know with Tiger Eyes by Judy Blume, there were changes and she produced it.
Good luck to 'em. The first North and South series was darn near perfect. How are you going to beat Patrick Swayze as Orry? And that ending!
The second series, Love and War, wasn't nearly as good. They replaced some of the characters and changed WAY too much of the book. In the book George and Orry never see each other again after parting at the railhead at the end of Book I; in the miniseries they seem to bump into each other every five minutes!
And don't get me started on them not having Orry die. That's one of the biggest tragedies of the series, and showcases the cost of war. In the miniseries it didn't seem like anybody lost much, except for I think Augusta died. Even the Main's white wicker furniture survived, for crying out loud.
The third series was horrible, but then the book was horrible too. The only good part was the family reunion at the end. If they don't make that one at all I won't shed any tears.
I agree they aren't going to find someone with the star quality and talent of Swayze.
I think the movie producers let Orry live so they could have a more upbeat ending. Maybe they thought Orry dying was too depressing. Just like they kind of saved face for James and gave him a bit of a dignified sendoff instead of the crappy one that Jakes gives him. They tried to infuse a little humanity into Ashton at the end as well, something I didn't see in her until Book 3 a bit with Will.
As far as the changes, I think a lot of it was to save time. Love and War is just such a huge book, I can imagine it would have been hard to make it into a movie. The thing I don't like about Jakes' books, and these are the only ones I've read, but he just has way too many characters and too much going on, and I think his characters suffer as a result because he can't give them the layers they need because he can't focus on each one as much as he should. So some of the characters came across as black and white good or evil. Also, it seems Orry started out as the main character but then it turns into Charles.
What I didn't like about Book 3 was the way Charles treated Willa, but then I think that Jakes has a bit of misogyny in his writing so it doesn't surprise me.
As far as the changes, I think a lot of it was to save time. Love and War is just such a huge book, I can imagine it would have been hard to make it into a movie.
A problem with the adaptation was that John Jakes was still writing LOVE AND WAR when production began. The writers of BOOK II only had Jakes' unfinished writing drafts as a source, so they had to make up what they didn't have.
reply share
Ah, okay, that's good to know! Makes sense. I think Wolper did The Thorn Birds too, and they did a very good adaptation of that, so I didn't think the changes were just for fun and giggles.
If they really do remake it, I hope they try to be a little more period-accurate with the fashions...
That said, although I was a huge fan of the original series in my early teens (I'm rewatching it right now, and although it's throughly watchable, it's still rather camp...), I wonder why they remake it when there are plenty of other stories out there!
I can't believe they would even consider remaking something THIS PERFECT. Do they really think people will want to watch it after seeing the original?! Absurd.
They're hoping fans of the original will check it out just to compare it. I think they're also hoping book purists will watch hoping it will be exactly like the books. I'm sure they'll make their own changes though. I don't have a lot of faith in the remake being anything good because I wasn't impressed with Discovery's first scripted miniseries, Klondike.
It's kind of ironic that Discovery has this commercial now touting themselves as making programming no one's ever done before. Whenever I hear that line, I think of this remake and just want to laugh.