MovieChat Forums > Heaven & Hell: North & South, Book III (1994) Discussion > Inconsistencies, or why is the Book III ...

Inconsistencies, or why is the Book III so unpopular ?

posted 10 years ago by salchoff
8 replies | jump to latest

Have you ever wondered why most of the N&S fans dislike so much the Book III series ? Is it only because of the lack of Patrick Swayze ? Or other actors; changes ? I don't think so... I mean, I'd love to see Patrick, Lewis and others back, but I could live without it if the rest went well.

I can't say I absolutelly hate it but I can't call myself fan at all either. So why is it so ?

It's much smaller, less spectacular, shorter (more or less the same long novel and half that long series), which must have been disappointing after the great splendour of the first two shows.

But what drove my nerves the most was totally lack of consequence. They made so many changes in the earlier two shows and suddenly decided to become close to the book. It didn't work. Here are some examples. You are welcome to add more. I'd acctually like you to do so, plus say what didn't you like about the Book III show.

1) Cooper Main - he wasn't in first two shows. Why bring him here ? I mean I know why - his character was part of important plot. But couldn't they made up some LaMotte or Smith relative instead ?

2) George and Orry meeting - when George mourns Orry in fron of Constance, he suggests they hadn't met after the war ended and didn't put back the banknotes together. But they did ! And it's even shown in the flashbacks in the beginning of the show.

3) Charles - he wasn't mentioned to have ever met Bent in the previous shows.

4) Age of the children -
a) Hope Hazard was born around March of 1861 and is shown at proper age at the Christmas of 1864. So why the hell is she at her preteens in the spring of 1865 on Book III show ?
b) Where does the preteen Hazard boy come from ?
c) Baby Orry was born somewhere in 1863/64 and continues to be a baby baby in Book III (actually this is the smallest of age differences).
d) Baby Gus was acctually inconsequenty already in Book II but he still was born after baby Orry, near the end of the war, meanwhile in Book III he becomes quite a big boy of around 4-5 years age.

5) New ex-slaves with Madelaine. Wouldn't it be better if the Blacks staying with Madelaine in Mont Royal were Semiramis and Ezra ? Even if played by other actors.

6) Mont Royal was destroyed in a fire but not THAT much.

7) Some characters' characters were changed. Especially George wasn't the same George we have known from earlier shows. As much as I love James Read as an actor, I loved the way he portreted George in Book I and II, but he was different in Book III. Although, I admit, you can always say it was because all the tragedies that had just touched him.

Any other ideas ? Please, continue to add ...

[–] rikajessie 10 years ago

I actually like Book III, both movie and book. The only part I don't like about the book is that Charles is a jerk to Willa through most of it, but the movie downplayed that.

I love Philip Casnoff and his character Bent, and there was a lot of him in this, so that's probably why I like it so much.

I think part of the dislike is that the Reconstruction period is not as exciting to people as the war and the lead up to it. It doesn't look as lavish, for example Madeline isn't dressed as fancy because she had money issues. This period worked in GWTW but only because Scarlett has money and can dress glamorous.

I think a big part of the problem with the film is, people were confused. The first two movies changes made it hard for this film to be understood, because they stuck closer to the book. So people who haven't read the book don't get where Cooper came from. And people probably don't get why he was such a creep if they haven't read the 2nd book.

The lack of Brett and Billy is a sore spot for fans and I believe there were complaints that they weren't featured enough in the book either.

Some people might not have liked the Willa/Charles romance if they were big fans of him and Augusta together. I liked Augusta but I liked Willa too and prefer her with Charles, so this wasn't an issue for me.

Of course the death of Orry upset fans, and those who didn't read the book don't know he died in the end of it.

As for George's children, in the first book his first child, a son, is born fairly early in the marriage, and then they have a daughter shortly after. Constance didn't have difficulty conceiving in the book like the movie implies, though she does have some miscarriages later.

So the 3rd movie was going by the books, not the movies, in regards to George's children.

As for Madeline's baby, I don't know. She had never had one in the books. I guess the first movie gave her one for something nice, and then the next movie didn't care enough about that plot to be consistent with it.

Some people don't like Madeline and George getting together, but I was fine with it. I was not invested in any of Jakes' couples except maybe a little bit Chares/Willa and I liked Ashton and Will, but anyway, I wasn't upset when Madeline got with George.

The murder of Constance upset people, but it is part of the book.

Some people wondered where James was, well he died in Book 2, but the movies gave him a happier ending.

Some fans were annoyed that Bent survived the burning building, but he did appear to die in Book 2, just in a different way, falling into a river. Bent has a big part in the third book, so he has to be in the movie. Why anyone would complain about Casnoff being onscreen again, I'll never know,lol.

I like that in the 3rd book, Virgilia gets redeemed and gets a second chance at happiness. Unfortunately because thecond movie killed her off, this movie couldn't put that part in. They could have said she wasn't executed after all, but but that would have been another source of confusion.

As for the slaves, I don't think Semiramis had nearly as big a part in the books, so again, 3rd movie was going more by the books.

[–] salchoff 10 years ago

Thank you for joining the subject.

I have read all the books myself so I understand the differences and can see their desire to stay closer to the third novel. But since I had first seen the shows and than read the books, I didn't mind the changes made in the first two shows but didn't like their not following it while filming Book III.
They just were inconsequent. Having made Book I and II the way they did, I'd prefere them to do the same with the third movie. That's all what I meant.

And you are not the only person who like Bent. So do I! I mean, not as a person, but as a character, as an actor. I think Phillip Casnoff was absolutelly wonderful in that role. He was very different from the way Bent was portreyed in the books but did a really fine job.

[–] rikajessie 10 years ago

You're welcome.

I saw the movies before the books too. I have a lot of mixed feelings about the changes, some things I like and some things I don't, and I'm the kind of person who thinks, that if I were making a movie based off a book, I would stick as closely to the book as possible to avoid criticism from book readers. Then again, audiences often don't understand the challenge of putting a book to movie. It seems easy enough, but much of books is thought rather than word and deed, and translating that to screen isn't always easy.

For example, Kubrick's The Shining has changes from the book, but I thought his movie was better than the closer adaptation.

I see what you're saying, that since they already made changes with the first movies, they should have just continued in that vein with the 3rd movie. It makes sense.

I think Book 3 was always going to alienate fans because of the bold choices Jakes made in killing off Orry and Constance.

Yes, Philip was outstanding, I get tired of the criticism of the accent, because while I'm not knowledgable on Southern accents, to me it was not even important considering his acting talent and good looks on screen.

I also thought this movie was Philip's best performance as Bent, he was truly chilling, I thought he was a little more subdued in the performance and yet just as evil, I feel like the first two movies were a little bit over the top in the way they directed the actors, but this one I thought everyone seemed a little more natural.

[–] salchoff 10 years ago

Since I'm a foreigner I never cared about the accents because I don't know much about it. I can only differ if somebody is British, American or foreigner. Sometimes other English speaking countries but not the regions. Although thanks to N&S I can hear sometimes some characteristic sounds to the Southerners.

I don't know for sure but I think Patrick Swayze had a pretty good Southern accent. I think he claimed it was because he was from Texas. Although I must say when I first watched the show in original I could barely understand him.

[–] rikajessie 10 years ago

Most people say Casnoff's accent was way too thick in the first couple of movies. I don't know anyone from Georgia, so if it was wrong I wouldn't have known it. I thought most of the accents were fine, I could understand everyone.

I have more trouble understanding Australian or British accents. I just saw the Australian film Wolf Creek, and I had a hard time understanding some of them, especially the character Mick Taylor.

[–] rikajessie 10 years ago

[–] Vesikko 9 years ago

I have not read the book so I don't know which is perhaps fault of the show alone and which is not.

My problems are:

- Death of Orry. OK, I realize that they let him live in the Series II in contrary to the book but since they did, Orry's death should have been dealt with more tact than let some stand-in to be knifed within 1st minutes. Also Ashton's actions become nonsensical. Why did she see necessary to flee all the way to Santa Fe because she pushed a total outcast, which Bent was by then, into the river?

- Cooper Main. Because he did not appear at all in Series I and II, they should not have pretended that he had always been there. At least they should have made him into some black sheep cousin of the Mains.

- George and Madeline. I dunno if this was in a book but I did not like it.

- Charles Main. In past I have thought that Kyle Chandler was too young and fresh faced to play the wreck Charles was supposed to be but I have no problem with him now. I could not imagine Lewis Smith in this show with Willa.

- The ease some of these people glide from this to that end of known United States. Wasn't this supposed to be 1860's?

- The final battle at Mont Royal between KKK and Madeline and co. looked ridiculous. These people fired gunshots and threw dynamite at each other seemingly 10 feet apart. Lesley Anne Down's usual weak acting did not help either.

- The implied Cheyenne genocide. I get upset about the subject of the destruction of Native American culture. slavery does not upset me as much for some reason.

On plus side I say that the music was good, just beautiful.

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

The thing with Ashton in Santa Fe is again because the third movie is going by the book, but because of the ending of the movie of Book 2 vs. the book ending, it becomes difficult.

At the end of the second book, Ashton's lover Lamar (Bent in the movie is a combination of the book's version of Bent, and Lamar Powell) and James went out to the southwest to get Lamar's gold from Virginia City and to start a new state after Lamar's scheme to kill Davis was exposed. Lamar shoots James and then is himself killed by Apache Indians.

Ashton was in Santa Fe waiting for Lamar to meet her there after he got the gold and killed James. When she finds out that Lamar is dead and the gold is lost, and that James disinherited her because he suspected her infidelity, she stays at the brothel to earn money. Then in Book 3 she meets Will Fenway, just as in the movie.

So basically the 3rd movie has to have her in Santa Fe because that's part of Ashton's story in the 2nd book, that she had to be a prostitute for a while until Will basically rescues her from it.

The part about pushing Bent in the river in the movie is a way to get Bent out of Ashton's life so she can have her story as it is in the book, and in book 2 Bent did fall into the river after a fight with Orry and was presumed dead until the third book comes out.

George and Madeline becoming a couple is in the third book.

Kyle Chandler doesn't fit the looks of Charles, he's handsome but Charles has dark hair and eyes like Lewis Smith. I'm not sure if Smith would have had chemistry with the Willa actress or not. Willa in the book is a platinum blonde. But I did like the chemistry between Chandler and the Willa actress.

Cooper is an important part of the third book, so he has to be in the movie for it to work. The first and second movies should have had Cooper. I assume they cut him out to save time and money, and also Cooper isn't a very glamorous character, he marries a plain woman and I don't think he was anything hunky himself. The first movie producers said in an article that they wanted everyone to be good looking to hold the audience's attention for such a long story. In the book not all the characters are good looking though. I assume that's part of why they combined Bent with Lamar Powell, because in the book Bent is very overweight and unappealing to everyone. They probably thought a character like that pitted against Orry and George would not be as entertaining as a sexy villain.

So basically imo all the "problems" with the third movie are the fault of the changes of the first two movies, though I can to a point understand why they made those changes, and to be fair to them, the third book had not been out at the time.