Post by phileasfogg on Aug 24, 2024 10:54:12 GMT
***Spoilers Ahead for both the book and TV series***
Being the avid Jules Verne reader and with Around the World in 80 Days being my all-time favourite book, I absolutely had to watch this show when it came out.
Unfortunately, the show was awful for a lot of reasons, which was disappointing because it had so much potential. The 1956 film is still, in my opinion, the best Around the World in 80 Days we've gotten, and with all the advances in cinematography there is no reason why we can't make a film/tv version of this book that would be amazing.
And indeed, some things were done really well. For instance, the music was outstanding, the intro was incredible, and the visual effects were great! Still this was not enough to save the series from being much worse than its reviews suggest. I will first list a couple of things from the tv series that are historically wrong before jumping into specifics of what didn't hold true to the book. The list for both is unfortunately longer than I'm sure mine will be. By the end of the series, I felt as though I was no longer watching something set in 1872, but rather people from 2021 playing dress up. I even considered rewatching the series to double check things before posting this, but I couldn't bring myself to. Yes, it was that bad.
Historical Issues
1. The first historical issue which is also a book issue is that they show Passepartout in third class while Fogg is in first class. Not only is this an anachronism, but it isn't even what Verne himself wrote. From page 27: "Phileas Fogg and his servant seated themselves in a first-class carriage at twenty minutes before nine." What did the writers of the show expect Fogg to do if he needed Passepartout, text him?
2. Next anachronism that also differs from the book is the fact that they took a route through the southern states of the US instead of the route from San Francisco to New York described in the book. There is no plausible reason for Fogg, who is on such a strict deadline, to take a diversion through New Orleans when this was objectively the long way to go and the only reasons the writers seemed to do it was to make a statement about racism in the southern US during the 1870s and to have an exciting Wild West shootout scene.
3. The last anachronism I can think of off the top of my head is their route through the Middle East on camels. Why on Earth would they go that way when the route through Suez and India was infinitely easier? I simply have no words for this. Moving onto book discrepancies.
Story Issues
Fogg's Character: The first thing that was so wrong and disrespectful to the original story was how much of a bumbling idiot they portrayed Fogg as. In the book, he is an extremely likeable character who, despite his wealth & eccentricities, is shown to be a kind and generous man. David Tennant (who played Fogg) said somewhere in an interview that this was intentional because he saw Fogg's book character as displaying the worst of British Victorian upper-class culture or something like that, most likely referring to Fogg's stiff mannerisms and general aloofness. The thing is, Verne wrote Fogg to be the ideal gentleman, not to suggest that this was the norm. If the character isn't likeable, we have no reason to root for him. Fogg's character in the show is, ironically, a lot less likeable than his book character.
Where's Detective Fix?: The show replaces Detective Fix with investigative journalist "Abigail Fix," no doubt in an attempt to add some gender diversity to the cast. I guess they had to when they decided to remove the only female character in the novel for no good reason (we'll get to that later). The problem with this is that in the novel, Fix presented a possible threat to Fogg that the readers are aware of but he is not. Verne often writes characters like this... Saouk in Captain Antifer, Ayrton in In Search of the Castaways, etc. Removing Fix removes one of the more interesting plot points of the novel, and they replaced it with some hired muscle the Reform Club paid to prevent Fogg from winning the bet, something completely unnecessary, not to mention there was no reason to make his Reform Club friends into borderline bullies. Admittance to the Reform Club (I know a bit about this because my PhD topic is on 19th century clubs and societies) was very particular and you had to be considered a "good character" to be admitted with references. I find it difficult to believe that their members would have risked getting booted from one of London's most prestigious clubs over a wager they thought Fogg had no chance of winning, but I digress.
Aouda: The show has a throwaway character called Aouda who appears for half an episode, but she in no way resembles her book character and has no interaction with Fogg. This, to me, is one of the worst changes the show made. The entire ending of the novel was about "did Fogg gain anything by making this journey" but Verne implies that yes, he did, because he found love on the way. Changing this changes the essence of the story, but I guess when they completely rewrote Fogg's character this became less important by extension. In the novel, Aouda is the reason Fogg comes out of his shell and pre-voyage Fogg would never have expressed his emotions for a woman in the way he does at the end of the novel. This is important character growth and the show completely ignores it. I also find it particularly funny that a show which went out of its way to be diverse removed the only non-European main character that is canon to the novel, not to mention the opportunity to showcase a marriage which was not at all typical in 1872!
Why Fogg made the bet: This plays an important role in the plot of the tv series for absolutely no reason at all, only to conclude this plot point by claiming it was for a woman he knew 20 years ago or some nonsense like that. Again... absurd!! This ties back to them rewriting Fogg's character. The reason he made the bet has no importance in the book. Like many of Verne's characters in other novels, he does it to prove he can.
£20000 was a lot of money: and the show treats it like it's nothing. The whole point of why the stakes are so high in the book is that Fogg literally wagered his entire fortune: £20000 in the bet and he takes £20000 to spend on the journey to pay for transportation, bribes, etc. In the show, at various points they ask him why he doesn't just go home as if this in an option for a man who has his entire fortune riding on this bet. After shouting this at the tv every time it was suggested, it turns out that the bet in the tv show was no biggie. In the last episode, Fogg simply gives the £20000 cheque to his adversary showing that he had the money and then some! This is such an insult to the original story. If the bet has no real significance to Fogg, then there's no suspense. It simply doesn't matter in the same way and is instead a story about a rich guy who wants to make a tour of the world. What were the show creators thinking?!
Passepartout: Ah, loveable erratic Passepartout! At least, that's how he was in the novel. In the show he is annoying and has a grudge against Fogg from the beginning. I think this is the first adaptation where they actually made Passepartout French so I'll give them credit for that, but they also completely rewrote his character to the extent where his personality bears no resemblance to the book character. Pity!
Almost none of the adventures in the book are in the show: Passepartout's brief stint in the Yokohama circus? Not in the show. Passepartout getting his shoes stolen by being an ignorant tourist in a sacred Indian temple? Not in the show. Fogg tearing the Henrietta apart to have enough fuel to make it to Liverpool? Not in the show. Fogg rescuing both Passepartout and Aouda despite the risk to his schedule? Of course it's not in the show. They replaced all of the funny and interesting adventures from the book with subpar plots that were not worthy of a Verne adaptation. Nuff said.
Conclusion
If you made it through my complaining, congratulations! I do harbour very strong feelings about this show mostly because of what it could have been. I posted them here to warn people considering this show (and I may post it on the Jules Verne reddit page as well) because for some reason, most of the reviews don't cover this, and many of the negative ones complain about the wrong things in my opinion. Even worse, a new generation of watchers that never read this book may very well associate the story with this awful TV series instead. I suppose this is true of any adaptation, but I do believe there is a duty to at least come somewhat close to the source material or make up a new story. For an example of a show that does it right, see the Jeremy Brent Sherlock Holmes series from the 1980s. They adapt most of the stories perfectly using the original illustrations as source material. Why can they not do the same for Verne?
