1078 replies to this topic

[scaramunga]

Saintly Ian Dickerson gives a good update, answering some burning questions here: http://www.spywise.n...n-interview.pdf

Thanks for posting! I was curious to hear how things are going. I need to pick up Ian's book for sure!

I hope The Saint is being prepped for blu ray soon too. It would be great to get a Region A blu ray release of the Roger Moore series.

[Simon]

So...all the pre-orders for 'The Saint on TV' have been signed. I gather UK ones went out this afternoon, international ones will go out on Monday.

And as for the TV shows, well yes, I know we've been here before and you obviously all know how much I love to tease but we are thisclose to securing a deal with a top UK showrunner. And I don't think I've been this excited about the return of the Saint in a long, long time...

Ian

Can I already complain about not receiving my copy yet?

Another Saintless Christmas.

Hirst Publishing is a mite slow at the old customer service bit.

Numerous calls, no response, money for a month, no book, one call back to promise delivery a week or so back, no more responses....

Has anyone recently received their book? If indeed a recent purchase has been made.

I am not sure I have that many years left in me for receipt AND reading...

[Simon]

Hmm.

Ian - if you subscribe to this link, perhaps you can step in. Your customers are waiting.

[Ian Dickerson]

Can those who are still waiting for books please message me with your names and addresses? I was under the impression all outstanding orders had been filled but obviously that's not true. Once I get your details I will chase Tim. Thanks.

[Simon]

Duly done.

[S K Y F A L L]

I was always disappointed that The Saint with Val Kilmer did not develop into a film series of it on and I'm sure so was Kilmer. I think it would work out nicely today if they made it like Mission Impossible meets Jason Bourne, I'd go see it.

[St Louis]

Most Saint fans weren't endeared by the 1997 film because Kilmer's Templar was nothing like the character. If they had made the movie as an original character, without Saint references, not many would have even noticed it's resemblance to the original source; it certainly would have been more liked. In Saintly history it stands out an oddity; it doesn't fit in place.

[Simon]

Indeed, if you track through the moving image history of the Saint, from genesis to present day, I believe it is fair to say that the further along this road we travel, the further removed each rendition becomes from the original literary source material.

[St Louis]

There are bits of the movie which are okay, but it doesn't work as a whole. More importantly, it doesn't work at all as a Saint film.

In the theft at the beginning, I never liked the way Templar came across as physically weak in his first confrontation of the film. I also wasn't struck by the silly CGI jump off the building. I quite liked the flight attendant seduction scene, musical score and direction at that point.

Yes, Teal and Templar playing their traditional cat and mouse at the end was close to fun - or was it Tom and Jerry? You see, throughout the entire movie I don't recall these two characters even being referred to by their names. We see an American Twist living in a Hong Kong orphanage, make up the name Simon Templar, but that's it for the entire movie. No, "it's the famous Simon Templar". No, "it's Templar, Simon Templar". Just some kid complaining about getting porridge instead of a Big Mac...

Edited by St Louis, 15 April 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[Ian Dickerson]

. The whole backstory was unwanted but it was a fairly decent actioner.

Ah yes, the back story. Everybody wants to give him a back story. They still do...

[Simon]

Ian - I have left another message for Tim, to which of course there has been no response.

To this end, I have opened up a case in the Paypal resolution centre which will hopefully get me a refund if this fella doesn't get his act together.

I do feel you are being poorly represented here sir.

S.

[Ian Dickerson]

Ian - I have left another message for Tim, to which of course there has been no response.

To this end, I have opened up a case in the Paypal resolution centre which will hopefully get me a refund if this fella doesn't get his act together.

I do feel you are being poorly represented here sir.

S.

Ian - I have left another message for Tim, to which of course there has been no response.

To this end, I have opened up a case in the Paypal resolution centre which will hopefully get me a refund if this fella doesn't get his act together.

I do feel you are being poorly represented here sir.

S.

Simon,

You're not wrong. fyi I know of three outstanding orders including yours and have chased Tim about them today.

Ian

I always liked him not having a backstory, he was just a great adventurer.

You and me both, but executives on both side of the Atlantic don't believe audiences will accept that...

Having said that I am pushing for the back story to be subtle and based on stuff from the early books. We'll see if I win...!

Ian

[DR76]

Like Batman before it, Val Kilmer seems to have killed The Saint franchise.

The producers and screenwriters of Kilmer's "SAINT" movie killed the franchise, not the actor. And Kilmer's BATMAN was a major hit. The BATMAN movie featuring George Clooney nearly killed the franchise, until Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale revived it.

[Ian Dickerson]

The producers and screenwriters of Kilmer's "SAINT" movie killed the franchise, not the actor. And Kilmer's BATMAN was a major hit. The BATMAN movie featuring George Clooney nearly killed the franchise, until Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale revived it.

Nope. Paramount made Val Kilmer lord and master of the film and that's what killed it. Most of what hit the screen was his idea. The screenwriters were simply hired to turn his vision into a script.

Ian

Edited by Ian Dickerson, 16 April 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[St Louis]

I always liked him not having a backstory, he was just a great adventurer.

You and me both, but executives on both side of the Atlantic don't believe audiences will accept that...

Having said that I am pushing for the back story to be subtle and based on stuff from the early books. We'll see if I win...!

Ian

I'm another who strongly believes there should be no detailed backstory. The argument I would give - which I guess would fall on deaf ears - is that by keeping the Saint enigmatic it makes him all the more interesting. They could write it through Inspector Teal, or another detective, who is both explaining and investigating him. Even though the audience will know Templar is the hero, they could flirt with the notion of him being also an outright crook. Of course, none of what I'm saying his new, Charteris and the early films did exactly this. I know there isn't a great appreciation for the Dutton series, but the first few minutes of The Brazilian Connection introduces the Saint, effectively, at the centre of a diamond theft.

Edited by St Louis, 16 April 2012 - 11:25 PM.

[Dustin]

Backstory can be a very tricky thing. Without it you have a literally endless range of possibilities that can add to the enigma of a character. Take Hall's Quiller, an obvious seasoned veteran, cynical and disillusioned and completely obsessed with his work. He could have been various things before he ended up as an agent. His character makeup points to a massive chip on the shoulder that may hide a considerable amount of drastic and spectacular drama in his past. But we never learn. He could have been a former crook or a prisoner or a dissident or a doctor who bungled a case and wrecked his career. It's all the same, we can never really know the truth without being told. But we keep on guessing.

On the other hand a backstory can provide a powerful motivation for the protagonist. Batman draws a considerable amount of his fascination from the tragic loss of his parents. This is what makes his possessive behaviour not exactly 'normal' but at least understandable, and we can relate to him even if we don't sit in our bat caves and sharpen our knives the whole night through.

That said, a backstory may still be the most effective when kept to a minimum. Batman trained and educated himself without us knowing many details (that I'm aware of; Batman fans may know otherwise) beyond the traumatic event in his childhood. We can just fill in whatever we think happened before he started out his vigilante career.

Bond also had next to no backstory until YOLT. Fleming apparently put some thought in Bond's past, but he never provided more than a few scraps, details from a hazy past that was subject to change over the years and as Fleming needed it for his tales. We as fans are now quite obsessed with Eton, Fettes, the University of Geneva, the half Scott half Swiss heritage and the time with the Commandos in WW II. But frankly, Bond would have worked just as well without them. Many of these details were only added in the last but one book and until then had only existed in Fleming's notes to help him along with his hero.

[Simon]

Ian - when you say you chased Tim yesterday, did you actually speak to him or was it just the leaving of another message on his 'always on but never answered' mobile?

And if you did speak to him, what was his response?

Cheers.

[marktmurphy]

I don't think a backstory is necessarily a bad thing: it can provide a character with motivation (as mentioned above) and add a bit of drive. See the revived Doctor Who: his backstory was added to, making him the last of his race and sole survivor of a terrible war- this gave the series a bit of direction and the character himself a bit of depth.
I see no reason to see backstory as a bad thing; especially in the case of the Saint: a character I've always had a bit of trouble believing in on screen- it's not really clear how he makes a living or got into the 'job' he has. Apart from the Kilmer version, oddly.

[St Louis]

Well, in the TV series, they had all these restrictions on what they could do. I think, he wasn't meant to kill but, occasionally, he did. They couldn't utilise the Saint's love for knives, either. Hopefully, these issues wouldn't be a big deal now...

Edited by St Louis, 17 April 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[marktmurphy]

I don't think a backstory is necessarily a bad thing: it can provide a character with motivation (as mentioned above) and add a bit of drive. See the revived Doctor Who: his backstory was added to, making him the last of his race and sole survivor of a terrible war- this gave the series a bit of direction and the character himself a bit of depth.
I see no reason to see backstory as a bad thing; especially in the case of the Saint: a character I've always had a bit of trouble believing in on screen- it's not really clear how he makes a living or got into the 'job' he has. Apart from the Kilmer version, oddly.

He stole from the wicked and financed his further exploits through similar enterprises, or recovered stuff for a 10% cost of its value. And occassionaly did certain security services a favor by having a go at their problems, which undoubtely left some financial windfall.

I was always surprised that this was not made clearer in the movies or series.

Yeah, exactly. It's rarely been covered on screen.

[Simon]

Well - it was permitted in the 30's and 40's films, and he also used his knives.

And he took his spoils of war too allowing him to survive.

Which is kinda what I was aluding to above - every rendition moves him further away from who he is from a literary point of view.

[Ian Dickerson]

Ian - when you say you chased Tim yesterday, did you actually speak to him or was it just the leaving of another message on his 'always on but never answered' mobile?

And if you did speak to him, what was his response?

Cheers.

He's said he's looking into it. I'm aware of three outstanding orders, one of which is yours...

Ian

I don't think a backstory is necessarily a bad thing: it can provide a character with motivation (as mentioned above) and add a bit of drive. See the revived Doctor Who: his backstory was added to, making him the last of his race and sole survivor of a terrible war- this gave the series a bit of direction and the character himself a bit of depth.
I see no reason to see backstory as a bad thing; especially in the case of the Saint: a character I've always had a bit of trouble believing in on screen- it's not really clear how he makes a living or got into the 'job' he has. Apart from the Kilmer version, oddly.

Oh i agree, backstory doesn't have to be a bad thing and if you look at the early novels there's plenty of material. My concern, and what I've spent much of the last few weeks persuading people, is that you don't need to lump it all on the viewer in the first episode. I'd like to see a bit of subtlety about the telling of the story and maybe learn a bit more about the Saint in every episode.

Ian

[St Louis]

I don't think a backstory is necessarily a bad thing: it can provide a character with motivation (as mentioned above) and add a bit of drive. See the revived Doctor Who: his backstory was added to, making him the last of his race and sole survivor of a terrible war- this gave the series a bit of direction and the character himself a bit of depth.
I see no reason to see backstory as a bad thing; especially in the case of the Saint: a character I've always had a bit of trouble believing in on screen- it's not really clear how he makes a living or got into the 'job' he has. Apart from the Kilmer version, oddly.

Oh i agree, backstory doesn't have to be a bad thing and if you look at the early novels there's plenty of material. My concern, and what I've spent much of the last few weeks persuading people, is that you don't need to lump it all on the viewer in the first episode. I'd like to see a bit of subtlety about the telling of the story and maybe learn a bit more about the Saint in every episode.

Ian

I very much agree with you here, Ian. I hope they listen to you.

[Simon]

Ian - when you say you chased Tim yesterday, did you actually speak to him or was it just the leaving of another message on his 'always on but never answered' mobile?

And if you did speak to him, what was his response?

Cheers.

He's said he's looking into it. I'm aware of three outstanding orders, one of which is yours...

With the best will in the world, from either Tim (or maybe you since you do seem able to actually erm, speak to him) a date would be good.

On his one returned message, he has promised a delivery a couple of weeks ago and now all is quiet.

I am currently 45 and I am not sure I will live long enough to read it when received.

Best.

[St Louis]

Well - it was permitted in the 30's and 40's films, and he also used his knives.

And he took his spoils of war too allowing him to survive.

Which is kinda what I was aluding to above - every rendition moves him further away from who he is from a literary point of view.

Actually, Simon, they changed The Saint in New York movie so that the Saint takes on the gangsters running the city for nothing more than justice (no payment). In the direction (and by the way Hayward plays it), it's appears as if the Saint gets turned on by the game of sysmatically wiping out New York's criminal underworld. This being partly the reason why the Hayward's portrayal is criticized as crazy. In the book the Saint does it for a money - although, if I recall correctly, he does say he'll do it for nothing.

I'm sympathetic to the view of The Saint moving further way from his origins in chronological order. I know what you're getting at with restrictions on TV, and then the Kilmer reinvention. However, looking at it from another angle it doesn't quite stack up. For example, I'd argue Moore, Ogilvy and Dutton were all pretty good casting and a closer match with the character than RKO actors (as much as I like them). Plus, some ot TV episodes were faithful to the spirit of the character, as any of the old films.

[Simon]

Maybe - I do however think that the brutality of the all non-RKO renditions was lost. As was the abstract playfulness - poetry, singing, stupidity.

Certainly the Moore TV episodes had the benefit of the Charteris stories but really the character became fluffier and more washed up the further down the line he went. At no point did I ever get the impression that these portrayals had a touch of the bastard about him. Nor the lightening cut and thrust that was so evident in the books. They were all incredibly nice - and maybe this added to their success on screen, but really, only Moore was truly successful. Ogilvy and Dutton seemed both perfectly nice chaps, but the Saint, they weren't.

As for Saint in New York, you are absolutely correct. He was offered money, but he didn't get the promised sum (obviously ) and I can't remember whether he kept any of the Judge's money that went back and forth betwen Saint and the ungodly as part of the game. But the other films I believe were closer in spirit to the books - we can leave Double Trouble out of that perhaps.

[DR76]

Certainly the Moore TV episodes had the benefit of the Charteris stories but really the character became fluffier and more washed up the further down the line he went. At no point did I ever get the impression that these portrayals had a touch of the bastard about him.

Fluffier and more washed up? Hmmm . . . I guess I can't agree with you there. In fact, some film critic or historian - I forgot his name - once wrote that he found Moore's portrayal of Simon Templar to be a little more ruthless and cold-blooded than his portrayal of James Bond.

[Simon]

It might have been more ruthless than his portrayal of James Bond, but is irrelevant if we are looking to compare with the brutality of the original literary character.

I am not sure why this comparison was brought up. For all intents and purposes we could also bring in Mickey Mouse for discussion.

[Simon]

As for the Saint on TV book;

This guy Tim Hirst of Hirst Publishing is utter e.

Many emails, many calls, one returned call with a long out of date promise and still no book.

I have now asked for a refund and to be sure, that is not responded to either.

DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK FROM HIRST PUBLISHING.

[Simon]

Paypal case escalated - a further telephone call for a refund.

No response.

Ian, what were the criteria for choosing this publisher? There are stories far and wide about this clown and his operation.

I am not sure what the hand-off is between author and publisher in respect of order fulfilment, but I hope people discern the difference in responsibilities for what is a complete lack of anything approaching customer service on the part of the publisher, Tim Hirst.