Felt genuinely dank after those opening scenes in the marshes. Brilliantly done. Slightly perplexed by Pip's male-model looks after all those years hammering away at the forge mind... No doubt Downton's audience figures will get the Christmas TV headlines, but this was a class above. Worth the licence fee alone etc etc...

Reserving judgement until I see more Jaggers and also Wemmick and the aged P.

Am I allowed to watch the adaptation?

Absolutely beautifully filmed.

I loved it. Ray was born to play Magwitch. Is Pip supposed to be prettier than Estella though?

looked forward to watching it, was hugely disappointed in this version. I thought it looked beautiful and all the performances were top notch - as acting - but it wasn't Great Expectations.

Joe was portrayed as quite aggressive whereas the character is actually a warm and wise man with a very cheerful outlook. He is a gentle man and therefore a direct contrast to the 'gentleman' that Pip mistakenly believes is the better type of man. Most of all, Joe provides some of the best comedy in the book but you wouldn't know it from last night's episode.

Miss Havisham in the book is a damaged character but she is not deranged. She is proud and haughty and pitiless but she is in total control of her world. She is certainly not frightened of her relations but treats them with contempt. Above all - in the novel - she reveals very little of her plans or her life story - everything is revealed slowly and not by her. The tv character talks too much.

Uncle Pumblechook is here portrayed as a child beater. In the book he is a pompous, self-serving hypocrite who is certainly a bully but he does not strike anyone - he's actually (like most bullies) a coward. His line 'If you can't beat a child at Christmas, when can you?' may sound like Dickens but it is not, Dickens is far more subtle in portraying Pumblechook's methods of abuse. This line is one of many pointless additions.

Why was Satis House so light? In the novel it is shuttered, completely dark, Miss H has no idea what time of the day it is. Also she has no servant, it is Estella who greets Pip at the door. And the clocks are not stopped at 11am etc...

What do these changes add? Some of them (and the are above only a few examples) seem to be add-ons which give us nothing extra. Some of the changes - particularly changes in characterization - seriously alter the tone of the book.

I found much of this production ill thought out and inexplicable. And there seemed to be little knowledge of the themes and symbols of the novel. The sense of being stifled in the jail of your own life is barely indicated and there is very little said about what it means to be responsible for a child.

*SPOILER ALERT*
I can illustrate how little care is taken in bringing out the themes by this one example. The convict in the novel appears in the graveyard and seems to emerge from the graves. As Pip is at that moment looking at his parents grave it is clear there is a connection being made between Pip's rightful parents and Magwitch who becomes the surrogate (mirroring Miss Havisham's relationship to Estella). In the tv production Magwitch leaps from under a bridge like a troll - this tells us nothing (and is far less scary).
*SPOILER OVER*

I will continue to watch and maybe it will improve for me.
I usually find something to enjoy in most Dickens adaptations but they have to be true to the source material. Even Lionel Bart, who took great liberties with the story of Oliver Twist and even the Muppets who 'muppetized' A Christmas Carol remained essentially true to the original text, often using great chunks of Dickens dialogue.
I'm not a Dickens purist but I am a Dickens expert and although this production may look very good indeed it is a mess. A three hour mess.
David Lean's film appeared long ago but it is still probably the best screen version of Great Expectations. Lean manages to condense the plot without loss and to covey all the complexity of Dickens world and vision. He did it in 90 minutes.

Sorry to cast a gloom on the general good spirited reaction to Great Expectations but nobody else seems to be saying this and I'm sure some others must also feel dismayed by this new version.

Gillian Anderson in this? How can I put it? She makes my blood flow!

I found her character to be a fantastic supernatural reimagining of Dickens prototype.

I take Jude's point about Joe's lack of warmth when compared to the novel and I dare say other characters will be treated in the same way, but I see no harm in offering fresh character interpretations from a 21st century “televisual” viewpoint. (I’ve only seen episode one at time of writing). There’s nothing remotely cuddly or loveable about these characters as there were in Dickens’ sketches

I think what I'm enjoying is not a three hour précis of one of the greatest novels ever written but a quality piece of television drama fit for a post Doctor Who audience.

I think it will do Dickens’ cause no harm at all, and if it attracts attention to his original material then this will be a very good outcome. It's certainly getting me back into a Dickens’ mind set, to the extent that I feel ready to tackle another of his novels after a gap of several years.

that this production will do no harm to Dickens. People will now re-visit the novel, talk about Dickens and probably try some of his other works. In that respect it can only be a Good Thing and I do believe that any Dickens on tv is better than no Dickens.

I think my problem is the whole idea of updating a 19th Century text and the belief that viewers in the 21st Century are incapable of understanding anything which wasn't written last week. Dr Who of course should always move on and reflect the modern world - it isn't an historical piece and it would be fatal and wrong to keep it stuck in the Sixties. Dickens not so - he wrote 19th Century novels and if we're going to stay true to the costumes then we have to stay true to the rest of it. This is possible - Andrew Davies did a stunning job with Bleak House and Little Dorrit, adapting the books in a way which appealed to the modern viewer but would also be instantly recognizable to Dickens original audience.

I don't think Dickens needs updating - he's lasted because his concerns are always our concerns, he is always modern and his message never dates. We don't need to tamper with the text - people can take it as it is, understand it and enjoy it. Shakespeare often gets a costume or historical update but the text is rarely altered - perhaps the same treatment would work for Dickens if we really need to bring it in to the 21st Century? I believe we're better than that but if I'm wrong and we are really only able to digest ideas once they have been stripped of any nuance and complexity then that raises very profound questions about where we're heading. Sorry, bit extreme - only a tv programme after all - but I do care quite a lot about this stuff.

I am struggling to square my emotional reaction to the adaption with Judes analytical one. A lot of Dickens style is of a time and rightly is used for humurouse effect in countless comedy programs. The content or commentary on Victorian England still holds good and I felt this adaption did that proud. The pretty boy Pip was a bum note but the rest was superb. If any thing parts of the story felt compressed and needed a little more time to clarify.
My question mark above is because the adaption made me care intensly about the characters. Is that not what any type of drama is about?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0195pt7/Armandos_Tale_of_Charles_D...

Where Armando Iannucci goes through some of the more genuine and heartfelt reasons that Dickens is so important. And this also points up how short these kind of adaptations fall from where they should be. Certainly in terms of dramatic impact, and character development.

I think all the very talented visual people, the Art Directors, set and costume people, and Post Production people are let down by the pretty superficial Direction and work with the performances. Sadly it's fairly consistently the BBC way at the moment. "Kids TV" in these respects.