2016 RTE Drama: Rebellion - no spoilers please (mod warning in post #1)

P. Breathnach

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

... That strand of the story is a little out on a limb and soapy compared to the rest at the minute....

Indeed. It touched on other plot strands only at one point, where May steals a file in the Castle and passes it to Elizabeth.

But I think your "at the minute" qualification might be important. That plot line cannot be justified unless it leads to something of significance in the overall drama.

Strazdas

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Weeeeeel, no they havent. Literally.
If you are going to criticism it, at least have something valid to say rather than that kind of nonsense.
That strand of the story is a little out on a limb and soapy compared to the rest at the minute. But it occupied, maybe, a minute or two of the last two episodes.
Are you aware that each episode is actually an hour-ad breaks? A hell of a lot more went on in both episodes.

May and Mrs Hammond weren't even sighted during the first half of last night's episode, all of the action was taking place elsewhere.....don't think we saw them until the 35 minute mark or so.

Stojkovic

weadick wrote: »

At a time when a friend of mines mother had to sit on a trolley for 17 hours in A+E after having a stroke. She since passed away.

I feel for your friend as Ive spent 18 months in and out of hospitals for 3 close family friends recently, two of whom died, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the state broadcaster spending 6m or 60m on a fictional tv programme. Get a grip.

ScumLord

I thought the last episode was better. There was a bit more tension in it. It still doesn't really convey any sense of scale, it just looks like a load of lads having a sit in. Maybe that's what it was in reality.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

ScumLord wrote: »

I thought the last episode was better. There was a bit more tension in it. It still doesn't really convey any sense of scale, it just looks like a load of lads having a sit in. Maybe that's what it was in reality.

I think it pretty much was? The British let it go on for a few days and then said, feck this bring in the big guns and blew the $hit out of Dublin and then it was over.

Irish_rat

The acting on this reminds me of fair city. Stiff and utterly boring.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Irish_rat wrote: »

The acting on this reminds me of fair city. Stiff and utterly boring.

In order to say this with any authority you must watch Fair City, in which case your opinion is of little worth.

alchemist33

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Indeed. It touched on other plot strands only at one point, where May steals a file in the Castle and passes it to Elizabeth.

But I think your "at the minute" qualification might be important. That plot line cannot be justified unless it leads to something of significance in the overall drama.

This is even more true with the storyline of Harry (?), Liza's brother. It's had no relevance so far except to portray him as a tw*t.

Strazdas

ScumLord wrote: »

I thought the last episode was better. There was a bit more tension in it. It still doesn't really convey any sense of scale, it just looks like a load of lads having a sit in. Maybe that's what it was in reality.

They did show that that incidents were taking place across the city ie. British army checkpoints everywhere, the gun battle at Northumberland Road and we could hear constant gunfire in the distance when Elizabeth was at the Mater Hospital. There's a definite sense that things are chaotic in the city : May heading out to Dalkey for her own safety and Elizabeth's father talking about going to Belfast while adding he had to pay three times the normal price for food.

Irish_rat

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

In order to say this with any authority you must watch Fair City, in which case your opinion is of little worth.

I don't watch it obviously. You must be cranky from all the days you had to do something with your life when boards was offline.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Irish_rat wrote: »

I don't watch it obviously. You must be cranky from all the days you had to do something with your life when boards was offline.

If you don't watch it that means you've just pulled that comparison out of your arse which negates the validity of your post entirely. I could be tempted to ask how much you have to to with your life if you have time to come into threads and post baseless opinions, but that would be petty.

Galwayguy35

I'm amazed at how pro British the people of Dublin were at the time.

Stojkovic

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm amazed at how pro British the people of Dublin were at the time.

Stockholm Syndrome due to 700 years etc

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Stojkovic wrote: »

Stockholm Syndrome due to 700 years etc

Well, we were technically British and a lot of people had no problem with acknowledging that.

Mal-Adjusted

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm amazed at how pro British the people of Dublin were at the time.

The general people don't really seem pro-british, just want no part in warfare.

Irish_rat

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm amazed at how pro British the people of Dublin were at the time.

You must have never heard of the West brits?

Strazdas

Stojkovic wrote: »

Stockholm Syndrome due to 700 years etc

Stockholm syndrome is perhaps a bit simplistic. Many of the 40-45 countries in Europe in 2016 were part of much larger empires for hundreds of years, our situation as a smaller European country was far from unique, quite the norm in fact : it probably would have been impossible for us to be outside the British sphere of influence up until the 20th Century given how powerful their empire was, just like the other big empires.

Stojkovic

Strazdas wrote: »

Stockholm syndrome is perhaps a bit simplistic. Many of the 40-45 countries in Europe in 2016 were part of much larger empires for hundreds of years, our situation as a smaller European country was far from unique, quite the norm in fact : it probably would have been impossible for us to be outside the British sphere of influence up until the 20th Century given how powerful their empire was, just like the other big empires.

Indeed if it wasnt the Brits it would have been the French or Spanish.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

alchemist33 wrote: »

This is even more true with the storyline of Harry (?), Liza's brother. It's had no relevance so far except to portray him as a tw*t.

my favourite character in it so far...

:pac:

Galwayguy35

Irish_rat wrote: »

You must have never heard of the West brits?

I have.

Galwayguy35

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Well, we were technically British and a lot of people had no problem with acknowledging that.

We were occupied by the Brits, I'm baffled how you think that would make us "technically British"".

Strazdas

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

We were occupied by the Brits, I'm baffled how you think that would make us "technically British"".

I'd have to go with the technically British line myself. We were not an independent and sovereign nation when the British arrived, more a series of feuding clans. There was a country called Ireland but definitely no Irish nation.

jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

I'd have to go with the technically British line myself. We were not an independent and sovereign nation when the British arrived, more a series of feuding clans. There was a country called Ireland but definitely no Irish nation.

Rubbish! And there was no "British" at the time. It was a Norman-Welsh invasion authorised by a French king who may not even have spoken English.

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

Rubbish! And there was no "British" at the time. It was a Norman-Welsh invasion authorised by a French king who may not even have spoken English.

Regards...jmcc

Correct on the Norman-Welsh thing but to say we were occupied for many centuries by our nearest neighbour would be misstating things somewhat. We weren't a nation state to begin with and Europe was ravaged by war for hundreds of years with borders constantly changing. Arguably, huge swathes of Europe and it's peoples were "occupied" by neighbouring states and latterly empires. The move towards nationalism and independence was very much a 19th-20th century phenomenon only around Europe.

iguana

Strazdas wrote: »

I'd have to go with the technically British line myself. We were not an independent and sovereign nation when the British arrived, more a series of feuding clans. There was a country called Ireland but definitely no Irish nation.

They weren't exactly British themselves when that happened they were Normans. Most of whom still owed fealty to the king of France due to their French estate, including Henry Curtmantle himself!

And while Ireland wasn't a nation at the time. We were a distinctly different people from both the Normans and the Saxons and the people of Ireland had a shared language and culture. Though I'd lay bets that most of us have quite a bit of Norman heritage in us along with the Celtic. Just as most European royalty from the late middle ages onwards is descended from Brian Boru.

jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

to say we were occupied for many centuries by our nearest neighbour would be misstating things somewhat.

No. It would not.

We weren't a nation state to begin with

Yes we were. Moreso than Britain or England. The reality is that England was the product of various invasions and the Normans were only one group in a long series of invaders. Ireland's history was quite different because the Vikings were defeated at Clontarf and Ireland never became a Norse colony.

and Europe was ravaged by war for hundreds of years with borders constantly changing. Arguably, huge swathes of Europe and it's peoples were "occupied" by neighbouring states and latterly empires. The move towards nationalism and independence was very much a 19th-20th century phenomenon only around Europe.

Leaving aside the back of a cornflakes box view of European history, there was a major shift towards an Irish identity after the Famine and there was even a Celtic Revival in the last decades of the 19th Century. The notion of a "British" identity rather than an Irish one is typical of the rubbish that revisionist "historians" and RTE try to spin. Indeed the whole "British" identity is a political fiction created to integrate Scotland with England after the Scottish aristocracy bankrupted themselves.

I remember hearing stories of how school teachers would beat kids for using Irish in class and this was part of an attempt, aided by the Catholic Church, to destroy the Irish identity. At the time of the Rising, Ireland had been part of the United Kingdom for almost a hundred years but despite what the revisionists in RTE and elsewhere would have one belive, the Irish identity was not destroyed. While the people in RTE with their Dortspeak abomination of the English language (complete with pseudo-Royal vowels and half-assed Valspeak contractions) might want to be good little English people, most Irish people are now content with being Irish. Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time of the Rising but it would be the height of ignorance to assume that it made people technically or legally "British". The 1801 Act of Union created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So even the people behind that act acknowledged that Irish people were not "British".

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

Leaving aside the back of a cornflakes box view of European history, there was a major shift towards an Irish identity after the Famine and there was even a Celtic Revival in the last decades of the 19th Century. The notion of a "British" identity rather than an Irish one is typical of the rubbish that revisionist "historians" and RTE try to spin. Indeed the whole "British" identity is a political fiction created to integrate Scotland with England after the Scottish aristocracy bankrupted themselves.

I remember hearing stories of how school teachers would beat kids for using Irish in class and this was part of an attempt, aided by the Catholic Church, to destroy the Irish identity. At the time of the Rising, Ireland had been part of the United Kingdom for almost a hundred years but despite what the revisionists in RTE and elsewhere would have one belive, the Irish identity was not destroyed. While the people in RTE with their Dortspeak abomination of the English language (complete with pseudo-Royal vowels and half-assed Valspeak contractions) might want to be good little English people, most Irish people are now content with being Irish. Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time of the Rising but it would be the height of ignorance to assume that it made people technically or legally "British". The 1801 Act of Union created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So even the people behind that act acknowledged that Irish people were not "British".

Regards...jmcc

Yes, but I was challenging the idea that Ireland had been "occupied" for 800 years or so, as if the desire in the first few hundred years had been for us to be a nation state which was being denied to us by the occupiers. The move towards nationalism and a desire to be running our own affairs was something that only became potent in the late 19th century along with the Gaelic Revival. Having said that, Irish people heading into the 20th century would not necessarily have had any problem with being described as "British", especially as no Irish nation state existed at that point. Hang ups about the use of such words are almost certainly a post-independence thing.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

It's amazing to see the bitterness and hostility some people still have towards any version of history that isn't the one they want to be true.

At the time of the Rising there were people who were staunchly Irish and despised everything British. There were also plenty who held the exact opposite opinion. To imply the Rising was not universally supported or that some Irish natives actively supported the army at the time is not "revisionist" history. It's a balanced and unbiased look at the events.

Strazdas

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

It's amazing to see the bitterness and hostility some people still have towards any version of history that isn't the one they want to be true.

At the time of the Rising there were people who were staunchly Irish and despised everything British. There were also plenty who held the exact opposite opinion. To imply the Rising was not universally supported or that some Irish natives actively supported the army at the time is not "revisionist" history. It's a balanced and unbiased look at the events.

I can't help thinking that some of this has translated into criticism of Rebellion. It's interesting that many people seemed to have no particular problem with the first episode and yet episode 2 came in for a load of flak when it coincidentally didn't appear to show the rebels in a very good light at times.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, but I was challenging the idea that Ireland had been "occupied" for 800 years or so, as if the desire in the first few hundred years had been for us to be a nation state which was being denied to us by the occupiers. The move towards nationalism and a desire to be running our own affairs was something that only became potent in the late 19th century...

In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms....