Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
2016 RTE Drama: Rebellion - no spoilers please (mod warning in post #1)
Comments
-
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »More shoddy editing. They've cut something out between them entering the house and coming into the room.
Unless you were on set, how do you know an intermediate scene was ever shot? It could also just as easily be a continuity slip, they happen all the time. ALL the time.
I think it's 50/50 as to where to put the blame for this scene - I reckon most of the problems in the scene come from how it was shot, but they may have been able to edit around them better. The cut to the closeup of Frances was poorly synced, there may have been very good reasons for that. (I also think they should have gone to the ad break from the closeup, rather than cutting back to the wide shot.)
The fact is that it's impossible to tell unless you saw the rushes and know what the director's instructions were, so this is all just speculation. And if that were the only fault in this series it would have no bearing on my enjoyment. The errors in the writing and performance are much more serious, so continuity errors that don't affect the plot come way down the priority list as far as I'm concerned.
(Editors get a lot of undeserved flak, and the phrase "we'll fix it in post" needs to be banned from the language!)0 -
maudgonner wrote: »Unless you were on set, how do you know an intermediate scene was ever shot? It could also just as easily be a continuity slip, they happen all the time. ALL the time.
I think it's 50/50 as to where to put the blame for this scene - I reckon most of the problems in the scene come from how it was shot, but they may have been able to edit around them better. The cut to the closeup of Frances was poorly synced, there may have been very good reasons for that. (I also think they should have gone to the ad break from the closeup, rather than cutting back to the wide shot.)
The fact is that it's impossible to tell unless you saw the rushes and know what the director's instructions were, so this is all just speculation. And if that were the only fault in this series it would have no bearing on my enjoyment. The errors in the writing and performance are much more serious, so continuity errors that don't affect the plot come way down the priority list as far as I'm concerned.
(Editors get a lot of undeserved flak, and the phrase "we'll fix it in post" needs to be banned from the language!)
The fact of the matter is it was a bad edit. Whether you want to blame the director for forcing them to cut it that way is another matter but it's still a bad edit.
I was joking about the unexplained bottle being another piece of shoddy editing but the only sensible explanation is that there was another scene before that explains the sudden appearance of the bottle.
The director shooting a scene from several angles is standard practice. Having the scene start at the same point (Frances kneeling down) for each shot is not unreasonable either. Having three shots of someone doing the same thing one cut after the other is bad editing. Simple as.
As I said we'll have to agree to disagree on this and ultimately it's not a big deal but add it to the other continuity issues and it backs up my original point which was how it's odd that they paid so much attention to the historical details and seem to have forgotten about some very basic things.0 -
Interesting to see that Episode 3 had 700,000 viewers when +1, time shift and Player ratings were taken into account :
http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/rte-not-ruling-out-rebellion-spinoff-despite-plunging-ratings-34397398.html
I would say those type of ratings are very healthy in fact (and it would be pointless to try and compare it to something like Love Hate, whose ratings were completely off the scale and dare I say it, there may have an element of mega hype and being overrated going on there).0 -
Interesting to see that Episode 3 had 700,000 viewers when +1, time shift and Player ratings were taken into account :
http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/rte-not-ruling-out-rebellion-spinoff-despite-plunging-ratings-34397398.html
I would say those type of ratings are very healthy in fact (and it would be pointless to try and compare it to something like Love Hate, whose ratings were completely off the scale and dare I say it, there may have an element of mega hype and being overrated going on there).
If you look at the most watched TV on Irish channels last year and take out The Late Late Toy show, which is in a league of it's own, and then take out sports RWC, 6 Nations, All Irelands, Charlie with 851k was the biggest ratings for a TV show. I didn't watch it myself but saw it mentioned a few times in here in purely negative ways. Then you're left with things like Mrs. Brown and Room to Improve, bizarrely with 653k.
So all in all Rebellion's figures are pretty good.0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »I think you will find most people do have a good grasp of what happened to the central characters of the rising. The whole point of any good drama is to leave a doubt up to the end what happens to people. Focusing on the historical figures would leave zero doubt, zero tension and so on. Basically we know most of the historical leaders get shot. Films like Michael Collins also covered much of this, particularly the Dev part.
This is a drama, not a documentary.
I don't agree with this. If that were the case then there would be no factual drama, or at least none that features well-known figures. You've given an example yourself - we all know what happened to Michael Collins - was there no point in making the film so? What about Band of Brothers, or Apollo 13, or In the Name of the Father etc etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
maudgonner wrote: »I don't agree with this. If that were the case then there would be no factual drama, or at least none that features well-known figures. You've given an example yourself - we all know what happened to Michael Collins - was there no point in making the film so? What about Band of Brothers, or Apollo 13, or In the Name of the Father etc etc.
As people have stated, the writer and RTE have gone down the "fictional drama set against historical events" approach. I don't really see any problem with this approach, its well tried, eg Generation War. They could have gone down the historically accurate portrayal of historical figures. There would be two main issues with this approach. 1. Its been done to death, we all know how it turned out. It would leave very little to anticipate. I don't even think such an approach would garner many viewers because most people would know in advance how it turned out. 2. The historical anoraks would have a field day, eg. Pearse combed his hair the other way, there is no record of Connolly saying this, Clarke wore something else on the day of the Rising.
The main fault I would see with Rebellion is it aims to please everyone, appeal to drama fans like Downton Abbey, but also history fans, fans of Pearse and so on.
As for Michael Collins, he was a more interesting character than probably all the Rising leaders, and possibly a more tragic one. Collins had potential as a long term leader, future Taoiseach even. He was part of the Treaty negotiations, arguably sold out by Dev and of course you had the romantic side. His story has dramatic value in a way I don't think Pearse does.0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »It would leave very little to anticipate. I don't even think such an approach would garner many viewers because most people would know in advance how it turned out.
This just seems bizarre to me. Why would people not watch just because they know what happens in the end? It's a running joke about Titanic, "why would I want to watch that, I know the ship sinks in the end" - if you do a competent job of telling the story, knowing the ending shouldn't be a problem. If you build empathy with a set of characters, knowing they're facing their doom would only heighten the emotion. Have you watched the TG4 series? The execution scenes tug at the heartstrings every time (even though you know in advance each ep will end with an execution and they present it the same way in every episode)
And this:Shurimgreat wrote: »Its been done to death
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The only docudramas about the Rising I'm aware of are Insurrection and Rebel Heart. I've seen neither.
FWIW, I wasn't against the approach that RTE decided to take with this, an historical drama could have been great, IF they did a better job with it.0 -
maudgonner wrote: »This just seems bizarre to me. Why would people not watch just because they know what happens in the end? It's a running joke about Titanic, "why would I want to watch that, I know the ship sinks in the end" - if you do a competent job of telling the story, knowing the ending shouldn't be a problem. If you build empathy with a set of characters, knowing they're facing their doom would only heighten the emotion. Have you watched the TG4 series? The execution scenes tug at the heartstrings every time (even though you know in advance each ep will end with an execution and they present it the same way in every episode)
I do have to point out that Jack and Rose were fictional characters themselves so although we knew the ship would sink we didn't know what would happen to them..... except Rose, I guess.... it was clear the old lady was her, wasn't it?
But the point is that yes, you can tell a story where everyone knows the ending and still have people invested in their story if you're a talented enough writer. It's very difficult to do, I imagine. Going with fictional characters is the "easier" option, I think, but it still requires some level of skill to create characters and relationships from scratch and make the viewer care about them, in a historical setting or not. There are many glimpses of good stuff on show in Rebellion, in my opinion, but the main failing is they didn't spend enough time establishing the characters and their relationships before throwing them into the action. Especially the 3 main female characters. Nobody is really going to question why a male character is involved with the rebels, female characters though raise eyebrows and people wonder a) were women really involved like that and b) why? They've neglected those aspects completely and ultimately it makes it hard to care what does happen in the end.0 -
Viewers who are intrigued that the Rising was in many ways a defacto civil war between Irishmen should remember that many Irish fought in the Boer side in South Africa just over a decade and a half before. As well as the famous Howth Mausers many of the other rebel weapons were in fact weapons used by members of two Irish commandoes that fought Irish Regiments of the British Army. Old sweats in the Irish Regiments would have traded fire with a number of the Irish rebels they captured. The Irish rebels of course also wore the Boer style hat as part of their uniform. John MacBride who joined McDonagh in Jacobs Factory was a veteran of the Boer Was and was of course executed for high treason.0
-
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »If you look at the most watched TV on Irish channels last year and take out The Late Late Toy show, which is in a league of it's own, and then take out sports RWC, 6 Nations, All Irelands, Charlie with 851k was the biggest ratings for a TV show. I didn't watch it myself but saw it mentioned a few times in here in purely negative ways. Then you're left with things like Mrs. Brown and Room to Improve, bizarrely with 653k.
So all in all Rebellion's figures are pretty good.
And Charlie's ratings dropped much more dramatically for episode's 2 and 3 than Rebellion's have.
700k total viewers for episode 3 of Rebellion is excellent in my book.0 -
Advertisement
-
And Charlie's ratings dropped much more dramatically for episode's 2 and 3 than Rebellion's have.
700k total viewers for episode 3 of Rebellion is excellent in my book.
There's only the one entry for Charlie in the Top 20 so it must have dropped some distance. Room to Improve was at 20 with 635k so it was below that at least.0 -
maudgonner wrote: »This just seems bizarre to me. Why would people not watch just because they know what happens in the end? It's a running joke about Titanic, "why would I want to watch that, I know the ship sinks in the end" - if you do a competent job of telling the story, knowing the ending shouldn't be a problem. If you build empathy with a set of characters, knowing they're facing their doom would only heighten the emotion. Have you watched the TG4 series? The execution scenes tug at the heartstrings every time (even though you know in advance each ep will end with an execution and they present it the same way in every episode)
And this:
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The only docudramas about the Rising I'm aware of are Insurrection and Rebel Heart. I've seen neither.
FWIW, I wasn't against the approach that RTE decided to take with this, an historical drama could have been great, IF they did a better job with it.
Did you watch Titanic? Its the same concept, fictional characters set against historical event. We don't know what will happen to these characters until the end. Its actually a very similar idea to Rebellion, Generation War and so on. Making fictional characters the centre of the drama.
Clearly you were looking for a docu-drama here as the TG4 ones are. ie dramatized programs about historical events and figures.
The concept behind Rebellion has been used time and again.
I know you might find Pearse etc interesting. I personally don't as I'm sure a lot of other people don't. We will be sick of Pearse and co by the end of this year. So one program that doesn't put Pearse front and centre wouldn't hurt.
I saw the first couple of Rebellion episodes but missed the last one. I thought it was fine, nothing wrong with it. If it was just about the lives of Pearse and the other ring leaders, I definitely 110% would not watch it cause that story is stale at this stage and there is only so many ways you can tell it...and its been done again and again.0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »As people have stated, the writer and RTE have gone down the "fictional drama set against historical events" approach. I don't really see any problem with this approach, its well tried, eg Generation War. They could have gone down the historically accurate portrayal of historical figures. There would be two main issues with this approach. 1. Its been done to death, we all know how it turned out. It would leave very little to anticipate. I don't even think such an approach would garner many viewers because most people would know in advance how it turned out. 2. The historical anoraks would have a field day, eg. Pearse combed his hair the other way, there is no record of Connolly saying this, Clarke wore something else on the day of the Rising.
The main fault I would see with Rebellion is it aims to please everyone, appeal to drama fans like Downton Abbey, but also history fans, fans of Pearse and so on.
As for Michael Collins, he was a more interesting character than probably all the Rising leaders, and possibly a more tragic one. Collins had potential as a long term leader, future Taoiseach even. He was part of the Treaty negotiations, arguably sold out by Dev and of course you had the romantic side. His story has dramatic value in a way I don't think Pearse does.
Collins undoubtedly would have been Taoiseach and a better one than De Valera. He had less baggage than Dev, was less idealistic and would have been far more pragmatic in dealing with the British post-independence. Then again, the Irish public did vote Dev in for decades, so perhaps they got the leader and country they deserved.0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »
I know you might find Pearse etc interesting. I personally don't as I'm sure a lot of other people don't. We will be sick of Pearse and co by the end of this year. So one program that doesn't put Pearse front and centre wouldn't hurt.
I saw the first couple of Rebellion episodes but missed the last one. I thought it was fine, nothing wrong with it. If it was just about the lives of Pearse and the other ring leaders, I definitely 110% would not watch it cause that story is become stale at this stage and there is only so many ways you can tell it...and its been done again and again.
Pretty sure TV3 and TG4's offerings will focus on the leaders. One of them will anyway as it's based on the idea that they were all actually given a fair trial and how that would have played out.0 -
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »There's only the one entry for Charlie in the Top 20 so it must have dropped some distance. Room to Improve was at 20 with 635k so it was below that at least.
Being blunt, a lot of people realised Charlie was not up to much and ditched it after the first episode.0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »Did you watch Titanic? Its the same concept, fictional characters set against historical event. We don't know what will happen to these characters until the end. Its actually a very similar idea to Rebellion, Generation War and so on. Making fictional characters the centre of the drama.
Clearly you were looking for a docu-drama here as the TG4 ones are. ie dramatized programs about historical events and figures.
The concept behind Rebellion has been used time and again.
I know you might find Pearse etc interesting. I personally don't as I'm sure a lot of other people don't. We will be sick of Pearse and co by the end of this year. So one program that doesn't put Pearse front and centre wouldn't hurt.
I saw the first couple of Rebellion episodes but missed the last one. I thought it was fine, nothing wrong with it. If it was just about the lives of Pearse and the other ring leaders, I definitely 110% would not watch it cause that story is stale at this stage and there is only so many ways you can tell it...and its been done again and again.
The TG4 docudramas are really well made but what nobody is mentioning is that the viewership for them was tiny, very few people have actually seen them.
Rebellion is entertainment first and foremost, a fictional drama set against real life events and with some of the real characters included but not centre stage.0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »If you think Pearse for example would have made for an interesting dramatic lead character, you are sadly mistaken. His role in Rebellion just about matches his dramatic value. The guy had few if any romantic interests in life, and was basically just an ultra nationalist. He was a lot less "three dimensional" than the lead characters in this drama, as were most of the leaders who were also either ultra nationalist or ultra socialist with little time for anything else. We all know their story, its been rammed down our throats since childhood. It was time to look at a new perspective. There will be plenty of documentaries to satisfy the historical anoraks I'm sure.
I would suggest you read Ruth Dudley Edwards biography of Patrick Pearse. She takes a negative view but I am came away from her book with the view that Pearse is a character ready made for drama. Tall handsome intense noble a gifted orator and writer full of fearless old school masculinity but kind and loving and gentle in private. The story of his dead lover Eveleen Nicholls is touching and romantic - they were both from an Anglo Irish background but met when they both studied Irish in Connemara. She refused to leave her infirm mother rather than marry him wjen he proposed and then drowned when swimming at the Blasket Islands.0 -
Being blunt, a lot of people realised Charlie was not up to much and ditched it after the first episode.
Seemingly so. Still, the figures show that Rebellion has been a relative success by RTE's own standards.The TG4 docudramas are really well made but what nobody is mentioning is that the viewership for them was tiny, very few people have actually seen them.
Rebellion is entertainment first and foremost, a fictional drama set against real life events and with some of the real characters included but not centre stage.
That's the problem though, people moaning that the focus should have been on the leaders and basically what they're looking for already exists but because it was on TG4 got very little attention.0 -
josephryan1989 wrote: »I would suggest you read Ruth Dudley Edwards biography of Patrick Pearse. She takes a negative view but I am came away from her book with the view that Pearse is a character ready made for drama. Tall handsome intense noble a gifted orator and writer full of fearless old school masculinity but kind and loving and gentle in private. The story of his dead lover Eveleen Nicholls is touching and romantic - they were both from an Anglo Irish background but met when they both studied Irish in Connemara. She refused to leave her infirm mother rather than marry him wjen he proposed and then drowned when swimming at the Blasket Islands.
Fair enough. But still, the ending would be predictable. Also, the leaders spent most of the Rising stuck in the GPO. I'd have no issue with a drama about the leaders. But does every drama about the Rising have to have the leaders as the "stars". The Rising involved thousands of people on both sides and civilians too. Surely they deserve a mention or some of the focus, not as mere extras but front and centre. I think this is the approach the writer has taken, and rightly so.0 -
Collins undoubtedly would have been Taoiseach and a better one than De Valera. He had less baggage than Dev, was less idealistic and would have been far more pragmatic in dealing with the British post-independence. Then again, the Irish public did vote Dev in for decades, so perhaps they got the leader and country they deserved.
Undoubtedly? Collins was well on his way to becoming a military tyrant like Mussolini when he was thankfully shot. The Dublin Guard and his Squad were his praetorians and his designated successor was Eoin O'Duffy. He betrayed Ireland when he signed the Treaty without consulting with President DeValera. He followed the orders of the British when he shelled the Four Courts and if he had lived he probably would have presided over the executions of the 77 Republicans just as Richard Mulcahy did when he took command.
De Valera completed the Irish Revolution when he stood up to the British during the Economic War doing away with annuities and getting back our ports dismantled the Free State and introduced Bunreacht na hEireann in 1937 and kept us out of World War 2 avoiding an Anglo-American military occupation like that in Iceland and Greenland.0 -
Advertisement
-
josephryan1989 wrote: »I would suggest you read Ruth Dudley Edwards biography of Patrick Pearse. She takes a negative view but I am came away from her book with the view that Pearse is a character ready made for drama. Tall handsome intense noble a gifted orator and writer full of fearless old school masculinity but kind and loving and gentle in private. The story of his dead lover Eveleen Nicholls is touching and romantic - they were both from an Anglo Irish background but met when they both studied Irish in Connemara. She refused to leave her infirm mother rather than marry him wjen he proposed and then drowned when swimming at the Blasket Islands.
Must say too I've enjoyed the Rebellion version of Pearse. Sure, the portrayal is a little negative in terms of his politics but they do capture the natural charisma of the man and his powers of oratory. Even physically it's a good effort, the actor being tall and imposing and with a presence about him.0 -
josephryan1989 wrote: »Undoubtedly? Collins was well on his way to becoming a military tyrant like Mussolini when he was thankfully shot. The Dublin Guard and his Squad were his praetorians and his designated successor was Eoin O'Duffy. He betrayed Ireland when he signed the Treaty without consulting with President DeValera. He followed the orders of the British when he shelled the Four Courts and if he had lived he probably would have presided over the executions of the 77 Republicans just as Richard Mulcahy did when he took command.
De Valera completed the Irish Revolution when he stood up to the British during the Economic War doing away with annuities and getting back our ports dismantled the Free State and introduced Bunreacht na hEireann in 1937 and kept us out of World War 2 avoiding an Anglo-American military occupation like that in Iceland and Greenland.
Riiighttt..:rolleyes:
We'd still be part of the British Empire if it was ultimately left to Dev. He was hopeless as a military commander, whereas Collins ruthlessness forced the British to the negotiating table. Once Collins had secured independence, Dev then came into his own, only after vacillating for a number of years. He was a dab hand at executing IRA men himself by the way. But all this is irrelevant to this thread so I'm not going down that route. You are entitled to your views, I just disagree with them.0 -
josephryan1989 wrote: »Undoubtedly? Collins was well on his way to becoming a military tyrant like Mussolini when he was thankfully shot. The Dublin Guard and his Squad were his praetorians and his designated successor was Eoin O'Duffy. He betrayed Ireland when he signed the Treaty without consulting with President DeValera. He followed the orders of the British when he shelled the Four Courts and if he had lived he probably would have presided over the executions of the 77 Republicans just as Richard Mulcahy did when he took command.
De Valera completed the Irish Revolution when he stood up to the British during the Economic War doing away with annuities and getting back our ports dismantled the Free State and introduced Bunreacht na hEireann in 1937 and kept us out of World War 2 avoiding an Anglo-American military occupation like that in Iceland and Greenland.
Wasn't Collins effectively head of state when he was assassinated in 1922 and Dev in the political wilderness?. Not sure how Dev could have turned things around from there and become Taoiseach a few years later.0 -
josephryan1989 wrote: »Undoubtedly? Collins was well on his way to becoming a military tyrant like Mussolini when he was thankfully shot. The Dublin Guard and his Squad were his praetorians and his designated successor was Eoin O'Duffy. He betrayed Ireland when he signed the Treaty without consulting with President DeValera. He followed the orders of the British when he shelled the Four Courts and if he had lived he probably would have presided over the executions of the 77 Republicans just as Richard Mulcahy did when he took command.
De Valera completed the Irish Revolution when he stood up to the British during the Economic War doing away with annuities and getting back our ports dismantled the Free State and introduced Bunreacht na hEireann in 1937 and kept us out of World War 2 avoiding an Anglo-American military occupation like that in Iceland and Greenland.
Go away out of that with your revisionist history.0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »Did you watch Titanic? Its the same concept, fictional characters set against historical event. We don't know what will happen to these characters until the end. Its actually a very similar idea to Rebellion, Generation War and so on. Making fictional characters the centre of the drama.
Clearly you were looking for a docu-drama here as the TG4 ones are. ie dramatized programs about historical events and figures.
I'm well aware of what the Titanic concept was, I only used that joke to illustrate how bizarre I found your claim that a story can't have dramatic tension if we know how it will end.
Seachtar na Cásca was more of a documentary series with some dramatic reconstructions. The bulk of the content was talking-head interviews.
And if you actually read my post, you would see that I was not against the idea of a historical drama set against the background of the Rising, I just feel they've done a poor job of it.0 -
-
It is strange to me RTE is not afraid to portray Irish patriots getting tortured. I have not yet seen 12 Years A Slave but I am to understand the torture scenes are themselves quite disconcerting. A problem I have seems to be they show this in excruciating detail, nobody complains about this but a military style enactment pf the battle would appear to most as being too much of appealing to a niche audience. I conclude then that we have become a society that enjoys watching people getting tortured.0
-
It's interesting that most posters here are into their history. Some of my friends aren't interested in history and have struggled to follow certain parts. If they were to follow historical characters, then this would be even more keenly felt. There are just too many of them. Somebody suggested a few pages back how it would be great to have a scene where the o'rahilly shows up saying he's going to fight. That's fine if you've a decent knowledge of 1916 but for the casual viewer, they wouldn't have a clue who he was! And there's a hell of a lot to fit in without fitting in his back story as well. I'm not sure it would be too feasible to follow historical characters.
I like this show. It's not as good as strumpet City which I think probably portrays Dublin of that time better and has some wonderfully memorable characters. I'll always remember rashers tierney. However, I doubt I will remember any of the characters of rebellion in 10 years time. In saying that, I think it's a decent show and am curious to what happens them. I will certainly watch to the end and based on previous episodes, will probably enjoy it.
My verdict: good, watchable but not up to the standard of strumpet City.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »It is strange to me RTE is not afraid to portray Irish patriots getting tortured. I have not yet seen 12 Years A Slave but I am to understand the torture scenes are themselves quite disconcerting. A problem I have seems to be they show this in excruciating detail, nobody complains about this but a military style enactment pf the battle would appear to most as being too much of appealing to a niche audience. I conclude then that we have become a society that enjoys watching people getting tortured.
...... what?
Nobody has been tortured.0 -
Advertisement
-
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »...... what?
Nobody has been tortured.
Tom Clarke was tortured and so was your man Gleeson's son given an awful beating than hugged.0
Advertisement