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

HeidiHeidi

josephryan1989 wrote: »

As I said women were in secondary roles. You just confirmed what I said. Men did the killing which is what counts.

:eek:

josephryan1989

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I think they used Connolly's execution quite well in Rebellion. It wasn't going to make you cry but they obviously weren't trying to use it in that way.
What it did do well was show just how brutal the British reaction was that they took a dying man from hospital and tied him to a chair so he could be shot.
It may not make people cry but it made me angry to see it played out. I'm sure it would shock people unfamiliar with the story too.

Where were the sandbags to prevent ricocheting bullets which would have killed the firing squad?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

iguana wrote: »

And as much as I'm normally happy to see Dev's failings pointed out, if he vomited upon being told that the execution he was expecting any minute wasn't going to happen, that would be understandable and not a sign of his weakness.

The thing is they didn't have Dev throw up and then every one turn to point and laugh at him for it. It was an understandable reaction. People seem to have decided for themselves that it was a dig at him. Jimmy's only comments to him were about not sending backup and the other soldier made it clear there were plenty of men still firmly behind Dev. The reaction to it has been weird, they seems a sensitive bunch, Dev fans.

josephryan1989 wrote: »

As I said women were in secondary roles. You just confirmed what I said. Men did the killing which is what counts. The fantasy figure of Frances did not exist.

And who would the men have been killing if the women hadn't been gathering intelligence? And what would they have killed them with if the women hadn't been running guns and ammunition for them? And where would they have hidden themselves after they'd killed someone if the women hadn't been operating safe houses?

Some army that would have been.

Your issue with Frances is bizarre. Women were involved in the fighting during the Rising which is what we saw Frances doing. They haven't made a second series set during the War of Independence so you have no idea what they'd have her doing there and yet you're already up in arms about it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Where were the sandbags to prevent ricocheting bullets which would have killed the firing squad?

Off with Frances performing as a drag act.

iguana

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The thing is they didn't have Dev throw up and then every one turn to point and laugh at him for it. It was an understandable reaction. People seem to have decided for themselves that it was a dig at him. Jimmy's only comments to him were about not sending backup and the other soldier made it clear there were plenty of men still firmly behind Dev. The reaction to it has been weird, they seems a sensitive bunch, Dev fans.

There was a bit when the prisoners were leaving prison to go to the docks when one of the Volunteers tells Jimmy not to criticise Dev. He said it about not sending back up but also that Jimmy was telling people that Dev 'lost it' when the execution was cancelled. So we don't see Jimmy being derisive over Dev throwing up but we are told that he was and that he was sharing his derision with other prisoners. I'll also go out on a limb and say that I'm 99.999% sure that Dev was never marched out for execution, left hanging around for a bit then told he wouldn't be shot after all. So it was a weird scene to put in. I can understand why they made up that sequence of events to add drama to Jimmy's story. But sticking Dev in and having him vomit seems a bit 'personal' to me and I can't stand the man.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

iguana wrote: »

There was a bit when the prisoners were leaving prison to go to the docks when one of the Volunteers tells Jimmy not to criticise Dev. He said it about not sending back up but also that Jimmy was telling people that Dev 'lost it' when the execution was cancelled. So we don't see Jimmy being derisive over Dev throwing up but we are told that he was and that he was sharing his derision with other prisoners. I'll also go out on a limb and say that I'm 99.999% sure that Dev was never marched out for execution, left hanging around for a bit then told he wouldn't be shot after all. So it was a weird scene to put in. I can understand why they made up that sequence of events to add drama to Jimmy's story. But sticking Dev in and having him vomit seems a bit 'personal' to me and I can't stand the man.

I thought Jimmy said about not sending backup and then mentioned that others were saying he'd lost it back at the Mill during the Rising, which I thought there were some reports of at the time. Either was I thought they did a pretty good job of showing there was already a split in opinion when it came to Dev without painting him as the bad guy.

It's one of those things people are almost born with an opinion of, so I found it interesting to see how quickly people jumped to defend Dev after this episode despite the fact they didn't pain him in all that poor a light and made it clear he had a lot of support.

I suppose they didn't have to march them out to be shot like that or have him throw up. Jimmy could have encountered him in the cell and had the same conversation with him when they were being relocated.

iguana

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I thought Jimmy said about not sending backup and then mentioned that others were saying he'd lost it back at the Mill during the Rising, which I thought there were some reports of at the time. Either was I thought they did a pretty good job of showing there was already a split in opinion when it came to Dev without painting him as the bad guy.

It's one of those things people are almost born with an opinion of, so I found it interesting to see how quickly people jumped to defend Dev after this episode despite the fact they didn't pain him in all that poor a light and made it clear he had a lot of support.

Maybe I'm mixing it up. I have to admit that by that point in the episode I was checking the time every few minutes wonder how much was left of it. I thought he was referring to him having lost it when he vomited because I found it a strange scene to include.

Weirdly in school I would have been a "Dev fan." Possibly because my great-grandfather was involved in the War of Independence and was very faithful to Dev. It was only as an adult when I started to read up about him that I did a complete 180 on him. He certainly had his admirable moments and was a clever man but he forced his conservatism on the country to a damaging extent, was very self-serving and quite the con-man at times.

Strazdas

iguana wrote: »

Connolly wasn't a major character but Jimmy was and he was supposed to have been an important commander of Connolly's. His execution should have been shown to audience through Jimmy's reaction, especially considering that Jimmy was also sentenced to the same fate. Instead we got Jimmy's cancelled execution to serve no other purpose than to stick the boot into Dev. And as much as I'm normally happy to see Dev's failings pointed out, if he vomited upon being told that the execution he was expecting any minute wasn't going to happen, that would be understandable and not a sign of his weakness.

Additionally Elizabeth was also shown interacting with Connolly and of all of the executed leaders, his was the one she would have been most upset by. Then even contrast that with the death of her father if they still felt a need to stick in that particular trope. Instead we got Ingrid, a thoroughly pointless character listening to the shots, then a wide shot of her on her knees praying followed by a close up of her standing again looking as if no time had passed praying on her knees. Something that didn't work on a stylistic, emotional or dramatic level. It was first year film student stuff.

Actually that's a fair point, it might have been a good idea to show the outrage at Connolly's killing among one or two of the main characters, as it seems everyone in Dublin was revulsed at the news.

I too don't think that Dev throwing up was the negative that people seem to have interpreted it as. It sounds like a perfectly normal human reaction. Also Dev seems to be far from a bloodthirsty character in this series and more the cerebral type : that's far from a negative in my book.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

It feels like with Dev and a few others there are people who are just on high alert the whole time. The second they hear the name mentioned they're armed and ready to defend.

I think, like with most of the real characters, they portrayed them as human and flawed and although most people can step back and look at these events with an open mind there are still some who can't/won't.

Worst case scenario here is that they were implying Dev was a wimp. But they also implied there were men willing to kill for him which shows he was still a hugely respected leader. Having the fictional character express a dislike of him shouldn't upset people that much either. It's not like they had the other leaders passing notes about him or making him eat lunch on his own in the toilets

amdublin

We are drifting off topic again.

Last few posts have been deleted - as per MrE's warning.

For those who would like to discuss Dev etc the History & Heritage forum is the place for it.

As before all off topic/drifting off topic posts will be deleted. An fyi not to waste your time typing them!

iguana

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Worst case scenario here is that they were implying Dev was a wimp. But they also implied there were men willing to kill for him which shows he was still a hugely respected leader. Having the fictional character express a dislike of him shouldn't upset people that much either. It's not like they had the other leaders passing notes about him or making him eat lunch on his own in the toilets

Which is fine except that from a dramatic point of view there were so many things they could have done with Jimmy facing and surviving an execution that would have been about furthering Jimmy's character. While also experiencing Connolly's death through the eyes of the characters he would have mattered to and who should have mattered to the audience. Connolly, Markievicz, Jimmy and Elizabeth were all Citizens Army and we saw those characters interact and mean something to each other. Connolly's execution and Markievicz' sentencing should have affected Jimmy and Elizabeth deeply. And through their eyes, we should have cared too.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

iguana wrote: »

Which is fine except that from a dramatic point of view there were so many things they could have done with Jimmy facing and surviving an execution that would have been about furthering Jimmy's character. While also experiencing Connolly's death through the eyes of the characters he would have mattered to and who should have mattered to the audience. Connolly, Markievicz, Jimmy and Elizabeth were all Citizens Army and we saw those characters interact and mean something to each other. Connolly's execution and Markievicz' sentencing should have affected Jimmy and Elizabeth deeply. And through their eyes, we should have cared too.

I don't disagree with any of that. I was just pointing out the way Dev was portrayed was nowhere near as bad as some people seem to think and could have been much worse.

I didn't feel like anything was at stake for any of the characters other than Arthur really. Not even their personal relationships. I expected that from the first episode though when they spent 5 minutes with them before launching straight into Easter 1916.

That all comes down to time constraints/not great writing. I hesitate to call it bad because I can't assume I could have done any better with it but it does seem like they tried to do too much in too little time. They either needed more episodes or tighter focus on fewer characters.

I mentioned before I was curious to see what would happen to them but I can't say I was that bothered about what happened to any of them, other than Arthur.

Actually, focusing on Arthur could have been an interesting way to go. I suppose people would have jumped to compare it to The Wind That Shakes the Barley if it was solely about 2 brothers.

maudgonner

In addition to the series' own faults, I reckon RTE's scheduling of it didn't help.

I'm not sure whether it was a lack of promotion or the fact that it was on so soon after the Christmas & New Years period, but a lot of people were taken by surprise, even missed the first episode. There certainly didn't seem to be a build-up of anticipation that you'd hope for with the flagship series of the year. It seems to me that Charlie had much more of a build-up. It's hard to build a buzz for a series that debuts on the 3rd January - you're fighting with Christmas and New Years' schedules for space in the papers/tv magazines etc.

On top of that, Rebellion was really the first of the TV offerings for the 1916 commemorations (TG4 aside). It's only now that the documentaries are starting to be shown on RTE. I think if the documentaries had been shown first the audience would have been much better informed and the history buffs would have been more satisfied. It would have whetted the appetite for Rebellion and set the stage for it.

Instead there was always a little bit of a feeling of "is this it?", is this all they're going to show of the Rising? A few glimpses of the leaders, no in-depth perspective on the causes or the results? If that all had been provided in a different programme/series, I think it would have benefitted Rebellion greatly. And the series could just have been what it was intended to be - a drama set against the backdrop of the Rising, rather than trying to tell the story of the Rising.

(I do understand that it's a balancing act - leave it too late and we're all sick of hearing about 1916, but I think they could have found a middle ground)

Strazdas

maudgonner wrote: »

In addition to the series' own faults, I reckon RTE's scheduling of it didn't help.

I'm not sure whether it was a lack of promotion or the fact that it was on so soon after the Christmas & New Years period, but a lot of people were taken by surprise, even missed the first episode. There certainly didn't seem to be a build-up of anticipation that you'd hope for with the flagship series of the year. It seems to me that Charlie had much more of a build-up. It's hard to build a buzz for a series that debuts on the 3rd January - you're fighting with Christmas and New Years' schedules for space in the papers/tv magazines etc.

On top of that, Rebellion was really the first of the TV offerings for the 1916 commemorations (TG4 aside). It's only now that the documentaries are starting to be shown on RTE. I think if the documentaries had been shown first the audience would have been much better informed and the history buffs would have been more satisfied. It would have whetted the appetite for Rebellion and set the stage for it.

Instead there was always a little bit of a feeling of "is this it?", is this all they're going to show of the Rising? A few glimpses of the leaders, no in-depth perspective on the causes or the results? If that all had been provided in a different programme/series, I think it would have benefitted Rebellion greatly. And the series could just have been what it was intended to be - a drama set against the backdrop of the Rising, rather than trying to tell the story of the Rising.

(I do understand that it's a balancing act - leave it too late and we're all sick of hearing about 1916, but I think they could have found a middle ground)

The ratings have been absolutely fine though. As I mentioned last night, they have followed a very similar trajectory to War And Peace on BBC1 and that has been deemed a big success.

I've a feeling too the series was always going to court controversy no matter when it was shown. I wouldn't have guessed there were so many traditionalists or "non revisionists" out there who have very strong opinions about the Rising, but it seems there are going by the reaction across all platforms.

maudgonner

Strazdas wrote: »

The ratings have been absolutely fine though. As I mentioned last night, they have followed a very similar trajectory to War And Peace on BBC1 and that has been deemed a big success.

I've a feeling too the series was always going to court controversy no matter when it was shown. I wouldn't have guessed there were so many traditionalists or "non revisionists" out there who have very strong opinions about the Rising, but it seems there are going by the reaction across all platforms.

Ep 1 ratings were a good bit lower than Charlie, which I would have expected it to eclipse easily (it's difficult to compare what with time shift & consolidation, but the most commonly quoted industry numbers put Charlie at 20-25% more viewers for Ep1) and Love/Hate S1Ep1 (which is surely what they will have been aiming at).

And it's not just about ratings, as we've heard over and over in this thread It's about buzz. I would have expected weeks of hype building up to this, to the point where you wish Ep 1 would just hurry up and start already. Maybe I just don't watch enough Irish tv, but I didn't feel that was the case.

Strazdas

maudgonner wrote: »

Ep 1 ratings were a good bit lower than Charlie, which I would have expected it to eclipse easily (it's difficult to compare what with time shift & consolidation, but the most commonly quoted industry numbers put Charlie at 20-25% more viewers for Ep1) and Love/Hate S1Ep1 (which is surely what they will have been aiming at).

And it's not just about ratings, as we've heard over and over in this thread It's about buzz. I would have expected weeks of hype building up to this, to the point where you wish Ep 1 would just hurry up and start already. Maybe I just don't watch enough Irish tv, but I didn't feel that was the case.

Perhaps people were expecting way too much. The fact that RTE were producing a drama series about the Rising was common knowledge for over a year and also that it would be one of the highlights of their 1916 coverage. It seems though that people were expecting some sort of epic drama that would be full of 'water cooler moments' and that it would take the ratings by storm. This was wholly unrealistic for any new drama series (even Love Hate took a long while to get going and it certainly wasn't averaging 1m viewers an episode in the early days).

So with that type of crazy expectation about a new drama series, it's hardly a wonder that what we actually got was deemed a big disappointment by the media hacks and social media types (and as soon as they heard the words "ratings are falling", this was even more ammunition for them). Personally I think the savaging Rebellion is getting is extremely unfair. It's not an outstanding drama series but it's not bad at all either. I could easily imagine watching it on BBC1 and thinking it was a pretty decent effort by the Beeb.

jmcc

Strazdas, you should get an OBE or the Montrose equivalent for your insanely optimistic promotion of the series. RTE should definitely offer you a job in its PR department.

The media hacks are always behind the curve when it comes to reviewing programmes and few people even bother reading their wibbling now. The people discussing this series on Social Media are driving the issue and it does seem that the series is considered to be badly written, ahistorical, a waste of money and opportunity. The people on Social Media whom you seem to want to ignore are the audience. They are people who watched it. They are people who paid for it.

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

Strazdas, you should get an OBE or the Montrose equivalent for your insanely optimistic promotion of the series. RTE should definitely offer you a job in its PR department.

The media hacks are always behind the curve when it comes to reviewing programmes and few people even bother reading their wibbling now. The people discussing this series on Social Media are driving the issue and it does seem that the series is considered to be badly written, ahistorical, a waste of money and opportunity. The people on Social Media whom you seem to want to ignore are the audience. They are people who watched it. They are people who paid for it.

Regards...jmcc

The ratings for the entire were fine though. Not a big ratings winner but fine for the first series of a TV drama nonetheless. I would have thought too there are far more options to describe a drama series than either "outstanding success" or "huge disappointment" which seems to be the simplistic approach the hacks and the social media brigade have gone for. Even RTE's managing director admitted last week that the show is from perfect and some aspects of it haven't worked.

The Rape of Lucretia

And a lot of people posting here enjoyed and thought the series, while it had some weaknesses, overall had merit and was enjoyable. Some like it some didnt.
Chaqun à...

It is curious though that the strongest reaction seems to be from those who didnt, and that not only did they not like it, but have an issue with and that others did. Its almost as if they would be disappointed if the programme were good and universally praised.

The Rape of Lucretia

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I was wondering this myself as quite a few of the other series people have been using to compare Rebellion to, War & Peace, Strumpet City, Brideshead Revisited, Band of Brothers, were based on pre existing and mostly quite successful novels.

Interesting observation alright. Add in the other standard Brit TV classics like Pride and Prejudice, The Forsyte Saga, I Claudius and there seems to be a case. If so, TV series not based on pre-existing, preferably classic books looks like a very big ask. Serious kudos to the writers of Rebellion in that case for pulling off an upper medium success.

Strazdas

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

And a lot of people posting here enjoyed and thought the series, while it had some weaknesses, overall had merit and was enjoyable. Some like it some didnt.
Chaqun à...

It is curious though that the strongest reaction seems to be from those who didnt, and that not only did they not like it, but have an issue with and that others did. Its almost as if they would be disappointed if the programme were good and universally praised.

The main reason I'm defending it is because I enjoyed it overall and yet I see a lot of mentions in the media of it being "risible", "abysmal", "boring" etc as if theirs is the last word on the subject and the entire series can be summed up in one word (and ignoring the fact that half a million viewers a week were watching it and presumably enjoying it).

The Rape of Lucretia

Strazdas wrote: »

half a million viewers a week were watching it and presumably enjoying it

A portion that half million seem to have been enjoying not enjoying it.
Mondo bizzarro. Gente bizzarra.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I notice a lot of the media seem to want to bury this program. They're not content with writing a critical review they want to eviscerate it. Instead of pointing out the flaws or suggesting where it could have been better they've torn into it and everyone involved. It is a very strange reaction that they have to Irish TV.
I don't particularly like RTÉ, I very rarely watch anything on it, I don't appreciate how much of the license fee they get compared to the other stations, especially TG4, but I don't feel the need to attack everyone whose ever even had lunch in the RTÉ canteen just because a TV series wasn't as good as it could have been.

I saw the same thing happen with The Fall, not so much the media there but online. People were under the illusion RTÉ were far more involved in that than they were and took great joy in criticising it and pulling it to shreds. Again, there were some issues with the second series but people were complaining about it from the first episode, pointing out all the things that didn't make sense even though there were still 5 episodes left to explain things. Often I found the people that were rushing to post their complaints while the episode was airing and it was obvious from what they were posting they weren't paying attention.

I don't know.... it's a very weird world we live in these days.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

double post

maudgonner

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Interesting observation alright. Add in the other standard Brit TV classics like Pride and Prejudice, The Forsyte Saga, I Claudius and there seems to be a case. If so, TV series not based on pre-existing, preferably classic books looks like a very big ask. Serious kudos to the writers of Rebellion in that case for pulling off an upper medium success.

You might need to qualify that, sure there are more historical dramas based on existing books, but the vast, vast majority of TV series are based on original material. Historical drama tends to rely more on novels, partly because of the amount of research that must/should go into a series of that type. And it's always going to be less of a risk to make a series based on characters/plots that are already proven successful. The BBC, in particular, tends to make adaptations. That's partly because of their public service remit - it's seen as worthwhile programming to produce TV versions of classic literature. They also have Andrew Davies scripting most of them, he is a master of literary adaptations.

But if every TV writer fell back on that strategy the whole industry would stagnate. So I don't think that it's a "very big ask" to make a successful series based on original content. I don't even accept that it's a very big ask to make an original historical drama, just more of a challenge. But there are a number of dramas, particularly on US TV in recent years, that pull it off incredibly well: Deadwood, Boardwalk Empire (inspired by a book, but it's a pretty loose connection), Mad Men, Masters of Sex, Rome. And I'd may as well throw it in the mix, although I'm almost scared to mention its name in this thread , Downton Abbey.

maudgonner

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I notice a lot of the media seem to want to bury this program. They're not content with writing a critical review they want to eviscerate it. Instead of pointing out the flaws or suggesting where it could have been better they've torn into it and everyone involved. It is a very strange reaction that they have to Irish TV.
I don't particularly like RTÉ, I very rarely watch anything on it, I don't appreciate how much of the license fee they get compared to the other stations, especially TG4, but I don't feel the need to attack everyone whose ever even had lunch in the RTÉ canteen just because a TV series wasn't as good as it could have been.

I saw the same thing happen with The Fall, not so much the media there but online. People were under the illusion RTÉ were far more involved in that than they were and took great joy in criticising it and pulling it to shreds. Again, there were some issues with the second series but people were complaining about it from the first episode, pointing out all the things that didn't make sense even though there were still 5 episodes left to explain things. Often I found the people that were rushing to post their complaints while the episode was airing and it was obvious from what they were posting they weren't paying attention.

I don't know.... it's a very weird world we live in these days.

RTE definitely get a lot of stick online, not always deserved. (It's not just them either, the BBC come in for a huge amount of criticism in the UK. I suppose they're just seen as "the establishment"). In general you're going to get more criticism online than praise anyway, but there's definitely a lot of more attention when it comes to RTE productions.

They bring a lot of it on themselves by failing to respond to legitimate grievances - salaries of top staff being too high, lack of variety of presenters, it being a closed shop. But there's no denying that some of the stuff they produce is high quality. If Rebellion got a good reception abroad many people who are really critical now would turn very quiet, very quickly. TV3 productions get ridiculed, but we almost expect TV3 stuff to be low quality, it's quite a surprise when they produce something good. TG4 has niche viewership so it doesn't come in for major comment, and it's also seen as picking on the little guy to criticise their output, even though some of it is dire

As for the media reaction to Rebellion, I think there's definitely a bit of bandwagon jumping going on. There were plenty of positive reports in the leadup to and immediate aftermath of the first ep. But when public reaction wasn't positive they seemed to go with that and then just went more and more negative. That's fairly typical of the media though, and not just when it comes to TV reviews!

Strazdas

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I notice a lot of the media seem to want to bury this program. They're not content with writing a critical review they want to eviscerate it. Instead of pointing out the flaws or suggesting where it could have been better they've torn into it and everyone involved. It is a very strange reaction that they have to Irish TV.
I don't particularly like RTÉ, I very rarely watch anything on it, I don't appreciate how much of the license fee they get compared to the other stations, especially TG4, but I don't feel the need to attack everyone whose ever even had lunch in the RTÉ canteen just because a TV series wasn't as good as it could have been.

I saw the same thing happen with The Fall, not so much the media there but online. People were under the illusion RTÉ were far more involved in that than they were and took great joy in criticising it and pulling it to shreds. Again, there were some issues with the second series but people were complaining about it from the first episode, pointing out all the things that didn't make sense even though there were still 5 episodes left to explain things. Often I found the people that were rushing to post their complaints while the episode was airing and it was obvious from what they were posting they weren't paying attention.

I don't know.... it's a very weird world we live in these days.

I'm a bit puzzled by the media reaction. They seem determined to portray Rebellion as a flop and reacted almost with glee to the news that the ratings were down from Episode 3 onwards. It's a bit odd that they're all singing from the same hymn sheet and, in the words of Mrs Slocombe, are unanimous in their condemnation of it. I think Declan Lynch in the Sunday Indo has been one of the only ones to stick up for it.

Shurimgreat

Much of the Irish media are a joke to be honest, particularly when it comes to reviewing films, books, TV and the like.

Chick lit authors, Brendan O'Carroll and so on are darlings of the Irish media, while genuinely talented people are over-looked or ignored.

Like a number of posters here, I thought Rebellion was decent. Its main flaws lay in the fact it tried to please everyone and ended up pleasing no-one. It tried to cover too many characters, both real and fictional, and inevitably some people will say certain characters weren't covered enough.

Its faults lay in the ambitions of RTE rather than the writer, who possibly should have turned down the commission based on what RTE were offering.

I also think RTE should have looked for additional sources of funding. Why not a co-production with the BBC or some other channel?

6 million is a pittance when it comes to a major drama.

jmcc

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

And a lot of people posting here enjoyed and thought the series, while it had some weaknesses, overall had merit and was enjoyable. Some like it some didnt.
Chaqun à...

It is curious though that the strongest reaction seems to be from those who didnt, and that not only did they not like it, but have an issue with and that others did. Its almost as if they would be disappointed if the programme were good and universally praised.

And coming up on Marty In The Morning, more from the Red Priest. [1]

The point that you seem to be missing is that many of the people complaining about it are those who have had to pay for the thing through the damned licence fee.

Regards...jmcc
[1] Vivaldi's nickname was not due to wearing a red cape like Superman.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Its faults lay in the ambitions of RTE rather than the writer, who possibly should have turned down the commission based on what RTE were offering.

Do you know for certain that RTÉ approached him with a very specific brief rather than them just asking him to write something? Either way I suppose they had final say on it so you could blame them.

The thing that bugs me is that his last program for them, Charlie, didn't go down all that well and yet they trusted him with their flagship drama for 1916. That's typical of RTÉ, once you're in the door you're set up for life. They could/should have been prepping for this for years. An open tender process for scripts maybe, or at least spread the net a little wider.