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

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lt Dan wrote: »

1. De Valera.......

Blah blah blah....

We hashed this all out last week. I'm not getting into it all again.

Lt Dan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Blah blah blah....

We hashed this all out last week. I'm not getting into it all again.

If that is the case, why continue spewing out grossly ill informed and idiotic comments so?

You are a great fella for dishing it out, but you are not keen when you are called out .

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lt Dan wrote: »

You implied it. Any future show would be based on the War of Independence . So why utter their name?

"They'd have to include Dev banning the organisation too, just so people could complain about him being portrayed negatively"

For your information, Cumann na mBan were banned years later, but they continued to exist. Why? Their support for the IRA and later the Provisional IRA. Kinda easy to see why they would be banned

I mentioned the war of Independence AND the Civil War.

Then, in a completley different sentence I mentioned Dev trying to ban Cumann na mBan. I did not give any time frame for it. You inferred it yourself so you could have a rant.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lt Dan wrote: »

If that is the case, why continue spewing out grossly ill informed and idiotic comments so?

You are a great fella for dishing it out, but you are not keen when you are called out .

Called out on what? Nothing I said is factually incorrect. I don't even know what half of your replies are about. You just seem really angry about something.

And I haven't continued "spewing" out anything. Those posts you're replying to are from early last week.

Lt Dan

kabakuyu wrote: »

But it was a drama about a particular event in history, not series material IMO.
It has had very mixed reviews.
Lets have a new approach from a truly independent company and a new subject matter like the CW or WOI, there is enough talent in this country to produce a seminal Irish drama.:)

It can be done, lets put "Rebellion" to rest.

Civil War would not likely be done. That one is way too emotional and can not be trivalised by silly side stories. "The Facts" are also very muddled.


Doing something on the War of Independence would follow like Rebellion as some quarters won't be too happy with how important events are portrayed one way or the other, especially if British Production Companies (like in Rebellion) won't be too keen on showing houses burning etc or attacks on civilians. Where they so IRA attacking civilians there may be a legitimate complaint that the producers failed to show balance and show attacks by the British.... Revisionism will definitely occur and people will jump to comparisons of the Troubles years later.

Seen how Charlie and Rebellion panned out, I wouldn't have much hope for any further production on Irish events, especially from that writer

The Rape of Lucretia

Lt Dan wrote: »

Civil War would not likely be done. That one is way too emotional and can not be trivalised by silly side stories. "The Facts" are also very muddled.

While some of the most elderly may retain some emotional/irrational/biased/familytradition feeling for the civil war, they are few, and certainly not significant enough an issue to avoid making some TV entertainment on the topic.
Many Irish people today would have little knowledge of the events (witness even the film M Collins and TWTSTB being referenced as sources of info in this thread), and even the great majority, even if they do know some of the history, really would have no hangups one way or the other. Its just history, and may as well be the battle of Waterloo or D Day. Most of us probably couldnt give a monkey's about how this or that historical character is portrayed if it makes for good entertainment.
Its not really a hot potato that production companies would be concerned about upsetting people still fighting an idealogical battle.

kabakuyu

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Its all subjective Strazdas. Different people like different programs. I thought overall it was decent. I didn't know Steve Wall could act for example and yet he was pretty good, had the scheming detective look down to a tee. Whatever people might say about the plot, the acting was good all around with one or two exceptions, mainly lesser characters. The English characters were convincing, and probably outshone the Irish actors. The big fault was the shortage of time in developing the fictional characters. If the writer had been given a number of series this would be achieved. But he was only given 5 episodes and one mini series which made it very difficult.

I saw Steve in a couple of TG4 docu/dramas, he played Wellington in one if I recall correctly.

Lt Dan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I mentioned the war of Independence AND the Civil War.

Then, in a completley different sentence I mentioned Dev trying to ban Cumann na mBan. I did not give any time frame for it. You inferred it yourself so you could have a rant.

Cumann na mBan were not banned during the Irish Civil War either, so why mention them?

Your comment about watching TG4 show is in response to a discussion exclusively about the future plans to do a show on the War of Independence and why, according to one poster, women can't be portrayed in the same fashion as they were in Rebellion (which, you agree is nonsense) Civil War reference was a throwaway , ..........."(and Civil War)"

""They'd have to include Dev banning the organisation too, just so people could complain about him being portrayed negatively"" wink wink


You are not been attacked for historical inaccuracies. You are being attacked for the ignorance you have shown in your complete disdain in dismissing valid complaints on how De Valera was portrayed and you are putting up an admiral defence of the show , who clearly , whether intentional or not, set out to portray an actual historical character unfairly and inaccurate and facing him off against another historical character, when there was absolutely no need to do so, as neither were prominent during the Rebellion

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lt Dan wrote: »

Cumann na mBan were not banned during the Irish Civil War either, so why mention them?

I didn't say they were banned during either war. Maybe try fully reading my posts.

Your comment about watching TG4 show is in response to a discussion exclusively about the future plans to do a show on the War of Independence and why, according to one poster, women can't be portrayed in the same fashion as they were in Rebellion (which, you agree is nonsense) Civil War reference was a throwaway , ..........."(and Civil War)"

My quote about the TG4 documentary was in response to the poster that claimed women weren't involved in the war of independence so couldn't be featured in any potential future series of Rebellion. I pointed out how they were actually involved, a point you seem to agree on, so I am a bit confused as to why you still feel the need to argue with me about it?

""They'd have to include Dev banning the organisation too, just so people could complain about him being portrayed negatively"" wink wink

This was a) a joke and b) an issue brought up in that documentary. Dev didn't like Cumann na mBan and tried to have them banned. If that is incorrect feel free to write to TG4 and tell them.

You are not been attacked for historical inaccuracies. You are being attacked for the ignorance you have shown in your complete disdain in dismissing valid complaints on how De Valera was portrayed and you are putting up an admiral defence of the show , who clearly , whether intentional or not, set out to portray an actual historical character unfairly and inaccurate and facing him off against another historical character, when there was absolutely no need to do so, as neither were prominent during the Rebellion

1) I wasn't aware I was being attacked. I thought personal attacks were against the rules on boards. Must check that.

2) I didn't dismiss anyone's complaints about how Dev was portrayed. I simply offered an alternative viewpoint on it. I didn't, and still don't, think it was that big a deal. I thought, and still do, that you could interpret the scenes relating to Dev in different ways and your (not you personally) opinion may or may not be influenced by your preexisting feelings about Dev.

3) I, and others, discussed the probability that they included the Dev/Collins stuff in order to set up any potential future series, whether it focused on the war of Independence or the Civil war Dev and Collins, or the issues between them, would feature.So in that scenario it was necessary to include them.

I can't quite figure out what it is you're so worked up about.

Lt Dan

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

While some of the most elderly may retain some emotional/irrational/biased/familytradition feeling for the civil war, they are few, and certainly not significant enough an issue to avoid making some TV entertainment on the topic.
Many Irish people today would have little knowledge of the events (witness even the film M Collins and TWTSTB being referenced as sources of info in this thread), and even the great majority, even if they do know some of the history, really would have no hangups one way or the other. Its just history, and may as well be the battle of Waterloo or D Day. Most of us probably couldnt give a monkey's about how this or that historical character is portrayed if it makes for good entertainment.
Its not really a hot potato that production companies would be concerned about upsetting people still fighting an idealogical battle.

TV entertainment? What a ghastly comment to make. Nothing entertaining about the Irish Civil War. Oh, but, let us forget about other people so long as you all are entertained.

I have no qualms with a production provided it is clear, HONEST (warts and all, Rebellion was right to show the unsavory parts of the Rebels actions) and balanced. For some, that might mean it is boring and fact laden. There are no heroes and there certainly are no happy endings

Considering this writer got stopped by petitions of people who did not want his comedic take on The Famine, an event that is over 150 years old and am not so sure that people are ready yet (one must note that the Famine project was to be a comedy rather than a drama)


"Many Irish people today would have little knowledge of the events" Correct, you (partly) included, if your opening dismissive statement was to be taken in isolation.

There is a major difference between the Battle of Waterloo and D Day compared to The Irish Civil War. The former had purpose, where just and necessary and it is easy to make heros and villains out of those who participated. The same is not the case for the Irish Civil War , unless one is a simpleton. (not you)

Secondly, while many Irish fought at Waterloo and D Day (and some are still alive - D Day veterans that is) it happened abroad. Civil War happened in the Ireland. Most Irish people were affected, and everyone was affected by it's aftermaths, which was not pretty. Civil War politics which went on right up to the late 1990's is not fun

Until very very very recently , the effects of the Civil War were still clear in Irish life.

Like the Famine, Civil War is a period people try to push under the carpet. You don't see people doing plays or films about The Famine do you? (maybe they should, but not for "entertainment" value) When the black community have done movies about epic moments of their history, is that taken seriously? You bet. Did they try to use artistic licence to get a few giggles or suspense ?..

Sure the Jewish community have done comedies on their history but they have a great sense of humour. However, the big serious stuff was taken seriously eg The Pianist , Oscar Schindler.....


" Most of us probably couldnt give a monkey's about how this or that historical character is portrayed if it makes for good entertainment. "

Wow, have you gone missed the core of the criticism on Rebellion ie historical inaccuracies .......... But if they had executed the fighting in Rebellion a bit better and maybe included more into the story to improve why the rebels acted in the way that they did , I would fully agree with you on that


"Its not really a hot potato that production companies would be concerned about upsetting people still fighting an idealogical battle"

What idealogical battle? People accept the partition of the country and just want to get on with things. Political Party loyality is not as strong as it use to be , people vote with their pockets. There is very little ideology within any of the current political parties bar getting the most votes. Whatever ideology there is, it is indistinguishable , even with Labour.

Civil War not being a hot potato, ha ha ha , okay, let's see about that.... How come there is no dramas about The Famine? Why did people get so up tight about a proposed Channel 4 comedy about the Famine by the same writer of Rebellion? Hey history is history.......

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lt Dan wrote: »

Considering this writer got stopped by petitions of people who did not want his comedic take on The Famine, an event that is over 150 years old and am not so sure that people are ready yet (one must note that the Famine project was to be a comedy rather than a drama)

Civil War not being a hot potato, ha ha ha , okay, let's see about that.... How come there is no dramas about The Famine? Why did people get so up tight about a proposed Channel 4 comedy about the Famine by the same writer of Rebellion? Hey history is history.......

It's not the same writer. It's a completely different person.

People got worked up about that idea because people like to get annoyed about things. They assumed it would be offensive and decided they'd try to put a stop to it before they even knew what it was about. Last I heard they were still planning on doing it.

Strazdas

Review of Episode 5 by John Boland in the Sunday Indo :

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-reviews/television-gay-snog-and-revolution-all-in-the-rebellion-mix-34424776.html

He does concede at the end (having bashed the show's main characters) that his main problem with the show was that it didn't put the leaders of the Rising centre stage. It seems many people wanted a docudrama about the Rising (and one that showed Pearse and Connolly in a good light) not a mini series set against the backdrop of the Rising.

fisgon

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Rebellion was subtle.

Agree. And this is one of the main reasons why there has been a lot of negativity towards the series. A lot of people don't like subtlety, it is threatening and forces you to engage with a drama and make your own mind up. Again, some people don't like this, they want to be entertained and led by the hand, as something like Downton does.

There seems to be an assumption among some commentators on this thread that Rebellion failed as a piece of TV, and I completely disagree.

I found it powerful, moving, innovative, educational, and really liked the approach of largely ignoring the leaders and focusing on the ordinary people in the Rising. If you want to know what the leaders did during 1916 then go to a history book or Wikipedia. There was literally no point at all in just portraying the events of Easter week like some kind of docu-drama. The production chose to take a sideways look at the rising, and succeeded completely.

The fact is, whatever RTE did with this was going to receive criticism. It is still a touchy subject, for Shinners it was never going to be republican enough, because they don't want drama, they want propaganda. And for many other Irish people we are just waiting for RTE to take a chance and do something creative so we can criticise it.

On this thread the amount of nit-picking is really extraordinary. Someone's accent was wrong, this historical detail wasn't exactly right, this one actor was terrible, where were Pearse and Connolly, desperately desperately trying to find some way of poking a hole in the series without just watching the thing and giving it a chance.

I don't think we are really aware of it, but we have a deep-seated need to criticise our own, so we can make ourselves feel better. I could have done better, we think, if only they had asked me what to do. That shower don't know what they are doing. The series never had a chance of a positive reception.

In my opinion Rebellion was superb, slow, subtle, moving, powerful. Would like to see something in the same vein about the War of Independence.

jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

Review of Episode 5 by John Boland in the Sunday Indo :

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-reviews/television-gay-snog-and-revolution-all-in-the-rebellion-mix-34424776.html

He does concede at the end (having bashed the show's main characters) that his main problem with the show was that it didn't put the leaders of the Rising centre stage. It seems many people wanted a docudrama about the Rising (and one that showed Pearse and Connolly in a good light) not a mini series set against the backdrop of the Rising.

He slammed the series. You do seem remarkably intent on promoting the series. Are you being paid to do this or are you just a zealous fan? The media reaction to the series has followed that of the public in that it has gone from high expectations to a kind of revulsion at the trite and cliche ridden writing.

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

He slammed the series. You do seem remarkably intent on promoting the series. Are you being paid to do this or are you just a zealous fan? The media reaction to the series has followed that of the public in that it has gone from high expectations to a kind of revulsion at the trite and cliche ridden writing.

Regards...jmcc

I'm the one posting a link to a highly negative review of the series where the writer spends 90% of the article bashing the show. In what way would that be me promoting Rebellion?!

Strazdas

fisgon wrote: »

Agree. And this is one of the main reasons why there has been a lot of negativity towards the series. A lot of people don't like subtlety, it is threatening and forces you to engage with a drama and make your own mind up. Again, some people don't like this, they want to be entertained and led by the hand, as something like Downton does.

There seems to be an assumption among some commentators on this thread that Rebellion failed as a piece of TV, and I completely disagree.

I found it powerful, moving, innovative, educational, and really liked the approach of largely ignoring the leaders and focusing on the ordinary people in the Rising. If you want to know what the leaders did during 1916 then go to a history book or Wikipedia. There was literally no point at all in just portraying the events of Easter week like some kind of docu-drama. The production chose to take a sideways look at the rising, and succeeded completely.

The fact is, whatever RTE did with this was going to receive criticism. It is still a touchy subject, for Shinners it was never going to be republican enough, because they don't want drama, they want propaganda. And for many other Irish people we are just waiting for RTE to take a chance and do something creative so we can criticise it.

On this thread the amount of nit-picking is really extraordinary. Someone's accent was wrong, this historical detail wasn't exactly right, this one actor was terrible, where were Pearse and Connolly, desperately desperately trying to find some way of poking a hole in the series without just watching the thing and giving it a chance.

I don't think we are really aware of it, but we have a deep-seated need to criticise our own, so we can make ourselves feel better. I could have done better, we think, if only they had asked me what to do. That shower don't know what they are doing. The series never had a chance of a positive reception.

In my opinion Rebellion was superb, slow, subtle, moving, powerful. Would like to see something in the same vein about the War of Independence.

The Irish Mirror quite accurately predicted that Rebellion was "bound to cause controversy" even before the series started and they were on the money. I think what they meant by that was that 1916 is a touchy subject in Ireland and perhaps there are good reasons why TV drama hasn't gone there before too often.

Agree completely that much of the criticism and commentary has been over the top (and I've a funny feeling that even an RTE docudrama about Pearse, Connolly et al would have been torn to shreds by the same purists).

fisgon

jmcc wrote: »

revulsion at the trite and cliche ridden writing.

This is part of what I was talking about above. I didn't see any trite or cliche-ridden writing. But as for "revulsion", I feel revulsion at certain things, but I can safely say that I have never felt it at a television programme.

This is evidence of the absurd hysterical use of language in describing this series, and the absolute determination of some people to hate this programme, whatever kind of series was produced. Let's be honest, if you feel "revulsion" after watching Rebellion, you would really need to look at your priorities.

Baggy Trousers

Please tell me it's not on again tonight? :eek:;)

Strazdas

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Please tell me it's not on again tonight? :eek:;)

Viewing of it was never compulsory to the best of my knowledge

LionelNashe

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Please tell me it's not on again tonight? :eek:;)

I just went to the RTE player to watch tonight's episode, and saw that there are no more episodes. I'm surprised. I didn't think that last week's had the feel of a series finale at all. I thought there were at least two more episodes.

Daenarys

LionelNashe wrote: »

I just went to the RTE player to watch tonight's episode, and saw that there are no more episodes. I'm surprised. I didn't think that last week's had the feel of a series finale at all. I thought there were at least two more episodes.

I watched last weeks finale tonight............what a let down. Makes me wonder why so much effort was put into the stories of all the families, it had the feel of a 10 part series with all the character development outside of the main guys Connolly, Pearse etc.

jmcc

fisgon wrote: »

This is part of what I was talking about above. I didn't see any trite or cliche-ridden writing.

Perhaps it didn't have it in big crayon drawn letters and so you missed it. It was filled with cliches and tropes. It was not good writing. That's why the audience, other than what now appear to be shills and fans, didn't particularly like it.

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas

Daenarys wrote: »

I watched last weeks finale tonight............what a let down. Makes me wonder why so much effort was put into the stories of all the families, it had the feel of a 10 part series with all the character development outside of the main guys Connolly, Pearse etc.

It seems that people wanted a docudrama featuring the leaders of the Rising, but I'm just thinking has there ever been a really successful TV docudrama series? I'm struggling hard to think of even one. Docudramas are invariably made as one off TV movies for starters : most historical TV dramas feature fictional characters just like Rebellion. Perhaps 'Edward and Mrs Simpson' on ITV in the 1970s is the only genuine example of a truly successful docudrama series.

All of which makes me think RTE were right not to go down the docudrama route. Such a series would probably have been panned by the critics or struggled in the ratings (or both).

fin12

Ya I thought rebellion was crap just wondering what was on rte 1 tonight instead of rebellion?

fin12

When is the documentary that liam neeson is going to be narrating going to be on?

Strazdas

fin12 wrote: »

Ya I thought rebellion was crap just wondering what was on rte 1 tonight instead of rebellion?

fin12 wrote: »

When is the documentary that liam neeson is going to be narrating going to be on?

Room To Improve with Dermot Bannon was on instead of Rebellion and the documentary starts at 9.30pm on Wednesday.

Daenarys

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm just thinking has there ever been a really successful TV docudrama series? I'm struggling hard to think of even one.

If you haven't seen it, Vikings is very successful. Docudrama on History channel, it's on RTE now too but the new series will be on History in a couple of weeks!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Daenarys wrote: »

If you haven't seen it, Vikings is very successful. Docudrama on History channel, it's on RTE now too but the new series will be on History in a couple of weeks!

Vikings isn't a docudrama, is it?

Daenarys

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Vikings isn't a docudrama, is it?

Why wouldn't it be? The Vikings did raid and pillage England, France etc. A docudrama is a dramatised tv/film based on real events. Fits the criteria in my opinion!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Daenarys wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be? The Vikings did raid and pillage England, France etc. A docudrama is a dramatized tv/film based on real events. Fits the criteria in my opinion!

I was thinking more of the TG4 series about The Rising that were basically documentaries with reenactments in them.