All seemed a bit predictable - not so much the story, but the characters, look of it etc.
Shall tune in once more to see how it goes.
It doesn't seem good enough to commit to, and not bad enough to watch for a giggle (e.g Atlantis)
When the Musketeers were discussing how they were going to get into the robbers stronghold, D'artagnan said something along the lines "I have a cunning plan". Where did he magic Constance from. Did I miss something?
Am I to assume the others chatted among themselves while he went back to Paris to get her?
When the Musketeers were discussing how they were going to get into the robbers stronghold, D'artagnan said something along the lines "I have a cunning plan". Where did he magic Constance from. Did I miss something?
Am I to assume the others chatted among themselves while he went back to Paris to get her?
Well, I think the first trip was for reconnaissance purposes. It was dusk. The actual attack came at night, when they no longer had Dujon with them. They must have taken him somewhere? So, they probably all left and came back later.
Try 'The Count of Monte Cristo' next. It's a mammoth book but an absolute page turner, more so than 'The Three Musketeers' IMO.
Reading The Corsican Brothers before Dumas' magnum opus would be ideal to serve as a primer. The Corsican Brothers was a blueprint for what Dumas would eventually go on to write in The Count of Monte Cristo which was inspired by the revenge and demise of Pierre Picaud.
Akin to reading The Hobbit before tackling The Lord of the Rings.
Some utterly hilarious comments on this thread. I especially liked the one complaining about BBC output not being like HBO's then saying the Sky's drama was so much better, even though that was because it was American ... :o
BBC One is a mainstream channel and The Musketeers is aimed at a mainstream audience. Does it have the same aspirations that Sherlock does? No. But it would be boring if every BBC One show did. Is it a rip-off of an ITV show? No. And if you want drama with no ambition whatsoever, ITV beats BBC One just about every time.
The Musketeers was a romp. It wasn't slow, or dull and it certainly buckled its swash very effectively. Were there elements in there that familiar? Sure. But it had enough of a spin to it to give it its own identity.
Where it fell down, for me, was in the lack of compelling characters beyond the Cardinal and the woman who wants revenge. The Musketeers themselves were very broadly drawn and while I wouldn't expect a new series to give up everything about its central characters in its first episode, I would expect a bit more intrigue, to hook viewers in and get them to tune in next week. And given that this is a ten-part series, The Musketeers has a long way to go.
My only hope is that it continues to thrash and ultimately puts paid to Mr Selfridge, the worst-constructed drama series I can recall in a long time. To do that, however, The Musketeers needs to pay a little more attention to character.
Some utterly hilarious comments on this thread. I especially liked the one complaining about BBC output not being like HBO's then saying the Sky's drama was so much better, even though that was because it was American ... :o
BBC One is a mainstream channel and The Musketeers is aimed at a mainstream audience. Does it have the same aspirations that Sherlock does? No. But it would be boring if every BBC One show did. Is it a rip-off of an ITV show? No. And if you want drama with no ambition whatsoever, ITV beats BBC One just about every time.
Surely, I made it quite clear - Sky is better than Auntie because Sky buy and broadcast HBO (and ShowTime) shows. Sky's own productions, those I've seen, have been utterly awful - though no worse than The Three Musketeers.
And does Sherlock have aspirations? I managed the first two episodes and gave up. Even my wife, who will happily watch NCIS, thought Sherlock was a step too far. I accept that BBC One is a mainstream channel, but does that mean that drama can't be internally consistent and not simply driven by the needs of a hackneyed plot?
When the Musketeers were discussing how they were going to get into the robbers stronghold, D'artagnan said something along the lines "I have a cunning plan". Where did he magic Constance from. Did I miss something?
Am I to assume the others chatted among themselves while he went back to Paris to get her?
Yes, and in the first scenes it is raining heavily, but later scenes feature a snow covered, frozen landscape. This could, simply, be lazy direction, but I suspect it's because the director wanted moody rain, then snow to paint his scenes and threw notions of meteorological verisimilitude out the window. The same director wanted Constance in a skimpy dress and abandoned notions of time and space to make that happen. It's what's, technically, known as sh!t film-making; internal consistency abandoned for the needs of a ridiculous plot device or badly drawn characterization.
You could've given it a chance though. First episodes are usually a little slow to get going as they involve so much exposition.
And people bitching about it not looking like France. It's worth remembering that medieval Paris was almost completely demolished by that devil Baron Haussmann in the 19th century.
I may just have to give it another go then. Still have it saved.
Yes, and in the first scenes it is raining heavily, but later scenes feature a snow covered, frozen landscape. This could, simply, be lazy direction, but I suspect it's because the director wanted moody rain, then snow to paint his scenes and threw notions of meteorological verisimilitude out the window. The same director wanted Constance in a skimpy dress and abandoned notions of time and space to make that happen. It's what's, technically, known as sh!t film-making; internal consistency abandoned for the needs of a ridiculous plot device or badly drawn characterization.
I'll go along with that.
I must admit I hadn't noticed too much time had elapsed between the scenes. Must concentrate more.
Yes, and in the first scenes it is raining heavily, but later scenes feature a snow covered, frozen landscape. This could, simply, be lazy direction, but I suspect it's because the director wanted moody rain, then snow to paint his scenes and threw notions of meteorological verisimilitude out the window. The same director wanted Constance in a skimpy dress and abandoned notions of time and space to make that happen. It's what's, technically, known as sh!t film-making; internal consistency abandoned for the needs of a ridiculous plot device or badly drawn characterization.
I suspect it just snowed between filming. The Czech Republic in winter is hardly the warmest of places.
I suspect it just snowed between filming. The Czech Republic in winter is hardly the warmest of places.
Yes, I agree. We can expect to see varying weather conditions in the show. In their One Show interview, they referred to both icy conditions and 35 degree temperatures. I did think, though, that the torrential rain of the first scene increased the mood of despair. I see nothing wrong with the director using that. There was meant to be a two-day gap between that and the snow scenes. I think we all know how quickly the weather can change...
I loved it! But then I harbour a huge affection for the seventies films and there was a touch of their style about it, Tom Burke could even pass for a young Ollie Reed in the right light.
It's wasn't especially clever or brain- taxing and it didn't have the emotional pull of some great drama. At the demise of poor D'Artangnans dad I was thinking 'wasn't he in The Borgias? (Oliver Cotton) and the heart wrenching execution of Adele, at her repeated 'I love Aramis!' I thought 'yeah, don't we all love ;-)' rather than any great sympathy.
So no emotional engagement as yet, but there were still moments of where we we could see things going on beneath the surface of the characters, hints of turmoil to come. Athos especially.
Mostly though it was grown up boys running around playing with their weapons, and there's nothing wrong that, a great romp.
Surely, I made it quite clear - Sky is better than Auntie because Sky buy and broadcast HBO (and ShowTime) shows. Sky's own productions, those I've seen, have been utterly awful - though no worse than The Three Musketeers.
And does Sherlock have aspirations? I managed the first two episodes and gave up. Even my wife, who will happily watch NCIS, thought Sherlock was a step too far. I accept that BBC One is a mainstream channel, but does that mean that drama can't be internally consistent and not simply driven by the needs of a hackneyed plot?
Sky has resources way above those of the BBC or any terrestrial broadcaster. Unfortunately, they also have a significantly smaller reach, which would explain rumours I've heard that HBO are not happy with the deal they have with Sky and may not renew it. Sky's UK drama commissions have yet to generate anything with any serious clout - they gave away their best bet, Utopia, to Channel 4 - and its next series, The Smoke, is, by all accounts, even worse than what they've broadcast so far.
I'm really struggling to understand how NCIS, a more mainstream than mainstream US network TV drama series, could come anywhere near Sherlock in its story-telling ambition. Or content. If you didn't like Sherlock, fine. (I don't like all of it). But it's more demanding of an audience than many other dramas, pushes the envelope and also manages to net over ten million viewers … which is undeniably impressive, surely?
Were there holes in the first episode of The Musketeers? Probably. Were there cheesy moments you've seen elsewhere. Certainly. And the characterisation needs much more work, for sure. But the proof of the pudding will be where we're at in nine weeks' time. Because I suspect the audience could lose interest if we get a re-tread of the pilot in every episode …
Yes, and in the first scenes it is raining heavily, but later scenes feature a snow covered, frozen landscape. This could, simply, be lazy direction, but I suspect it's because the director wanted moody rain, then snow to paint his scenes and threw notions of meteorological verisimilitude out the window. The same director wanted Constance in a skimpy dress and abandoned notions of time and space to make that happen. It's what's, technically, known as sh!t film-making; internal consistency abandoned for the needs of a ridiculous plot device or badly drawn characterization.
I take it (or rather, hope) that you will no longer grace this program with your presence. It is way below your intellect and required standards for a TV drama. Whilst such a detailed critique is bearable and even interesting for one episode, it could become very boring if you watch another and post similar comments again.
So thanks for the insights which pointed out many inadequacies I missed but...
I for one rather enjoyed it. I did not sit down to watch it with a mind to writing a review but purely as a piece of tv to enjoy. It filled the brief and I look forward to the next one.
Sky has resources way above those of the BBC or any terrestrial broadcaster. Unfortunately, they also have a significantly smaller reach, which would explain rumours I've heard that HBO are not happy with the deal they have with Sky and may not renew it. Sky's UK drama commissions have yet to generate anything with any serious clout - they gave away their best bet, Utopia, to Channel 4 - and its next series, The Smoke, is, by all accounts, even worse than what they've broadcast so far.
Sky have only recently overtaken Auntie in terms of revenue. Auntie also has the advantage of knowing, precisely, what its revenue streams will be years in advance - that gives it strategic buying power. The BBC could make something as good as The Wire, it has the money. The same could be said of DeadWood or The Sopranos or... Some things would require a bit of cash. For Auntie to get close to something as technically stunning as Band of Brothers would involve spending almost as much money as it does on Grand Prix motor sport every year - so I guess it's about priorities. It's just that don't see how they can claim their Reithian Values and take the low-brow option.
I'm really struggling to understand how NCIS, a more mainstream than mainstream US network TV drama series, could come anywhere near Sherlock in its story-telling ambition. Or content. If you didn't like Sherlock, fine. (I don't like all of it). But it's more demanding of an audience than many other dramas, pushes the envelope and also manages to net over ten million viewers … which is undeniably impressive, surely?
I mentioned NCIS simply because it is the dumbest, most populist show I am aware of. If my wife can watch that and still recoil from the plot-holes, inconsistencies, bad direction and ****-awful acting of Sherlock it means Sherlock is pretty poor.
Were there holes in the first episode of The Musketeers? Probably. Were there cheesy moments you've seen elsewhere. Certainly. And the characterisation needs much more work, for sure. But the proof of the pudding will be where we're at in nine weeks' time. Because I suspect the audience could lose interest if we get a re-tread of the pilot in every episode …
I lost interest after a little over twenty-minutes because of the holes, dreadful characterizations and such. I love a bit of swash being buckled and had hopes (not high, I've been disappointed by Auntie too many times), but they were dashed on rocks of poor film-making. YMMV, but the way I see it, those who liked the show would still like it if the narrative and character issues were addressed, the actors taught to fence, the historical inaccuracies at least lamp-shaded if not papered over and so on. You would still like it if it was good, so why not go the whole hog and make it good?
I take it (or rather, hope) that you will no longer grace this program with your presence. It is way below your intellect and required standards for a TV drama. Whilst such a detailed critique is bearable and even interesting for one episode, it could become very boring if you watch another and post similar comments again.
So thanks for the insights which pointed out many inadequacies I missed but...
I for one rather enjoyed it. I did not sit down to watch it with a mind to writing a review but purely as a piece of tv to enjoy. It filled the brief and I look forward to the next one.
Heaven forbid that we should actually discuss a TV show on a forum for discussing TV shows! Or is the idea that we come here, say we love the BBC, commit our life-savings and the souls of our, as yet unborn, children to the continued success of the Ministry of Telly and praise their output as if in fear of heresy charges? Auntie used to have a show for that.
As for watching, and responding to, another episode there is little chance of that.
I might ask, if all you want is to watch telly, you even bother to come to this forum? Forums, traditionally, are places of debate and discussion where you are in danger of seeing opinions different to your own.
I loved it! But then I harbour a huge affection for the seventies films and there was a touch of their style about it, Tom Burke could even pass for a young Ollie Reed in the right light.
It's wasn't especially clever or brain- taxing and it didn't have the emotional pull of some great drama. At the demise of poor D'Artangnans dad I was thinking 'wasn't he in The Borgias? (Oliver Cotton) and the heart wrenching execution of Adele, at her repeated 'I love Aramis!' I thought 'yeah, don't we all love ;-)' rather than any great sympathy.
So no emotional engagement as yet, but there were still moments of where we we could see things going on beneath the surface of the characters, hints of turmoil to come. Athos especially.
Mostly though it was grown up boys running around playing with their weapons, and there's nothing wrong that, a great romp.
...and the heart wrenching execution of Adele, at her repeated 'I love Aramis!' I thought 'yeah, don't we all love ;-)' rather than any great sympathy.
Tbh I don't think it was meant to be a big emotional moment - we'd only known the woman for about 10 minutes screen time max so couldn't really invest in her. Her whole character was there in episode 1 to show just how ruthless the Cardinal is (and to potentially give Aramis a personal vendetta against him).
Tbh I don't think it was meant to be a big emotional moment - we'd only known the woman for about 10 minutes screen time max so couldn't really invest in her. Her whole character was there in episode 1 to show just how ruthless the Cardinal is (and to potentially give Aramis a personal vendetta against him).
Yep I agree. Well TBH I never invested in her anyway. Admittedly largely because I was looking at Aramis rather than her throughout their scenes, but hey ;-) Shallow moi?..
Actually the best thing about that killing scene was Armaunds response to being told he'd 'burn in hell', archly acknowledging that yes, that may be the case, but that he had work to do here on earth first. Capaldi does quiet, intense and utterly terrifying so well.
When the Musketeers were discussing how they were going to get into the robbers stronghold, D'artagnan said something along the lines "I have a cunning plan". Where did he magic Constance from. Did I miss something?
Am I to assume the others chatted among themselves while he went back to Paris to get her?
TBH I felt a bit sorry for Tamla Kari in that scene. She must have been freezing her tits off in that off-the-shoulder number.
More questionable than the time lapse was the fact that Constance even agreed to distract the guard in the first place: "So I don't know you from Adam; you bumped into me yesterday and I've made it clear that I disapprove of you. Now you want me to conspire with you to infiltrate the camp of an official military unit by posing as a prostitute while you assault a soldier of the King? No problem!":D
Comments
Sword fights, evil cardinals and heaving bosoms galore, that's the way to start a series off.
All seemed a bit predictable - not so much the story, but the characters, look of it etc.
Shall tune in once more to see how it goes.
It doesn't seem good enough to commit to, and not bad enough to watch for a giggle (e.g Atlantis)
Am I to assume the others chatted among themselves while he went back to Paris to get her?
Well, I think the first trip was for reconnaissance purposes. It was dusk. The actual attack came at night, when they no longer had Dujon with them. They must have taken him somewhere? So, they probably all left and came back later.
Akin to reading The Hobbit before tackling The Lord of the Rings.
BBC One is a mainstream channel and The Musketeers is aimed at a mainstream audience. Does it have the same aspirations that Sherlock does? No. But it would be boring if every BBC One show did. Is it a rip-off of an ITV show? No. And if you want drama with no ambition whatsoever, ITV beats BBC One just about every time.
The Musketeers was a romp. It wasn't slow, or dull and it certainly buckled its swash very effectively. Were there elements in there that familiar? Sure. But it had enough of a spin to it to give it its own identity.
Where it fell down, for me, was in the lack of compelling characters beyond the Cardinal and the woman who wants revenge. The Musketeers themselves were very broadly drawn and while I wouldn't expect a new series to give up everything about its central characters in its first episode, I would expect a bit more intrigue, to hook viewers in and get them to tune in next week. And given that this is a ten-part series, The Musketeers has a long way to go.
My only hope is that it continues to thrash and ultimately puts paid to Mr Selfridge, the worst-constructed drama series I can recall in a long time. To do that, however, The Musketeers needs to pay a little more attention to character.
Surely, I made it quite clear - Sky is better than Auntie because Sky buy and broadcast HBO (and ShowTime) shows. Sky's own productions, those I've seen, have been utterly awful - though no worse than The Three Musketeers.
And does Sherlock have aspirations? I managed the first two episodes and gave up. Even my wife, who will happily watch NCIS, thought Sherlock was a step too far. I accept that BBC One is a mainstream channel, but does that mean that drama can't be internally consistent and not simply driven by the needs of a hackneyed plot?
Yes, and in the first scenes it is raining heavily, but later scenes feature a snow covered, frozen landscape. This could, simply, be lazy direction, but I suspect it's because the director wanted moody rain, then snow to paint his scenes and threw notions of meteorological verisimilitude out the window. The same director wanted Constance in a skimpy dress and abandoned notions of time and space to make that happen. It's what's, technically, known as sh!t film-making; internal consistency abandoned for the needs of a ridiculous plot device or badly drawn characterization.
I may just have to give it another go then. Still have it saved.
I'll go along with that.
I must admit I hadn't noticed too much time had elapsed between the scenes. Must concentrate more.
I suspect it just snowed between filming. The Czech Republic in winter is hardly the warmest of places.
Yes, I agree. We can expect to see varying weather conditions in the show. In their One Show interview, they referred to both icy conditions and 35 degree temperatures. I did think, though, that the torrential rain of the first scene increased the mood of despair. I see nothing wrong with the director using that. There was meant to be a two-day gap between that and the snow scenes. I think we all know how quickly the weather can change...
I LOVED it!
I even liked the feem toon (rather like The Tudors, I thought)
Anyway, will stick with it - Aramis and d'Artagnan are definitely very easy on the eye so hoping for more shirtlessness in the future
And, for once, the women are as interesting as the men, so am prepared to give this a fair chance
I couldn't agree more!
It's wasn't especially clever or brain- taxing and it didn't have the emotional pull of some great drama. At the demise of poor D'Artangnans dad I was thinking 'wasn't he in The Borgias? (Oliver Cotton) and the heart wrenching execution of Adele, at her repeated 'I love Aramis!' I thought 'yeah, don't we all love ;-)' rather than any great sympathy.
So no emotional engagement as yet, but there were still moments of where we we could see things going on beneath the surface of the characters, hints of turmoil to come. Athos especially.
Mostly though it was grown up boys running around playing with their weapons, and there's nothing wrong that, a great romp.
Sky has resources way above those of the BBC or any terrestrial broadcaster. Unfortunately, they also have a significantly smaller reach, which would explain rumours I've heard that HBO are not happy with the deal they have with Sky and may not renew it. Sky's UK drama commissions have yet to generate anything with any serious clout - they gave away their best bet, Utopia, to Channel 4 - and its next series, The Smoke, is, by all accounts, even worse than what they've broadcast so far.
I'm really struggling to understand how NCIS, a more mainstream than mainstream US network TV drama series, could come anywhere near Sherlock in its story-telling ambition. Or content. If you didn't like Sherlock, fine. (I don't like all of it). But it's more demanding of an audience than many other dramas, pushes the envelope and also manages to net over ten million viewers … which is undeniably impressive, surely?
Were there holes in the first episode of The Musketeers? Probably. Were there cheesy moments you've seen elsewhere. Certainly. And the characterisation needs much more work, for sure. But the proof of the pudding will be where we're at in nine weeks' time. Because I suspect the audience could lose interest if we get a re-tread of the pilot in every episode …
I take it (or rather, hope) that you will no longer grace this program with your presence. It is way below your intellect and required standards for a TV drama. Whilst such a detailed critique is bearable and even interesting for one episode, it could become very boring if you watch another and post similar comments again.
So thanks for the insights which pointed out many inadequacies I missed but...
I for one rather enjoyed it. I did not sit down to watch it with a mind to writing a review but purely as a piece of tv to enjoy. It filled the brief and I look forward to the next one.
(I've still got Oliver Reed in my head though (and would have liked him in a big old four-poster bed at one time ;-))
Sky have only recently overtaken Auntie in terms of revenue. Auntie also has the advantage of knowing, precisely, what its revenue streams will be years in advance - that gives it strategic buying power. The BBC could make something as good as The Wire, it has the money. The same could be said of DeadWood or The Sopranos or... Some things would require a bit of cash. For Auntie to get close to something as technically stunning as Band of Brothers would involve spending almost as much money as it does on Grand Prix motor sport every year - so I guess it's about priorities. It's just that don't see how they can claim their Reithian Values and take the low-brow option.
I mentioned NCIS simply because it is the dumbest, most populist show I am aware of. If my wife can watch that and still recoil from the plot-holes, inconsistencies, bad direction and ****-awful acting of Sherlock it means Sherlock is pretty poor.
I lost interest after a little over twenty-minutes because of the holes, dreadful characterizations and such. I love a bit of swash being buckled and had hopes (not high, I've been disappointed by Auntie too many times), but they were dashed on rocks of poor film-making. YMMV, but the way I see it, those who liked the show would still like it if the narrative and character issues were addressed, the actors taught to fence, the historical inaccuracies at least lamp-shaded if not papered over and so on. You would still like it if it was good, so why not go the whole hog and make it good?
Heaven forbid that we should actually discuss a TV show on a forum for discussing TV shows! Or is the idea that we come here, say we love the BBC, commit our life-savings and the souls of our, as yet unborn, children to the continued success of the Ministry of Telly and praise their output as if in fear of heresy charges? Auntie used to have a show for that.
As for watching, and responding to, another episode there is little chance of that.
I might ask, if all you want is to watch telly, you even bother to come to this forum? Forums, traditionally, are places of debate and discussion where you are in danger of seeing opinions different to your own.
Quite
Queen Anne seems like she'll be interesting. She seems much smarter than her husband and frustrated at not being listened to.
Tbh I don't think it was meant to be a big emotional moment - we'd only known the woman for about 10 minutes screen time max so couldn't really invest in her. Her whole character was there in episode 1 to show just how ruthless the Cardinal is (and to potentially give Aramis a personal vendetta against him).
Yep I agree. Well TBH I never invested in her anyway. Admittedly largely because I was looking at Aramis rather than her throughout their scenes, but hey
Actually the best thing about that killing scene was Armaunds response to being told he'd 'burn in hell', archly acknowledging that yes, that may be the case, but that he had work to do here on earth first. Capaldi does quiet, intense and utterly terrifying so well.
TBH I felt a bit sorry for Tamla Kari in that scene. She must have been freezing her tits off in that off-the-shoulder number.
More questionable than the time lapse was the fact that Constance even agreed to distract the guard in the first place: "So I don't know you from Adam; you bumped into me yesterday and I've made it clear that I disapprove of you. Now you want me to conspire with you to infiltrate the camp of an official military unit by posing as a prostitute while you assault a soldier of the King? No problem!":D