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
To be fair Constance knows Athos, who they are trying to save from imminent death. Although, come to think of it, apparently not well enough to have met his best buddies Aramis and Porthos before (but we'll let that go;-))
Besides, going by the way she was 'wrapping' that bandage around D'Artangnan I think that her motives are fairly transparently displayed if her actions were a little unbelievably OTT for a lady of her time.
Originally Posted by David_Morgan
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.
Ah, didn't get that you were having a go at the BBC.
Apologies I was talking about a show I watched that happened to be on BBC1 and which this thread is about.
Didn't mean to get in the way of your anti BBC rant. Won't do it again cos I don't have any pro or anti feelings towards it.
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.
A perfectly understandable response. His immense beauty vastly outshone her own, poor love.
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?..
A fun bit of swash and buckle with pretty boys - what's not to like? Yes, I'm that shallow sometimes.
I admit to being a fan of the Michael York films but I did enjoy the 1st episode and the set up. I think that the background of Athos' story was given away too early but I do hope this is expanded across the series and I really hope that the other back stories are explored too.
They seem to have all the usual characters present and correct except for my favourite villain - where is Rocherfort?
Have any of the 'musketeers', in this adaptation, or any other, ever been seen to fire a musket?
Yes, they fired some in the first episode of this one and and I've seen it in others.
Do they do it all the time? No because watching mass ranks of men firing and reloading muskets slowly (which was how muskets were used) is fine in films such as Glory but not when following four individuals. It's really not very swashbuckling, cowboys with quick firing six guns are...musketeers with slow firing muskets aren't. Even Sharpe and his Riflemen get involved in an awful lot of hand-to-hand.
In response, have you read in the original stories (on which all these adaptations are based) how many time the three/four musketeers fire their muskets as opposed to how many times they get involved in sword fights?
It's really not that many, what Dumas has them doing is dueling. Which makes all these adaptations of the novels more accurate than having them fire guns all the time.
(In other words, if you have a problem with the lack of muskets don't blame the adaptations, blame Dumas )
I think the problem with the Beeb and it's maybe a reflection of the country in general. They are simply frightened to death of upsetting anyone. What they do then is to commission fantasy drama, throw in a few minorities, re-write history so as not to offend any section of society and what you are left with are programmes like The Three Musketeers, Atlantis et al. Someone mentioned that the BBC could make programmes like The Wire, Deadwood etc. I don't think they could. Post Saville everyone at the BBC are running scared and daren't take a risk with anything likely to prove controversial.
I think the problem with the Beeb and it's maybe a reflection of the country in general. They are simply frightened to death of upsetting anyone. What they do then is to commission fantasy drama, throw in a few minorities, re-write history so as not to offend any section of society and what you are left with are programmes like The Three Musketeers, Atlantis et al. Someone mentioned that the BBC could make programmes like The Wire, Deadwood etc. I don't think they could. Post Saville everyone at the BBC are running scared and daren't take a risk with anything likely to prove controversial.
I agree to a certain extent. I'd also add though that the BBC seems primarily interested in chasing ratings as well, which is another reason why they just don't take risks. But then the BBC rarely does anything these days which interests me. I loved the adaptations of 'Bleak House' and 'Little Dorrit' but they were made years ago. 'Dombey & Son' was in the pipeline at one point but it got cancelled in favour of more 'original drama', very little of which has actually materialised.
Anyway, this is the best reason to watch The Musketeers!
I think that the background of Athos' story was given away too early but I do hope this is expanded across the series and I really hope that the other back stories are explored too.
I can imagine they decided not to keep it a secret as a high proportion of the audience would know there's traditionally something between them. It's more the details that are a mystery still here.
And I suspect there will be much more about the character's back stories as we go through (there's hints about them on the website).
They seem to have all the usual characters present and correct except for my favourite villain - where is Rocherfort?
Have any of the 'musketeers', in this adaptation, or any other, ever been seen to fire a musket?
Because muskets were actually pretty rubbish. Really deadly if you could fire them right but they're inaccurate and slow to reload. I believe Aramis did fire one in this but then went back to his sword.
What they do then is to commission fantasy drama, throw in a few minorities, re-write history so as not to offend any section of society...
Or, you know, they could just have been the best actors for the roles (and both of them seem very well suited for their parts!). It's hardly as though minorities didn't exist then (see: Dumas himself) and it isn't as though women were all the misogynistic stereotypes we're lead to believe from back then.
I agree to a certain extent. I'd also add though that the BBC seems primarily interested in chasing ratings as well, which is another reason why they just don't take risks. But then the BBC rarely does anything these days which interests me. I loved the adaptations of 'Bleak House' and 'Little Dorrit' but they were made years ago. 'Dombey & Son' was in the pipeline at one point but it got cancelled in favour of more 'original drama', very little of which has actually materialised.
Anyway, this is the best reason to watch The Musketeers!
I loved these too, and I also seem to remember them making 'Our Mutual Friend', which is one of my favourite Dickens books. Would be great to get some of this stuff back on the box.
I was really looking forward to this, but the trailers seem to emphasise too much on the sexualization of characters rather than the friendship between the musketeers (like in Merlin between Arthur and Merlin). I can see how this would appeal to some, but for me, I was rather hoping this would be the next "Merlin" if you like, but after seeing the trailers, I've decided to give this a miss.
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)
Alas, t'was the same for me.
Milady rocked, she's my kind of woman but she was the only character to spike my interest.
The 'sex' wasn't sexy enough and the violence wasn't violent enough for me.
Altogether, I thought it was half-arsed - tame and lame.
More explicit? It was more like "Silent Witness" at one point, dead bodies in shallow graves, horrible. As was shooting innocent doves, torture, killing for fun.
It means that if it were written such that characters obeyed their characterization, where the fights were well choreographed and staged, where the actors didn't ham up their villainy, where the laws of space and time were obeyed, where the dialogue did not resemble an exposition factory explosion, the piece had some sense of place and period, things made sense and general notions of internal consistency were maintained. If it was well written.
If TTM was a well written romp you would still be happy, because it would still be a romp, and I would be happy, because it would be a romp that didn't set my teeth on edge. Can we not have these things? Deadwood managed this.
By the way, any of these requirements can be suspended if it is for something cool - TTM simply wasn't cool enough.
I've given up being unhappy about this, it was simply the next in line in BBC children's drama's, like Robin Hood and Merlin and Sherlock, and, simply, not aimed at me. I'll carry on with season 5 of Breaking Bad.
More explicit? It was more like "Silent Witness" at one point, dead bodies in shallow graves, horrible. As was shooting innocent doves, torture, killing for fun.
FFS! If this upsets you we are lost as species! Even Hannibal had bodies in graves, kept in a coma while mushrooms were grown in their flesh. This was shown in vivid detail and Hannibal is a network presentation, not some HBO show for serious minded adults. As a friend of mine used to rant - "...adult themes? Do you mean mortgages and life insurance?"
A fun bit of swash and buckle with pretty boys - what's not to like? Yes, I'm that shallow sometimes.
I admit to being a fan of the Michael York films but I did enjoy the 1st episode and the set up. I think that the background of Athos' story was given away too early but I do hope this is expanded across the series and I really hope that the other back stories are explored too.
They seem to have all the usual characters present and correct except for my favourite villain - where is Rocherfort?
Yep hoping we get a villian (sword fighting) like Rocherfort soon - especially with Capaldi leaving - we need someone to continue across to another series!
It means that if it were written such that characters obeyed their characterization,
What specific examples of someone behaving out of character did you have in mind?
where the fights were well choreographed and staged,where the actors didn't ham up their villainy,
What's that got to do with the writing? Alright, they're obviously production matters. Which particular shots did you think didn't work as far as the fight scenes went? Did you think they needed to be faster cut or was it to do with the camera angles?
As far as the portrayed villainy goes, I've seen far worse, on either TV or film before now. If anything I thought it was reasonably restrained.
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.
Then your proposition is based on a false premise in the first place, because these scenes were neither set on the same day nor in the same place. It is perfectly possible to have snow and rain on different days and different locations during the Winter season.
Constance wearing a dress that showed her shoulders doesn't imply that it wasn't still cold - it was at night too, which you would expect to be cold anyway - that was for a plot reason, so it didn't contradict that.
where the dialogue did not resemble an exposition factory explosion,
I didn't think it did especially. Certainly not all of the time anyway.
the piece had some sense of place and period,
I'm not sure if this refers to how it looked or how the characters spoke. If the latter, then that's meaningless, because by the nature of the setting, their speech is translated, so the language, idioms, metaphors etc are already going to be removed from what the original context would have been.
things made sense and general notions of internal consistency were maintained. If it was well written.
Alright, so where precisely do you think the plot went astray and how do you think it could have been improved, again with reference to specifics. Which particular plot holes do you have in mind?
If TTM was a well written romp you would still be happy, because it would still be a romp, and I would be happy, because it would be a romp that didn't set my teeth on edge. Can we not have these things? Deadwood managed this.
Deadwood was more of a series based on a particular historical and social theme, that is, the formation of a Western community in 19th Century America. It was also specially written for television, rather than an adaptation of a set of characters and situations from books. There could be room for a series similar to Deadwood insofar as it concerned the social history in one era of a town or city in Europe or Britain, but something like The Musketeers clearly isn't going to be that.
By the way, any of these requirements can be suspended if it is for something cool - TTM simply wasn't cool enough.
'Coolness' is a fairly meaningless appellation, dependent on the approval of the kind of group that considers itself worthy of deciding that kind of status. The very subjectivity of it can also explain why some can get something out of something like this, and others not.
It does also mean that, potentially, you are only actually criticising it for not being 'cool', if, as implied in the above statement, that's really the only thing that matters when it comes to a series like this.
I've given up being unhappy about this, it was simply the next in line in BBC children's drama's, like Robin Hood and Merlin and Sherlock, and, simply, not aimed at me. I'll carry on with season 5 of Breaking Bad.
As the BBC is obliged to try to cater for everyone, and by your own admission you don't feel you are part of the target audience, then there's little reason for anyone concerned in the making of it to be too worried about whether it meets your criterion for approval. You've effectively admitted it yourself by saying that none of the alleged deficiencies would matter if it were cool enough, so even you don't invest that much importance in them. Obviously the intention and hope was that people would think it sufficiently 'cool' to enjoy it, and presumably some did, whether they would personally describe it that way or not.
If you feel that strongly that the BBC, or anyone, should be making programmes of the style or quality of the ones you most admire, or at least should be making more effort to try to make some, then it would be a better idea to start a thread devoted to that subject and make a case for it there. Coming into a thread for a programme which is obviously not going to be in their mould, even if only by genre, and dismissing it because it isn't those, will achieve nothing.
I do feel somewhat awkward about writing this, as my taking a contrary position has led to me to be possibly appearing to be defending this series - it's just The Musketeers by the way, not The Three Musketeers - against all comers and implying I thought it was perfect or even that I loved it. Actually, I found it relatively alright, not necessarily something that's destined to become a great personal favourite or anything, but interesting enough for me to be willing to continue with it, at least for the time being. Visually, it veered a little towards the colourless and dour, not necessarily a bad thing in itself and it may just be a reaction toward the more colourful versions that have appeared before, or just be a reflection of contemporary fashions in TV making. Either way, I don't especially mind, as it's just one of several iterations of it there have been. Enough charisma and swagger in some of the leads, a bit of ongoing intrigue to keep it going... still early days, and it could go either way at the moment, it might lose momentum, and interest, or it could build, so I'll attempt no opinion more definitive than that for now.
What's that got to do with the writing? Alright, they're obviously production matters. Which particular shots did you think didn't work as far as the fight scenes went? Did you think they needed to be faster cut or was it to do with the camera angles?
I think when you have your actors doing fight scenes like these you will always be slightly hampered - they simply don't have the time and money to complete the long period of training required. But I still would rather watch the actors do it than stunt guys.
As far as the portrayed villainy goes, I've seen far worse, on either TV or film before now. If anything I thought it was reasonably restrained.
I thought that was a very odd comment from that poster since Capaldi was in fact very strained in the role and not at all like you may expect the character to portrayed.
I've given up being unhappy about this, it was simply the next in line in BBC children's drama's, like Robin Hood and Merlin and Sherlock, and, simply, not aimed at me. I'll carry on with season 5 of Breaking Bad.
I find it's possible to like both "serious" drama (or "adult" if you prefer the term) and romps like TTM.
What specific examples of someone behaving out of character did you have in mind?
Within the context of the drama, Constance is the wife of a successful merchant and yet is willing, at the drop of a hat, to act as a street prostitute in order to support the battle plans of a man she barely knows. Even accepting that they are soul-mates, this stretches credibility. If it comes to pass that M. Bonacieux is a former street-walker or actress, in this version, then fine, but, for now, it seems highly unlikely. If it turns out that Constance is dress-maker to the queen then it stretches probability to breaking.
What's that got to do with the writing? Alright, they're obviously production matters. Which particular shots did you think didn't work as far as the fight scenes went? Did you think they needed to be faster cut or was it to do with the camera angles?
I thought they needed to look like they were fighting and not waving swords around like children in a school yard.
As far as the portrayed villainy goes, I've seen far worse, on either TV or film before now. If anything I thought it was reasonably restrained.
There are worse, this does not excuse anything. Capaldi was almost twirling his moustaches at some points. There are worse dramas, even from Auntie, does that mean they shouldn’t try harder?
Then your proposition is based on a false premise in the first place, because these scenes were neither set on the same day nor in the same place. It is perfectly possible to have snow and rain on different days and different locations during the Winter season.
It is possible, but unlikely. They were outside Paris for both locations, no more than a day's ride. The ground was sodden for the first scene and frozen for the next.
Alright, so where precisely do you think the plot went astray and how do you think it could have been improved, again with reference to specifics. Which particular plot holes do you have in mind?
If I could correct it I would be writing TV scripts. That said, that Athos was convicted on such scant, and clearly manufactured evidence, and goes to the firing squad with barely a defence was not believable. We even see him recovering after a night of carousing, surely he could have provided an alibi or two? The script writer wanted to create a sense of urgency and took a lazy shortcut.
Deadwood was more of a series based on a particular historical and social theme, that is, the formation of a Western community in 19th Century America. It was also specially written for television, rather than an adaptation of a set of characters and situations from books. There could be room for a series similar to Deadwood insofar as it concerned the social history in one era of a town or city in Europe or Britain, but something like The Musketeers clearly isn't going to be that.
Deadwood was a romp set in a well realized recreation of a frontier town. The characters were well drawn and superbly acted, the mise-en-scène showed a loving attention to detail and it had a very palpable sense of place and time. The dialogue was not historically accurate, but a transliteration for modern audiences - conveying the coursness of some of the characters to a modern audience a device which worked (and was cool). It was not an educational piece, but an entertainment. It was exciting and funny and well made. TM was none of these things.
'Coolness' is a fairly meaningless appellation, dependent on the approval of the kind of group that considers itself worthy of deciding that kind of status. The very subjectivity of it can also explain why some can get something out of something like this, and others not.
Of course it is! Coolness, as with all matters of taste, is normative. I only mention it to make it clear that I am not obsessed with period detail or perfect characterization - had the TM been exciting and fun I would have been carried along. It wasn't, so every failing jarred.
As the BBC is obliged to try to cater for everyone, and by your own admission you don't feel you are part of the target audience, then there's little reason for anyone concerned in the making of it to be too worried about whether it meets your criterion for approval.
If I am not part of the BBC's audience, not one of the "everyone", could I have my money back please? I like to watch drama, there are many TV dramas I have enjoyed over the last ten years, none have been made by Auntie. Am I being excluded? Is it something I said?
I am not part of the target audience for The Musketeers because I didn't enjoy it. It looks to me to be the same sort of thing as Merlin and Sherlock - had the trailer made that clear I would have stayed away.
As Sherlock and Merlin are popular the BBC should carry on making them, but they should stop taking about “Reithian Values” as they hand out the pop-corn.
I think the problem with the Beeb and it's maybe a reflection of the country in general. They are simply frightened to death of upsetting anyone. What they do then is to commission fantasy drama, throw in a few minorities, re-write history so as not to offend any section of society and what you are left with are programmes like The Three Musketeers, Atlantis et al. Someone mentioned that the BBC could make programmes like The Wire, Deadwood etc. I don't think they could. Post Saville everyone at the BBC are running scared and daren't take a risk with anything likely to prove controversial.
I said they could make programmes like The Wire, but only in that they have experience of having sets built and hiring actors. They have never made a quality genre piece and I'm not sure they'd know where to start.
I agree, the BBC are frightened of upsetting people - some see this as one of the restrictions of the licence fee: you can't exclude people who are offended by sex, violence or bad language because they pay for their licence. Unfortunately, as HBO have demonstrated, repeatedly, you get good shows by letting writers have their head. Giving writers the freedom to write what they like means you will get scripts filled with naturalistic language and adult themes.
Comments
To be fair Constance knows Athos, who they are trying to save from imminent death. Although, come to think of it, apparently not well enough to have met his best buddies Aramis and Porthos before (but we'll let that go;-))
Besides, going by the way she was 'wrapping' that bandage around D'Artangnan I think that her motives are fairly transparently displayed if her actions were a little unbelievably OTT for a lady of her time.
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.
Ah, didn't get that you were having a go at the BBC.
Apologies I was talking about a show I watched that happened to be on BBC1 and which this thread is about.
Didn't mean to get in the way of your anti BBC rant. Won't do it again cos I don't have any pro or anti feelings towards it.
A perfectly understandable response. His immense beauty vastly outshone her own, poor love.
You say that like it's a BAD thing!
I did like Aramis's comment to her about her price, though
I admit to being a fan of the Michael York films but I did enjoy the 1st episode and the set up. I think that the background of Athos' story was given away too early but I do hope this is expanded across the series and I really hope that the other back stories are explored too.
They seem to have all the usual characters present and correct except for my favourite villain - where is Rocherfort?
Do they do it all the time? No because watching mass ranks of men firing and reloading muskets slowly (which was how muskets were used) is fine in films such as Glory but not when following four individuals. It's really not very swashbuckling, cowboys with quick firing six guns are...musketeers with slow firing muskets aren't. Even Sharpe and his Riflemen get involved in an awful lot of hand-to-hand.
In response, have you read in the original stories (on which all these adaptations are based) how many time the three/four musketeers fire their muskets as opposed to how many times they get involved in sword fights?
It's really not that many, what Dumas has them doing is dueling. Which makes all these adaptations of the novels more accurate than having them fire guns all the time.
(In other words, if you have a problem with the lack of muskets don't blame the adaptations, blame Dumas
I agree to a certain extent. I'd also add though that the BBC seems primarily interested in chasing ratings as well, which is another reason why they just don't take risks. But then the BBC rarely does anything these days which interests me. I loved the adaptations of 'Bleak House' and 'Little Dorrit' but they were made years ago. 'Dombey & Son' was in the pipeline at one point but it got cancelled in favour of more 'original drama', very little of which has actually materialised.
Anyway, this is the best reason to watch The Musketeers!
http://oi43.tinypic.com/1256p8z.jpg
;-)
I can imagine they decided not to keep it a secret as a high proportion of the audience would know there's traditionally something between them. It's more the details that are a mystery still here.
And I suspect there will be much more about the character's back stories as we go through (there's hints about them on the website).
I wonder if they will bring him in post-Capaldi?
Because muskets were actually pretty rubbish. Really deadly if you could fire them right but they're inaccurate and slow to reload. I believe Aramis did fire one in this but then went back to his sword.
Or, you know, they could just have been the best actors for the roles (and both of them seem very well suited for their parts!). It's hardly as though minorities didn't exist then (see: Dumas himself) and it isn't as though women were all the misogynistic stereotypes we're lead to believe from back then.
I loved these too, and I also seem to remember them making 'Our Mutual Friend', which is one of my favourite Dickens books. Would be great to get some of this stuff back on the box.
You could all get that from twenty minutes (with the first few minutes being an introduction, without the three musketeers)
What does this even mean
Alas, t'was the same for me.
Milady rocked, she's my kind of woman but she was the only character to spike my interest.
The 'sex' wasn't sexy enough and the violence wasn't violent enough for me.
Altogether, I thought it was half-arsed - tame and lame.
Why can't we have it more explicit?
Doubt it - it's co-produced by BBC America, rather than a subscription network like Starz that use tits as a unique selling point.
Yes, couldn't you?
It means that if it were written such that characters obeyed their characterization, where the fights were well choreographed and staged, where the actors didn't ham up their villainy, where the laws of space and time were obeyed, where the dialogue did not resemble an exposition factory explosion, the piece had some sense of place and period, things made sense and general notions of internal consistency were maintained. If it was well written.
If TTM was a well written romp you would still be happy, because it would still be a romp, and I would be happy, because it would be a romp that didn't set my teeth on edge. Can we not have these things? Deadwood managed this.
By the way, any of these requirements can be suspended if it is for something cool - TTM simply wasn't cool enough.
I've given up being unhappy about this, it was simply the next in line in BBC children's drama's, like Robin Hood and Merlin and Sherlock, and, simply, not aimed at me. I'll carry on with season 5 of Breaking Bad.
FFS! If this upsets you we are lost as species! Even Hannibal had bodies in graves, kept in a coma while mushrooms were grown in their flesh. This was shown in vivid detail and Hannibal is a network presentation, not some HBO show for serious minded adults. As a friend of mine used to rant - "...adult themes? Do you mean mortgages and life insurance?"
Yep hoping we get a villian (sword fighting) like Rocherfort soon - especially with Capaldi leaving - we need someone to continue across to another series!
What specific examples of someone behaving out of character did you have in mind?
What's that got to do with the writing? Alright, they're obviously production matters. Which particular shots did you think didn't work as far as the fight scenes went? Did you think they needed to be faster cut or was it to do with the camera angles?
As far as the portrayed villainy goes, I've seen far worse, on either TV or film before now. If anything I thought it was reasonably restrained.
If this is a reference to your previous post:
Then your proposition is based on a false premise in the first place, because these scenes were neither set on the same day nor in the same place. It is perfectly possible to have snow and rain on different days and different locations during the Winter season.
Constance wearing a dress that showed her shoulders doesn't imply that it wasn't still cold - it was at night too, which you would expect to be cold anyway - that was for a plot reason, so it didn't contradict that.
I didn't think it did especially. Certainly not all of the time anyway.
I'm not sure if this refers to how it looked or how the characters spoke. If the latter, then that's meaningless, because by the nature of the setting, their speech is translated, so the language, idioms, metaphors etc are already going to be removed from what the original context would have been.
Alright, so where precisely do you think the plot went astray and how do you think it could have been improved, again with reference to specifics. Which particular plot holes do you have in mind?
Deadwood was more of a series based on a particular historical and social theme, that is, the formation of a Western community in 19th Century America. It was also specially written for television, rather than an adaptation of a set of characters and situations from books. There could be room for a series similar to Deadwood insofar as it concerned the social history in one era of a town or city in Europe or Britain, but something like The Musketeers clearly isn't going to be that.
'Coolness' is a fairly meaningless appellation, dependent on the approval of the kind of group that considers itself worthy of deciding that kind of status. The very subjectivity of it can also explain why some can get something out of something like this, and others not.
It does also mean that, potentially, you are only actually criticising it for not being 'cool', if, as implied in the above statement, that's really the only thing that matters when it comes to a series like this.
As the BBC is obliged to try to cater for everyone, and by your own admission you don't feel you are part of the target audience, then there's little reason for anyone concerned in the making of it to be too worried about whether it meets your criterion for approval. You've effectively admitted it yourself by saying that none of the alleged deficiencies would matter if it were cool enough, so even you don't invest that much importance in them. Obviously the intention and hope was that people would think it sufficiently 'cool' to enjoy it, and presumably some did, whether they would personally describe it that way or not.
If you feel that strongly that the BBC, or anyone, should be making programmes of the style or quality of the ones you most admire, or at least should be making more effort to try to make some, then it would be a better idea to start a thread devoted to that subject and make a case for it there. Coming into a thread for a programme which is obviously not going to be in their mould, even if only by genre, and dismissing it because it isn't those, will achieve nothing.
I do feel somewhat awkward about writing this, as my taking a contrary position has led to me to be possibly appearing to be defending this series - it's just The Musketeers by the way, not The Three Musketeers - against all comers and implying I thought it was perfect or even that I loved it. Actually, I found it relatively alright, not necessarily something that's destined to become a great personal favourite or anything, but interesting enough for me to be willing to continue with it, at least for the time being. Visually, it veered a little towards the colourless and dour, not necessarily a bad thing in itself and it may just be a reaction toward the more colourful versions that have appeared before, or just be a reflection of contemporary fashions in TV making. Either way, I don't especially mind, as it's just one of several iterations of it there have been. Enough charisma and swagger in some of the leads, a bit of ongoing intrigue to keep it going... still early days, and it could go either way at the moment, it might lose momentum, and interest, or it could build, so I'll attempt no opinion more definitive than that for now.
I think when you have your actors doing fight scenes like these you will always be slightly hampered - they simply don't have the time and money to complete the long period of training required. But I still would rather watch the actors do it than stunt guys.
I thought that was a very odd comment from that poster since Capaldi was in fact very strained in the role and not at all like you may expect the character to portrayed.
I find it's possible to like both "serious" drama (or "adult" if you prefer the term) and romps like TTM.
Within the context of the drama, Constance is the wife of a successful merchant and yet is willing, at the drop of a hat, to act as a street prostitute in order to support the battle plans of a man she barely knows. Even accepting that they are soul-mates, this stretches credibility. If it comes to pass that M. Bonacieux is a former street-walker or actress, in this version, then fine, but, for now, it seems highly unlikely. If it turns out that Constance is dress-maker to the queen then it stretches probability to breaking.
I thought they needed to look like they were fighting and not waving swords around like children in a school yard.
There are worse, this does not excuse anything. Capaldi was almost twirling his moustaches at some points. There are worse dramas, even from Auntie, does that mean they shouldn’t try harder?
I said they could make programmes like The Wire, but only in that they have experience of having sets built and hiring actors. They have never made a quality genre piece and I'm not sure they'd know where to start.
I agree, the BBC are frightened of upsetting people - some see this as one of the restrictions of the licence fee: you can't exclude people who are offended by sex, violence or bad language because they pay for their licence. Unfortunately, as HBO have demonstrated, repeatedly, you get good shows by letting writers have their head. Giving writers the freedom to write what they like means you will get scripts filled with naturalistic language and adult themes.