Recent attempts with 'dim' lighting for candles and 'realistic' dialogue with period dramas have only resulted in complaints that the screen is dark all the time, you can't see what is going on and you can't understand what is being said. However, this came across to me as a rather old fashioned production, bordering on theatrical.
Since the fire is the thing around which all of the rest of it hangs it might have been more interesting to have started up front with that, maybe even in the mid point, and tell the back story by flashbacks.
This was awful, jaw droppingly awful. I find it hard to believe that anyone in ITV could have watched the finished product and thought that this was anywhere near the standard they expected after spending so much money on it.
I think they also made the mistake of hiring David Cameron's make up artist. Everyone seemed to have a beaming orange face, and a colgate smile. I'm not suggesting they should have gone all the way down the Monty Python route with the great unwashed walking around with boils hanging off their noses, but a tiny bit of realism wouldn't have gone wrong.
And the writing was woeful. Best historical drama I've seen for a long time was channel 4's 1066. The writing and direction captured the atmosphere of its time, so why don't the execs realise this and when planning something like this at least look to hire someone who has a bit of a feel for the subject matter.
This was awful, jaw droppingly awful. I find it hard to believe that anyone in ITV could have watched the finished product and thought that this was anywhere near the standard they expected after spending so much money on it.
I think they also made the mistake of hiring David Cameron's make up artist. Everyone seemed to have a beaming orange face, and a colgate smile. I'm not suggesting they should have gone all the way down the Monty Python route with the great unwashed walking around with boils hanging off their noses, but a tiny bit of realism wouldn't have gone wrong.
And the writing was woeful. Best historical drama I've seen for a long time was channel 4's 1066. The writing and direction captured the atmosphere of its time, so why don't the execs realise this and when planning something like this at least look to hire someone who has a bit of a feel for the subject matter.
That just sums up perfectly what I thought about it:(
This was awful, jaw droppingly awful. I find it hard to believe that anyone in ITV could have watched the finished product and thought that this was anywhere near the standard they expected after spending so much money on it.
I think they also made the mistake of hiring David Cameron's make up artist. Everyone seemed to have a beaming orange face, and a colgate smile. I'm not suggesting they should have gone all the way down the Monty Python route with the great unwashed walking around with boils hanging off their noses, but a tiny bit of realism wouldn't have gone wrong.
And the writing was woeful. Best historical drama I've seen for a long time was channel 4's 1066. The writing and direction captured the atmosphere of its time, so why don't the execs realise this and when planning something like this at least look to hire someone who has a bit of a feel for the subject matter.
Teeth always let dramas down, whether it be historical like this (before the invention of toothpaste & when probably only 1% of the population had access to a dentist), or modern & focusing on people who are poor or drug addicts or criminals or whatever; how hard can it be to get some dentures (as I believe Charlize Theron had when she played the homeless prostitute serial killer Aileen Wuornos in the film Monster)?
Is it feasible that a baker would continue to supply bread when he wasn't getting paid? how could he afford it?
The wig incident was shoehorned in. The dancing scene was there, I presume, to show the difference between the peasants and the toffs. Otherwise, there wasn't much difference. The peasants didn't live in squalor and filth. Everything was shiny bright.
Is everything I think I know about the 17th century wrong?
The script was just bad. The characterisation was non-existent. Drama should grab you immediately, and make you care about the characters. These were bland beyond bland.
It seemed like someone thought it would be a good idea to make a drama about the great fire. So they did, and as a gimmick used real fire instead of CGI. But, apart from a couple of quotes from people around at the time, (probably lifted from the internet) they didn't bother to do any actual research about conditions at the time.
It was just so bad. Please stick to modern dramas, ITV. You've got a better chance of something approaching realism with them.
Maybe I'm being unfair and it improved after the first 10 minutes or so. I wouldn't know and I'm not going to find out as I will never watch it again.
Recent attempts with 'dim' lighting for candles and 'realistic' dialogue with period dramas have only resulted in complaints that the screen is dark all the time, you can't see what is going on and you can't understand what is being said. However, this came across to me as a rather old fashioned production, bordering on theatrical.
Since the fire is the thing around which all of the rest of it hangs it might have been more interesting to have started up front with that, maybe even in the mid point, and tell the back story by flashbacks.
Good point. Or better yet, as the people directly affected by the fire so far are in Pudding Lane, just show them in the context of fighting the blaze while the king, Pepys and Lord Whatsit go about their business until it gets serious.
This really wasn't very good. I quite enjoyed it but it wasn't very good.
I did like the political intrigue - a police state with spies on every corner - the religious plotting and the sense of a society of excess hurtling towards disaster. What I didn't like was the unlikely baker and his simpering sister-in-law, plus their various offspring. We don't need unrealistic, unconvincing characters to make us care about the drama (why do writers do this??). The fire that destroyed most of the biggest city in the world is dramatic enough without a daft grafted-on plotline which didn't ring true for a minute.
The effects were good - 10/10 for not using painfully unrealistic CGI. I did wonder though why no-one else noticed the fire in Pudding Lane while the baker and his daughters were climbing out of the window...:D
I don't agree with most of the complaints above. I think based on last night's first episode, it'll turn out to be fairly good TV when we've seen it all just not the blockbuster the makers hoped.
Teeth always let dramas down, whether it be historical like this (before the invention of toothpaste & when probably only 1% of the population had access to a dentist), or modern & focusing on people who are poor or drug addicts or criminals or whatever; how hard can it be to get some dentures (as I believe Charlize Theron had when she played the homeless prostitute serial killer Aileen Wuornos in the film Monster)?
I often notice characters being too clean and tidy and their teeth were too good but I don't let it distract me for long as it spoils the experience.
I suspect in this country we're more into realistic portrayal while the US market wants more pretty people with nice teeth and hair. The producers always have to balance competing requirements and if they want to make an expensive drama they do need to sell it overseas to cover their costs and the US is the biggest market.
On teeth:- I've been watching the original Star Treks with Captain Kirk and Spock on CBS Action in the last week or so and I spotted their teeth (esp Spock) are pretty poor, both for 22nd century 'cream of humanity' sent to explore the galaxy, with onboard health facilities and more oddly, even for late 1960s US actors in a major TV series. And they say we have bad teeth!
I don't think it was awful, but at the same time it didn't leave me wanting to see the next episode.
I was expecting something more like the documentary type drama that was on a while back, that others have mentioned; much more informative and interesting, IMO.
I'm not sure whether I'll carry on watching or not, to be honest.
I was really looking forward to seeing this, it being a most significant time in our history but I was sadly disappointed. Hoping it would get better, I persevered to the end, but it didn't improve.
It was all too dark, hard to understand, and the people were far too clean. Another thing that really stood out for me was how clean the streets/lanes were. I couldn't even see any upturned barrels, rubbish etc. This was a time of filthy streets.
I remember the BBC's adaptation of Bleak House. That really gave the feel of the poorer areas in Victorian times, but the streets of London (or any of city/town) were just as bad, if not worse, in the time of the Stuarts.
Is it feasible that a baker would continue to supply bread when he wasn't getting paid? how could he afford it?
The wig incident was shoehorned in. The dancing scene was there, I presume, to show the difference between the peasants and the toffs. Otherwise, there wasn't much difference. The peasants didn't live in squalor and filth. Everything was shiny bright.
Is everything I think I know about the 17th century wrong?
The script was just bad. The characterisation was non-existent. Drama should grab you immediately, and make you care about the characters. These were bland beyond bland.
It seemed like someone thought it would be a good idea to make a drama about the great fire. So they did, and as a gimmick used real fire instead of CGI. But, apart from a couple of quotes from people around at the time, (probably lifted from the internet) they didn't bother to do any actual research about conditions at the time.
It was just so bad. Please stick to modern dramas, ITV. You've got a better chance of something approaching realism with them.
Maybe I'm being unfair and it improved after the first 10 minutes or so. I wouldn't know and I'm not going to find out as I will never watch it again.
You're not being unfair at all - all your comments could just as easily apply to the entire hour … an hour of my life I'll never get back.
It all started out like an excellent Game of Thrones episode, there was Tywin Lannister, Ygritte and Delorous Edd, then suddenly it degenerated into the biggest load of sh1te possible. Well done ITV, another classic.
I was really looking forward to this, with all the hype surrounding it. However I just couldn't get into it and kept wondering how much longer it was on. That's two over the last couple of weeks I've given up on - this and Grantchester which I also thought would be good - I'm seriously beginning to wonder if it's me
I was really looking forward to this, with all the hype surrounding it. However I just couldn't get into it and kept wondering how much longer it was on. That's two over the last couple of weeks I've given up on - this and Grantchester which I also thought would be good - I'm seriously beginning to wonder if it's me
It's not your fault, the networks can't please everyone.
"I just wished they pleased more than they actually do."
I was really looking forward to this, with all the hype surrounding it. However I just couldn't get into it and kept wondering how much longer it was on. That's two over the last couple of weeks I've given up on - this and Grantchester which I also thought would be good - I'm seriously beginning to wonder if it's me
Well you're certainly not alone in being disappointed with Granchester;)
Am I being unfair in saying The Great Fire comes across almost as though made for American TV? There's just something a bit too sterile about it all - everyone looks a bit too perfect and acts as if, well, as if they're acting!!
I was really looking forward to this, with all the hype surrounding it. However I just couldn't get into it and kept wondering how much longer it was on. That's two over the last couple of weeks I've given up on - this and Grantchester which I also thought would be good - I'm seriously beginning to wonder if it's me
I managed to stick it out for 20 mins then gave up.
Awful.
Tom Bradby has written some very good novels - not sure what happened with the dialogue on this and as people have said - the look is way too modern and clean.
Seems like it was made with an export to America in mind.
It all started out like an excellent Game of Thrones episode, there was Tywin Lannister, Ygritte and Delorous Edd, then suddenly it degenerated into the biggest load of sh1te possible. Well done ITV, another classic.
Well I doubt ITV would have gone near 1666 if it wasn't for the fire, its the fire which is supposed to be the star of the show (and its a very hard task to pull off convincingly). The further you go back in history, generally the less of a mass tv audience there is wanting to see it, and I suspect the ITV audience would rather inhabit the far more glamorous surrounds of Downton Abbey or classic novels. The hype did pull a fairly decent audience for a Thursday night, but the very fact that its been scheduled there rather suggests the ITV hierarchy didnt consider it the greatest drama ever made.
Personally I will be tuning in next week, I want to see how they deal with the expanding fire scenes.
Regarding everybody being clean-ITV also did Cadfael in the nineties. That was set in the 12th century and there was very little dirt around in that either iirc. Must be catching.
Comments
Cilla wa very good indeed. Broadchurch was highly overrated though (and overlong). I do have a soft spot for Mr Selfridge though!
Didn't watch The Great Fire but the trailers didn't look that hot.
Since the fire is the thing around which all of the rest of it hangs it might have been more interesting to have started up front with that, maybe even in the mid point, and tell the back story by flashbacks.
I think they also made the mistake of hiring David Cameron's make up artist. Everyone seemed to have a beaming orange face, and a colgate smile. I'm not suggesting they should have gone all the way down the Monty Python route with the great unwashed walking around with boils hanging off their noses, but a tiny bit of realism wouldn't have gone wrong.
And the writing was woeful. Best historical drama I've seen for a long time was channel 4's 1066. The writing and direction captured the atmosphere of its time, so why don't the execs realise this and when planning something like this at least look to hire someone who has a bit of a feel for the subject matter.
That just sums up perfectly what I thought about it:(
Teeth always let dramas down, whether it be historical like this (before the invention of toothpaste & when probably only 1% of the population had access to a dentist), or modern & focusing on people who are poor or drug addicts or criminals or whatever; how hard can it be to get some dentures (as I believe Charlize Theron had when she played the homeless prostitute serial killer Aileen Wuornos in the film Monster)?
The wig incident was shoehorned in. The dancing scene was there, I presume, to show the difference between the peasants and the toffs. Otherwise, there wasn't much difference. The peasants didn't live in squalor and filth. Everything was shiny bright.
Is everything I think I know about the 17th century wrong?
The script was just bad. The characterisation was non-existent. Drama should grab you immediately, and make you care about the characters. These were bland beyond bland.
It seemed like someone thought it would be a good idea to make a drama about the great fire. So they did, and as a gimmick used real fire instead of CGI. But, apart from a couple of quotes from people around at the time, (probably lifted from the internet) they didn't bother to do any actual research about conditions at the time.
It was just so bad. Please stick to modern dramas, ITV. You've got a better chance of something approaching realism with them.
Maybe I'm being unfair and it improved after the first 10 minutes or so. I wouldn't know and I'm not going to find out as I will never watch it again.
Good point. Or better yet, as the people directly affected by the fire so far are in Pudding Lane, just show them in the context of fighting the blaze while the king, Pepys and Lord Whatsit go about their business until it gets serious.
This really wasn't very good. I quite enjoyed it but it wasn't very good.
I did like the political intrigue - a police state with spies on every corner - the religious plotting and the sense of a society of excess hurtling towards disaster. What I didn't like was the unlikely baker and his simpering sister-in-law, plus their various offspring. We don't need unrealistic, unconvincing characters to make us care about the drama (why do writers do this??). The fire that destroyed most of the biggest city in the world is dramatic enough without a daft grafted-on plotline which didn't ring true for a minute.
The effects were good - 10/10 for not using painfully unrealistic CGI. I did wonder though why no-one else noticed the fire in Pudding Lane while the baker and his daughters were climbing out of the window...:D
I often notice characters being too clean and tidy and their teeth were too good but I don't let it distract me for long as it spoils the experience.
I suspect in this country we're more into realistic portrayal while the US market wants more pretty people with nice teeth and hair. The producers always have to balance competing requirements and if they want to make an expensive drama they do need to sell it overseas to cover their costs and the US is the biggest market.
On teeth:- I've been watching the original Star Treks with Captain Kirk and Spock on CBS Action in the last week or so and I spotted their teeth (esp Spock) are pretty poor, both for 22nd century 'cream of humanity' sent to explore the galaxy, with onboard health facilities and more oddly, even for late 1960s US actors in a major TV series. And they say we have bad teeth!
Sometimes I think producers are so keen on worldwide sales that they forget what they're actually producing.
I think we have intelligent audiences in the UK. We know out history of the Restoration and the Great Fire. Give us a bit of credit!
I was expecting something more like the documentary type drama that was on a while back, that others have mentioned; much more informative and interesting, IMO.
I'm not sure whether I'll carry on watching or not, to be honest.
It was all too dark, hard to understand, and the people were far too clean. Another thing that really stood out for me was how clean the streets/lanes were. I couldn't even see any upturned barrels, rubbish etc. This was a time of filthy streets.
I remember the BBC's adaptation of Bleak House. That really gave the feel of the poorer areas in Victorian times, but the streets of London (or any of city/town) were just as bad, if not worse, in the time of the Stuarts.
You're not being unfair at all - all your comments could just as easily apply to the entire hour … an hour of my life I'll never get back.
That should never have been commissioned …
Watched the opening of my recording then started to skip through it, finally deleting it.
Not for me.
I'm not really liking him in this. I keep seeing Ronnie Biggs.
It's not your fault, the networks can't please everyone.
"I just wished they pleased more than they actually do."
Am I being unfair in saying The Great Fire comes across almost as though made for American TV? There's just something a bit too sterile about it all - everyone looks a bit too perfect and acts as if, well, as if they're acting!!
It's not you. ;-)
This made me laugh.
Awful.
Tom Bradby has written some very good novels - not sure what happened with the dialogue on this and as people have said - the look is way too modern and clean.
Seems like it was made with an export to America in mind.
Well I doubt ITV would have gone near 1666 if it wasn't for the fire, its the fire which is supposed to be the star of the show (and its a very hard task to pull off convincingly). The further you go back in history, generally the less of a mass tv audience there is wanting to see it, and I suspect the ITV audience would rather inhabit the far more glamorous surrounds of Downton Abbey or classic novels. The hype did pull a fairly decent audience for a Thursday night, but the very fact that its been scheduled there rather suggests the ITV hierarchy didnt consider it the greatest drama ever made.
Personally I will be tuning in next week, I want to see how they deal with the expanding fire scenes.
Regarding everybody being clean-ITV also did Cadfael in the nineties. That was set in the 12th century and there was very little dirt around in that either iirc. Must be catching.