I like Claire Foy , although describing her as stunning is a little OTT.
It was a fair interpretation of a student-type house.
But I'd never have moved in myself with such an arse as the main householder.
That's true, but what it tells us is that the programme makers made some very basic howlers. Mistakes that a minute of their time spent on Google would have avoided. (Churchill's funeral being in Jan, but the programme being obviously set much later.)
Things like that tells us that the programme makers don't really care about the details and their slapdash attitude shows they don't have any respect for the audience. If the writers aren't interested in the programme, why should the audience be?
Unforgivable as historian Dominic Sandbrook is the historical adviser on this program.
The landlord puts together completely different housemates as a social experiment - thus allowing the BBC to do a bit of box ticking and meet its diversity agenda
Yes just missing a lesbian, still there are 5 episodes to go......
It's ridiculous there's no repeat on any BBC channel.
This does seem to be in keeping with the BBCs policy of hiding it's "quality" programmes and making them as hard as possible to watch. :mad:
They did the same with The Hour. Despite being quite popular, each episode was only reshown once, a couple of days after the original went out - and then at a less accessible time (i.e. 23:00 when the originals were shown at 21:00). Strangely, The Hour ep. 1 was never repeated. It was shown once and has never been broadcast since.
Compare that with Sky, who show their "hit" (did I spell that right?) programmes three or fours times for each episode.
As i was born in 61,i dont really remember all the stuff like Grovener square in 68 , flower power etc, or the 66 wc, but i was actually at Churchills funeral on my dads shoulders at the age of 4 lol, there is a photo in our family album, of it
but other than that not much although i vaugely remember the Aberfan tragedy , as the victims were remembered in our morning assembly prayers , but no other memorys , really, although when my music teacher asked if there a song , anybody would like to hear, a said Yellow submarine
i got the frown look from her
Grosvenor square 68
back in the 80s i shared a house with 3 other people , and two were Swp members (sadly one is no longer around) and one night a freind of theirs who was older, said his finest moment was Grosvenor square was in 68, where the height of the anti vietnam war demos , was there, he told us when Police charged them they all chucked Marbles and ploice and hores went flting everywhwere (this incident incidentley was a changing face of police in 60s and after that horses hooves were changeed so it wouldnt happen again ) , and they all sung " we all live in facist regime " to tune of ys
As for the show thought it was ok, but nowhere near as good as OFIN , and as has been pointed out by juliet stevenson its not meant to be either
Am currentley reading sandbrooks book, White, heat, having previously read, never had to so good (50s) and state of emgerencey (70/74) his next book is called Seasons in the sun 74/79 due for publication on 31/05/12, to coincide with the series the Seventies
For those intrested in these books , beaware they have a min of 700 plus pages
Ally Pally most definitely does still broadcast TV signals!
All depends where the house is meant to be. Lots of North London is unable to get a clear signal crom Crystal Palace and so relies on Ally Pally.
My Dad's house in Barnet still can only get its TV signal from Ally Pally, and where I am (near Crouch End) I have the choice of Ally Pally or Crystal Palace signal (I use Crystal Palace as Ally Pally is analogue only).
Ally Pally VHF closed in 1956, but re-opened again in 1982 as a UHF relay. No Ally Pally transmissions in 1965
This does seem to be in keeping with the BBCs policy of hiding it's "quality" programmes and making them as hard as possible to watch. :mad:
They did the same with The Hour. Despite being quite popular, each episode was only reshown once.....
And the ironically titled (in light of it’s scheduling) Hidden didn’t even have a repeat - One screening only. I didn’t much like it but when home-produced drama like this costing millions gets short-shrift comparative to utter trash like Pan Am, which had repeats a few days after the Saturday premier, you have to wonder if anyone at the BBC has a ****ing clue.
Does anyone know when 'present day' is actually set? If it's 2012, aren't the people playing the characters 'now' a little too young?
Well, when Juliet Thingy opened the door of the house to the second woman, #2 said something like "it's been 20 years". Now whether that meant 20 years since they'd last seen each other, or 20 years since they were both living in the house wasn't made clear.
Though if it was (say) 1967 + 20, the furnishings and the video entry-phone seemed a little too contemporary for the 1980's
That's true, but what it tells us is that the programme makers made some very basic howlers. Mistakes that a minute of their time spent on Google would have avoided. (Churchill's funeral being in Jan, but the programme being obviously set much later.)
Things like that tells us that the programme makers don't really care about the details and their slapdash attitude shows they don't have any respect for the audience. If the writers aren't interested in the programme, why should the audience be?
What pompous rubbish. The makers of the programme just never allowed for sad people sitting around looking for continuity errors or chronological mistakes. You must have loved Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes because they were full of historical 'mistakes'.
Why not just enjoy it for a piece of contemporary drama and not view it as a 60s documentary?
I thought it was rather good, well acted and nice warmer for what's to come. It seems to me that some people want more 'action' or 'drama' and this is a huge issue for TV makers today. The cult of the modern day audience with it's 'we want it all and we want it now' culture means subtle exposition, slow building narrative and genuine depth are treated as 'boring' or 'dull'.
Seriously some people should just stick to cop shows.
Why not just enjoy it for a piece of contemporary drama and not view it as a 60s documentary?
So presumably you'd have been OK if the 1960s people had just pulled out an iPad, or a mobile phone? You obviously don't understand that if the writers can't get the basics of their premise correct, then there's no point trying to accept whatever point they're trying to make - as that's just as likely to be flawed, too.
So presumably you'd have been OK if the 1960s people had just pulled out an iPad, or a mobile phone? You obviously don't understand that if the writers can't get the basics of their premise correct, then there's no point trying to accept whatever point they're trying to make - as that's just as likely to be flawed, too.
But they did get the basics right. Nitpicking about details is pointless. Do I think that every car in the background was pre-1965? Of course not, but the programme was not about cars. Was the season that Churchill died in correct? No, but why on earth should anyone care a jot about that?
The writers wanted to tell a story and set a scene in which to tell it. They were not doing an historical recreation and looking for "mistakes" has nothing to do with enjoying the drama. I remembered that Churchill died in January, and noticed a couple of lines of dialogue that would not have been used back then, but they were irrelevant to the story and the characters.
Where I have problems with White Heat are in some of its characters, who so far are pretty weak. But it is early days and I will give it another go.
So presumably you'd have been OK if the 1960s people had just pulled out an iPad, or a mobile phone? You obviously don't understand that if the writers can't get the basics of their premise correct, then there's no point trying to accept whatever point they're trying to make - as that's just as likely to be flawed, too.
Rubbish. The mistakes are only going to be picked out by pedants like you with nothing better to do than nit pick over utter irrelevancies. Seriously, do you watch Superman and think 'blimey that's not right, no way can someone with the physique of a human actually fly'. To sit there and chuck out ridiculous statements like it shows the 'slapdash attitude' of programme makers showing 'disrespect' for their audience is ludicrous and unfair. I doubt it was produced by people sitting around saying, yeah don't worry about the historical inaccuracies, no-one will notice'
I imagine most people are willing to apply some authors advocacy when they red books, and I think most audiences would apply a similar ethos to the odd error. Most of the LoM and A2A audience delighted in the odd error, after all the programmes were made by....errr.....people. Flawed, human people. And your comments detract from the real critique of acting, plotline, narrative and exposition. Minor errors really don't matter. A lot of the audience wouldn't know when Churchill died exactly.
It's building a picture, a story and thank God, for once, one that doesn't rely on overt violence (overt sex is fine by me) or huge explosions or special effects or implausible twists and unfathomable turning points. Just a good and rather fetching portrayal of a FICTIONAL story set in a hugely important time in our society.
Grosvenor square 68
back in the 80s i shared a house with 3 other people , and two were Swp members (sadly one is no longer around) and one night a freind of theirs who was older, said his finest moment was Grosvenor square was in 68, where the height of the anti vietnam war demos , was there, he told us when Police charged them they all chucked Marbles and ploice and hores went flting everywhwere (this incident incidentley was a changing face of police in 60s and after that horses hooves were changeed so it wouldnt happen again ) , and they all sung " we all live in facist regime " to tune of ys
Which had absolutely no effect on the Vietnam War whatsoever.
Finest hour? Injuring animals as well as people.:rolleyes:
If it was such a fascist regime, then they wouldn't have even been allowed to protest or not for long.
Ally Pally VHF closed in 1956, but re-opened again in 1982 as a UHF relay. No Ally Pally transmissions in 1965
Ah right, I'll bow to your superior broadcasting knowledge
Where did the people who are in the dip and cannot get Crystal Palace signals get their TV from before 1982 then? I definitely watched TV between 65 and 82!
Well, when Juliet Thingy opened the door of the house to the second woman, #2 said something like "it's been 20 years". Now whether that meant 20 years since they'd last seen each other, or 20 years since they were both living in the house wasn't made clear.
Though if it was (say) 1967 + 20, the furnishings and the video entry-phone seemed a little too contemporary for the 1980's
I assumed 20 years since they had last seen each other, but who knows. Going by the age they all look, it should be the year 2000 or so.
I missed the very beginning, when is the "present day" meant to be? Not 2012 surely?
Yes, I was feeling a bit sorry for Juliet Stevenson being expected to play mid-60s. The poor woman is 10 years younger and Hugh Quarshie nearly that. Plenty of 65 yr old actors about - why not give them an outing?
I missed the very beginning, when is the "present day" meant to be? Not 2012 surely?
yes it's a bit strange
it's 1965
Charlotte? starts her second term at uni
although it appears to be summer
given that she may have passed her A levels early that makes her 17
but more likely 18
which would make her 64ish at present
as far as i can tell she's the youngest
But they did get the basics right. Nitpicking about details is pointless. Do I think that every car in the background was pre-1965? Of course not, but the programme was not about cars. Was the season that Churchill died in correct? No, but why on earth should anyone care a jot about that?.
If a drama set in 1997 had a scene where a character says they're just going off to watch Diana's funeral procession while outside it was snowing it'd be laughed off the screen. So yes people do care about details like events and the time of year. If you remember it personally it would obviously jarr tremendously.
Comments
She reminds me of Anna Friel looks-wise
Unforgivable as historian Dominic Sandbrook is the historical adviser on this program.
Yes just missing a lesbian, still there are 5 episodes to go......
I suppose the BBC can't win. People are either complaining about too many repeats, or not enough.
As for your netbook - there's no need to watch on a tiny screen just get a cable so you can plug it into your TV.
They did the same with The Hour. Despite being quite popular, each episode was only reshown once, a couple of days after the original went out - and then at a less accessible time (i.e. 23:00 when the originals were shown at 21:00). Strangely, The Hour ep. 1 was never repeated. It was shown once and has never been broadcast since.
Compare that with Sky, who show their "hit" (did I spell that right?)
As i was born in 61,i dont really remember all the stuff like Grovener square in 68 , flower power etc, or the 66 wc, but i was actually at Churchills funeral on my dads shoulders at the age of 4 lol, there is a photo in our family album, of it
but other than that not much although i vaugely remember the Aberfan tragedy , as the victims were remembered in our morning assembly prayers , but no other memorys , really, although when my music teacher asked if there a song , anybody would like to hear, a said Yellow submarine
i got the frown look from her
Grosvenor square 68
back in the 80s i shared a house with 3 other people , and two were Swp members (sadly one is no longer around) and one night a freind of theirs who was older, said his finest moment was Grosvenor square was in 68, where the height of the anti vietnam war demos , was there, he told us when Police charged them they all chucked Marbles and ploice and hores went flting everywhwere (this incident incidentley was a changing face of police in 60s and after that horses hooves were changeed so it wouldnt happen again ) , and they all sung " we all live in facist regime " to tune of ys
As for the show thought it was ok, but nowhere near as good as OFIN , and as has been pointed out by juliet stevenson its not meant to be either
Am currentley reading sandbrooks book, White, heat, having previously read, never had to so good (50s) and state of emgerencey (70/74) his next book is called Seasons in the sun 74/79 due for publication on 31/05/12, to coincide with the series the Seventies
For those intrested in these books , beaware they have a min of 700 plus pages
Ally Pally VHF closed in 1956, but re-opened again in 1982 as a UHF relay. No Ally Pally transmissions in 1965
And the ironically titled (in light of it’s scheduling) Hidden didn’t even have a repeat - One screening only. I didn’t much like it but when home-produced drama like this costing millions gets short-shrift comparative to utter trash like Pan Am, which had repeats a few days after the Saturday premier, you have to wonder if anyone at the BBC has a ****ing clue.
Though if it was (say) 1967 + 20, the furnishings and the video entry-phone seemed a little too contemporary for the 1980's
What pompous rubbish. The makers of the programme just never allowed for sad people sitting around looking for continuity errors or chronological mistakes. You must have loved Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes because they were full of historical 'mistakes'.
Why not just enjoy it for a piece of contemporary drama and not view it as a 60s documentary?
I thought it was rather good, well acted and nice warmer for what's to come. It seems to me that some people want more 'action' or 'drama' and this is a huge issue for TV makers today. The cult of the modern day audience with it's 'we want it all and we want it now' culture means subtle exposition, slow building narrative and genuine depth are treated as 'boring' or 'dull'.
Seriously some people should just stick to cop shows.
But they did get the basics right. Nitpicking about details is pointless. Do I think that every car in the background was pre-1965? Of course not, but the programme was not about cars. Was the season that Churchill died in correct? No, but why on earth should anyone care a jot about that?
The writers wanted to tell a story and set a scene in which to tell it. They were not doing an historical recreation and looking for "mistakes" has nothing to do with enjoying the drama. I remembered that Churchill died in January, and noticed a couple of lines of dialogue that would not have been used back then, but they were irrelevant to the story and the characters.
Where I have problems with White Heat are in some of its characters, who so far are pretty weak. But it is early days and I will give it another go.
Rubbish. The mistakes are only going to be picked out by pedants like you with nothing better to do than nit pick over utter irrelevancies. Seriously, do you watch Superman and think 'blimey that's not right, no way can someone with the physique of a human actually fly'. To sit there and chuck out ridiculous statements like it shows the 'slapdash attitude' of programme makers showing 'disrespect' for their audience is ludicrous and unfair. I doubt it was produced by people sitting around saying, yeah don't worry about the historical inaccuracies, no-one will notice'
I imagine most people are willing to apply some authors advocacy when they red books, and I think most audiences would apply a similar ethos to the odd error. Most of the LoM and A2A audience delighted in the odd error, after all the programmes were made by....errr.....people. Flawed, human people. And your comments detract from the real critique of acting, plotline, narrative and exposition. Minor errors really don't matter. A lot of the audience wouldn't know when Churchill died exactly.
It's building a picture, a story and thank God, for once, one that doesn't rely on overt violence (overt sex is fine by me) or huge explosions or special effects or implausible twists and unfathomable turning points. Just a good and rather fetching portrayal of a FICTIONAL story set in a hugely important time in our society.
Which had absolutely no effect on the Vietnam War whatsoever.
Finest hour? Injuring animals as well as people.:rolleyes:
If it was such a fascist regime, then they wouldn't have even been allowed to protest or not for long.
Ah right, I'll bow to your superior broadcasting knowledge
Where did the people who are in the dip and cannot get Crystal Palace signals get their TV from before 1982 then? I definitely watched TV between 65 and 82!
Sorry, gone a bit OT.
I assumed 20 years since they had last seen each other, but who knows. Going by the age they all look, it should be the year 2000 or so.
Yes, I was feeling a bit sorry for Juliet Stevenson being expected to play mid-60s. The poor woman is 10 years younger and Hugh Quarshie nearly that. Plenty of 65 yr old actors about - why not give them an outing?
It's not so much her looks it's her voice, they have very similar voices.
yes it's a bit strange
it's 1965
Charlotte? starts her second term at uni
although it appears to be summer
given that she may have passed her A levels early that makes her 17
but more likely 18
which would make her 64ish at present
as far as i can tell she's the youngest
Yes I noticed that too
If a drama set in 1997 had a scene where a character says they're just going off to watch Diana's funeral procession while outside it was snowing it'd be laughed off the screen. So yes people do care about details like events and the time of year. If you remember it personally it would obviously jarr tremendously.