Out of interest what platform was everyone watching it on , just wondering if the sound could be down to the carrier, Freeview , Sky etc. It was ok on Virgin for me and I checked Iplayer and it seems ok there.
Quite, i mean who cares about some footballer's haircut being the in the wrong World Cup clip!
Look, smart-arse, I don't particularly care, I was merely pointing it out. Although I am a wee bit intrigued as to why they wouldn't just use the appropriate World Cup clip. Besides, programmes - especially ones with such a huge build up, critics climaxing over it - should they really contain blatant errors, no matter how minor?
Look, smart-arse, I don't particularly care, I was merely pointing it out. Although I am a wee bit intrigued as to why they wouldn't just use the appropriate World Cup clip. Besides, programmes - especially ones with such a huge build up, critics climaxing over it - should they really contain blatant errors, no matter how minor?
Which clip did you mean - the one where they showed a close-up of Ronaldo getting up off the ground after a blatant dive was definitely from the 2006 QF?
The scarf: I'm confused about this as despite the apparent link to the drawing in the basement I think it is a red herring. When they were in the pub discussing whether to go for a swim it is clearly shown in Emily's handbag so I do not think it made it to the pool, and it is not shown on his person at anytime at the pool or bar - maybe dropped out and picked up a random passer by enroute back to L'Eden? (The yellow towel shown was not the scarf).
I feel it will however provide the catalyst for uncovering 'other' events that were taking place on the fringes of the action back in 2006 - and I'm not talking about Ronaldo's hairstyle!
I'm another one who is not at all keen on Nesbitt, but I'm always prepared to watch a program/series whether or not I like the lead, if it seems good.
This seems okay so far....
But it was somehow uncomfortable watching this fictional series knowing that the Madeleine McCann case is being re-investigated. And the thing is, there were no 'lucky breaks' (like in the Nesbitt character had in the charity shop) for the McCanns.
Oh yes, and I had no trouble listening to this (on Virgin). But we tend to watch on the normal BBC1 channel, rather than the HD channel, because HD often sounds muffled.
As peeps have pointed out, some unlikely plot coincidences, but I'll persevere with it for a while.
Coincidences happen in life but charity shops don't keep records of every item donated and Mum's don't put large initials on scarves.
If they wanted a new lead to reopen the investigation surely they could have come up with something more plausible.
Maybe the kid could have gone missing wearing a Wycombe Wanderers' shirt and someone from the original investigation could have recognised it and from there discovered it was found in a cellar of a house they'd just moved into.
Got a bit confused with the time shifts - some programmes manage this much better. Also wondered why some of the French dialogue was translated with sub-titles and some wasn't.
I often watch dramas like this with the sub-titles on as it makes it easier for me to follow when there are outside scenes with dodgy sound, or with accented speech.
God what a coincidence. I stayed in Chalons-sur-Marne, now renamed Chalons-en- Champagne or Ch-Sur- Bois (fictional?).
Stayed in the very same square at the hotel Pot d'Etain in the Place de la Republique, many moons ago and recognised it immediately - this was way back in the Sixties.
Great first episode. I was engrossed by it so I didn't mind suspending disbelief for some aspects. Not usually a fan of James Nesbitt but I thought he was great.
I thought it was gripping and the photography outstanding. It's almost as if they arranged for the weather to be perfect for even lighting.
Regarding muffled sound, I don't know the technical reason, but I have found that some films and documentaries don't mix well with some of the preset sound balances in some televisions. They might have names such as speech, music, wide, concert, cinema, etc, but switching to a different one can often make a big difference.
I thought it was alright but its a sad story as it would be anyway.
I'm not impressed that the wife left her husband and ended up with the Policeman! I get the feeling though she did it to be close to the Policeman's son who obviously reminds her of her own son, still not good thing to do though! >:(
I hadn't copped that the wife's new partner was the policeman with the little boy she ran after in France!
I thought James Nesbitt was superb in this and I hope he gets a Bafta nomination. I agree the bit about the scarf and the woman not realising that someone had been in her basement is a bit weak, but otherwise it was a great opening episode. I think it should be even better from now on as the characters have hopefully all been introduced and established so we won't have to keep working out who is who and how they were originally involved in the case.
I enjoyed the first part. Half expected Nesbitt to get clobbered from behind down the cellar or there to be manacles bolted to the wall and empty crisp packs and kwenchy cups on the floor!
I also didn't realised the wife's new bloke was the police liaison guy.
didn't the ex policeman explain that she and her husband had been away (she said on holiday in French) while they had decorators in to do up the house ? Hence she had been expecting people to be in her house and didn't think it odd?
Ref: the yellow scarf. When Ollie was being dried off after the pool, the dad put a yellow scarf on his head, it looked like a towel to me at first. As the story went on and the scarf was mentioned realized that is what it was.
Just watched that bit again - looks more like a towel than a scarf. And the boy was definitely not wearing the scarf when he went missing contrary to what Nesbitt's character told the police (liaison ?) woman.
I thought it was alright but its a sad story as it would be anyway.
I'm not impressed that the wife left her husband and ended up with the Policeman! I get the feeling though she did it to be close to the Policeman's son who obviously reminds her of her own son, still not good thing to do though! >:(
I hadn't realised her new bloke was the policeman! Thanks for pointing that out. I did find it odd that the policeman had come to France as a police family liaison officer for the family, and yet he had brought his own son with him. Why would he have his young son with him when he was supposed to be working and on duty? Unless he was already there on holiday anyway and was pulled in to do the job?
I hadn't realised her new bloke was the policeman! Thanks for pointing that out. I did find it odd that the policeman had come to France as a police family liaison officer for the family, and yet he had brought his own son with him. Why would he have his young son with him when he was supposed to be working and on duty? Unless he was already there on holiday anyway and was pulled in to do the job?
I quite enjoyed the first episode... I know people have pointed out errors and plot holes, but I just watch it knowing artistic license has been used.
I hadn't realised the mother was with the Police Liaison Officer in the present day.... even though I kept rewinding to double check who was who! I might need to watch it again as I'm sure I must have missed other things too.
I'm also convinced like someone else pointed out that the boy wasn't wearing the scarf when he went missing after swimming.
I hadn't realised her new bloke was the policeman! Thanks for pointing that out. I did find it odd that the policeman had come to France as a police family liaison officer for the family, and yet he had brought his own son with him. Why would he have his young son with him when he was supposed to be working and on duty? Unless he was already there on holiday anyway and was pulled in to do the job?
From what I understood he was already there on holiday with his family and was asked to take on the case because he was there.
It took me ages to realise the dark haired woman was actually the same person as the blonde mother. Duh!
Comments
I was watching via Sky.
It doesn't bode well for the rest of the series.
I thought it might be the hotel landlady's husband. Pretty sure he was in the bar where Baptiste and James Nesbitt met up, he looked a right state.
Look, smart-arse, I don't particularly care, I was merely pointing it out. Although I am a wee bit intrigued as to why they wouldn't just use the appropriate World Cup clip. Besides, programmes - especially ones with such a huge build up, critics climaxing over it - should they really contain blatant errors, no matter how minor?
Which clip did you mean - the one where they showed a close-up of Ronaldo getting up off the ground after a blatant dive was definitely from the 2006 QF?
The scarf: I'm confused about this as despite the apparent link to the drawing in the basement I think it is a red herring. When they were in the pub discussing whether to go for a swim it is clearly shown in Emily's handbag so I do not think it made it to the pool, and it is not shown on his person at anytime at the pool or bar - maybe dropped out and picked up a random passer by enroute back to L'Eden? (The yellow towel shown was not the scarf).
I feel it will however provide the catalyst for uncovering 'other' events that were taking place on the fringes of the action back in 2006 - and I'm not talking about Ronaldo's hairstyle!
This seems okay so far....
But it was somehow uncomfortable watching this fictional series knowing that the Madeleine McCann case is being re-investigated. And the thing is, there were no 'lucky breaks' (like in the Nesbitt character had in the charity shop) for the McCanns.
Oh yes, and I had no trouble listening to this (on Virgin). But we tend to watch on the normal BBC1 channel, rather than the HD channel, because HD often sounds muffled.
Coincidences happen in life but charity shops don't keep records of every item donated and Mum's don't put large initials on scarves.
If they wanted a new lead to reopen the investigation surely they could have come up with something more plausible.
Maybe the kid could have gone missing wearing a Wycombe Wanderers' shirt and someone from the original investigation could have recognised it and from there discovered it was found in a cellar of a house they'd just moved into.
Far more believable imho.
I often watch dramas like this with the sub-titles on as it makes it easier for me to follow when there are outside scenes with dodgy sound, or with accented speech.
Stayed in the very same square at the hotel Pot d'Etain in the Place de la Republique, many moons ago and recognised it immediately - this was way back in the Sixties.
Then they show her coming out of St. pancras.
What is it all about. Was one shot in 2006 and other shot in present day.
Why the confusing continuity. Just hints at problems in 2006 with media and oublic opinion. Why Paris underground
Besides got to support our local East Dulwich boy James Nesbitt plus he's a good actor really.
Paris underground? That was all the London underground. There was no continuity problem.
The black woman has recognised her from the tv
Regarding muffled sound, I don't know the technical reason, but I have found that some films and documentaries don't mix well with some of the preset sound balances in some televisions. They might have names such as speech, music, wide, concert, cinema, etc, but switching to a different one can often make a big difference.
I'm not impressed that the wife left her husband and ended up with the Policeman! I get the feeling though she did it to be close to the Policeman's son who obviously reminds her of her own son, still not good thing to do though! >:(
I thought James Nesbitt was superb in this and I hope he gets a Bafta nomination. I agree the bit about the scarf and the woman not realising that someone had been in her basement is a bit weak, but otherwise it was a great opening episode. I think it should be even better from now on as the characters have hopefully all been introduced and established so we won't have to keep working out who is who and how they were originally involved in the case.
I also didn't realised the wife's new bloke was the police liaison guy.
Just watched that bit again - looks more like a towel than a scarf. And the boy was definitely not wearing the scarf when he went missing contrary to what Nesbitt's character told the police (liaison ?) woman.
I hadn't realised her new bloke was the policeman! Thanks for pointing that out. I did find it odd that the policeman had come to France as a police family liaison officer for the family, and yet he had brought his own son with him. Why would he have his young son with him when he was supposed to be working and on duty? Unless he was already there on holiday anyway and was pulled in to do the job?
I quite enjoyed the first episode... I know people have pointed out errors and plot holes, but I just watch it knowing artistic license has been used.
I hadn't realised the mother was with the Police Liaison Officer in the present day.... even though I kept rewinding to double check who was who! I might need to watch it again as I'm sure I must have missed other things too.
I'm also convinced like someone else pointed out that the boy wasn't wearing the scarf when he went missing after swimming.
From what I understood he was already there on holiday with his family and was asked to take on the case because he was there.
It took me ages to realise the dark haired woman was actually the same person as the blonde mother. Duh!