I find it's possible to like both "serious" drama (or "adult" if you prefer the term) and romps like TTM.
I love fantasy and light-hearted genre pieces, but I like them to be well made. The Musketeers is a children's drama, clearly so because it feels it can ignore requirements for internal consistency.
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 think you mean family show, something that can be enjoyed by all generations, i.e. the majority of the audience. I already explained upthread how Adrian Hodges stated in an interview that he was asked to produce a show that could go out at either 8 or 9pm.
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?"
I can't see how explicit violence would add anything desirable to a show like this and don't think graphic or gruesome images make a show more 'serious'. Personally, I avoid it if possible and think that it's such a shame if people cannot enjoy a show without it. It doesn't really fit with the Musketeers anyway, which should be a fun romp. This already has a grittier feel and look than previous versions. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to the rest of the series.
I think you mean family show, something that can be enjoyed by all generations, i.e. the majority of the audience. I already explained upthread how Adrian Hodges stated in an interview that he was asked to produce a show that could go out at either 8 or 9pm.
Then Mr Hodges fulfilled his brief. Perhaps, if they'd made it clear that it was a "family show" misplaced to after the watershed I'd have steered clear.
And I really didn't mean "family show". If there is such a thing it would a show where at least one of the narrative threads was understandable by children and a casual reading of the characters was appealing to children. There ought, still, to be story elements which engage adults and characters sufficiently well drawn to not seem like cartoons. To work for adults the show need also be rigorously internally consistent - children seem not to worry. Children should not be put off and their parents not offended, but all adults should still find the work enjoyable.
I can't see how explicit violence would add anything desirable to a show like this and don't think graphic or gruesome images make a show more 'serious'. Personally, I avoid it if possible and think that it's such a shame if people cannot enjoy a show without it. It doesn't really fit with the Musketeers anyway, which should be a fun romp. This already has a grittier feel and look than previous versions. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to the rest of the series.
I was pointing out that the violence another forum poster thought was excessive was mild by any, reasonable, frame of reference. If the notoriously prudish American networks can show more explicit scenes then, surely, so can Auntie. If you thought TM was gritty, I guess you're horrified by Game of Thrones (which I think is the perfect "family show").
If you thought TM was gritty, I guess you're horrified by Game of Thrones (which I think is the perfect "family show").
Game of Thrones is your idea of a "family show" then?.:D
Get real.
Extreme graphic violence and explicit sex scenes, along with foul language every couple of minutes doesn't equal "family" viewing in any way, shape or form.
And I say this as a GoT fan who cant wait for the next season to arrive.
The Musketeers could NEVER be written like GoT and be on the beeb as you well know. TM is great for those of us who enjoy an entertaining romp on a Sunday, no more, no less.
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.
Surely it is simply because it was already established that she and Athos know each other. Therefore they asked her to help provide that distraction so they could gather the evidence that he was innocent and therefore prevent his execution.
Thanks for answering. Incidentally, I would stress that these replies are more along the lines of "reasons why I didn't necessarily have too much of a problem with whatever it was", rather than "reasons why you should change your mind". I am not seeking to persuade you of anything, simply to indicate my own feelings. You're free not to share them, and I speak only for myself.
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.
There is also another reason, that being so as to help them save Athos' life, which is what's at stake in that situation.
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?
It depends on the exact nature of the criticism. Personally, I disagree with the statement that it was a sub-moustache twirling performance or a particularly bad one. I mention it in comparison to others I've seen simply to emphasise that I do have some points of reference here. Essentially I don't feel any need to defend it, as I found it within what seems reasonable to me - obviously a subjective opinion, and I don't claim otherwise.
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.
Two days difference in time, and not necessarily the same direction outside of Paris either.
"Not all of the time"
By this I meant that although I can recognise that some expositionary detail was dropped into it, I didn't feel that this particularly defined the characters or scripting.
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.
That may be a fair point, although I don't know if it was ever made clear exactly what he was doing at any of the given times when the imposter was at work, or whether any sightings of him would clash with those. I understand the point, but I'm not sure whether it causes enough of a problem to be significant.
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.
It was also primarily a character and social history drama, whereas TM is more of an adventure thing, this is the distinction I was thinking of, whether or not they qualify as "romps". Again, Deadwood mostly created its own characters, other than the historical personages who appeared in it, they weren't inherited directly from any source, and less of a set of known associations. There weren't several dozen film, TV or even cartoon versions of the same story and characters already in existence before it, again other than the real people who appeared in it. Also, it may not have been directly educational, but it was based at least in part on historical themes, such as capitalism and the development of frontier towns, and was partly based on research into diaries and newspapers from the period. Because of all this I wouldn't say that their aims quite coincided except on the most basic level of entertainment, and in that sense, most fictional programmes would qualify.
Although whether it was better is something I couldn't judge at the moment, not having watched it - I'm not a viewer of Merlin or Sherlock, for that matter, so couldn't really comment meaningfully on those either - and my feelings on The Musketeers are still provisional, though not especially hostile, as I noted earlier. I don't currently have any strong feelings about the way the characters were drawn, or how funny, exciting or well made it may have been, but little about those has aroused any particular dislike so far.
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.
Fair enough. I don't intend, either, to give the impression of criticising you for not liking it - if you found it dull, silly, uninvolving etc for whatever reasons, and lacking enough charisma to compensate, then I've no issue with that. It's a point of view. Fine.
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 didn't say you weren't part of the BBC's audience, just not those who something like this would be aimed at. If you haven't liked anything at all produced by them in the drama department over the last ten years, then I can agree that it's reasonable to appeal for higher standards by all means, but that'll involve more than just talking about it on this thread obviously, as I'm sure you'll appreciate.
Certainly though, I do think that you're as entitled as any other viewer of the BBC to expect something that you would think of a good standard, or that you would find enjoyable. This is also what I would like although I know that, realistically, as it is catering for millions of licence fee payers, not everything they do is going to have appeal for me. But some of their material does, so I don't have too much of a problem there personally. That's not to say, though, that I couldn't accept that there's any room for possible improvement, and indeed, there always is. However, yes, if you're someone for whom nothing does appeal, then that's mainly an indication, as far as the TV companies are concerned, that there's a potential part of the audience that needs catering for.
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 would consider that the BBC's purpose is to try to make material that is both critically and commercially successful. Ideally, the two shouldn't be in conflict, and even if it's not possible to combine both in any one single programme, at least to try to make a range of programmes that can, between them, have something for everyone, so that nobody feels there is nothing there for them.
On the whole, and allowing for the fact that this is a bit of a simplification, I think that the question of large and small audiences for programmes is often down to whether it's of popular or niche interest, rather than something as open to argument as inherent quality. Programme makers don't set out to make something bad or unpopular, after all, however frequently or rarely they may fail at either or both of those. They want it to be good, and recognised as such, and they want it to appeal to their audiences, on whatever level.
That's the ideal or aspiration anyway, even though it may be that the reality of it sometimes fails to live up to that. In practice, I do think there's room for all kinds of improvements in terms of the range of what can be on offer, not just from the BBC but the commercial channels too.
Then Mr Hodges fulfilled his brief. Perhaps, if they'd made it clear that it was a "family show" misplaced to after the watershed I'd have steered clear.
And I really didn't mean "family show". If there is such a thing it would a show where at least one of the narrative threads was understandable by children and a casual reading of the characters was appealing to children. There ought, still, to be story elements which engage adults and characters sufficiently well drawn to not seem like cartoons. To work for adults the show need also be rigorously internally consistent - children seem not to worry. Children should not be put off and their parents not offended, but all adults should still find the work enjoyable.
I was pointing out that the violence another forum poster thought was excessive was mild by any, reasonable, frame of reference. If the notoriously prudish American networks can show more explicit scenes then, surely, so can Auntie. If you thought TM was gritty, I guess you're horrified by Game of Thrones (which I think is the perfect "family show").
I didn't say that The Musketeers was 'gritty', just that it had a grittier feel than previous adaptations I had seen.
Not sure what kind of family you have in mind here? No, I don't think GoT is a family show at all. I'm not horrified by it, but I have made a conscious decision not to watch it because I will not be able to tolerate the level of violence. I tried something of a similar genre recently, and the endless display of cruelty, depravity and sickening violence left me depressed for days afterwards. So I'm grateful that the BBC can provide something a little more mainstream. With regard to the bit in bold, I don't think this is possible. Tastes vary too widely.
Game of Thrones is your idea of a "family show" then?.:D
Get real.
Extreme graphic violence and explicit sex scenes, along with foul language every couple of minutes doesn't equal "family" viewing in any way, shape or form.
And I say this as a GoT fan who cant wait for the next season to arrive.
The Musketeers could NEVER be written like GoT and be on the beeb as you well know. TM is great for those of us who enjoy an entertaining romp on a Sunday, no more, no less.
It's got dragons. And the violence is comic book and the sex very, very far from explicit.
I thought it was better than Atlantis at least. My Dad wanted it to be a totally serious period drama (with none of the humour) but I think he'll still stick with it.
It's got dragons. And the violence is comic book and the sex very, very far from explicit.
Whhhaaatttt? Have you ever actually watched Game of Thrones? How was the violence in the Red Wedding episode (which involved a heavily pregnant woman being stabbed multiple times in the stomach) comic book?
(not to the mention that the third episode has two prostitutes finger-banging each other I wouldn't watch it with my parents!)
Whhhaaatttt? Have you ever actually watched Game of Thrones? How was the violence in the Red Wedding episode (which involved a heavily pregnant woman being stabbed multiple times in the stomach) comic book?
(not to the mention that the third episode has two prostitutes finger-banging each other I wouldn't watch it with my parents!)
But it does have dragons. That's something.
The Red Wedding was shocking, but not visceral. It interesting that you mention watching with parents, research has shown people are more reluctant to watch scenes of sex or violence when accompanied by family members from different generations.
BTW My wife doesn't think GoT is family entertainment either.
Whhhaaatttt? Have you ever actually watched Game of Thrones? How was the violence in the Red Wedding episode (which involved a heavily pregnant woman being stabbed multiple times in the stomach) comic book?
(not to the mention that the third episode has two prostitutes finger-banging each other I wouldn't watch it with my parents!)
But it does have dragons. That's something.
I came on this thread to read about The Musketeers in order to read why people seem to like it and I consider it to be schlocky bollocks.
What I wasn't expecting to read was major GOT spoilers.
I'm waiting for season 3 to be released on dvd.
Unnecessary, thoughtless and out of order. >:(
I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that there is still confusion between 'what I think is a great programme' and 'everyone must like it, everyone must watch it, and nothing else compares'.
Yes, I am talking about Game of Thrones. I love it. Would I insist that everything compares to it? No. The level of sex, violence and swearing would make some people feel ill. Family entertainment? I think not. Watch this with a 10 year old and then live with the consequences. But feel free to enjoy the programme and to not enjoy Three Muskateers. But please do not make this comparison as some sort of major philosophical debate for the poor, hard done by watchers who soley wish to watch 'adult' programmes. There are some of us who can enjoy a vriety of levels of explicit sex and violence.
By the way, thyanks for the Spoilers. Idiot.
For the recrod TM is an entertaining Sun evening romp. Precicely what I want on a Sunday night.
I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that there is still confusion between 'what I think is a great programme' and 'everyone must like it, everyone must watch it, and nothing else compares'.
Yes, I am talking about Game of Thrones. I love it. Would I insist that everything compares to it? No. The level of sex, violence and swearing would make some people feel ill. Family entertainment? I think not. Watch this with a 10 year old and then live with the consequences. But feel free to enjoy the programme and to not enjoy Three Muskateers. But please do not make this comparison as some sort of major philosophical debate for the poor, hard done by watchers who soley wish to watch 'adult' programmes. There are some of us who can enjoy a vriety of levels of explicit sex and violence.
By the way, thyanks for the Spoilers. Idiot.
For the recrod TM is an entertaining Sun evening romp. Precicely what I want on a Sunday night.
I made the comparison with GoT, but included no spoilers. As for the rest of your post I don't get your point, but I'm an idiot.
Deadwood was a romp set in a well realized recreation of a frontier town..[/QUOTE]
Deadwood was a lot of things but I've never heard it described as a 'romp' before! I think your ideas of what is a 'romp' and what you think of as children's TV are a little out of kilter with many, many people's understanding:)
Deadwood was a romp set in a well realized recreation of a frontier town..
Deadwood was a lot of things but I've never heard it described as a 'romp' before! I think your ideas of what is a 'romp' and what you think of as children's TV are a little out of kilter with many, many people's understanding:)[/QUOTE]
"no one is a prophet in his own land"
I watched Deadwood because of compelling stories populated with interesting characters. I loved Deadwood for all the reasons I gave earlier.
G o T is only shown on Virgin Atlantic, not on a mainstream Freeview channel.
So is Dracula, & showing films like "Saw", "Hostel" & "Human Centipede", which are only shown on SKY, arnt they?
Totally different to the Beeb.
G o T is only shown on Virgin Atlantic, not on a mainstream Freeview channel.
So is Dracula, & showing films like "Saw", "Hostel" & "Human Centipede", which are only shown on SKY, arnt they?
Totally different to the Beeb.
Different and better. Though Dracula, judging by the first episode, would have sat well in Auntie's schedule.
And Sky Atlantic (Virgin customers are somewhat annoyed that they cannot get the channel) most definitely is "mainstream". It is unusual in that its USP is higher quality telly than its competitors.
As for whether some films are banned on the BBC you would know better than I; they used to cut Terminator untill it was pointed out to them that it's a near perfect film.
I am done discussing this with you as its clear you have no idea whatsoever what constitutes family viewing.
At least your wife gets it, even if you don't.
I described, carefully, what I think constitutes family viewing. You've not challenged that, just gone off in a huff. If the sort of family you champion results in people unable to separate fantasy from reality then I'm quite glad we have a difference of opinion.
I was pointing out that the violence another forum poster thought was excessive was mild by any, reasonable, frame of reference. If the notoriously prudish American networks can show more explicit scenes then, surely, so can Auntie. If you thought TM was gritty, I guess you're horrified by Game of Thrones (which I think is the perfect "family show").
I need to correct you at this point- the shows you are talking about are not shown on mainstream networks in America and I am not sure if you realise that.
In America the big channels would not show anything along these lines (GoT, Deadwood, Spartacus etc...)- they are on pay for channels and these have much lower viewing figures and slightly more licence than the mainstream ones which are generally populated by programmes that judging by your comments so far you would deem rubbish fodder.
The channels in America are prudish but don't step back from violence in any form, at any time of the day, so children etc get exposed to a lot more than they do here (you can't swear so excessively tho?!). Has this done much for their social values who knows....
Anyway- this is going to be sold to America, to a mainstream channel so has to adhere to their controls so it would never be like The Wire or Deadwood.
I need to correct you at this point- the shows you are talking about are not shown on mainstream networks in America and I am not sure if you realise that.
In America the big channels would not show anything along these lines (GoT, Deadwood, Spartacus etc...)- they are on pay for channels and these have much lower viewing figures and slightly more licence than the mainstream ones which are generally populated by programmes that judging by your comments so far you would deem rubbish fodder.
The channels in America are prudish but don't step back from violence in any form, at any time of the day, so children etc get exposed to a lot more than they do here (you can't swear so excessively tho?!). Has this done much for their social values who knows....
Anyway- this is going to be sold to America, to a mainstream channel so has to adhere to their controls so it would never be like The Wire or Deadwood.
The shows I've mentioned are on subscription only channels, that doesn't make them any less mainstream. There is a thread on DS for "Cult" TV if you want to see the difference. Many people, Armando Iannucci included, have argued that the BBC ought to add a subscription channel, because it would free them up to make adult television. It would still be the BBC, it would still be mainstream, it just might not be crap. I doubt it would work.
And I'm quite aware of the prudishness of the network broadcasters in the US - I specifically referenced this earlier. Yet a US network shows Hannibal, which is quite graphically violent when compared with Auntie's offerings. I don't think American network TV is necessarily rubbish either. Sometimes referred to as "the HBO effect" the networks have massively up their game in response to the artisitic threat from the cable channels; just look at West Wing. Much of their populist TV is extremely well done now too - shows like Criminal Minds are basic procedurals, but very well done. I'm not sure I agree that US networks will show violent content indiscriminately - that is not my experience. Of course, if you are in the Michael Medved school, where Bugs Bunny cartoons and Martin Scorsese films are treated as equivalent, then I can see why you might think so; this is not a widely accepted view.
As for the impact of TV violence on American culture - that's a bit chicken and chicken-ready-meal. Does American TV reflect or influence culture? Or both? Interestingly, US crime figures are lower than ours, pretty much across the board; except for homicide.
Oh gawd, all this in a thread about a program he is not even going to watch again cos its for children and made by the BBC who are not using his tax monies as he would wish.
Back to topic, looking forward to the next one now. I quite enjoy "childrens" tv it seems.
I found the interviews the cast did before the first show aired put me off completely - all four of them came across as humourless and overly self-satisfied buffoons.
Oh gawd, all this in a thread about a program he is not even going to watch again cos its for children and made by the BBC who are not using his tax monies as he would wish.
Back to topic, looking forward to the next one now. I quite enjoy "childrens" tv it seems.
Comments
I love fantasy and light-hearted genre pieces, but I like them to be well made. The Musketeers is a children's drama, clearly so because it feels it can ignore requirements for internal consistency.
I think you mean family show, something that can be enjoyed by all generations, i.e. the majority of the audience. I already explained upthread how Adrian Hodges stated in an interview that he was asked to produce a show that could go out at either 8 or 9pm.
I can't see how explicit violence would add anything desirable to a show like this and don't think graphic or gruesome images make a show more 'serious'. Personally, I avoid it if possible and think that it's such a shame if people cannot enjoy a show without it. It doesn't really fit with the Musketeers anyway, which should be a fun romp. This already has a grittier feel and look than previous versions. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to the rest of the series.
Then Mr Hodges fulfilled his brief. Perhaps, if they'd made it clear that it was a "family show" misplaced to after the watershed I'd have steered clear.
And I really didn't mean "family show". If there is such a thing it would a show where at least one of the narrative threads was understandable by children and a casual reading of the characters was appealing to children. There ought, still, to be story elements which engage adults and characters sufficiently well drawn to not seem like cartoons. To work for adults the show need also be rigorously internally consistent - children seem not to worry. Children should not be put off and their parents not offended, but all adults should still find the work enjoyable.
I was pointing out that the violence another forum poster thought was excessive was mild by any, reasonable, frame of reference. If the notoriously prudish American networks can show more explicit scenes then, surely, so can Auntie. If you thought TM was gritty, I guess you're horrified by Game of Thrones (which I think is the perfect "family show").
Game of Thrones is your idea of a "family show" then?.:D
Get real.
Extreme graphic violence and explicit sex scenes, along with foul language every couple of minutes doesn't equal "family" viewing in any way, shape or form.
And I say this as a GoT fan who cant wait for the next season to arrive.
The Musketeers could NEVER be written like GoT and be on the beeb as you well know. TM is great for those of us who enjoy an entertaining romp on a Sunday, no more, no less.
Surely it is simply because it was already established that she and Athos know each other. Therefore they asked her to help provide that distraction so they could gather the evidence that he was innocent and therefore prevent his execution.
There is also another reason, that being so as to help them save Athos' life, which is what's at stake in that situation.
It depends on the exact nature of the criticism. Personally, I disagree with the statement that it was a sub-moustache twirling performance or a particularly bad one. I mention it in comparison to others I've seen simply to emphasise that I do have some points of reference here. Essentially I don't feel any need to defend it, as I found it within what seems reasonable to me - obviously a subjective opinion, and I don't claim otherwise.
Two days difference in time, and not necessarily the same direction outside of Paris either.
By this I meant that although I can recognise that some expositionary detail was dropped into it, I didn't feel that this particularly defined the characters or scripting.
That may be a fair point, although I don't know if it was ever made clear exactly what he was doing at any of the given times when the imposter was at work, or whether any sightings of him would clash with those. I understand the point, but I'm not sure whether it causes enough of a problem to be significant.
It was also primarily a character and social history drama, whereas TM is more of an adventure thing, this is the distinction I was thinking of, whether or not they qualify as "romps". Again, Deadwood mostly created its own characters, other than the historical personages who appeared in it, they weren't inherited directly from any source, and less of a set of known associations. There weren't several dozen film, TV or even cartoon versions of the same story and characters already in existence before it, again other than the real people who appeared in it. Also, it may not have been directly educational, but it was based at least in part on historical themes, such as capitalism and the development of frontier towns, and was partly based on research into diaries and newspapers from the period. Because of all this I wouldn't say that their aims quite coincided except on the most basic level of entertainment, and in that sense, most fictional programmes would qualify.
Although whether it was better is something I couldn't judge at the moment, not having watched it - I'm not a viewer of Merlin or Sherlock, for that matter, so couldn't really comment meaningfully on those either - and my feelings on The Musketeers are still provisional, though not especially hostile, as I noted earlier. I don't currently have any strong feelings about the way the characters were drawn, or how funny, exciting or well made it may have been, but little about those has aroused any particular dislike so far.
Fair enough. I don't intend, either, to give the impression of criticising you for not liking it - if you found it dull, silly, uninvolving etc for whatever reasons, and lacking enough charisma to compensate, then I've no issue with that. It's a point of view. Fine.
I didn't say you weren't part of the BBC's audience, just not those who something like this would be aimed at. If you haven't liked anything at all produced by them in the drama department over the last ten years, then I can agree that it's reasonable to appeal for higher standards by all means, but that'll involve more than just talking about it on this thread obviously, as I'm sure you'll appreciate.
Certainly though, I do think that you're as entitled as any other viewer of the BBC to expect something that you would think of a good standard, or that you would find enjoyable. This is also what I would like although I know that, realistically, as it is catering for millions of licence fee payers, not everything they do is going to have appeal for me. But some of their material does, so I don't have too much of a problem there personally. That's not to say, though, that I couldn't accept that there's any room for possible improvement, and indeed, there always is. However, yes, if you're someone for whom nothing does appeal, then that's mainly an indication, as far as the TV companies are concerned, that there's a potential part of the audience that needs catering for.
I would consider that the BBC's purpose is to try to make material that is both critically and commercially successful. Ideally, the two shouldn't be in conflict, and even if it's not possible to combine both in any one single programme, at least to try to make a range of programmes that can, between them, have something for everyone, so that nobody feels there is nothing there for them.
On the whole, and allowing for the fact that this is a bit of a simplification, I think that the question of large and small audiences for programmes is often down to whether it's of popular or niche interest, rather than something as open to argument as inherent quality. Programme makers don't set out to make something bad or unpopular, after all, however frequently or rarely they may fail at either or both of those. They want it to be good, and recognised as such, and they want it to appeal to their audiences, on whatever level.
That's the ideal or aspiration anyway, even though it may be that the reality of it sometimes fails to live up to that. In practice, I do think there's room for all kinds of improvements in terms of the range of what can be on offer, not just from the BBC but the commercial channels too.
I didn't say that The Musketeers was 'gritty', just that it had a grittier feel than previous adaptations I had seen.
Not sure what kind of family you have in mind here? No, I don't think GoT is a family show at all. I'm not horrified by it, but I have made a conscious decision not to watch it because I will not be able to tolerate the level of violence. I tried something of a similar genre recently, and the endless display of cruelty, depravity and sickening violence left me depressed for days afterwards. So I'm grateful that the BBC can provide something a little more mainstream. With regard to the bit in bold, I don't think this is possible. Tastes vary too widely.
It's got dragons. And the violence is comic book and the sex very, very far from explicit.
Whhhaaatttt? Have you ever actually watched Game of Thrones? How was the violence in the Red Wedding episode (which involved a heavily pregnant woman being stabbed multiple times in the stomach) comic book?
(not to the mention that the third episode has two prostitutes finger-banging each other
But it does have dragons. That's something.
The Red Wedding was shocking, but not visceral. It interesting that you mention watching with parents, research has shown people are more reluctant to watch scenes of sex or violence when accompanied by family members from different generations.
BTW My wife doesn't think GoT is family entertainment either.
I came on this thread to read about The Musketeers in order to read why people seem to like it and I consider it to be schlocky bollocks.
What I wasn't expecting to read was major GOT spoilers.
I'm waiting for season 3 to be released on dvd.
Unnecessary, thoughtless and out of order. >:(
Yes, I am talking about Game of Thrones. I love it. Would I insist that everything compares to it? No. The level of sex, violence and swearing would make some people feel ill. Family entertainment? I think not. Watch this with a 10 year old and then live with the consequences. But feel free to enjoy the programme and to not enjoy Three Muskateers. But please do not make this comparison as some sort of major philosophical debate for the poor, hard done by watchers who soley wish to watch 'adult' programmes. There are some of us who can enjoy a vriety of levels of explicit sex and violence.
By the way, thyanks for the Spoilers. Idiot.
For the recrod TM is an entertaining Sun evening romp. Precicely what I want on a Sunday night.
I made the comparison with GoT, but included no spoilers. As for the rest of your post I don't get your point, but I'm an idiot.
Deadwood was a lot of things but I've never heard it described as a 'romp' before! I think your ideas of what is a 'romp' and what you think of as children's TV are a little out of kilter with many, many people's understanding:)
Deadwood was a lot of things but I've never heard it described as a 'romp' before! I think your ideas of what is a 'romp' and what you think of as children's TV are a little out of kilter with many, many people's understanding:)[/QUOTE]
"no one is a prophet in his own land"
I watched Deadwood because of compelling stories populated with interesting characters. I loved Deadwood for all the reasons I gave earlier.
I am done discussing this with you as its clear you have no idea whatsoever what constitutes family viewing.
At least your wife gets it, even if you don't.
So is Dracula, & showing films like "Saw", "Hostel" & "Human Centipede", which are only shown on SKY, arnt they?
Totally different to the Beeb.
Different and better. Though Dracula, judging by the first episode, would have sat well in Auntie's schedule.
And Sky Atlantic (Virgin customers are somewhat annoyed that they cannot get the channel) most definitely is "mainstream". It is unusual in that its USP is higher quality telly than its competitors.
As for whether some films are banned on the BBC you would know better than I; they used to cut Terminator untill it was pointed out to them that it's a near perfect film.
I described, carefully, what I think constitutes family viewing. You've not challenged that, just gone off in a huff. If the sort of family you champion results in people unable to separate fantasy from reality then I'm quite glad we have a difference of opinion.
I need to correct you at this point- the shows you are talking about are not shown on mainstream networks in America and I am not sure if you realise that.
In America the big channels would not show anything along these lines (GoT, Deadwood, Spartacus etc...)- they are on pay for channels and these have much lower viewing figures and slightly more licence than the mainstream ones which are generally populated by programmes that judging by your comments so far you would deem rubbish fodder.
The channels in America are prudish but don't step back from violence in any form, at any time of the day, so children etc get exposed to a lot more than they do here (you can't swear so excessively tho?!). Has this done much for their social values who knows....
Anyway- this is going to be sold to America, to a mainstream channel so has to adhere to their controls so it would never be like The Wire or Deadwood.
The shows I've mentioned are on subscription only channels, that doesn't make them any less mainstream. There is a thread on DS for "Cult" TV if you want to see the difference. Many people, Armando Iannucci included, have argued that the BBC ought to add a subscription channel, because it would free them up to make adult television. It would still be the BBC, it would still be mainstream, it just might not be crap. I doubt it would work.
And I'm quite aware of the prudishness of the network broadcasters in the US - I specifically referenced this earlier. Yet a US network shows Hannibal, which is quite graphically violent when compared with Auntie's offerings. I don't think American network TV is necessarily rubbish either. Sometimes referred to as "the HBO effect" the networks have massively up their game in response to the artisitic threat from the cable channels; just look at West Wing. Much of their populist TV is extremely well done now too - shows like Criminal Minds are basic procedurals, but very well done. I'm not sure I agree that US networks will show violent content indiscriminately - that is not my experience. Of course, if you are in the Michael Medved school, where Bugs Bunny cartoons and Martin Scorsese films are treated as equivalent, then I can see why you might think so; this is not a widely accepted view.
As for the impact of TV violence on American culture - that's a bit chicken and chicken-ready-meal. Does American TV reflect or influence culture? Or both? Interestingly, US crime figures are lower than ours, pretty much across the board; except for homicide.
Back to topic, looking forward to the next one now. I quite enjoy "childrens" tv it seems.
Each to their own.