As I understand it, about 4.5 million thought it was. I guess they also understood the artistic choices being made, rather than those choices flying way over their heads.

Well down on the starting figure of over 7 million for the start of part one.

Shedding two and a half million viewers in 48 hours doesn't sound like success to me.

But then, you don't seem to know much.

An awful lot of dramas lose 25-30% after the first episode, it's the nature of the beast; people have a look to see if it's their cup of tea and it often isn't.

When you find something that doesn't offend you check out its first episode in the ratings thread.

You must work in the business.

Of the 4.5 million who stayed to the bitter end, it is clear that a large number have not declared themselves entirely satisfied either.

You see, you can argue for ever and ever over the artistic merit of this that or the other, BUT an actor not being understood by the majority of the viewing audience is a FACT.

And therefoe by any definition the director has FAILED

You see, if people are big enough to say 'That did work as well as I had hoped' people will forgive, and move on. It's this 'Never admit you might be wrong The viewers are all stupid if they can't appreciate what a brilliant piece of work I have placed before them' that is so hard to forgive.

Whatever you think of stupid viewers WE are the consumer.

The mumbling craze seems to be either bigger than it was in the past, or at least highlighted more. Wonder why

Do we have stats on how many who stuck with it were not satisfied? And/or how many of those stuck with it despite a few sound issues, because they were enjoying it enough to just turn on the subtitles or deal with a few inaudible lines?

We do know that the media frenzy over the sound issues was on the front page of the Telegraph before the final episode aired. We know that at least one person on the JI thread has claimed to have deleted it from her recordings once she heard/read about it without having watched more than five minutes.

The Guardian had about four articles on it in the space of three days. Not actual reviews by people who had seen the show. No, just repeats of previous reports of complaints and a few snarky tweets by a couple of minor celebrities. Endless repetition by lazy reporters.

Moreover, do we have stats on how many switched it off due to sound issues, that might have enjoyed it otherwise and wanted to continue?

Obviously there was some kind of sound issue, and some who struggled to hear/understand the less-than-perfect diction, especially by one main actor. But this issue did not impact most viewers. About 2000 out of 6 million complained. And to whatever extent it impacted the majority who DID stick with it, that was not enough to stop them from watching.

Given the intensity of the press feeding frenzy surrounding a sound/dialogue issue on a TV program, I am surprised they have not launched a massive government investigation into it. It's MumbleGate, for God's sake.

Seriously, this was a TV show. I don't get it. If people don't like the artistic choices being made on a TV show, they can turn it off. Write a complaint if they want. Even tweet about it. But why on Earth should the national press treat it as Headline News?

Is this a political thing? Because the BBC is supported by taxpayer dollars? Well, so is PBS. Most people don't even watch it. There are loads of other channels from which to choose.

It reminds me of someone who goes to Thanksgiving Dinner expecting the usual turkey, cranberry sauce, sweet potato and pumpkin pie meal. If the host/hostess decides to do a creative stuffing or a brined turkey or spicy cranberry sauce or some other untried but interesting recipe, people complain that it tastes funny and is not what they expected.

Why is it such a big deal?!

Why is it a big deal?

Because at 55 years of age this is the first time I have not been able to UNDERSTAND an actor. That is a different matter to 'did I like or dislke the adaption' This is something that was signed off when it wasn't fit for purpose.

BBC Director General Tony Hall made some comment about actors mumbling, so he seems to understand the problem, even if the director has declared herself completely satisfied with her efforts.

Only a small percentage of people ever complain about anything.

The BBC and the rest of the media well know that if 2000 people complain that means that one hell of a lot more were unhappy,


Two reasons that I can think of:

1) The (relatively) enormous number of complaints.
2) It was an incredibly stupid failure on the part of the people making the programme.

The fact that they were prepared to release such sub-standard and shoddy workmanship betrays an almost offensive arrogance and smugness on the part of the people involved.

Of course when you have submissive, compliant, people trying to make excuses for rubbish like this you can see why they might think such an attitude is acceptable.


The BBC do not get any dollars from taxpayers,


So, in your world, it's OK to do a job badly so long as there are others doing it properly. Weird.


It reminds you of someone who does that?

You must know some odd people.

Anyway, it's a pretty stupid analogy.

A more fitting one would be someone buying an illustrated book and being unable to read the print,

Doubtless your retort to that would be to tell them to read something else!

Don't forget, not only do we have poor diction an enunciation on a lot of TV programmes we also have that omnipresent underscore music (I believe it's called), where it seems that anything shown on TV must have a musical accompaniment often with music that is totally inappropriate and thoroughly irritating, at the same time.
Music on TV plays/Documentaries etc. is a béte noir of mine.

It's a few quite distinct things, imo:

1. Because of the funding model of the BBC, some of the public have a huge 'sense of entitlement' about their £2.40 a week. In reality this tends to mean they never praise but feel righteously obliged to complain, and complain

2. On The Guardian specifically, what you describe is not about news reporting it's about internet page views (to impress advertisers with). It will jump on any passing bandwagon, as do a few other high profile newspaper websites. You wouldn't find so much reportage on the issue in the printed version

3. Some media outlets/owners do have an agenda against the BBC, particularly it's size and importance relative to the rest of the industry. They don't so much care about drama per se, what they want is a smaller BBC generally so, necessarily, the dominant News and Current Affairs dept will be smaller

4. Some people really get off on complaining, I guess that's the same everywhere

5. This is a BBC1 drama, it's targetting a far wider demographic than any of the BBCs other channels. Consequently, the audience includes many for whom art is not a staple. Because of the broadcast channel (One), you might argue BBC Drama got the balance a little wrong in this case between art and straight up and down entertainment

6. There is a strong media culture of pushing a new story to see if it 'has legs'; can the media get a resignation, can it get a comment from a top minister, can the blame be passed around, what else is loosely connected? Narratives are the name of the media game, people love ongoing real-life dramas and, in terms of sales and page views, they snowball

7. As with any art, the artist is a sitting duck. You can't 'explain' your art to peope who don't understand the art, it's like describing the internal combustion engine to my girlfriend ....

It would be helpful to me if you could define what you mean by "art". Or, maybe, what you think is not art.

Many thanks.

If you put 'what is art' in Google, right at the very top of the results you get several definitions.


You're welcome.

Andy-

You still don't get it, do you?

If I like, or dislike an adaption of a book, that is an opinion.

If I, (and many others) cannot hear an actor, that is a FACT.

Opinion will always be just that, an opinion. But a fact is a fact.

I don't need to understand the internal combustion engine to know that if my car stalls going up a hill it is not fit for purpose. If I like a blue car, and someone else prefers red, that is an opinion- but it still works.

If something doesn't work (can't hear the actor) then it has FAILED.

Is there any chance at all of you conceding this point- or is it going to be more of the 'if you don't like what I have prepared for you it is your fault'.

I actually wanted to know how you are defining "art" in your post, so that I could read it with more understanding.

Having seen the clips on the news and HIGNFY it seems to be lack of audio that is the problem.
The accent is a different issue, although quiet mumbling would be a problem in itself.

Sean Harris is a very good actor. Now the script, direction, sound mixing and production is a different matter.

It would have been better if they'd saved millions, not inflicted the awful world's-worst-actor Sean Harris on us (MY opinion), and just put the film version on instead.

But, perhaps the definition of an actor, a good actor or a very good actor, also includes the ability to project clearly. Even in live interviews he has a tendency to be less than clear.

That is not due to
- the script, which was a good adaptation and interpretation,
- the sound mixing, which, for all other actors, seemed to be perfectly normal and acceptable,
- the production, which apart from his part, tried very hard and, by and large, succeeded to convey the atmosphere and so on very well.


It may be that he needed further direction or it may be that he insisted that his 'interpretation' was correct. Either way, his contribution to this series was less than adequate.

Remember too that, in the eyes of the public, an actor is only ever as good as their last performance.

I doubt he has the clout to demand that his interpretation was final. I would presume that the director would make that decision.

Also, i'm part of the public and his performances in See No Evil and Red Riding will satisfy me that he is a good actor.

Scoutlet, this is not the United States of America, so waffling on about 'taxpayer dollars' and 'Thanksgiving' will only result in much eye-rolling, I'm afraid!

Andy-B, stop being so arrogant and patronising. People have been asking genuine questions - replying snippily is just prattish.

I have no agenda - I usually adore BBC dramas and I have admired Sean Harris's acting in the past. I even liked JFB in Downton! But in this case, the BBC screwed up, and no amount of huffing and puffing will alter that fact. The sound was bad, the enunciation was atrocious (particularly in Harris's case), the direction was appalling and there were some highly questionable choices made (like including the ridiculously distracting vicar's sister and filming all over the British Isles!). I wonder what the DVD/Blu-ray sales will be like...

He did mumble a bit in The Borgias, though. I sometimes struggled to hear what Micheletto was saying.

IIRC it was 4 million, down from an initial 6.1 million meaning it lost more than a third over the course of 48 hours. Pretty much a unspinnable disaster to rival Outcasts even!

I was pleased to read this thread as I thought I was going deaf! However, having watched Jamaica Inn with subtitles on, I have to say I really enjoyed it.