A classic comeback from someone who knows they are wrong but feels they have to have the last word.

I think you may have a little bit of a chip on your shoulder.

I mention a possible and perfectly feasible reason for the narrowing of the potential audience for this programme because someone had mentioned viewing figures a couple of post back.

You get all butthurt and wade in as if you had been personally accused of being an idiot.

Maybe chill out a little?

Why on earth would I have a chip on my shoulder for pointing out you said people who don't enjoy this programme are dumb if they don't understand it. Usually someone who is losing the argument suggests the other poster has to have the last word. It's a classic response on here followed by "awww diddums" or some other inane retort when they don't get their way and realise they are wrong. You must be incredibly egotistical if you think people are intellectually beneath you just because they don't like this show.

So I suggest you take a chill pill and don't judge everyone based on a TV show.

Because you got you panties in a bunch and didn't comprehend that because some people who don't enjoy a programme are not intellectually equipped to understand it does not mean that everyone who does not enjoy it is dumb.


That may be the usual case. In this instance it was because you made a basic logic error and when I explained that to you you seemed unable to come up with a substantive response - effectively resorting to name calling (i.e. bull-----er).


ROFLMAO.

There you go again!

You really don't understand the association fallacy you are perpetrating.


LOL (again)

I don't need a chill pill, because I'm not the one getting my panties in a bunch.

But I'm not going to withdraw a perfectly good explanation of low viewing figures; namely that the programme in question is not simple and easily understood, and hence many will not understand it and thus will not enjoy it.

Are you seriously suggesting that absolutely everyone can understand absolutely every drama well enough to enjoy it?

That's not the point. The point you are making is the BBC hasn't dumbed down by producing this drama and implying those who aren't enjoying it or don't understand it are dumb aka stupid. Surely someone with your superior intellect must see the correlation between the two.

It's quite clear Vetinari was not suggesting anyone who doesn't like the programme is stupid. S/he was merely suggesting that some would have switched off as the nuance/quiet depth/subtle complexity may either: not have sat well with them/been registered at all, or been registered as 'boring'. There's a reason it's on BBC2 (like all Poliakoff I believe) because his work is an acquired taste, and most unique.

It certainly came across that way in their first post which other posters included myself picked up on. Then Vetinari backtracked and altered what they meant.

Vetinari used the words "some people" though which is quite clearly not an attack on every person who doesn't find CTTE their cup of tea.

Phrases like "you could bullshit for Britain" though, amount to ad hominem and little else.

Sorry.

Last night I only recorded this rather than watching it. It's been a bit dull in places and I can't stand the main character's Swiss Toni voice.

The other wartime drama on Sundays My Mother and Other Strangers is holding my attention better...

YESS Calum 's voice has been very Alan Whicker from Whicker's World from the start. Swiss Tony is also a good description! And why is his head constantly tilted to the right? (Camera right) . If he'd cricked his neck during filming then that'd be ok but I haven't been able to find anything about that. If he has a neck disability then I apologise- they've been quite creative about sitting him in a certain way or shooting him from a certain angle to cover it...

I agree, it's a very strange series. That's why I find it compulsive viewing.
On the surface the acting appears almost amateurish, the characters have been drawn much larger than life. The debonair spy, the good-time girl, the villains who look to be out of central casing in the 1950's. Even the blues/jazz singer plays the part way OTT.
To me that makes it all very dream-like. We know they are all very accomplished actors, so what is the writer trying to convey ? Add to that the beautifully filmed surroundings and extravagant set pieces, and the result is something quite unique.
It is almost as if the actors are all playing a part within a part, nothing seems actually "real". But this also appears to be very intentional, so I'm left asking why ?

I wanted to watch this it's usually the kind of thing I enjoy but I stopped watching halfway through the first episode because the lead actor's voice annoyed me so much it ruined the whole programme for me.

Don't know what that makes me!!

I had to laugh when Lindsay Duncan's character said, "You've come here unshaven!" Callum's designer stubble didn't really look any different from usual.

Lindsay Duncan's character was said to be "absolutely terrifying" but she didn't seem so at all. I would have thought it was a problem with the director not understanding what the writer wanted, but it is written and directed by Stephen Poliakoff.

Oh, and wouldn't they have burned those files instead of throwing them out to be collected by the dustmen? Seemed very contrived.

Indeed.

Also there were some healthy looking onions on that dump site - surely during rationing some use would have been made.

Freddie Highmore is not good in this at all. Maybe the whole child to adult actor bit not working out for him.

I'm wondering whether Alfred Molina's character actually planted that document in the Foreign Office files and wanted to set things up so that Callum would be seen to find it there, and that he got upset about Callum ripping it out of the file and bringing it to him because it ruined his plan as anyone who sees the document will think it is a fake now.

That's Poliakoff's schtick, something that runs through all his work so I wouldn't read more into it than that. It's unfortunate that this usually engaging off-kilter style is employed in service of a story that doesn't warrant it.

I don't think being writer/director suits him and on the basis of this flabby seven parter it's clear that a stronger commissioning hand at the Beeb would also benefit the work. Is he too much of a name now to accept or even be offered constructive criticism? Is the small-screen Kubrick too readily inhabiting the Emperor's new cast-offs?

This latest twist about what was in the files about Dieter means that Callum's original task - to persuade him to work for the British by being nice to him - was completely unnecessary, as all they had to do was threaten him with prosecution for his crimes if he didn't work for us. Or are we supposed to think that nobody knew how to look through files till now?

This has had its moments, but I'm not over-impressed.

But I was, with the original Art Deco styled Wurlitzer 1015 jukebox from 1946, they installed in the basement. I like it when they get such aspects of the production values right. Sometimes they are "wrong" for the year.

"A thing of beauty," to its many contemporary admirers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUaYy4ds2OE

My wife and I both enjoy this series but we both also think that Jim Sturgess is doing his best Pierce Brosnan (Bond) impersonation.

Recorded all episodes but not watched until today. For whatever reason I can't be bothered to fathom, it doesn't hold my interest, even though some of the actors and actresses are the reason I wanted to watch in the first place (plus I do like a good spy story). Anyway 3/4 way through I deleted the lot. I now openly admit I must be dumb.

Be careful or you'll be told to stick with X Factor and TOWIE next.

That certainly is a beauty. There used to be one of these (in not quite as good condition) standing in the Corn Exchange market in Manchester prior to the IRA bomb. What happened to it I have no idea.

Don't remember that, it might have been an original but there are a lot of "lookalikes" of the Wurly 1015, made by other manufacturers.

The Wurly replica was the "One More Time." Which is a possible candidate.


This was a 1987 version that played 45s. (a similar one that played CDs, came out in 1993). Now both no longer made.

http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/...psgm2480gg.jpg

If you're interested and live locally have a look in Arighi Bianchi the up-market furniture shop in Macclesfield. The owner is an enthusiast and has at least four classic jukeboxes on permanent display set on "free play," for the husbands of female customers to use, while they sell them new furniture. Last time we were in there, (spending a fortune) I took photos of three of them, all classics and all completely restored, Rock-Ola, Ami, Wurlitzer.

Worth collectively well over £20,000.

http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/...psyq25llje.jpg

RT preview/review hacked off with this too for at least the last couple of weeks.

Has it finished then? Thought there must be at least another episode if not two.