# Red Riding Coming soon on Channel 4



## themonkeyman (Jan 10, 2009)

Looks quite good, got Sean Bean and Paddy Considine in it and a few other noteable actors.

Looks like it is about some kind of serial killer up north.

Nothing on IMDB just this on channel 4 website:

http://www.channel4.com/redriding


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2009)

themonkeyman said:


> Looks quite good, got Sean Bean and Paddy Considine in it and a few other noteable actors.
> 
> Looks like it is about some kind of serial killer up north.
> 
> ...



They are on IMDB.com the three films are called 1974 1980 and 1983

They're directed by Julian Jarrold (Brideshead, White Teeth, Kinky Boots) James Marsh (Man on a Wire) and Anand Tucker (When did you last see your father, Hilary and Jackie). They were originally novels by David Peace, and have been adapted by Tony Grisoni (long time Terry Gillian scriptwriter). 

I should point out I'm horrendously biased as I'm working on them, but they're a cut above the average tv drama.


----------



## ringo (Jan 10, 2009)

I've read the books - great writer, pretty grim content at times. Should be really good.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 10, 2009)

Why are they only doing 3 out of the 4?


----------



## themonkeyman (Jan 10, 2009)

8den said:


> They are on IMDB.com the three films are called 1974 1980 and 1983
> 
> They're directed by Julian Jarrold (Brideshead, White Teeth, Kinky Boots) James Marsh (Man on a Wire) and Anand Tucker (When did you last see your father, Hilary and Jackie). They were originally novels by David Peace, and have been adapted by Tony Grisoni (long time Terry Gillian scriptwriter).
> 
> I should point out I'm horrendously biased as I'm working on them, but they're a cut above the average tv drama.



cool, tell us more


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2009)

Left Turn Clyde said:


> Why are they only doing 3 out of the 4?



They amalgamated 1977 into 1980 for budgetary reasons. 



> cool, tell us more



Well they are three very different films, three film directors, each got to make their film, their way. So it's not ordinary TV, for example, each one is shot on a different format (16mm, HD harddrive cam, and 35mm)

People who have read the books will tell you that it's sort of a grim up north version of James (LA confidential) Elroy's style. Say for example a minor character in the first two films becomes a central character in the last. There's no one central character, theme or style.

I really can't go into too much details, because of contractual obligations (yadda yadda yadda) but they are bloody good films and something a bit different for British telly.


----------



## spliff (Jan 10, 2009)

8den said:


> They amalgamated 1977 into 1980 for budgetary reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sounds interesting.

Any idea how soon 'coming soon' is?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 10, 2009)

I could probably tell you on Monday - watch this space!


----------



## zenie (Jan 10, 2009)

Does look good from what I've seen on the adverts.


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2009)

spliff said:


> Sounds interesting.
> 
> Any idea how soon 'coming soon' is?



Early march I think


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 10, 2009)

Sounds interesting. 

Might have a look at the books before it starts.


----------



## themonkeyman (Jan 10, 2009)

Yeah, what are the books called ?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 10, 2009)

1974
1977
1980
1983


----------



## spliff (Jan 10, 2009)

Part2 said:


> Might have a look at the books before it starts.


Good idea. 

Found this article from 2002
http://www.crimetime.co.uk/features/davidpeace.php

(links to amazon for the books at the bottom of the page)


----------



## 8den (Feb 17, 2009)

I'm don't know if anyone has been catching the trailers on C4, which I have to admit (although again I am insanely biased look ace, and channel 4 really seem to be pushing the boat out) mainly focusing on the fantastic ensemble cast. 

New trailers and websites are up
http://redriding.channel4.com/


----------



## badlands (Feb 17, 2009)

Sean Bean = fail


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 17, 2009)

badlands said:


> Sean Bean = fail



Apparently not, in this.

There's an article in Sight & Sound this month which made me more hyped than ever about them.


----------



## El Jefe (Feb 17, 2009)

8den said:


> I really can't go into too much details, because of contractual obligations (yadda yadda yadda) .



does the contract cover giving me Rebecca Hall's phone number?


----------



## the button (Feb 17, 2009)

Superb books. If the telly can capture 10% of them, it'll be great.


----------



## electrogirl (Feb 17, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> does the contract cover giving me Rebecca Hall's phone number?



oooh is she in it? I like her.



It must be starting soon then yeah?


----------



## Voley (Feb 17, 2009)

8den said:


> Well they are three very different films, three film directors, each got to make their film, their way. So it's not ordinary TV, for example, each one is shot on a different format (16mm, HD harddrive cam, and 35mm)
> 
> People who have read the books will tell you that it's sort of a grim up north version of James (LA confidential) Elroy's style. Say for example a minor character in the first two films becomes a central character in the last. There's no one central character, theme or style.
> 
> I really can't go into too much details, because of contractual obligations (yadda yadda yadda) but they are bloody good films and something a bit different for British telly.



That sounds really interesting. Sean Bean being in it put me off a bit, I must admit, but I'll give it a go after reading that.


----------



## Santino (Feb 17, 2009)

Give me the ring, Frodo. Now let's get those Frenchie bastards.

Sean Bean is great.


----------



## 8den (Feb 17, 2009)

badlands said:


> Sean Bean = fail



I heard a bloody funny story about Sean Bean and Viggo Morgenstern   (oh y'know himself from LOtR) they were both at the Venice film festival doing LOtR promo stuff, but Viggo being Viggo decided to do the whole thing barefoot. Anyway the two skip out for a crafty fag, and get called back in suddenly, only Viggo can't stub out his fag, so Sean Bean rubs out both fags on the ground and says "fucks sake Viggo put a bloody pair of shoes on."



> That sounds really interesting. Sean Bean being in it put me off a bit, I must admit, but I'll give it a go after reading that



The thing is. 1974 is Andrew Garfield's. 1980 is Paddy Considine's. 1983 is Mark Addy (fat bloke from full monty) but at the same time they're all big ensemble. Both David Morrissey and Peter Mullan have realy minor roles in some films, and major rolls in others. Whats great about the cast is everyone seemed to be mature enough to say "my role is subservient to the greater story" and just got on with it. 

And Rebecca Hall is bloody ace. Everyone's accents are brill for example.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 18, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Give me the ring, Frodo. Now let's get those Frenchie bastards.
> 
> Sean Bean is great.


----------



## electrogirl (Feb 24, 2009)

5th March! I just saw another long advert with all the actors talking about it, they're really caning the publicity.


----------



## ringo (Feb 25, 2009)

Still got 100 pages of the last book to read. Got to get this finished before they're on telly.

As above, if they're a fraction as good as the books they'll be worth a look.


----------



## PandaCola (Feb 26, 2009)

For anyone in Yorkshire- the three films are being screened at a cinema in Leeds this Sunday.

Details here 

I'm disappointed that 1977 and 1980 have been made into one film. Of the four books, I thought those two were far better than the other two.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2009)

On tomorrow - can't wait!


----------



## May Kasahara (Mar 4, 2009)

yes, finally an actual _reason_ to slump in front of the telly.


----------



## g force (Mar 4, 2009)

Yep...they don't come up too often!!


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2009)

It's fucking grim if it's anything like the book


----------



## May Kasahara (Mar 4, 2009)

That will suit my mood then


----------



## Biddlybee (Mar 4, 2009)

Why the hatred for Bean?

Looking forward to this... are the books good OU? Maybe something for bookgroup?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2009)

BiddlyBee said:


> Why the hatred for Bean?
> 
> Looking forward to this... are the books good OU? Maybe something for bookgroup?



I suggested the first one both this month and last month, but Bill Bryson was chosen instead 
They are good, though I'm only on the 2nd, 1977, which has not been filmed or has been squeezed into 1980. They're unrelentingly horrific, so not for the faint-hearted.


----------



## ringo (Mar 4, 2009)

I finished the fourth one last night. 

Definitely recommended for a book group, in fact for anyone. The strands of plot/number of characters/imagery/changes in time would lend themselves to discussion and probably help you keep track of what is going on.


----------



## Biddlybee (Mar 4, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> I suggested the first one both this month and last month, but Bill Bryson was chosen instead


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2009)

ringo said:


> I finished the fourth one last night.
> 
> Definitely recommended for a book group, in fact for anyone. The strands of plot/number of characters/imagery/changes in time would lend themselves to discussion and probably help you keep track of what is going on.


From what I can tell from the cast lists, I think they've messed with the books considerably - it looks like they've amalgamated quite a few of the copper characters and changed their names and jigged the timeline around a lot.


----------



## ringo (Mar 4, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> From what I can tell from the cast lists, I think they've messed with the books considerably - it looks like they've amalgamated quite a few of the copper characters and changed their names and jigged the timeline around a lot.



I suppose that's to be expected, hope they do justice to it and don't clean it up too much.


----------



## susie12 (Mar 4, 2009)

> [/Looks like it is about some kind of serial killer up north.
> QUOTE] The Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 4, 2009)

Not quite.


----------



## susie12 (Mar 5, 2009)

Based in I think


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

susie12 said:


> Based in I think



I beg your pardon?


----------



## susie12 (Mar 5, 2009)

based on I meant


----------



## 8den (Mar 5, 2009)

susie12 said:


> Based in I think



No the Ripper Inquiry forms the backdrop to the middle film 1980. The Yorkshire Ripper isn't the major villan.


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 5, 2009)

I was telling everyone at work today about this (so I have some talk to distract from doing any work tomorrow) 

"Oh I've heard about that, it the Yorkshire Ripper thing isn't it?" was said quite a few times. I imagine some tabloid or other has made more of the ripper connection than is warranted.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

The Yorkshire Ripper is in it, but the murders in the books/films...well, I best not say any more


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2009)

Quite looking forward to this, it looks really promising.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 5, 2009)

Dead good so far, nice and honestly sweary too


----------



## snackhead (Mar 5, 2009)

Didn't realise this one's two hours long, it's great having a drama that has room to breathe. Smoky pubs seem alien.


----------



## 8den (Mar 5, 2009)

Quite keen to hear people's opinion on this. Particularly whether the plot makes sense, or is coherent, I'm biased I worked on them (mainly '80 and '83) but after being knee deep in them for months I'm curious to see how people react to them.


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Mar 5, 2009)

I got distracted by mafia wars. It's pretty slow going tbh ..


----------



## Balbi (Mar 5, 2009)

It's a slow setup - but it's doing it really well, attention to it all is great


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2009)

This is great.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 5, 2009)

The sepia tint to everything is pissing me off


----------



## marty21 (Mar 5, 2009)

not sure about it, it's very slow moving in parts


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 5, 2009)

This is slow moving to the point of being a bit dull tbh.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2009)

I am all for slow moving. Patience.


----------



## snackhead (Mar 5, 2009)

I can suspend disbelief with the best of them, but the suburban torture chamber?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 5, 2009)

This is ace telly


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 5, 2009)

Just caught the ending. Why are they torturing that bloke?


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 5, 2009)

My mum and dad sky plussed this for me.


----------



## spirals (Mar 5, 2009)

I am finding it quite unsettling, good watching but very


----------



## Balbi (Mar 5, 2009)

Not the end yet 

Its grim, but in a watchable way.

Packed with acting chops too.


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Mar 5, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is slow moving to the point of being a bit dull tbh.


I'm watching Conan The Barbarian now ..

</philistine>


----------



## Balbi (Mar 5, 2009)

eh?


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Mar 5, 2009)

Arnie wrestling a giant snake and stuff. Bit off topic I suppose.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 5, 2009)

Great stuff. Next weeks looks even better! 

Grim, bleak - decent dialogue. The main lad looked like Richard Ashcroft though


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2009)

Allright, so far - but the totally wrong choice for lead.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 5, 2009)

it was slow moving at times, speeded up a bit at the end, wasn't concentrating on it though so missed a bit of the narrative - which made it a bit confusing as there was a lot going on


----------



## yardbird (Mar 5, 2009)

I thought that was good.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 5, 2009)

The whole show could have been done in an hour and been a fuckload better for it.  I'm all for slow burners but that was ridiculous.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

Pity the only actor who sounded like they were from Yorkshire was Bean. Still, loved it, confusing plotting nonetheless.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The whole show could have been done in an hour and been a fuckload better for it.  I'm all for slow burners but that was ridiculous.


You're an impatient fella though. I didn't think it was slow at all.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 5, 2009)

Bring on Considine next week.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

I better get a move on and read 1977 and 1980.


----------



## Voley (Mar 5, 2009)

Pretty good, that, I thought. I like the idea of bringing in real-life events for the next one, too.

Kept reminding me of a sort of grim-up-North James Ellroy at times - corruption being played out over decades, a backdrop of real events etc. Didn't rate the lead bloke much, either - it could've done with someone a bit rougher. He didn't convince me much.


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 5, 2009)

It was slow going for most of the way. I kept wondering if I really should've got my arse into gear and bought and read the books. The narrative wasn't always easy to follow, I wasn't always clear on what the main plot was but thinking over it not sure that mattered in the end.

As someone said, attention to detail was very good.

A hobnob to the first person to name the supermarket where the carrier bag was from.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

Morrisons?


----------



## Voley (Mar 5, 2009)

Did people say 'You're losing it' in the 70's?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 5, 2009)

Chip Barm said:


> I wasn't always clear on what the main plot wa



There was more than one plot


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2009)

That was hard work.


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 5, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Morrisons?



Nah, Hillards. First supermarket I remember, Hull Rd, York, near me Nana's.

(The bag they had, had blue stripes, I imagine thats where Tesco must've got them from, they took Hillards over in 87 according to Wiki)


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

It was either that or Grandways I was gonna gues. Don't remember any others but I was only 1 in 1974


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 5, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There was more than one plot



I meant like the corruption/child murder/gypsies/developer thing. I didn't really connect the pieces together very well.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There was more than one plot



Yes, loads - don't be obtuse


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 5, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> It was either that or Grandways I was gonna gues. Don't remember any others but I was only 1 in 1974



Aye Grandways, I think we knew em as Jacksons. Think they had something to do with Presto aswell. I don't remember seeing Morrisons until I moved across the Pennines. Funny thinking of all them regional shops swallowed by the Tesco monster.


----------



## dodgepot (Mar 5, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> You're an impatient fella though. I didn't think it was slow at all.



same here. the two hours zoomed by. i thought it was really good.


----------



## rollinder (Mar 5, 2009)

dodgepot said:


> same here. the two hours zoomed by. i thought it was really good.


 
^ this 
didn't feel like two hours.

only just stopped shaking


----------



## big eejit (Mar 5, 2009)

Really good I thought. Thought the rather heroic / optimistic ending was a bit at odds with the grimness of the rest of it tho. Lead journo should have ended up supporting a flyover over the M6.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2009)

dodgepot said:


> same here. the two hours zoomed by. i thought it was really good.



Yep. Really looking forward to the next ones!


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

It wasn't optimistic!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2009)

Also, the M6 isn't in Yorkshire.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> Also, the M6 isn't in Yorkshire.



They probably meant M62


----------



## Voley (Mar 5, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> It wasn't optimistic!



I can see what he means and I'd say why if I could work out how to do the spoiler thingy.


----------



## rollinder (Mar 5, 2009)

wonderfull/terrible (the programme v what happened in it)
fucking grim 

^ was the ending really that optimistic - we don't know if he managed to take any of _them_ with him.


----------



## big eejit (Mar 5, 2009)

It was massively optimistic! And the M6 is just over the border in Lancs which is where I'd bury me dead bodies if I were a yorkshire gangster!


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

big eejit said:


> It was massively optimistic! And the M6 is just over the borber in Lancs which is where I'd bury me dead bodies if I were a yorkshire gangster!



In what way? It ends with nothing but death!


----------



## big eejit (Mar 5, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> In what way? It ends with nothing but death!



I can't do spoilers so I can't explain in detail, but basically the better side of human nature triumphed. To keep with the rest of the gloom he should have tried to save his own skin and been caught by the bad guys and killed like a dog.


----------



## Voley (Mar 5, 2009)

Are the books good then, OU? I might give them a go after watching this.


----------



## camouflage (Mar 5, 2009)

themonkeyman said:


> Looks quite good, got Sean Bean and Paddy Considine in it and a few other noteable actors.
> 
> Looks like it is about some kind of serial killer up north.
> 
> ...



It's about the North, cops, and serial killers. And it's set in the 70's.

There must be more to life than this.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2009)

NVP said:


> Are the books good then, OU? I might give them a go after watching this.


Yes, they are from what I've read. The book makes what I saw make a little more sense and of course there's loads of details not shown in the film. I've just started the second book and it's so much better than the first. It's as if Peace got published with the first book and when another book was commissioned, he thought, 'great, now I can really go for it'


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2009)

Optimistic?



Spoiler: RR



He was set up by the OB to kill sean bean and tie up their loose ends = optimistic?


----------



## Diamond (Mar 6, 2009)

I found that pretty dull tbh. I'm sure it would have helped to have read the book first.

The style was so condensed that at times it almost felt like a collage. The direction didn't help either.

I don't know much about Yorkshire, let alone Yorkshire in the 70s so I don't know whether it rang true. But having said that, I thought the environment failed.

It was so stylised that it came across almost as a pastiche, which was difficult to take seriously.

And while it seemed to be aiming for a sort of dense noir effect, the director overplayed his hand in creating the milieu so that the plot faded into the background.

IMO effective noir should be about creating a deceptive facade of clarity that conceals the sinister mess, the plot, behind it before bringing that to the fore abruptly. There should be a contrast between the appearance of things and the actuality which just wasn't there so when bad things started to happen they lacked that specific kind of dramatic tension.

Beyond that I thought the acting was, for the most part, dreadful. The accents were poor from the start, especially Paula and Eddie, but when Sean Bean made his first appearance, and you heard a convincing Yorkshire accent for the first time, it only served to highlight the poverty of the rest of the cast and make the whole thing seem even less convincing.

And that's another thing. How long did the setup take? An hour at least. Sean Bean can't have been in much more than a third of it. It's all very well to have a slow burner as long as you've got something else to enjoy while the plot warms up...characters...dialogue...cinematography etc... But there was so little success with those other elements that the first half lagged and lagged and lagged.

Reading that back it looks a bit unfair. I didn't think it was appalling but it just felt like a real missed opportunity with what is by all accounts very good source material.


----------



## 8den (Mar 6, 2009)

snackhead said:


> I can suspend disbelief with the best of them, but the suburban torture chamber?



Josef Fritzl and Fred West's backyards don't ring a bell?




			
				Balbi said:
			
		

> Great stuff. Next weeks looks even better!




I did the trailer for 80.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 6, 2009)

Diamond said:


> It was so stylised that it came across almost as a pastiche, which was difficult to take seriously.


I didn't find it stylised - it looked pretty real to me. There was one section where Eddie & Paula (I think) are walking through a playground and all looked so northern and grim until I realised Leeds really did look like that (and still does in some places)


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> I didn't find it stylised - it looked pretty real to me. There was one section where Eddie & Paula (I think) are walking through a playground and all looked so northern and grim until I realised Leeds really did look like that (and still does in some places)



It does. I thought I recognized some of the locations.

Also, I thought the accents were all pretty good as well.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 6, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> Also, I thought the accents were all pretty good as well.


Nah, they were shite


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2009)

> I can suspend disbelief with the best of them, but the suburban torture chamber?




Eh, Northern Ireland, the Birmingham Six, etc, comes to mind, there was also  Poulson, the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, mired in corruption, plenty of it rang true or at least possible.

powerful stuff, fantastic cast, Bean even though only briefly in it was frightening and very believable as the gangster, attention to detail superb, , but yes, was a bit too slow burning, but Kudos to Ch4 for commisioning it.


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2009)

80 seems faster paced, 8den, am i right?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Nah, they were shite



You are more Yorkshire than I am.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 6, 2009)

i missed the first 20 mins, and was a little drunk. well quite drunk. but managed to follow it quite well. not sure why people found it so difficult (or why facebook has people's updates saying they can't follow tv drama's

really enjoyed it and am looking forward to the follow up

this made me laugh, especially being a yorkshireman and thinking paula sounded just like a mate from home:



Diamond said:


> I don't know much about Yorkshire......
> 
> .....The accents were poor from the start, especially Paula


----------



## Diamond (Mar 6, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> I didn't find it stylised - it looked pretty real to me. There was one section where Eddie & Paula (I think) are walking through a playground and all looked so northern and grim until I realised Leeds really did look like that (and still does in some places)



The exterior scenes were less problematic than the interior scenes. It was just all that stuff in rooms which looked like someone had let off a bunch of dry ice, the relentless boozing, the strange hue as well, presumably some kind of light filter over the camera, that made everything look as if you were viewing it through a pair of brown lense sunglasses (if such a thing exists). 

All that stuff detracted from the narrative for me.

Then there were a couple of exterior scenes which were just vague or offkey. All that stuff with the gypsy camp, making it look like some sort of Balkan warzone just didn't seem to work.

Then when Eddie first went to question Paula he approaches the house and the director establishes that shot, which he uses several times, of half of the building obscured to the left, allowing for a view of an Embankment to the right which loomed over the building. And on top of that Embankment, silhoutted with great clarity was someone walking and I found myself immediatly thinking...well what relevance does that have, why make it the focal point of the shot, surely that's going to play into something later? 

Maybe it did, maybe I missed something, maybe it will, but it was those small details that jarred and bit by bit distracted me from an already extremely opaque narrative.

Maybe I'm analysing this a bit too much...


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 6, 2009)

Have you just started an OU course?


----------



## Diamond (Mar 6, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Have you just started an OU course?



No.

Looks a bit like that, doesn't it?


----------



## 8den (Mar 6, 2009)

treelover said:


> 80 seems faster paced, 8den, am i right?



I don't want to overly negative but I think in terms of quality it goes (in descending order) 80, 74, 83. 

1980 suffers because its a combination of two novels 77 and 80, and because (although they are all based somewhat on real events) 80 is fiction about very public events. 



Diamond, thanks for the criticism I think most of what you say is valid, if a little harsh


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 6, 2009)

Diamond said:


> No.
> 
> Looks a bit like that, doesn't it?



Just a little 

I liked the smoky brown interiors and the framing of the shots - didn't find them too jarring or stylised


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2009)

Diamond said:


> The exterior scenes were less problematic than the interior scenes. It was just all that stuff in rooms which looked like someone had let off a bunch of dry ice, the relentless boozing, the strange hue as well, presumably some kind of light filter over the camera, that made everything look as if you were viewing it through a pair of brown lense sunglasses (if such a thing exists).
> 
> All that stuff detracted from the narrative for me.
> 
> ...



I saw that shot and I thought "wow, this has been beautifully photographed"

Not everything has to be relevant towards the plot. 

You are definitely over analysing. I think it was beautifully shot, myself.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 6, 2009)

Nice use of cutaways of grim 70s architecture I thought - there was one bit I recognised (I think) of the multi story carpark near the Merrion Centre in Leeds that still looks like that.


----------



## 8den (Mar 6, 2009)

Diamond said:


> Then when Eddie first went to question Paula he approaches the house and the director establishes that shot, which he uses several times, of half of the building obscured to the left, allowing for a view of an Embankment to the right which loomed over the building. And on top of that Embankment, silhoutted with great clarity was someone walking and I found myself immediatly thinking...well what relevance does that have, why make it the focal point of the shot, surely that's going to play into something later?



Yes it does thats the direction Paula goes towards John Dawson. 

Also as you rightly pointed out Eddie turns up outside Paula's house half a dozen times or so, trying to establish that shot, and make each scene not look repetitive is quiet difficult. What you have to understand is there wasn't money in budget for clever CG to hide modern elements (Mobile phone masts, adverts etc) and very often directors were working with really limited framing, (ie move the camera an inch to the right or left and something anachronistic would leap out). We had a couple of discussions about slag heaps etc, and they're just not there any more. 

Oh and for the record the extra going over the background isn't the "focal point" of the shot, it's background action in the top right hand corner of frame. 

As to the pacing, yes it's a slow start, but it's also the start of a trilogy, many of the characters you see you will meet again, The Badger, the Owl, those two charming psychotic coppers who torture Eddie, keep cropping up over the next two films. In short it's setting up a trilogy. 

For example you mention the gypsy camp, originally Eddie was supposed to turn up as the camp was being attacked and burnt out, but for budgetary reasons that wasn't viable.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 6, 2009)

8den said:


> For example you mention the gypsy camp, originally Eddie was supposed to turn up as the camp was being attacked and burnt out, but for budgetary reasons that wasn't viable.



I wondered about that - I wanted to see the flames and the bastard coppers beating on their shields with their truncheons


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 6, 2009)

is there a copy of this to bittorrent anywhere?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 6, 2009)

4OD


----------



## the button (Mar 6, 2009)

I was really enjoying it, then I fell asleep on the settee.  (Just woke up, in fact ).


----------



## Geri (Mar 6, 2009)

It was OK, not brilliant. I don't like that bloke who played the lead, he reminds me of Joe Absolom.

The portrayal of the police made me laugh out loud - it was a like a scene from the Young Ones.


----------



## El Jefe (Mar 6, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I'm all for slow burners ...



that's just not true is it?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 6, 2009)

8den said:


> Quite keen to hear people's opinion on this. Particularly whether the plot makes sense, or is coherent, I'm biased I worked on them (mainly '80 and '83) but after being knee deep in them for months I'm curious to see how people react to them.



Would I be right in thinking that the Polish fella done for the murders of the young girls was a sort of nod to Stefan Kizsko?


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 6, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Would I be right in thinking that the Polish fella done for the murders of the young girls was a sort of nod to Stefan Kizsko?



That occurred to me too.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 6, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, loads - don't be obtuse



Journo investigates stuff, finds corruption, gets shit kicked out of him, is used as someone's tool to do their dirty work, the end.

Not exactly complicated...





El Jefe said:


> that's just not true is it?





I'll gladly invest time in stuff that pans out over a long time (The Wire for example) but this just seemed to drag for me.  Will be interesting to see the next one, see how that compares.


----------



## Upchuck (Mar 6, 2009)

I thought it wasn't bad and I was quite cynical and rolling eyed before I watched it so there you go.  I have always had misty eyed wonderings about The North and what is there and the culture behind it.  This show didn't helpm me much with this, but having been nicked a few times I am under no illusion as to what coppers are like now and then.  And wealthy padeos hiding behind their money - don't start me.  

Thought Andrew Garfield was very good when he could have been annoying.  I thought he might go like that useless sulky little prat in that 5 part BBC show about the guy who murders that chick and all the trial innit.


----------



## 8den (Mar 6, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Would I be right in thinking that the Polish fella done for the murders of the young girls was a sort of nod to Stefan Kizsko?



100% correct, thats not the last we hear about that as well.


----------



## zenie (Mar 6, 2009)

*doesn't read thread*

Is this repeated at all, cos I was out


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 6, 2009)

zenie said:


> *doesn't read thread*
> 
> Is this repeated at all, cos I was out



channel 4 od?


----------



## zenie (Mar 6, 2009)

I don't like watching things on the 'puter


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Journo investigates stuff, finds corruption, gets shit kicked out of him, is used as someone's tool to do their dirty work, the end.



This is the thing - he didn't actually uncover anything, for all his generic charts on a board with lines linking to murder spots and so on, _he didn't uncover a single thing_, nothing at all - all the digging was done by his mate 



Spoiler: here



who was murdered, and once he got the results of that digging he fucked it up by simply passing it on to a thick copper


. The fact he thought he was such a shit hot investigative journo uncovering stuff meant he was so easily manipulated - he was a parody of a journalist as much as the more conventionly corrupt ones at the YEP.


----------



## May Kasahara (Mar 6, 2009)

i missed the last half hour, did andrew garfield get beaten shitless at the end or something?


----------



## Rollem (Mar 6, 2009)

i got bored


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 6, 2009)

May Kasahara said:


> i missed the last half hour, did andrew garfield get beaten shitless at the end or something?





Spoiler: here



Beaten shitless, kidnapped, tortured, framed, accused etc etc


----------



## Maggot (Mar 6, 2009)

I enjoyed that.  Thought the acting was top notch, and enjoyed the washed out way it looked.


----------



## Biddlybee (Mar 6, 2009)

zenie said:


> I don't like watching things on the 'puter


We recorded it... come round next week


----------



## ringo (Mar 6, 2009)

Really enjoyed that. 

No point criticising the director for splicing together entirely disparate scenes, the book is entirely like that. I think he did a good job of representing the confusing nature of the author's narrative style and still making it a very watchable programme. Probably not enough car chases for some but the slow bits are some of the most important to the overall representation of the corruption, violence, and alcohol going on behind the criminal investigations. 

Some of these threads and scenes don't start to make sense until the final book and it's up to the reader to invest enough time, patience and thought into what's going on in order to get the most out of it. 

We don't get enough of this kind of television, worth celebrating I think.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2009)

ringo said:


> Really enjoyed that.
> 
> No point criticising the director for splicing together entirely disparate scenes, the book is entirely like that. I think he did a good job of representing the confusing nature of the author's narrative style and still making it a very watchable programme. Probably not enough car chases for some but the slow bits are some of the most important to the overall representation of the corruption, violence, and alcohol going on behind the criminal investigations.
> 
> ...


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 6, 2009)

by 'eck, it were grim.

Lovely writing. No opinion until the trilogy is complete and 'all the pieces matter', to borrow a phrase.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 6, 2009)

It's good to see real police on the telly finally


----------



## RubyBlue (Mar 6, 2009)

I haven't yet seen this but I've been looking forward to it - saving it for sunday night.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 6, 2009)

I've just remembered - that Cops thing on BBC2 set in Preston was quite a good portrayal


----------



## badlands (Mar 6, 2009)

Is the book a first person narrative?


----------



## Karamazov#1 (Mar 7, 2009)

Yes it is.  The first scene where he talks about the pack gathering whilst driving in his car was lifted straight from the book's inner monologue.    

Having just watched this for the second time on 4OD i think the screen writer has done a top notch job of adapting what is an (often) baffling narrative.  Andrew Garfield got Dunford just about right, all arrogance at first then slowly having the truth about the world he's operating in literally beaten into him.  Basically Dunford is an arsehole who in a few years would have been just like Whitehead.  It's a shame they haven't done 1977 as it would have been great to see Eddie Marsan portray what happens to Jack and to find out that Fraser isn't as good as Dunford thinks he is.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> is there a copy of this to bittorrent anywhere?



its on uknova, which you probably still havent signed up to, and it'll probably turn up on http://xtremespeeds.net/  If not, I can send you a copy

I thought it was cracking, well paced (not slow in the slightest), full of good detail, pretty well acted throughout - with the possible exception of Mrs Dawson, whose role I didn't really get.

I thought the ending was going to turn out to be another dream bit, why did the copper  



Spoiler: the end



give him the gun?  Specifically to off Dawson??


----------



## 8den (Mar 7, 2009)

belboid said:


> I thought the ending was going to turn out to be another dream bit, why did the copper
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That gets answered in 1983. 



> Having just watched this for the second time on 4OD i think the screen writer has done a top notch job of adapting what is an (often) baffling narrative. Andrew Garfield got Dunford just about right, all arrogance at first then slowly having the truth about the world he's operating in literally beaten into him. Basically Dunford is an arsehole who in a few years would have been just like Whitehead. It's a shame they haven't done 1977 as it would have been great to see Eddie Marsan portray what happens to Jack and to find out that Fraser isn't as good as Dunford thinks he is.



I'm sorry to say I think 1980 is the weakest of the three, for this and several other reasons. They try and shoehorn much of the plot of '77 into '80, and I don't think it entirely works, theres too much plot, and it's not as if the narrative is spelt out with ease to start with. 

That being said 80's opening and end are cracking and the score is phenomenal, and it's worth stick sticking it out as 83 gives a satisfying resolution.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 7, 2009)

That was excellent.

That must have cost them a fortune - it was like a feature film


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 7, 2009)

Karamazov#1 said:


> Yes it is.  The first scene where he talks about the pack gathering whilst driving in his car was lifted straight from the book's inner monologue.
> 
> Having just watched this for the second time on 4OD i think the screen writer has done a top notch job of adapting what is an (often) baffling narrative.  Andrew Garfield got Dunford just about right, all arrogance at first then slowly having the truth about the world he's operating in literally beaten into him.  Basically Dunford is an arsehole who in a few years would have been just like Whitehead.  It's a shame they haven't done 1977 as it would have been great to see Eddie Marsan portray what happens to Jack and to find out that Fraser isn't as good as Dunford thinks he is.



Frase and Whitehead sure ain't golden boys in 1977
(for those of you who haven't read 1977, they are the dual narrators of that book and are both troubled to say the least)


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 9, 2009)

I just watched this and really enjoyed it. I was scared that my attention span wouldn't hold out but it didn't feel like 2 hours at all.

I liked the way it was filmed.

Stupid sky+ cut out after he shot Dawson so had to look up the ending.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2009)

yeah, my recording cut out with two minutes to go as well! cos it started nearly five minutes late, grrrr

had to spend nearly twenty minutes fast forwarding thru the iplayer on the TV to see the end.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 9, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Would I be right in thinking that the Polish fella done for the murders of the young girls was a sort of nod to Stefan Kizsko?



Did I misread 1974 horribly, or was the Kizsko character meant to be guilty?

'cause if I did read it right, that left a bad taste in my mouth, and didn't make me want to rush to see the telly version.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2009)

No


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 9, 2009)

So I did misread it, then?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2009)

I guess you did - did you see the film of it? It makes it slightly clearer than the book - the book is pretty opaque in places.


----------



## starfish2000 (Mar 9, 2009)

I thought it was good, but 5 sex scenes in 2 hours was a bit much and some of the script could have been tidier in places. But yeah I'd rather watch this than 99% of any other british TV Drama.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2009)

starfish2000 said:


> I thought it was good, but 5 sex scenes in 2 hours was a bit much and some of the script could have been tidier in places. But yeah I'd rather watch this than 99% of any other british TV Drama.



prude


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> I've just remembered - that Cops thing on BBC2 set in Preston was quite a good portrayal


what was that?


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 9, 2009)

I thought the sex scenes were quite sexy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2009)

killer b said:


> what was that?



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180347/

John Henshaw (landlord from Early Doors and the newspaper editor in 1974) plays a bastard copper in it, amongst other fat sweaty coppers


----------



## Dan U (Mar 9, 2009)

i love John Henshaw

he was ace in Early Doors

am looking forward to the next one of these.


----------



## 8den (Mar 10, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> Did I misread 1974 horribly, or was the Kizsko character meant to be guilty?
> 
> 'cause if I did read it right, that left a bad taste in my mouth, and didn't make me want to rush to see the telly version.



No, I thought it was made pretty clear that the Kizko character isn't guilty. 

They enter into greater detail to this in 1983.


----------



## RubyBlue (Mar 10, 2009)

Just watched the first part last night - though it slightly long but enjoyed it - looking forward to the next one - was it ITV? Can't remember, if so then exceptionally good


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2009)

Channel 4 - clue's in the title thread - as if ITV would make something like that!


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 10, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> is there a copy of this to bittorrent anywhere?



EZTV


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 10, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Channel 4 - clue's in the title thread - as if ITV would make something like that!


To be fair, ITV's done good stuff in the past. The Second Coming, f'rinstance. Trouble is, they've lost their way on an institutional level; I've been to press launches where the bigwigs _genuinely think_ that stuff like Whitechapel, Demons and Lewis are cutting-edge stuff.

ITV has two problems atm: a lot of their stuff is low-rent pound shop knockoffs of better stuff on the BBC (Doctor Who -> Primeval, costume dramas and so forth), and the people making the shows think that having characters SHOUT AT EACH OTHER OVER THEIR BROKEN RELATIONSHIPS is, like, really close to the wire, man.

Much of the BBC's rep for quality popular drama in recent years has been founded on productions from one or two sources; Kudos (Life on Mars, Ashes to Ashes), Andrew Davies and Russell T Davies/Julie Gardner over at BBC Wales. If they buggered off, the BBC would be royally screwed.

Still, things should pick up at ITV, Moving Wallpaper seems to be finding its way after a false start (who thought that pairing it with Echo Beach - an _intentionally shit show_ - was a good idea?). Coming up later in the year there's An Englishman In New York (sequel to The Naked Civil Servant) and The Prisoner (okay, that's an import, but it's got Ian McKellan in it!). Primeval's always good for a laugh, too.

Yeah, something like Red Riding is probably beyond ITV at the moment, but it only takes one or two shows to turn their critical rep around.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2009)

Life On Mars and the other one were shit and Russel T Davies can fuck off. Big fan of Andrew Davies' adapations though.
Primeval? Moving Wallpaper? Surely not?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Mar 10, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> I thought the sex scenes were quite sexy.



I thought they were quite tastefully done


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 10, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Life On Mars and the other one were shit and Russel T Davies can fuck off.


Whether you like them or not, the _popular perception_ among the wider public, the critics and the trade papers is that they're good. BBC has Life on Mars/Doctor Who/quality Dickens adaptations/BBC Four dramas = BBC is Good. ITV has... well, Whitechapel and Demons = ITV is Bad.

And yeah, at the moment Primeval and Moving Wallpaper are two of the only ongoing series that are getting good press and ratings on ITV. Though admittedly Primeval's press is mostly, "Well, it's sort-of okay... Nice arse on that Hannah Spearritt, though."


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 10, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I thought they were quite tastefully done



yes.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 10, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Life On Mars and the other one were shit and Russel T Davies can fuck off. Big fan of Andrew Davies' adapations though.
> Primeval? Moving Wallpaper? Surely not?



Life on Mars was not shit! The follow up was, though.

Are you sure you're not just jealous because it wasn't on C4?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2009)

I have no loyalties - Life On Mars WAS shit though - I didn't get beyond the first two episodes - gimmicky trash it was


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 10, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> I have no loyalties - Life On Mars WAS shit though - I didn't get beyond the first two episodes - gimmicky trash it was



It was not shit!


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2009)

was


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 10, 2009)

A few people I recommended this to said it was like Life on Mars, I was just returning to the thread to ask if it was worth watching.


----------



## belboid (Mar 10, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Life On Mars and the other one were shit and Russel T Davies can fuck off.


aah well, no one can be right all of the time.  And you are sooooo wrong about both of those


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 10, 2009)

DLing first episode of Red Riding


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 10, 2009)

I might watch it again.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 11, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> was



was not!


----------



## ringo (Mar 12, 2009)

Second episode on tonight.


----------



## Sadken (Mar 12, 2009)




----------



## dodgepot (Mar 12, 2009)

looking forward to this. what an exciting thursday evening - this, and there's a jar of cockles in the fridge for me to eat whilst i watch it 

oh, and life on mars was ace but the follow up was lame.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

I am excited.

Also that Killamanjiro thingy with Cheryl Cole is on before. Except Chris Moyles is on it too. So I will be experiencing a range of emotions during that one, love and hate.


----------



## Voley (Mar 12, 2009)

I'm sick of hearing about that fucking Kilimanjairo thing. People have been phoning Radio 1 all week to say how proud and tearful they are just because a bunch of fucking twats walked up a fucking hill ffs.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

What kilimanjaro thing?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> I am excited.
> 
> Also that Killamanjiro thingy with Cheryl Cole is on before. Except Chris Moyles is on it too. So I will be experiencing a range of emotions during that one, love and hate.



You 'love' Chris Moyles?


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

NVP said:


> I'm sick of hearing about that fucking Kilimanjairo thing. People have been phoning Radio 1 all week to say how proud and tearful they are just because a bunch of fucking twats walked up a fucking hill ffs.



yeah  but Cheryl Cole is on it.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> yeah  but Cheryl Cole is on it.



You hate Cheryl Cole? You are a monster.


----------



## Voley (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> yeah  but Cheryl Cole is on it.



I bet she cries.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

oh hahahahahaha everyone. wish i never bloody mentioned it. it was more aimed at dodgers tbh.


----------



## Voley (Mar 12, 2009)

I'd hazard a guess and say he already knew it was on.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

NVP said:


> I bet she cries.



I reckon that somebody will go 'on a journey', and come to a realization about themselves as they reach the summit.


----------



## Voley (Mar 12, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> I reckon that somebody will go 'on a journey', and come to a realization about themselves as they reach the summit.



And say they really feel they've 'learned something'.


----------



## dodgepot (Mar 12, 2009)

i hate it when people go on a "journey"


----------



## Voley (Mar 12, 2009)

Tbf, though, I learned something about myself when I walked up a very big hill. I learned that I don't like walking up very big hills.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

NVP said:


> Tbf, though, I learned something about myself when I walked up a very big hill. I learned that I don't like walking up very big hills.



I learned I should give up smoking.


----------



## 8den (Mar 12, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> I reckon that somebody will go 'on a journey', and come to a realization about themselves as they reach the summit.



To a slo mo montage and a coldplay soundtrack no doubt.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 12, 2009)

wow - it looks a lot different


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2009)

It does doesn't it?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> wow - it looks a lot different



They've taken that fucking sepia filter off for starters.


----------



## starfish (Mar 12, 2009)

& its got James Fox speaking in a Yorkshire accent.


----------



## 8den (Mar 12, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They've taken that fucking sepia filter off for starters.



74 was shot on 16mm, 80 on 35mm, 83 is on a HD hardrive cam called RedCam, all three have a really different look and feel.

I really like 74 on 16mm very grainy period kind of feel.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

8den said:


> 74 was shot on 16mm, 80 on 35mm, 83 is on a HD hardrive cam called RedCam, all three have a really different look and feel.
> 
> I really like 74 on 16mm very grainy period kind of feel.



Yeh, I liked that as well.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

how the fuck do you all follow the plot while posting on here?

I don't know if it's because I'm southern but I have to really bloody concentrate to hear what they are saying, I've got it up really loud. It's getting on my fucking nerves.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

wow angryface.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> how the fuck do you all follow the plot while posting on here?
> 
> I don't know if it's because I'm southern but I have to really bloody concentrate to hear what they are saying, I've got it up really loud. It's getting on my fucking nerves.



ad breaks


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

some of those posts were not during adbreaks ^^^


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2009)

You having translation problems eg? 

This is blinding.


----------



## starfish (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> I don't know if it's because I'm southern but I have to really bloody concentrate to hear what they are saying, I've got it up really loud. It's getting on my fucking nerves.



Probably, ms starfish is southern & is having trouble too.


----------



## 8den (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> how the fuck do you all follow the plot while posting on here?



I was the assistant editor on 80 and 83 I've seen this like 30+ times.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> how the fuck do you all follow the plot while posting on here?
> 
> I don't know if it's because I'm southern but I have to really bloody concentrate to hear what they are saying, I've got it up really loud. It's getting on my fucking nerves.



Put the subtitles on.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> some of those posts were not during adbreaks ^^^



mine were/are


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

My telly doesn't have subtitles.

That ginger fella is the fucking worst, I literally haven't understood a single thing he has said.

That woman they interviewed with the priest was alright. She had good diction.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> mine were/are



Okay.

Dillinger how do you do it?!


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2009)

You'd love my Rotherham cousins electro, you'd not understand a bleeding word


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> My telly doesn't have subtitles.
> 
> That ginger fella is the fucking worst, I literally have';t understood a single thing he has said.
> 
> That woman they interviewed with the priest was alright. She had good diction.



Yeh, I have a bit of trouble following him.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Okay.
> 
> Dillinger how do you do it?!



Do what?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

grim.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2009)

Innit.



It's beautifully shot.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

Balbi said:


> Innit.
> 
> 
> 
> It's beautifully shot.



I agree, that is one thing I am particularly enjoying.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> Do what?



Post and read urban while the programme is on?!


Anyway. I've given up with Bob. I've just resigned myself to the fact that I will not quite understand the scenes where he speaks.

Other than that I am enjoying it.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Post and read urban while the programme is on?!
> 
> 
> Anyway. I've given up with Bob. I've just resigned myself to the fact that I will not quite understand the scenes where he speaks.
> ...



My telly is only there! 

<----

I hardly even need to turn my head.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

fuckkkkkk


----------



## marty21 (Mar 12, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> fuckkkkkk



didn't see that coming tbf

enjoying it  (if that is the correct word), still pretty bleak and grim though - seemed more cinematic tonight


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2009)

This is the best thing i've seen on telly for ages. It's just bloody great.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 12, 2009)

too much soundtrack - direction felt flatter than last time


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 12, 2009)

I knew the police were corrupt but...


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2009)

I think the guardian described Red Riding's appearance on the schedule each week as 'The major source of dropped coffee cups in the Yorkshire Tourist Board office'....


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2009)

Agree about too much soundtrack* but I enjoyed that a lot more than last weeks.





*this is a pretty common thing nowadays though, I wish producers would learn that sticking "atmospheric" strings behind everything isn't always the right thing to do...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2009)

Much better this week - got all the characters right.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> how the fuck do you all follow the plot while posting on here?
> 
> I don't know if it's because I'm southern but I have to really bloody concentrate to hear what they are saying, I've got it up really loud. It's getting on my fucking nerves.



it was a bit mumbly at times


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2009)

I don't want it to end next week 

I don't want to go back to watching 'The Girl Whose Breasts Speak German' on Channel 4


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> My telly is only there!
> 
> <----
> 
> I hardly even need to turn my head.



Yeah but I have a lappy t yet I still can't read _and_ watch

Not something like this anyway.

The ending was. I was all gaspy on my own! I liked it despite the mumbling, preferred last week though. 

Next week looks good.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 12, 2009)

fuckin hell, that were a bit bleak!  yeah I agree with Marty, not sure 'enjoy' is quite the right word, but I don't want to miss the last one.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Yeah but I have a lappy t yet I still can't read _and_ watch
> 
> Not something like this anyway.
> 
> ...



heh.

 

Brilliant ending. I didn't gasp. But I did raise an eyebrow.


----------



## 8den (Mar 12, 2009)

Out of curiosity how did 1980 stand up against 74? And did people think the plot was comparable?


----------



## weepiper (Mar 12, 2009)

I thought it didn't have such a strong sense of time-setting as 74 did.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 12, 2009)

The link from one t'other was good. Liked the way the stories meet, and how bleak it all was. Much less violent around the main character, but the menace was there. I can't wait to see how it's all laid out in the final denoument next week. It now feels like it's unfinished


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

weepiper said:


> I thought it didn't have such a strong sense of time-setting as 74 did.



Yes I was going to say this. 74 had a real sense of era about it.

They were very different stylistically though anyway.


----------



## Karamazov#1 (Mar 12, 2009)

I think 80 sufferred just a little from not having 77 there before it.  There were just a few too many things that would have worked better (Eric Hall especially) if they'd done 77 as well.  I guess that can't be helped though.  Overall i think 80 was much better directed though and Considine and Morrissey were both blinding.  As was the guy that played Nolan.

Oh and mega kudos to Sean Harris for playing someone that rotten and making him so compelling.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 12, 2009)

I found Paddy very many attractive this evening.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 12, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> I found Paddy very many attractive this evening.


----------



## Karamazov#1 (Mar 12, 2009)

*Question*



Spoiler: karamazov#1



Did Craven kill Clare Strachan in the books?  I know it's never spelled out but i always figured it was Laws


----------



## Geri (Mar 13, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> I found Paddy very many attractive this evening.



I didn't - too clean and smooth looking.


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2009)

he didn't entirely convince me as an asst chief constable, or whatever he was meant to be now, which is a shame.

i do think it tried to pack too much in last night, but it was still damned fine


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 13, 2009)

At the end of last weeks programme I was wondering of those two sadist coppers were also shot in the club. Seems they were.


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 13, 2009)

Missed this last night, anyone have virginmedia and know when (or if) it will appear on catch up?

Got a mac so can't watch 4ondemand

Program listed for last night at 9pm is listed as 8pm in The Guide :?


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 13, 2009)

Chip Barm said:


> Missed this last night, anyone have virginmedia and know when (or if) it will appear on catch up?
> 
> Program listed for last night at 9pm is listed as 8pm in The Guide :?



The last one ever turned up on there at all.


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2009)

it appeared on catch up for me!  watched it the next night, iirr


----------



## Spion (Mar 13, 2009)

8den said:


> Out of curiosity how did 1980 stand up against 74? And did people think the plot was comparable?


I thought last night's was more, errr, believable. I thought the ending of 74 was a bit silly, tbh. Tho I liked the look and that it was more than just a police drama than 80.

From being a bit ambivalent on the whole thing I am now hooked for the final episode.


----------



## Spion (Mar 13, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> I found Paddy very many attractive this evening.


Has he ever played a Welsh schoolteacher? He looks like one


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2009)

Spion said:


> I thought last night's was more, errr, believable. I thought the ending of 74 was a bit silly, tbh. Tho I liked the look and that it was more than just a police drama than 80.



last nights ending was _less_ silly than that in the opening ep?

Now that's just a weird opinion


----------



## Spion (Mar 13, 2009)

belboid said:


> last nights ending was _less_ silly than that in the opening ep?
> 
> Now that's just a weird opinion


A couple of quick head shots deep in a police police station was a bit less of a 'WTF!?' to me than the public gun spree and high speed Vauxhall Viva suicide of 74.


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2009)

it may bel less 'wtf?', but I'm not at all sure it is more believable!

How many double shootings of coppers _inside_ a station can you recall?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 13, 2009)

belboid said:


> How many double shootings of coppers _inside_ a station can you recall?



But how many would we know about eh?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2009)

It’s obviously BAFTA-bait but, as with the Oscar equivalent, I don’t think anything should be judged on that.

Like most, I really wanted this to work – the success of C4 and C4 Films is integral to the UK industry – but it’s just not resonating with me   . . . .

Atm two big problem areas are the length of the piece and the too obviously limited budget; either make it a 10-hour mini series, fund it properly and address the subject matter properly or make it a docu-drama film with the Stalker Enquiry transferred to Yorkshire.

Still holding out to form a view on this unusual combination of semi-fact with unreal, outlandish and primarily violent fiction

Not looking good though . . . nil BAFTA.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 13, 2009)

I disagree about the length, I thought it would be a problem for me because if my conncentration span, but it held my interest more than most films, mainly because the plot was interesting and clever, and unlike most movies, I wasn't thinking 'oh here's the middle bit, the end is coming soon...'.

In fact the 2 hours went very quickly, especially in 74.


I haven't noticed a lack of budget either.


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2009)

It would obviously be better if they could have got the money for a longer series. 

I dont get the point of the 'Stalker *I*nquiry' comment tho, the story has nothing to do with the six counties or shoot to kill policies


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2009)

Not about attention-spans, the subjects and storylines are ill-matched by this length.

It might be me, been a very long time since I've watched 'live' tv, the ad breaks are certainly impacting on the drama.


----------



## Spion (Mar 13, 2009)

belboid said:


> it may bel less 'wtf?', but I'm not at all sure it is more believable!


It think in 80 it was all quite claustrophobically confined in the coppers' world, there was more that made it hang together for me as we moved from scene to scene. Which in some ways was a strength but also a weakness. 74 seemed more ambitious in its scope but was realised less well.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2009)

As memory serves Stalker was the Dep Head of Madchaster brought in as the outside force and who faced . . . some local opposition.


----------



## Spion (Mar 13, 2009)

belboid said:


> I dont get the point of the 'Stalker *I*nquiry' comment tho, the story has nothing to do with the six counties or shoot to kill policies


There was a reference to it when Hunter first met the Chief Constable.

In RL when Stalker first met the CC of the RUC at the start of the inquiry the latter (was it Hermon at the time?) pushed a cigarette packet across the table with the names of some of Stalker's catholic relatives scribbled on it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2009)

Spion said:


> There was a reference to it when Hunter first met the Chief Constable.



I missed that - was it supposed to proper contemporary ref (i.e a mistake) or a knowing wink to something that hadn't happened at that point?


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> As memory serves Stalker was the Dep Head of Madchaster brought in as the outside force and who faced . . . some local opposition.



yeah, and? Police corruption was rife throughout the seventies, there's more of a comparison with Stokie or Newcastle probably.

Stalkers been done almost to death, Shoot to Kill, Death on the Rock, Hidden Agenda


----------



## ringo (Mar 13, 2009)

Excellent, thought they did a really good job. Top quality TV. The bloke playing Bob was brilliant.


----------



## Spion (Mar 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I missed that - was it supposed to proper contemporary ref (i.e a mistake) or a knowing wink to something that hadn't happened at that point?


The CC said to Hunter something about him 'being on the Roman side'.

I don't know how the film-maker intended it - as a knowing wink or that it was 'inspired' by a real life event. Anyhow, I kind of thought it a bit unnecessary as a line really. There's enough meat on the police corruption thing in RR without trying to build it up as a Proddy/Mason conspiracy (unless there's something to be revealed still)


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2009)

oh yeah, asked if he was on a sympathy hunger strike didnt he?  it didn't really seem to fit, except for being another way of saying 'you're not one of us'


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 13, 2009)

ringo said:


> Excellent, thought they did a really good job. Top quality TV. The bloke playing Bob was brilliant.



Well he didn't need to learn his lines did he? Just mumbly mumbleed northern mumbled.


----------



## Lakina (Mar 13, 2009)

I love the ambience of Red Riding, but can someone explain what the hell is going on?  In the first episode, two coppers give the journalist a gun and send him off to kill Sean Bean.  In the second episode, the same two coppers are in the club when aforementioned journo comes arrives to kill Bean.  So why are they there?  Wouldn't you want to be 100 miles away when the journo we've spent the previous day torturing walks in with a gun? And why doesn't aforementioned journo kill the two coppers?  And why do more coppers in balaclavas turn up afterwards to shoot aforementioned coppers?   And why is one of the aforementioned coppers later promoted to superintendent after he had been shot?  

So confused!!!


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2009)

methinks you might have to wait till 1983 to find out


----------



## ringo (Mar 13, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Well he didn't need to learn his lines did he? Just mumbly mumbleed northern mumbled.



I lived in Sheffield for 4 years, must have got the hang of it. 

Most of his acting was non-verbal though


----------



## poului (Mar 13, 2009)

*468ryui7tyi7*

Why on earth didn't they adapt 1977???!


----------



## Geri (Mar 13, 2009)

Spion said:


> Has he ever played a Welsh schoolteacher? He looks like one


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2009)

Lakina said:


> I love the ambience of Red Riding, but can someone explain what the hell is going on? In the first episode, two coppers give the journalist a gun and send him off to kill Sean Bean. In the second episode, the same two coppers are in the club when aforementioned journo comes arrives to kill Bean. So why are they there? Wouldn't you want to be 100 miles away when the journo we've spent the previous day torturing walks in with a gun? And why doesn't aforementioned journo kill the two coppers? And why do more coppers in balaclavas turn up afterwards to shoot aforementioned coppers? And why is one of the aforementioned coppers later promoted to superintendent after he had been shot?
> 
> So confused!!!


it's either rubbish screen/scriptwriting or it's what filmmakers sometimes attempt; an example might be  Se7en, in which the dialogue was difficult to understand for the first 20-30 minutes - allegedly intended to represent the fact that no one in the film understood what was going on either.

Having some themes/strands making sense and others not is a neat device imo, if you get it right.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 13, 2009)

ringo said:


> I lived in Sheffield for 4 years, must have got the hang of it.
> 
> Most of his acting was non-verbal though



Like I said, I just resigned myself to not hearing it. Especially when my housemate came in and said 'why is the telly so fucking loud?'

and I went into a tirade of something which included the words '..these northern wankers..'


----------



## Voley (Mar 15, 2009)

Just watched this last night. Very good, imo, and better than last weeks mainly due to the main fella played by Considine. I like the plot - the twists are genuinely unexpected. Bloody bleak, mind. 

It's a good thing to have been involved with, 8den, imo. I'm a bit jealous of your job, I must admit. I'd love to work on something like this.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 19, 2009)

BRING IT ON!



I've been excited about this all day.


----------



## christonabike (Mar 19, 2009)

If you like this, you will love the books!


----------



## Biffo (Mar 19, 2009)

I've heard that tonight's is a bit more slapstick than the previous two.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 19, 2009)

What, like Benny Hill?


----------



## Biffo (Mar 19, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> What, like Benny Hill?



Nah, more of a Dick Emery meets Stanley Baxter with a hint of pathos.


----------



## aqua (Mar 19, 2009)

is tonights one repeated at any point?


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 19, 2009)

Balbi said:


> BRING IT ON!
> 
> 
> 
> I've been excited about this all day.



me too!! 

I think I'll read the books after this aswell.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 19, 2009)

Here it comes.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 19, 2009)

Alright start. Although male prostitution and a large spicy pizza don't go well, much to my dismay.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 19, 2009)

Using popular music completely changes the mood of the thing.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 19, 2009)

The solicitor lad's a feckless shite ain't he? Makes a nice change from righteous burning anger from Garfield and Considine.

Lens flaring's a bit annoying.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 19, 2009)

Hmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## 8den (Mar 19, 2009)

Balbi said:


> Hmmmmmmmmm.



Whats confusing?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 19, 2009)

why the ?


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm confused.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 19, 2009)

I can see where it's going, but it's not quite got the drive I thought it might. Compared to the other two.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 19, 2009)

I think the flipping inbetween time periods is messing with my melon.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 19, 2009)

Unless there's an almighty twist at the end I'm going to be mightily fucking disappointed with this, it just seems to be building up to tell us what we already pretty much know...


----------



## Balbi (Mar 19, 2009)

Not bad that one. I think if they'd done four now, then it'd all fit a bit better. Seemed a bit rushed this week.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 19, 2009)

Ok, confused now.
Thought it was a cop out that he finds the little girl alive. 
So Pigott's dad was involved with some paedophile ring that Laws was running?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 19, 2009)

Well that was a shite ending. It wasn't sure if it wanted a 'hanging' ending or to tie it all together so it tried a bit of both. Melodramatic child rescue with light streaming in, a nice denouement for BJ, near redemption for a rotten copper.... We know who the pig and swan were but who was the wolf , the priest? Who was the rat? Pretty shabby end to a great trilogy.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 19, 2009)

Dawson was in on it too.


----------



## poului (Mar 19, 2009)

*tyb t576iyghk*

Trust them to fuck something like this up.


Poor conclusion.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 19, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Well that was a shite ending. It wasn't sure if it wanted a 'hanging' ending or to tie it all together so it tried a bit of both. Melodramatic child rescue with light streaming in, a nice denouement for BJ, near redemption for a rotten copper.... We know who the pig and swan were but who was the wolf , the priest? Who was the rat? Pretty shabby end to a great trilogy.


don't forget the owl and the badger! who were the pig and the swan?


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> We know who the pig and swan were but who was the wolf , the priest? Who was the rat? Pretty shabby end to a great trilogy.


I only saw the last one but even I worked out that the wolf was the solicitor's dad.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm really confused, cos the ending doesn't square with the books (though I haven't read 1983), cos in 1974, the paedo is found dying, tortured, in his own lair.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 19, 2009)

editor said:


> I only saw the last one but even I worked out that the wolf was the solicitor's dad.



Well given the solicitors dad was Arthur the Pig, why would he be the wolf?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 19, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Well given the solicitors dad was Arthur the Pig, why would he be the wolf?



Cos Pigott asked Mishkyn who the Wolf was and he said 'your dad'.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 19, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Cos Pigott asked Mishkyn who the Wolf was and he said 'your dad'.



He said 'your dad was watching' not just your dad.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 19, 2009)

I am all baffled in my head by that.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 19, 2009)

So the priest was the one killing the girls? And Dawson was in on it? What about Piggot's dad?

Did the copper set Michael free?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 19, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> So the priest was the one killing the girls? And Dawson was in on it? What about Piggot's dad?
> 
> Did the copper set Michael free?



Yes
Yes
He was in on it
No idea.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 19, 2009)

Laws and Dawson were in a ring together, Piggot's dad was involved somehow.
I don't know what Jobson did with Myshkin, though at first I thought he was going to kill him.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 19, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Laws and Dawson were in a ring together, Piggot's dad was involved somehow.
> I don't know what Jobson did with Myshkin, though at first I thought he was going to kill him.



Right okay. So I kind of got it. I think it all came together a bit rushy.

I thought he was going to kill him too but he seemed to just be undoing his belts and straps and stuff.

I really wish that boy hadn't been called 'BJ'


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 19, 2009)

Oh, I couldn't follow BJ's thread at all


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 19, 2009)

But why did he have to be called BJ? 

Yeah I couldn't follow his bit either. I kind if wish all three of these had been shown over 3 days, rather than 3 weeks. I think alot of the stuff that happened in the last two had whooshed out of my head.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 19, 2009)

maybe cos he was good at giving them


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 19, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> maybe cos he was good at giving them



Give a kid a name like that, it's like a self fulfilling prophecy..


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 19, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Give a kid a name like that, it's like a self fulfilling prophecy..



Indeed, this is one of the main lessons to be learnt from David Peace. The perpetuation of misery. No one has a chance it seems.


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 19, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Indeed, this is one of the main lessons to be learnt from David Peace. The perpetuation of misery. No one has a chance it seems.



I take it the girl isn't rescued in the books then?


----------



## Bomber (Mar 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> Cos Pigott asked Mishkyn who the Wolf was and he said 'your dad'.



He said your Dad new the Wolfman, I thought ?


----------



## Voley (Mar 20, 2009)

That was really good, I thought. I didn't see the ending coming - I think I liked this one the best of the lot. The time-switches had me scratching my head a bit but apart from that I thought it was pretty clear. It's been a good series, this. Really made me want to read the books. And I'd only ever seen that fella in The Full Monty before - ever so slightly different character this time.


----------



## nightbreed (Mar 20, 2009)

Recorded it last night. Got up early to watch. Very dissappointed. Should have stayed in bed!!


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 20, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> I take it the girl isn't rescued in the books then?



I don't know - haven't read 1983 - it doesn't seem likely though


----------



## electrogirl (Mar 20, 2009)

I enjoyed the 1st one the most I think.


----------



## ringo (Mar 20, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> I take it the girl isn't rescued in the books then?



No, she's not. The TV version made much more of an effort to bring the disparate threads together and reveal what was really going on. Some worked, some didn't, but I enjoyed it all the same.


----------



## dodgepot (Mar 20, 2009)

last's nigth certainly wasn't as good as the first two but i still thought it was great. and i was left wondering whether piggot and the copper would end up getting into shit rather than it being an all-squared happy ending.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 20, 2009)

Distinct and I admired  - perhaps rather than 'liked' - the unusual structure. Interesting how the work avoids using the device of a lead player to take you through the entire narrative arc. It felt like the players were slithers from a shattered whole, lying wherever they fell.

Just an awful lot of ground to cover in a 2000-2,500 page trilogy, hopeless trying to weave together ideas from Stalker, Poulson, police corruption in Yorshire, the Yorkshire Ripper, the link between police and porn, murder, paedo, institutional violence, the aftermath of the miners strike . . to mention but a few real-world themes . .  in 5 or so hours of tv (not including the good people at comparethemarkets.com).

Loved the bleak, almost fading Soviet backdrop. Last of the Summer Wine was it eck as like.


----------



## treelover (Mar 20, 2009)

> It felt like the players were slithers from a shattered whole, lying wherever they fell.




Sorry, but that bit would go well in Pseuds Corner, or a 1980'S NME review from Paul Morley!

yes, I know, bad form to criticise people's own reviews, etc.....


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2009)

More the lead-up to the miners strike than the aftermath as well.


----------



## treelover (Mar 20, 2009)

How could it do the aftermath if it was 1983?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2009)

Exactly


----------



## 8den (Mar 20, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> More the lead-up to the miners strike than the aftermath as well.



Thats all dealt with in "1984 GBH", another novel. Same production company that did Red Riding have optioned it in the last few weeks.


----------



## treelover (Mar 20, 2009)

Great, I thought they might, TV or cinema?


----------



## treelover (Mar 20, 2009)

btw, isn't one of his books set in Meadowhall Shopping Centre for part of it


----------



## 8den (Mar 21, 2009)

treelover said:


> Great, I thought they might, TV or cinema?



Hang on they've only just bought the rights to adapt the book into a script. 

It took four years between getting the rights of Red Riding for it to make it onto the telly. 

That being said between RR and the Damned United coming out this year, I could see this getting fast tracked.


----------



## treelover (Mar 21, 2009)

Sorry, yes, i am aware of how long it takes to develop a option, etc.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 21, 2009)

treelover said:


> Sorry, but that bit would go well in Pseuds Corner, or a 1980'S NME review from Paul Morley!
> 
> yes, I know, bad form to criticise people's own reviews, etc.....


Hands up, take me away quietly. Partic embarrassing as we used to take the piss out of Morley.


Can't explain why I thought the third part of this was set later in the 80s when I wrote the above.


----------



## Karamazov#1 (Mar 21, 2009)

1980 was the strongest of the three and certainly the best directed.  I loved the way Considine's character was always filmed inside a building, hardly ever outside almost like even the architecture is slowly immersing him.  1983 was probably the weakest of the three just because they had so much to fit in and the ending whilst working for the series left me a little disappointed as i loved the bleak down beat ending of the novel.  The major problem though was that they had to miss out 1977 the events of which would have made BJ's story in 83 a lot clearer.  Overall though it's been a great series and kudos has got to go to all the actors for turning in such great performances even for the supporting characters.  I loved the way Jim Carter played Angus as a sort of Yorkshire mafia don, Peter Mullan was suitably ambiguous and then terrifying but the stand out was Morrisey who managed to articulate the guilt and inner conflict of Jobson through the look in his eyes.


----------



## maximilian ping (Mar 24, 2009)

editor said:


> I only saw the last one but even I worked out that the wolf was the solicitor's dad.



que? solicitors dad was 'the wolf's friend/with the wolf' according to what Mishkyn told copper

i must admit i havent got much of a clue what it was all about or why anything happened, but i liked it. fucking menacing, and actually reminds me of the grim impression of 'up north' i had when i was a kid.

if anyone has got a plot summary (wikipedia, my fave 'what the fuck happened in that film' site has not got one yet) i would appreciate it.

i'm finding it more common that i can't understand what the fuck people are saying on tv, i am a bit deaf tho...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2009)

BJ done them all to let people know the evil that was going on.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 24, 2009)

maximilian ping said:


> que? solicitors dad was 'the wolf's friend/with the wolf' according to what Mishkyn told copper
> 
> i must admit i havent got much of a clue what it was all about or why anything happened, but i liked it. fucking menacing, and actually reminds me of the grim impression of 'up north' i had when i was a kid.
> 
> ...



there were quite a few complaints about the sound/dialogue


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2009)

They're massively different things to be fair. Ratface did mumble a bit though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 24, 2009)

A copper who was on the Ripper investigation called up and said they'd got it spot on (apart from the bullying cops he said with a chuckle)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 24, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> there were quite a few complaints about the sound/dialogue



All from poncy southerners I bet


----------



## weepiper (Mar 24, 2009)

I still don't get why the two rozzers got shot in the nightclub.


----------



## belboid (Mar 24, 2009)

i thought cos they knew too much and weren't trustworthy enough to keep schtum


----------



## Dirty Martini (Oct 7, 2009)

Just watched the first two.

1974 is truly fucking awful, just an arid exercise in 70s atmos and an absurd plot that doesn't work. The Ripper one is much better though, mainly down to Considine and to Sean Harris, who is brilliant.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 7, 2009)

I only just finished watching this. Had it queued up on Sky for ages. Gotta say, really enjoyed the whole thing. The cinematography was outstanding, and the atmosphere was just so _dark_. Best thing about it was the utter contempt that it showed for the police.


----------



## Dirty Martini (Oct 7, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I only just finished watching this. Had it queued up on Sky for ages. Gotta say, really enjoyed the whole thing. The cinematography was outstanding, and the atmosphere was just so _dark_. Best thing about it was the utter contempt that it showed for the police.



The cinematography is indeed pretty fine in the second. My problem with the first is that it isn't filmed at all -- the director just flicks the "1970s" switch on the camera and lets that setting do all the work.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 7, 2009)

Dirty Martini said:


> The cinematography is indeed pretty fine in the second. My problem with the first is that it isn't filmed at all -- the director just flicks the "1970s" switch on the camera and lets the setting do all the work.


I can't remember it clearly enough. Got the third one stuck in my mind at the mo. I think a re-watch will be in order some time soon (if only to clear up the chronology of the last episode).


----------



## sojourner (Oct 16, 2009)

Well, finally got round to watching all 3 in the last few days, and absolutely bloody loved it all

I really liked the cinematography in the first one, unlike DM up there

I did struggle with parts of the various plots, so it's good to know it wasn't just me being thick/stoned 

In fact, I ended up re-watching the first one again last night so I could tie up some loose ends for myself

I absolutely did NOT like the ending to the middle one.  Thought the idea of that being staged was completely unrealistic.  Also, no one used the word 'fuckwit' in the 80s. Not around here they didn't 

Liked the accents on the whole, thought they did an alright job.

LOVED the 'This is the North, and we do what we want' line - I'm using that from now on 



outstanding moment for me - the scenes at number 64 - the person walking over the hill at the back of the house.


----------



## janeb (Jan 9, 2010)

Bumping as got this dvd for Xmas,  Watched 1974 last night and just finished 1980, planning to watch 1983 tomorrow.  Only book I've read is 1977 so found lots of 1980 familiar, but just loved Paddy Considine as Hunter - proper 'gasp out loud' at the end


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

Ridley Scott making a film version of the mini-series based in the US.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Ridley Scott making a film version of the mini-series based in the US.


ew. not looking forward to that


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 5, 2010)

I don't remember any helicopters.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2010)

to be filmed in pensylvania.

It also means that 1977 (for which the C4 script was already written) can't be made until at least two years after Scotts film.


----------



## sojourner (Dec 11, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Well, finally got round to watching all 3 in the last few days, and absolutely bloody loved it all
> 
> I really liked the cinematography in the first one, unlike DM up there
> 
> ...



Ha - I wondered if I'd actually made a comment on this and turns out I did!

Anyway, got talking to the fella about this and he'd never seen it, so we watched them all over the last few days.

He fucking LOVED it   As did I - more so, it seems, than I did before   Bonus is that I'd pretty much completely forgotten everything apart from the bare bones! I thought the ending to the second one was a bit better this time.  Also, the scene I mention above stood out once again for me.

Jesus though, so fucking _grim_. I was definitely more traumatised this time around than before. We had to watch 2 Big Bang Theorys before going to bed to kind of clean our minds!

Absolutely fucking storming bit of telly that. Must have been ace to work on 8den 

I really do need to read the books now!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 18, 2016)

Rewatching... Forgotten how dark and grim


----------

