2016 RTE Drama: Rebellion - no spoilers please (mod warning in post #1)

josephryan1989 · 01-02-2016 04:00PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Well, for starters, she wasn't an orphan.

Ok ok. Her mother gave her up or was forced to by the nuns. Whatever.

She's a rebel because of this?

A mad feminist man-hating lesbian serial killer who dresses in men's clothes?

Utter utter crap.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 01-02-2016 04:01PM

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Ok ok. Her mother gave her up or was forced to by the nuns. Whatever.

She's a rebel because of this?

A mad feminist man-hating lesbian serial killer who dresses in men's clothes?

She's a rebel because she's sick of the system. Simple as.

josephryan1989 · 01-02-2016 04:03PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

She's a rebel because she's sick of the system. Simple as.

There is no record anywhere in any history books of any female assassin going around plugging detectives. None. This is pure Lara Croft sh*te.

It is an insult to the memories of the real men and women who actually fought from 1916 to 1923 to serve up crap like this.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 01-02-2016 04:04PM

josephryan1989 wrote: »

There is no record anywhere in any history books of any female assassin going around plugging detectives. None. This is pure Lara Croft sh*te.

It is an insult to the memories of the real men and women who actually fought from 1916 to 1923 to serve up crap like this.

Well that's because they were either very good at it and never got caught OR, and stay with me here, IT'S A WORK OF FICTION.

josephryan1989 · 01-02-2016 04:06PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Well that's because they were either very good at it and never got caught OR, and stay with me here, IT'S A WORK OF FICTION.

Very crappy fiction.

Did she jump in a weird telephone box and vanish?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 01-02-2016 04:07PM

There's a documentary on RTÉ tonight about life in Dublin before the Rising. Might be worth a watch for anyone who was surprised by the idea that the locals weren't fully on board with the rebellion, or just for anyone with an interest in the period.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 01-02-2016 04:08PM

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Very crappy fiction.

Did she jump in a weird telephone box and vanish?

She cycled off screen at the end. You should pay closer attention.

josephryan1989 · 01-02-2016 04:39PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

She cycled off screen at the end. You should pay closer attention.

A woman is cycling around Dublin in 1916 dressed in drag and nobody notices? There has just been a rebellion and the city and country are under martial law with troops and police on the streets and she doesn't get caught? Nobody sees anything?

I'm surprised the writers didn't introduce General Melchett who couldn't tell that Private "Bob" was actually a girl.

mick malones mauser · 01-02-2016 04:51PM

It was very funny in an absurd type of way.
If it was a bunch of UCD 1st year drama students putting on a bit of a show to celebrate end of term before they went for drinks with their pals and lecturers it would probably be acceptable in a " ah were you never young" type of way.......

But this was the supposed epic production by RTE to mark the 100th anniversary of one the major events of Irish history..

Really ....heads should roll for this ..but of course instead of that they will award themselves IFTAs and do the rounds of the Tubridy/Darcy love in shows telling everyone what a mature country we are now....sure we put lesbian kisses in it and no one blinked an eye.
Arent we great,could we rejoin the empire now please.

I cant believe anyone actually enjoyed the show.It was truly awful

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 01-02-2016 04:56PM

josephryan1989 wrote: »

A woman is cycling around Dublin in 1916 dressed in drag and nobody notices? There has just been a rebellion and the city and country are under martial law with troops and police on the streets and she doesn't get caught? Nobody sees anything?

It's not like she was a 6 ft hairy man in a dress riding around town. She was in disguise and the point of disguise is not to be noticed, so well done Frances, it seems to have worked.

Of course it didn't end with "and Frances lived happily ever after". We have no idea if she got away with it or not. Entirely possible that will be carried over into a second series, if there is one.

HeidiHeidi · 01-02-2016 05:06PM

mick malones mauser wrote: »

It was very funny in an absurd type of way.
If it was a bunch of UCD 1st year drama students putting on a bit of a show to celebrate end of term before they went for drinks with their pals and lecturers it would probably be acceptable in a " ah were you never young" type of way.......

But this was the supposed epic production by RTE to mark the 100th anniversary of one the major events of Irish history..

Really ....heads should roll for this ..but of course instead of that they will award themselves IFTAs and do the rounds of the Tubridy/Darcy love in shows telling everyone what a mature country we are now....sure we put lesbian kisses in it and no one blinked an eye.
Arent we great,could we rejoin the empire now please.

I cant believe anyone actually enjoyed the show.It was truly awful

I think we all get it.

You didn't like it. You REALLY didn't like it, in fact.

You don't have to keep posting paraphrasings of that.

mick malones mauser · 01-02-2016 05:18PM

Heidi

Are you sure I am making myself clear !!!

Now where did I leave my Gleeson dartboard

Strazdas · 01-02-2016 05:25PM

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The absurdity of the ending defies belief.

A lesbian orphan from Galway running around wear a flat cap and men's clothes shooting police detectives?

Seriously?

B*llsh*t!

If the writers bothered to do even an iota of research into historical people and events they could have easily created a drama without having to make up nonsense like this.

That scene was clearly historically inaccurate but it was one of the very few scenes to be (the movie Michael Collins had far more inaccuracies and that's something that was loved by the critics).

The series appears to be taking a hammering from certain quarters but "riddled with errors and historical inaccuracies" is an accusation that cannot be thrown at them.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 01-02-2016 05:38PM

Strazdas wrote: »

That scene was clearly historically inaccurate but it was one of the very few scenes to be (the movie Michael Collins had far more inaccuracies and that's something that was loved by the critics).

The series appears to be taking a hammering from certain quarters but "riddled with errors and historical inaccuracies" is an accusation that cannot be thrown at them.

It's only historically inaccurate if Detective Coleman was a real person who existed in 1916 and was shot by someone else or indeed not shot.

If he was a fictional creation like Frances it's not historically inaccurate at all. It's fiction.

Strazdas · 01-02-2016 05:43PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

It's only historically inaccurate if Detective Coleman was a real person who existed in 1916 and was shot by someone else or indeed not shot.

If he was a fictional creation like Frances it's not historically inaccurate at all. It's fiction.

Indeed. They can definitely be accused of revisionism (which I suspect is the real thing that is bugging many of the show's critics) but by and large they seem to have researched the period thoroughly and got numerous things right.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 01-02-2016 05:46PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed. They can definitely be accused of revisionism (which I suspect is the real thing that is bugging many of the show's critics) but by and large they seem to have researched the period thoroughly and got numerous things right.

Even revisionism is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion, but I do think that's what a lot of people seem to have taken issue with, when in reality it's more a case of them not presenting the historically accepted black and white account of events.

mick malones mauser · 01-02-2016 06:15PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed. They can definitely be accused of revisionism (which I suspect is the real thing that is bugging many of the show's critics) but by and large they seem to have researched the period thoroughly and got numerous things right.

The real thing that is bugging the shows critics is that is was badly made,badly scripted with dreadful acting and some frankly ludicrous scenes.

There was no revisionism as such

The events of that week were hugely influential in Irish History,there were many REAL characters who were involved in the events whose lives are worthy of a stand alone drama.
This effort claimed to have focussed on women and yet it airbrushed Elizabeth O'Farrell out.
Various other notable women like Margaret Skinnider,Constance Markievicz, Madeleine ffrench-Mullen and Helena Molony. were either completely ignored or given a token mention.
Instead we were presented with 3 absurd female caricatures.

I could go on,but really whats the point.
But to say that those who disliked it did so because of revisionism is absurd.
I didn't like it because it wasn't any good.

Strazdas · 01-02-2016 06:16PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Even revisionism is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion, but I do think that's what a lot of people seem to have taken issue with, when in reality it's more a case of them not presenting the historically accepted black and white account of events.

Yes, I get the impression people were fully expecting the standard Rising type story of the rebels being courageous and brave and totally justified in trying to throw off a cold and brutal and oppressive British regime. When by episode 2 it became clear it was going for a very different angle (rebels shooting civilians dead on the streets : working class Dubliners in British Army uniforms fighting the rebels) then the criticism started being ramped up.

Strazdas · 01-02-2016 06:26PM

mick malones mauser wrote: »

[/U][/B]

The real thing that is bugging the shows critics is that is was badly made,badly scripted with dreadful acting and some frankly ludicrous scenes.

There was no revisionism as such

The events of that week were hugely influential in Irish History,there were many REAL characters who were involved in the events whose lives are worthy of a stand alone drama.
This effort claimed to have focussed on women and yet it airbrushed Elizabeth O'Farrell out.
Various other notable women like Margaret Skinnider,Constance Markievicz, Madeleine ffrench-Mullen and Helena Molony. were either completely ignored or given a token mention.
Instead we were presented with 3 absurd female caricatures.

I could go on,but really whats the point.
But to say that those who disliked it did so because of revisionism is absurd.
I didn't like it because it wasn't any good.

But what you're asking for would be more akin to a docudrama or a TV version of the Michael Collins movie. The five main characters in Rebellion according to the promo poster are May, Frances, Elizabeth, Arthur and Jimmy, all of whom are completely fictional and never existed.

I fully accept that you and others have a problem with the entire show ie. the acting, the scripts and the general production and not just any perceived "revisionism" but that's absolutely fine, that's the type of criticism any TV drama would expect to get.

I can't help thinking a lot of the criticism on social media though is because the angle the script has taken. I don't remember RTE's recent Quirke series which was set in 1950s Dublin being torn to shreds like this even though it seemed like only a fair to middling TV drama series.

mick malones mauser · 01-02-2016 06:44PM

I can't help thinking a lot of the criticism on social media though is because the angle the script has taken. I don't remember RTE's recent Quirke series which was set in 1950s Dublin being torn to shreds like this even though it seemed like only a fair to middling TV drama series.[/QUOTE]

Quirke was actually ok,

What angle has the script taken that would annoy people.

By all means invent fictional characters who can help the drama,but really there were so many diverse and eccentric and bohemian characters who really existed and a portrayal of whom would been to the benefit of the production that there was probably no need to come up with totally fictional caracitures,
The Gleeson character was in almost every battle of Easter Week,crazy stuff.
In reality many who took part hardly fired a shot,there were many acts of kindness and chivalry towards rebel prisoners by their captors,there were many members of the diaspora who came from London and Glasgow to partake.
So many interesting stories that could have been told.

Fine you cant tell them all,but the ones they invented were farcical

Mr E · 01-02-2016 07:06PM

@mick malones mauser - you obviously hated the show, WE GET IT.

MESSAGE RECEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD.

We've received numerous reported posts about your constant trolling of this thread, so do not post in it again.

jmcc · 01-02-2016 07:32PM

Surprised that RTE doesn't have a "Talk To RTE" section on Boards.ie. It would provide much useful feedback on its programming and would save on social media costs.

Regards...jmcc

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 01-02-2016 07:35PM

jmcc wrote: »

Surprised that RTE doesn't have a "Talk To RTE" section on Boards.ie. It would provide much useful feedback on its programming and would save on social media costs.

Regards...jmcc

What costs does social media entail?

HeidiHeidi · 01-02-2016 07:38PM

jmcc wrote: »

Surprised that RTE doesn't have a "Talk To RTE" section on Boards.ie. It would provide much useful feedback on its programming and would save on social media costs.

Regards...jmcc

If this thread is anything to go by, it'd be carnage :eek:

And does boards not count as social media???

jmcc · 01-02-2016 07:50PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

What costs does social media entail?

Hiring people to do PR fluffing on social media (the stuff that can't be outsourced to click/likes factories in India etc).

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

If this thread is anything to go by, it'd be carnage :eek:

And does boards not count as social media???

Sort of. But it has gained a bit of a Lord Of The Flies reputation for moderation and has to compete with Twitter and Facebook.

Regards...jmcc

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 01-02-2016 07:54PM

jmcc wrote: »

Hiring people to do PR fluffing on social media (the stuff that can't be outsourced to click/likes factories in India etc).

Or one of the people already employed in the PR department takes a few minutes out of their busy work day to check social media.

jmcc · 01-02-2016 08:00PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Or one of the people already employed in the PR department takes a few minutes out of their busy work day to check social media.

Dealing with press release recycling churnalists in the Irish media is easy. Just give them the press release and they are happy. Forums, Twitter and FB are different because the flacks are easier to spot. But the more up to date way of doing things is to have people promoting things who are not using the same IP ranges as the employer and who appear to have no connection to their employer.

Regards...jmcc

The Rape of Lucretia · 01-02-2016 08:11PM

Strazdas wrote: »

The series appears to be taking a hammering from certain quarters but "riddled with errors and historical inaccuracies" is an accusation that cannot be thrown at them.

There is no such thing as a historical inaccuracy in fiction.

jmcc · 01-02-2016 08:15PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There is no such thing as a historical inaccuracy in fiction.

Strange as it may seem to you, there is when it is historical fiction.

Regards...jmcc

The Rape of Lucretia · 01-02-2016 08:17PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed. They can definitely be accused of revisionism (which I suspect is the real thing that is bugging many of the show's critics) but by and large they seem to have researched the period thoroughly and got numerous things right.

How could one possibly be 'accused' of revisionism?
Revisionism is a good thing, particularly when it examines events at a distance from those associated with that history itself, who were the ones who wrote the first draft and used it as propaganda for decades.
Now is the time for revisionism on these now cold historical events.

2016 RTE Drama: Rebellion - no spoilers please (mod warning in post #1)

Comments