"The Musketeers what has the BBC done !" Topic

Yet again Alexandre Dumas classic 17th century story of the 3/4 Musketeers riped apart.
If they are not going to follow the story why use the books ccharacters and dress them up like some sort of gimps in all that leather!
I know that TV and Films do this all the time!

I love the old 1948 Gene Kelly version a swashbuckler, that follow the story line.
As for the 1973 Richard Lester version is the best adaption
of the book, and by far the best feel for 17th century life I think on film.

"Merlin"
"Jason"

No one and nothing is safe in the hands of the Beeb.

Hard to beat the Oliver Reed and Michael York version.

Name recognition. No one will tune in for "macho men in frilly hats and parachute pants."

"Can't touch this! Doot-doo-doo-doot, doot-doot, doot-doot…"

Sorry, the parachute pants thing sent me back a bit…

Right with you Mac – those were my points exactly.
Why doesn't someone remake the Flashing Blade? Oh of course the masses have never heard of it.

I watched the first three episodes then stopped. It was pretty dire.

I watched the first couple and gave up though its still has viewing figures around 5.5 million

One of the complaints I have heard is that we have enough history of our own without remaking Dumas stuff

1) Nobody wears hats because it "confuses the audience"
2) They all wear leather because the artistic directors are horrified by the idea of recreating accurate period costumes. The designers want to be able to be "creative" meaning that everything looks exactly the same from Game of Thrones to Musketeers to Guardians of the Galaxy …
3) Everybody is convinced that their version betterifies the original by so many orders of magnitude one wonders why these stories became classics in the first place as they must have been quite horrible before the geniuses got involved.

The TV series producers said right from the start that they were not going to just rehash the same story yet again. I think this is what they call a "reimagining" of the characters and background and exploring the "back story" of the main characters and their interaction.

This is NOT "The Three Muskeeteers" as written by Dumas and has never claimed to be (note – the clue is in the title?). It just happens to use the same characters and background.

I cannot speak for the authenticity of the leather gear. Given the fact that contemporary mounted troops in England went about in buff coats, I do not see any real problem with it, but this is just my opinion.

I am rather enjoying it, i have watched them all so far.
I am glad they have not stuck to the story as i dont know what is going to happen.

They have done the same thing in the past as said above with Merlin and Atlantis.
Turned them in to mini soap operas set loosely around the period that people expect.
I enjoy the musketeers for what it is, light entertainment, i f i wish to "know" about the the real story or period attire, i will go and read/research it.

It can't be any worse that that atrocious movie from a couple years back, razor wire, puffy smoke snuff/stuff to expose razor wire, flying ships, and enough cleavage to fit screenshots into the needs more boobies threads. (OK, there is nothing wrong with that last one…)

I actually quite like it.

I only watch TV for two or three hours a week and make a point of watching this.

It's mass market entertainment, just see it for what it is rather than what you want it to be.

Hard to beat the Oliver Reed and Michael York version.

I prefer the Gene Kelley version. Far more entertaining. The Disney version with Oliver Platt was not bad though it did leave the story line by a pretty good margin. The Michael York version is probably the most faithful to the book.

I am also rather enjoying the current incarnation as a lightweight swashbuckling way of spending an hour or so of TV time.

No it isn't a TV remake of films made decades ago, well so what.

Hammer time! Doot-doo-doo-doot, doot-doot, doot-doot…

Sorry, still stuck on the parachute pants thing…

I absolutely love the Reed/York/Chamberlin/Welch, etc. version.
I can't watch the Gene Kelley version without thinking of Gilligan's Island.

The lamp – duel with Rochefort. Charlton Heston in what I think is the best villain role he could have played as Cardinal Richelieu.

Windmill-Fu, Rampart Picnic-Fu, man. They don't make movies like that anymore.

It should still be okay …. Until they get Mel Gibson to write and star in the next series.

It's far better than the bulk of reality crap on TV these days!

I've enjoyed it.

OK not great TV, but for a Sunday Night it is watchable.

Tony

Personally, I find 'Dogtanion and the Three Muskerhounds' as entertaining;

YouTube link

I must admit that I quite enjoy it – better than a lot of stuff on these days.

The one aspect that really stands out for me though is the scenery – inspirational.

Phil

I've just watched episode 5. Cracking swash-buckling action, and ripe with scenarios for gaming!

I hated Merlin and Jason to the point of homicidal rage (especially Merlin – I had to make my daughters watch Jon Borman's Excalibur fifty times in a row to undo all the damage Merlin had done) but I must confess that I'm quite enjoying The Musketeers.

No, it's not Dumas, nor is it Ollie Reid and co., but it is a decent bit of swashbuckling that makes for an entertaining hour or so.

R

One of my favorite non-Dumas version of Musketeers, was this anime.

YouTube link

Oliver read and Michael York for me.

I watched the first couple and gave up

Did the same. It may be a clever idea to use the same Musketeer setting to explore the seventeenth century world but it is very light and not very interesting IMHO. It all seems rather contrived. Never tried MERLIN as what little I have heard was a big discouragement but managed the whole season of JASON despite the weak story-lines; I suspect the idea of having a contemporary person transported to a parallel world just keeps the interest going enough.

Enjoy the buckling of swashes! Been some real LOL moments with the truely corny script but good way to tune out.

'The designers want to be able to be "creative" '

Oh so true

THE EAGLE was the ultimate butchery of a classic, congratulations for removing everything that made the original story great

I don't mind it. It looks good and is reasonably entertaining. The plots are full of holes though. I am often thinking, why didn't they just do XXX ( for example take out the bad guys in their house rather than letting them go ahead with their plan to kill the King).

Oh and I liked Merlin – watched the whole lot. Couldn't stick with Atlantis though.

congratulations for removing everything that made the original story great

Not only that but removed the entire original story. That's what they said they would do right at the start so we should not really be surprised that that is what they have done. Niot wrong, just different.

Same characters, completely different stories. So what? Maybe it tells what happened when they weren't doing things in the original story?

At the end of the day it's just good swash-buckling fun with only the merest nod to the Dumas story. I think it's good TV with a mass appeal.

I haven't seen the BBC's latest three musketeers, but I have seen most of Merlin and Robin Hood. I'm an American and while I often enjoy the new series coming from the BBC it does seem like there's been a change.

In the past the British always seemed to do historical dramas really well (the best Doctor Who episodes were often the historical ones). If I recall correctly, even pseudo-historical/fantasy productions coming from Britain usually had mostly historically accurate clothing and props -- sometimes the time period might be off by a few centuries (common with Arthurian stories), but it was correct to at least some historical period, and at least lent a historical feel. American productions usually couldn't hold a candle to them. Now, they seem to have gone completely in the opposite direction (I remember clearly seeing modern combat boots in Robin Hood), and maybe that's new and refreshing to British audiences -- but to American ones (or me), it's more of the same.

I've noticed some of the historical Spanish language productions seem to be better, although I haven't followed them closely.

I haven't seen the BBC's latest three musketeers,

It isn't "The Three Musketeers", it's "The Musketeers". Not the same thing at all.

This was it for me.
YouTube link
Loved it!!!

Very good point cplcampisi.

I am sorry I got it all wrong!

It's been set in an alterative universe!

It's definitely not sent in the 17th Centuary on Earth.

Major B

Buff coats where designed to turn a sword, not sum stuff leftovers from a bikers jacket factory.

A Buff coat is "buff coloured" it in the name.

Major B

Buff coats were designed to turn a sword, not some stuff leftover from a bikers jacket factory.

A Buff coat is "buff coloured" it's in the name.

Please read what I wrote:
"Given the fact that contemporary mounted troops in England went about in buff coats, I do not see any real problem with it,"

I know what colour a buff coat is! I was not equating a buff coat with the leather gear except in the sense that both are designed to "turn a sword" and both are made of leather:

"The European buff coat (so-called because of its yellowish colour) was an item of leather clothing worn by cavalry and officers during the 17th century"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buff_coat

I am sorry I got it all wrong!
It's been set in an alternative universe!

Well it could be I suppose…

It's definitely not set in the 17th Century on Earth

Why not?

Take it for what it is: Escapism.

You can pick any amount of holes in this, Sharpe, Camelot, Borgias, The Tudors (definitely), even Vikings, but what we've got to ask ourselves is this: 'Are we not entertained?'

If the answer is 'Yes', then everything is golden. Sometimes we historical-accuracy-at-all-costs nuts need to give ourselves a break.

Absolutely love it. Only bad thing is that its the last one next week.