|
Post by PotteringThrough on Sept 25, 2019 7:37:02 GMT
So who tipped off on the assassination details... Major Campbell was tipped off by the ex footballer after Finn let it slip Or was it Michaels plan b?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 25, 2019 8:27:56 GMT
So who tipped off on the assassination details... Major Campbell was tipped off by the ex footballer after Finn let it slip Campbell was killed by Polly though. Please don't tell me they're bringing somebody else back from the dead after Alfie Solomons? He's got to have tipped off Michael surely?
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Sept 25, 2019 9:35:03 GMT
Major Campbell was tipped off by the ex footballer after Finn let it slip Campbell was killed by Polly though. Please don't tell me they're bringing somebody else back from the dead after Alfie Solomons? He's got to have tipped off Michael surely? They should make an Alfie Solomons spin-off series. Ace character.
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Sept 25, 2019 11:22:54 GMT
I'd like them to bring back Paddy Considine's priest character so that they can kill him again!
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 25, 2019 11:51:11 GMT
Major Campbell was tipped off by the ex footballer after Finn let it slip Or was it Michaels plan b? That's what I thought initially however thought it was odd that Churchill referenced Major Campbell a second back from the dead character would be taking the piss however Sam Neill was so bloody good so can it happening
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Sept 25, 2019 13:25:54 GMT
Or was it Michaels plan b? That's what I thought initially however thought it was odd that Churchill referenced Major Campbell a second back from the dead character would be taking the piss however Sam Neill was so bloody good so can it happening Third, they killed Arthur off for a time too. It's one of my biggest bug bares. Have conviction and kill your characters off. Game of Thrones quality dropped considerably when characters became invincible.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Sept 25, 2019 13:34:11 GMT
That's what I thought initially however thought it was odd that Churchill referenced Major Campbell a second back from the dead character would be taking the piss however Sam Neill was so bloody good so can it happening Third, they killed Arthur off for a time too. It's one of my biggest bug bares. Have conviction and kill your characters off. Game of Thrones quality dropped considerably when characters became invincible. Arthur's fake death was part of the plot though, it's not the same thing as bringing a character back just because the ratings are falling. He was only out of 1 full episode of the same season wasn't he?.. my memory might be wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Sept 25, 2019 13:41:46 GMT
Third, they killed Arthur off for a time too. It's one of my biggest bug bares. Have conviction and kill your characters off. Game of Thrones quality dropped considerably when characters became invincible. Arthur's fake death was part of the plot though, it's not the same thing as bringing a character back just because the ratings are falling. He was only out of 1 full episode of the same season wasn't he?.. my memory might be wrong though. It's more the fact they've used it actually more than 3 times now I think of it: Danny-Whizz Bang (shot to appease the Italians, woke up after being shot by "sheep guts" comes back and dies in the S1 finale,) Major Campbell (Shot by Grace on the Station platform, never showed him dying and is the one I can live with most as S1 and S2 were excellent) Arthur (Plot related as you say, but I found the ending of S4 very contrived with the ending effectively being "we rang Al Capone") Alfie (Moseley hates Jews therefore let's bring back the Jewish gangster who is the most popular character in the show) Linda (if she was shot in the arm, I really didn't get the melodrama behind the ending of Episode 4 with the Swan Lake metaphor) These are all "plot related" to a point and the first 2 I have no issue with but Alfie and Arthur in particular are massive draws to the show, and bringing back Alfie for me is an example of bringing someone back for ratings. If you're doing it more than 3 times it's a very tired mechanic. This is from Steven Knight too: "I don't like to kill anyone off," he said. "Usually, deaths are forced by an actor not being available, to be honest. I don't believe in, 'You've got to kill a family member to keep everybody interested'. That's not true. Death is quite rare, even amongst gangsters. So I try not to make it too common." Fair enough death being rare, but fake death as part of an overarching plot is surely much rarer and unrealistic?! Killing John really drove the story forward way more than 4 of those above and gave the characters more of a motive. Likewise the death of Freddie Thorne gave Ada a lot more dimensions as a character as she wasn't tied to a Communist plot etc.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Sept 25, 2019 13:52:15 GMT
Arthur's fake death was part of the plot though, it's not the same thing as bringing a character back just because the ratings are falling. He was only out of 1 full episode of the same season wasn't he?.. my memory might be wrong though. It's more the fact they've used it actually more than 3 times now I think of it: Danny-Whizz Bang (shot to appease the Italians, woke up after being shot by "sheep guts" comes back and dies in the S1 finale) Major Campbell (Shot by Grace on the Station platform, never showed him dying and is the one I can live with most as S1 and S2 were excellent) Arthur (Plot related as you say, but I found the ending of S4 very contrived with the ending effectively being "we rang Al Capone") Alfie (Moseley hates Jews therefore let's bring back the Jewish gangster who is the most popular character in the show) Linda (if she was shot in the arm, I really didn't get the melodrama behind the ending of Episode 4 with the Swan Lake metaphor) These are all "plot related" to a point, but Alfie and Arthur in particular are massive draws to the show, and bringing back Alfie for me is an example of bringing someone back for ratings. If you're doing it more than 3 times it's a very tired mechanic. This is from Steven Knight too: "I don't like to kill anyone off," he said. "Usually, deaths are forced by an actor not being available, to be honest. I don't believe in, 'You've got to kill a family member to keep everybody interested'. That's not true. Death is quite rare, even amongst gangsters. So I try not to make it too common." Fair enough death being rare, but fake death as part of an overarching plot is surely much rarer and unrealistic?! Killing John really drove the story forward way more than 4 of those above and gave the characters more of a motive. I understand your point and I agree with it when it comes to other tv shows where you effectively know the main character will never die and the jeopardy of the character diminishes over time. Take Jack Bauer in 24 or Rick in the Walking Dead. They didn't even have the bottle to kill him properly when he announced he was leaving the show because he is that iconic, that's the stuff I don't like. However, I totally understand why the people who run these shows have a reluctance to do it as it could result in the show falling off a cliff. I like Peaky Blinders but don't love it like many others so killing off someone like Arthur would probably lead to me switching off as he's the best thing about the show imo.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Sept 25, 2019 14:00:02 GMT
It's more the fact they've used it actually more than 3 times now I think of it: Danny-Whizz Bang (shot to appease the Italians, woke up after being shot by "sheep guts" comes back and dies in the S1 finale) Major Campbell (Shot by Grace on the Station platform, never showed him dying and is the one I can live with most as S1 and S2 were excellent) Arthur (Plot related as you say, but I found the ending of S4 very contrived with the ending effectively being "we rang Al Capone") Alfie (Moseley hates Jews therefore let's bring back the Jewish gangster who is the most popular character in the show) Linda (if she was shot in the arm, I really didn't get the melodrama behind the ending of Episode 4 with the Swan Lake metaphor) These are all "plot related" to a point, but Alfie and Arthur in particular are massive draws to the show, and bringing back Alfie for me is an example of bringing someone back for ratings. If you're doing it more than 3 times it's a very tired mechanic. This is from Steven Knight too: "I don't like to kill anyone off," he said. "Usually, deaths are forced by an actor not being available, to be honest. I don't believe in, 'You've got to kill a family member to keep everybody interested'. That's not true. Death is quite rare, even amongst gangsters. So I try not to make it too common." Fair enough death being rare, but fake death as part of an overarching plot is surely much rarer and unrealistic?! Killing John really drove the story forward way more than 4 of those above and gave the characters more of a motive. I understand your point and I agree with it when it comes to other tv shows where you effectively know the main character will never die and the jeopardy of the character diminishes over time. Take Jack Bauer in 24 or Rick in the Walking Dead. They didn't even have the bottle to kill him properly when he announced he was leaving the show because he is that iconic, that's the stuff I don't like. However, I totally understand why the people who run these shows have a reluctance to do it as it could result in the show falling off a cliff. I like Peaky Blinders but don't love it like many others so killing off someone like Arthur would probably lead to me switching off as he's the best thing about the show imo. Yeah fair, don't get me wrong it's hardly bringing back Bobby Ewing and saying it's all a dream but they just have over-used it IMO. I think it's part of my personal preference for Series to be 3-4 series tops unless there is an over-arching narrative that dictates it should go on for longer, but even with GoT that sadly was a bridge too far. I loved S1 and S2 but have generally fallen off these past couple of seasons with Peaky Blinders. Still very watchable and I enjoy certain points I just think it's getting a bit tired and with 2 seasons to come I can't see that improving. I can see why others disagree though.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Sept 26, 2019 20:54:01 GMT
Finally seen the finale, a bit of a comedown after the last series with Adrien Brody in my opinion.
It's better when it avoids politics and just sticks to gangsters- again, series 3 dipped in quality after the first 2 series with all the Russian agent stuff going on.
No coincidence that series 1,2 and 4 are the best because they keep it about crime gangs.
I wouldn't be surprised if they start making whole episodes dream sequences next season, like they did with Sopranos.
|
|