Yet Another Cycling Forum

Off Topic => The Pub => Arts and Entertainment => Topic started by: Wascally Weasel on 20 February, 2017, 01:10:12 pm

Title: SS GB
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 20 February, 2017, 01:10:12 pm
Sadly not the documentary about the SS Great Britain that I was expecting

I read the book some years ago and remember linking it. Was moderately excited about the new BBC adaptation of it.  Sadly it's marred by having a lead actor who looks like a moody twenty year old (my memory of the character was a lot older but that might just have been me as I haven't read the book in about twenty years).

The worst thing is the incessant mumbling which just seems to be a thing now.

Pity, it might have been good but I'm guessing it's going to lose audience in droves (except that special portion of the population who get all excited when they see swastikas draped over everything).
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: drossall on 20 February, 2017, 01:43:44 pm
I rather enjoyed it. I haven't read the book (no spoilers please), but I'm looking forward to finding out where the story goes.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: mattc on 20 February, 2017, 03:14:11 pm
I rather enjoyed it. I haven't read the book (no spoilers please), but I'm looking forward to finding out where the story goes.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: citoyen on 20 February, 2017, 04:08:20 pm
Sadly not the documentary about the SS Great Britain that I was expecting

Glad I'm not the only one.

The trailer did make it look like an exercise in Naziporn, which puts me right off it.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 20 February, 2017, 06:20:28 pm
Never really took to the book altho' I tend to enjoy Len Deighton.  Have watched a lot of the first episode and will persevere for a bit longer. 
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Basil on 20 February, 2017, 07:11:40 pm
Started to watch it, in an effort to do something televisual with Mrs B.   Unfortunately I had to give up as i just couldn't hear what half the characters were saying.  Shan't bother with it next week.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 20 February, 2017, 08:25:10 pm
Started to watch it, in an effort to do something televisual with Mrs B.   Unfortunately I had to give up as i just couldn't hear what half the characters were saying.  Shan't bother with it next week.

We also have difficulty on our big telly.  On the tinny little cheapo telly I can hear it a lot better!
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Mr Larrington on 20 February, 2017, 10:22:35 pm
You are right, Mr Weasel.  Superintendents are not that young even if there is a war on.  They haven't taken too many liberties with the book (yet) apart from turning Harry into a Scotsman and sending Sylvia some way upmarket.  I shall persevere with it.

I just wish Mr Deighton hadn't nuxed any repeat showing or video release of "Game, Set & Match" coz I thought it was rather good.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Jakob W on 20 February, 2017, 11:15:39 pm
You are right, Mr Weasel.  Superintendents are not that young even if there is a war on.  They haven't taken too many liberties with the book (yet) apart from turning Harry into a Scotsman and sending Sylvia some way upmarket.  I shall persevere with it.

Deighton's one of my favourite authors, and though it's been ages since I read SS-GB, in my mind Archer was older and a bit more weatherbeaten than he was shown here. Kellerman and Huth worked well though, and it's nice to see proper German (as opposed to just Achtung Schweinehund! &c.) being spoken. Good use of some of Deighton's more sardonic lines as well I thought. I'll try and catch the next episode.

I just wish Mr Deighton hadn't nuxed any repeat showing or video release of "Game, Set & Match" coz I thought it was rather good.

I did not know that - I'd wondered why I'd been unable to find it; I think one of my copies of the books is a TV tie-in edition.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Kim on 21 February, 2017, 02:55:48 pm
The mumbling complaints appear to count as news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39038406
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: bryn on 21 February, 2017, 03:15:39 pm
Watching the TV without subtitles is like riding up a hill without using the gears :)
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 21 February, 2017, 03:16:10 pm
I heard two radio debates today where the agenda had been set by 'The Tracy Ullman Show' The first episode of the current series started with a skit on 'Happy Valley' with mumbling Northerners. Obviously, as Lancastrians we don't notice that in the actual 'Happy Valley'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08d3gdk/tracey-ullmans-show-series-2-episode-1

What we hate the most are posh actors trying to speak as we do, and getting it wrong. That's different from recording things badly, but they bugger up the visuals too, with all manner of gratuitous effects.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Kim on 21 February, 2017, 03:20:14 pm
Watching the TV without subtitles is like riding up a hill without using the gears :)

Sigged  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: T42 on 21 February, 2017, 04:36:39 pm
The worst thing is the incessant mumbling which just seems to be a thing now.

Crikey, I thought it was me lugs. Haven't seen SS GB but much of the dialogue in other films now seems to consist of breathy mumbling.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: citoyen on 21 February, 2017, 05:04:43 pm
The mumbling complaints appear to count as news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39038406

I don't know if it was the same woman who is quoted in the piece but I heard some idiot TV critic on the radio this morning who tried to justify the mumbling as an artistic decision by the actor. She reckoned that he had made a conscious decision to speak like that 'in character'. She also reckoned that if an actor decides to do that, there's nothing you can do to make them change. Which is bullshit because it's part of the director's job description to make sure the actors project their lines properly.

Not so long ago, I watched the superb 70s adaptation of the Barchester Chronicles with Alan Rickman and Donald Pleasance. It certainly lacked the sophistication and expensive sets and costumes of a modern TV drama - it all looked a bit 'stagey', like they had just stuck a camera in front of a theatrical performance - but it didn't matter because the acting was spellbinding and what's more, you could hear every single damn word they said clearly.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: caerau on 21 February, 2017, 05:13:03 pm
This mumbling business completely mystifies me.


This is the second time I've come across this in something that I've actually watched and on neither occasion do I have the first idea of what these complaining people are on about frankly.
They must have been watching something different to me.


The first time for me it was that thing set in Somerset or Devon period drama thing (can't remember what it actually was now) and my only conclusion was that maybe some were moaning about regional accents or something.  This time I'm truly lost - I had no problem hearing what anybody said in this programme last night at all.


Aside from that, overall we thought this was quite slow but seemed promising by the end.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 21 February, 2017, 05:14:47 pm
I blame Scandi Noir and 'The Wire'. Once that style become the norm, everything follows it. I heard someone on the radio saying that the German diction in SS GB is actually very good. A bit like the over-articulated 'English' accents in US shows. Who can forget Daphne Moon and her 'Manchester' accent in Frasier? I'm used to Americans not understanding a word unless I do RP.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: citoyen on 21 February, 2017, 05:18:57 pm
They must have been watching something different to me.

I haven't watched it but the clip they played on the radio this morning was totally incomprehensible. Not that this proves anything - I'm sure they deliberately chose the most mumbly clip they could find, and it's always going to be harder to follow speech lifted from TV without the visual cues.

Often it's not so much the clarity of the speaking that's the problem but the background music drowning it out.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: caerau on 21 February, 2017, 05:22:48 pm
Having followed the link and had a bit of a read now, I do wonder a bit about the quality of the tellys people are watching it on maybe - some modern flat screeners do not do sound well.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: citoyen on 21 February, 2017, 05:26:13 pm
Having followed the link and had a bit of a read now, I do wonder a bit about the quality of the tellys people are watching it on maybe - some modern flat screeners do not do sound well.

Yes, that point was raised in the radio discussion this morning.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: tatanab on 21 February, 2017, 05:31:20 pm
Having followed the link and had a bit of a read now, I do wonder a bit about the quality of the tellys people are watching it on maybe - some modern flat screeners do not do sound well.

Yes, that point was raised in the radio discussion this morning.
I use my stereo for sound but still had problems figuring out what the main character was saying.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: red marley on 21 February, 2017, 06:14:05 pm
I've yet to watch it but am looking forward to doing so.

Someone on the radio pointed out that the UK is one of the few countries in Europe that has not been invaded within living memory. And as such we have not had to face the "what would you do?" question that many Europeans (or their parents/grandparents) have had to deal with. The ambiguity of the protagonist in SS GB supposedly reflects the pull between collaboration and resistance that at least in theory could make a compelling drama.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Kim on 21 February, 2017, 08:03:03 pm
Having followed the link and had a bit of a read now, I do wonder a bit about the quality of the tellys people are watching it on maybe - some modern flat screeners do not do sound well.

Yes, that point was raised in the radio discussion this morning.

Programme makers should be auditioning their final mix on a crap telly thobut.  Problem presumably is that either they don't bother, or they've been working on the material for ages and could recite half the dialogue from memory by the time they get to that point.  (And selection bias, in that people mixing audio for a living probably have above average listening ability.)

Plus you've got to balance the artistic aims of realistic diction, background music and certain types of microphone technique[1] versus the SNR requirements of the significant minority of the population who have some sort of hearing loss but prefer to complain about mumbling rather than use better audio kit or turn the subtitles on.


[1] I find the up-close-and-personal microphone approach common in USAnian television drama can be quite distracting at times.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: spesh on 21 February, 2017, 08:20:55 pm
I've yet to watch it but am looking forward to doing so.

Someone on the radio pointed out that the UK is one of the few countries in Europe that has not been invaded within living memory. And as such we have not had to face the "what would you do?" question that many Europeans (or their parents/grandparents) have had to deal with. The ambiguity of the protagonist in SS GB supposedly reflects the pull between collaboration and resistance that at least in theory could make a compelling drama.

<coughs>

What about the Channel Islands?
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Mr Larrington on 21 February, 2017, 08:35:04 pm
I didn't find "SS-GB" nearly as mumblesome as the last series of "Sherlock" but it goes at least as far back as Rafe Spall in an adaptation of a Jake Arnott novel (I forget which).
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Jakob W on 21 February, 2017, 08:35:28 pm
I blame Scandi Noir and 'The Wire'. Once that style become the norm, everything follows it. I heard someone on the radio saying that the German diction in SS GB is actually very good. A bit like the over-articulated 'English' accents in US shows. Who can forget Daphne Moon and her 'Manchester' accent in Frasier? I'm used to Americans not understanding a word unless I do RP.

I wouldn't have said the German was over-articulated or stagey; for instance in the scenes where Huth is on the phone it's quite clipped. But the only extended dialogue in German is by characters who are meant to be educated officers, so their accents are fairly RP.

(I didn't notice the other sound as being particularly bad, but then I pretty much always watch telly late with the sound down and subtitles on so as not to wake the rest of the household.)
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: red marley on 21 February, 2017, 08:44:40 pm
I've yet to watch it but am looking forward to doing so.

Someone on the radio pointed out that the UK is one of the few countries in Europe that has not been invaded within living memory.

<coughs>

What about the Channel Islands?

What about them? They were invaded and are not part of the UK.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Martin on 21 February, 2017, 09:16:23 pm
looked forward to it having heard about the book in 1978 and not read it; a good bit of "what if" but knowing nothing about the story I'm expecting the Invasion alternative reality just to be a backdrop for yet another detective story, but hoping to be surprised.

agree about the mumbling although I wasn't one of the 100s who complained to the Beeb

If you believe the theories about the Battle of Britain and the Blitz we were 3 days away from this actually happening before Hitler changed tack.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 21 February, 2017, 09:42:49 pm
I watched the whole of the Poliakoff series 'Close to the Enemy', so I don't feel inclined to watch something similar. That was about how we accommodated ourselves to guilt-tinged Germans, because it was expedient to do so. It was quite a trek to watch the whole lot, and in the end Tom Lehrer summed it up in less than 2 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: redshift on 21 February, 2017, 09:43:31 pm
Full disclosure: I've read the book, about a thousand years ago.  I haven't watched any of it, and don't intend to.

Mumbling.  Currently, there are a few things in TV-land that may be relevant. 

1. People who don't enunciate adequately (there's a list...).  It's perfectly possibly to have a non-rp voice which enunciates correctly.  I was trained to project and enunciate, and it happens automatically if I raise my voice, even more than 30 years later.  It's a technique thing, so either they don't teach it any more, or people don't bother.

2. Dubbing mixers who listen on their fuck-off expensive surround sound kit and don't check audio on their cheapie-cheap near-field monitors*, which leads on to

3. R128, whereby the EBU and others have decided that it's OK to expand the dynamic range of television shows, as long as the overall loudness remains within certain limits over the duration of the show.  The dynamic range of TV used to be fairly constrained, and vox and FX were ridden as required to keep the vox at a fairly consistent level.  The advent of R128 means that you now have to ride the volume control at home, and you end up with the movie problem where you get the vox to the right level just in time for the FX to break your windows.

*Assuming you can find a mixer who can actually mix, and actually listens, rather than someone who does it all at home on the meters and the plugins on their hooky copy of Pro-Tools, and then emails the file.**

** Jaded and cynical?  you betcha.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: caerau on 21 February, 2017, 11:06:22 pm
I've yet to watch it but am looking forward to doing so.

Someone on the radio pointed out that the UK is one of the few countries in Europe that has not been invaded within living memory. And as such we have not had to face the "what would you do?" question that many Europeans (or their parents/grandparents) have had to deal with. The ambiguity of the protagonist in SS GB supposedly reflects the pull between collaboration and resistance that at least in theory could make a compelling drama.

<coughs>

What about the Channel Islands?


A visit to Guersney is very illuminating on that front - far more interesting place to visit than I had anticipated because of this, plus all the concrete bunkers and stuff are still intact as noone ever bothered to try and overcome the defences militarily.  Very spooky and quite scary seeing Nazi propoganda written in English  :-\



Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Legs on 22 February, 2017, 09:01:55 am
A visit to Guersney is very illuminating on that front - far more interesting place to visit than I had anticipated because of this, plus all the concrete bunkers and stuff are still intact as noone ever bothered to try and overcome the defences militarily.  Very spooky and quite scary seeing Nazi propoganda written in English  :-\
Seconded.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: spesh on 22 February, 2017, 03:06:45 pm
I just wish Mr Deighton hadn't nuxed any repeat showing or video release of "Game, Set & Match" coz I thought it was rather good.

I did not know that - I'd wondered why I'd been unable to find it; I think one of my copies of the books is a TV tie-in edition.


I'll just leave this here - nicked from elsewhere: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmRu2axUu2LEP_4XGpFFuGwxjh3SYu9or
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: mattc on 22 February, 2017, 03:26:51 pm
I don't know about the technology, but have watched tv/movies/theatre and spoken to big rooms.

Mumbling.  Currently, there are a few things in TV-land that may be relevant. 

1. People who don't enunciate adequately (there's a list...).  It's perfectly possibly to have a non-rp voice which enunciates correctly.  I was trained to project and enunciate, and it happens automatically if I raise my voice, even more than 30 years later.  It's a technique thing, so either they don't teach it any more, or people don't bother.

2...
<techy stuff about mixing etc etc ... >
Yup, some of the cast members are guilty of shite enunciation (in a variety of accents). I suspect this trend has come about not because actors aren't trained properly, but more because the casting agents/producers in modern TV/movie land don't care, so an actor has more to gain from an "interesting" performance than a technically good one.

The early scenes in Ep1 featured a lot of chat between those two mumblers. The Scottish guy (Harry?) wasn't nearly as bad as the lead, but I confess that to my ear his accent didn't help things much. There were a couple of sentences from the English guy that I didn't hear a word of, but most scenes were audible.

If you'd just shown me a trailer made up those scenes, and I watched it in a noisy environment, I suspect I wouldn't have watched this programme!



As television? Hmm. Not sure about Ep1, we'll probably try another ...
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 22 February, 2017, 04:01:28 pm
I just wish Mr Deighton hadn't nuxed any repeat showing or video release of "Game, Set & Match" coz I thought it was rather good.

I did not know that - I'd wondered why I'd been unable to find it; I think one of my copies of the books is a TV tie-in edition.


I'll just leave this here - nicked from elsewhere: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmRu2axUu2LEP_4XGpFFuGwxjh3SYu9or

I like Ian Holm as an actor but he really wasn't how I imagined Samson - he's a bit of a bruiser isn't he (in appearance if not action).  I'll happily give those a watch though, thanks.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Tigerrr on 22 February, 2017, 06:41:07 pm
I think the actors mumble deliberately because it is a way of scenestealiing. If done right it attracts disproportionate attention and gives the appearance of authenticity and depth which can be seen as 'great acting'. Like the use of silence in Pinter etc. It is a technique to manipulate the audience, and possibly the other actors.
I quite enjoyed the show though and will watch more.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: mattc on 22 February, 2017, 06:55:41 pm
OMG. Why did YACF not point this out???!???

http://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/769430/SS-GB-BBC-huge-blunder-WRONG-spitfire-WW2-drama-BBC-One-WWII-Mk-IX-Len-Deighton

HUGE blunder.

I'm with this twitter user:

"That was an older 1943 Mk9 Spitfire. That's means I'm out! Inaccurate in the first minute #SSGB,"
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: spesh on 22 February, 2017, 07:23:40 pm
;D

The biggest inaccuracy in SS-GB is that an invasion of Great Britain in 1940 would have been successful. :demon:
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: mattc on 22 February, 2017, 07:32:52 pm
I think the actors mumble deliberately because it is a way of scenestealiing. If done right it attracts disproportionate attention and gives the appearance of authenticity and depth which can be seen as 'great acting'. Like the use of silence in Pinter etc. It is a technique to manipulate the audience, and possibly the other actors.
I quite enjoyed the show though and will watch more.

I vaguely remember Mark Rylance saying this about some big US star he had worked with. De Niro?? No, probably someone younger, but of a similar status.
Rylance said he eventually started copying the guy, which really freaked him out  ;D

(The funny thing is that MR usually seems to be speaking very quietly on telly, but I think that's part of his amazing skilz. He is certainly never difficult to hear  :thumbsup: )
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Martin on 22 February, 2017, 10:36:18 pm
A visit to Guersney is very illuminating on that front - far more interesting place to visit than I had anticipated because of this, plus all the concrete bunkers and stuff are still intact as noone ever bothered to try and overcome the defences militarily.  Very spooky and quite scary seeing Nazi propoganda written in English  :-\
Seconded.

these are well worth checking out too;http://www.ciosjersey.org.uk/  they don't open that often as they are run by volunteers but much better than the Underground Hospital Ho8 (which has now renamed itself as it was probably never intended to be a hospital)

I used to be in SubBrit and one of their members informed me with some conviction that the various tunnel systems on the islands would have become extermination camps for the islanders themselves had the war turned a different way....

Alderney was home to a lot more barbarism as they moved all the islanders off and just used forced labour mostly Eastern European POWs

Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Jakob W on 22 February, 2017, 11:02:24 pm
Surprised that the Express journo has enough of a sense of humour to write an article like that taking the piss; of course it will sail over the heads of most of their readers...

(I did wonder about the CGI Spit they used in the opening sequence; the wingtips look off to me, almost like they've gone for something between a mk.VII and a mk.IX, but then if I let myself get wound up by details like this I'd never watch anything.)
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Robh on 22 February, 2017, 11:54:50 pm
I did wonder about the opening sequence at the time. The model Spitfires silhouetted against the pale backdrop seemed to wobble as they were being manipulated, in a way that they could not have done if they'd been the real thing.

Plus, I thought the dialogue was riddled with lazy cliches.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: caerau on 27 February, 2017, 04:24:18 pm
So no chat about this today?


I thought the plot thickened very nicely in last night's one.


Thought the first was perhaps a little slow but interesting - after last night's it's now a must-see for us  :thumbsup:


Lots of alternate history implications I hadn't considered at first but of course massively interesting.


Then there was an excellent thing about a British officer landing in the USA and claiming to be 'the leader of the Free British'. Cue me saying to my wife 'Ooh, that's just like de Gaulle did in reality' -  followed immediately on-screen by the characters saying 'did you hear about that French officer de Gaulle doing something like that here after France fell?  Nothing came of it of course...'  :D :-D


Anyway, maybe it's just me but I thought this got a LOT better last night.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: pcolbeck on 27 February, 2017, 05:40:39 pm
Who's the journalist working for, the OSS, the Gestapo, the Abwehr. MI5 or MI6 or is she just a journalist ?

No spoilers please as I haven't read the book but proper guesses are OK.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: bryn on 27 February, 2017, 06:02:52 pm
A visit to Guersney is very illuminating on that front - far more interesting place to visit than I had anticipated because of this, plus all the concrete bunkers and stuff are still intact as noone ever bothered to try and overcome the defences militarily.  Very spooky and quite scary seeing Nazi propoganda written in English  :-\
Seconded.

these are well worth checking out too;http://www.ciosjersey.org.uk/  they don't open that often as they are run by volunteers but much better than the Underground Hospital Ho8 (which has now renamed itself as it was probably never intended to be a hospital)

I used to be in SubBrit and one of their members informed me with some conviction that the various tunnel systems on the islands would have become extermination camps for the islanders themselves had the war turned a different way....

Alderney was home to a lot more barbarism as they moved all the islanders off and just used forced labour mostly Eastern European POWs

In his 1995 book "From Auschwitz to Alderney and Beyond" Tom Freeman-Keel suggested that the underground sites in Jersey would have become extermination camps for large numbers of victims from the UK mainland, where it could be carried out far from prying eyes - rather like "resettlement in the East".  Some years since I last read it, but I think he claimed architectural similarities with aspects of Auschwitz.  Caution: none of this is generally accepted.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Mr Larrington on 27 February, 2017, 08:34:56 pm
Only just watched ep. 2 but it's definitely a grower.  And staying pretty true to the book too, which is a bonus.  I've also worked out that Standartenführer Huth is all the more disagreeable, even for a Nazi, because he reminds me of tax-dodging Tory stooge Frederick Forsyth.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: bryn on 02 March, 2017, 05:54:10 pm
I found the paperback lurking on my shelves with lots of other Len Deightons, 1980 edition as the yellowing pages show.

The BBC have done a very good job in adapting the book to the (used-to-be) small screen; the book plot is followed very closely.  The book of course has more space to explain what's-really-going-on rather than leaving it as an exercise for the viewer.

The book also fills in more detail about the differences between the Army, the SS, the SD, SIPO, the Gestapo, the SA, the Abwehr etc.  I hope you're all paying attention, there's going to be a test at the end of it.  Brushing up on your nuclear physics wouldn't go amiss either. 

Bryn
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 02 March, 2017, 10:20:55 pm
I've never been attracted by 'alternative histories' but the Wiki resume of the plot had me intrigued. It seems to envisage a partitioning of the UK between the Nazis and the Soviet Union, which puts a different complexion on things. I hadn't realised that the director of the TV series is German, which might explain why the German dialogue is clearer than the English.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/ss-gb/kadelbach

There's a review from the Berlin Film Festival in the Hollywood Reporter. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/ss-gb-review-976246

My immediate thoughts about that are 'What happens to the Japanese?'. The Soviets would have been freed to take more of a role in the Pacific, and end up clashing with the USA sooner.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: caerau on 02 March, 2017, 10:41:23 pm
Well I've not read the book but Pearl Harbour (I think) won't have happened yet?  It doesn't need to have anything to do with that in the plot at all.  it's about the UK mostly.  Fund to speculate though.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 02 March, 2017, 11:05:40 pm
The Molotov Ribbentrop pact would still have been in force, and the USA had some interesting eugenics policies, hence this bit.
Quote
Hitler held a victory parade in London, the Soviet Red Fleet was given bases at Rosyth, Scapa Flow and Invergordon, and Hermann Göring and Joseph Goebbels were on board the first non-stop Lufthansa flight from London to New York City
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-GB

Germany and the Soviet Union were loosely allied at that point. Britain might have been partitioned as Poland was. That's the part of the equation that gets ignored. But the Dominions would have less affected. Australia under Soviet control would be an interesting idea.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Mr Larrington on 03 March, 2017, 01:00:56 am
Well I've not read the book but Pearl Harbour (I think) won't have happened yet?  It doesn't need to have anything to do with that in the plot at all.  it's about the UK mostly.  Fund to speculate though.

Later on in the book a USAnian character mentions that his lot have their own Hitler to deal with "and he signs his mail 'Tojo'" but whether that part of the story will make it into the TV version...
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 03 March, 2017, 01:10:25 am
The Battles between the Soviet Union and Japan in 1939 are an important part of the story. That's why war between the two was delayed until 1945. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
Two out of the three heroes of that campaign were executed by Stalin, Zhukov wasn't.

That also defined the future of China. In an alternative history all of China is like Taiwan. But that's another TV series.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 03 March, 2017, 10:56:15 am
I took a look at the intro sequence, with the anachronistic Mk9 Spitfire. The fact that it had Polish markings, and was being presented to Marshal Zhukov on the Mall during Soviet-German Friendship Week was the important bit, not the age of the Spitfire.

The echoes of Berlin in 1945 were very deftly handled, as you'd expect from a German director.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: mattc on 03 March, 2017, 01:17:31 pm
Slightly OT, but:

Where Eagles Dare was a great movie; but now I've got the extended director's cut I fast-forward through the bits that Eastwood & Burton ruin. Fantastic hour on history of german winter uniforms, and the section on Austrian cable car technology is spell-binding, even on repeat views.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Mr Larrington on 12 March, 2017, 11:48:41 pm
They've started to take a few liberties with the story in episode 4.  Not sure I agree with this turn of events.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: caerau on 13 March, 2017, 01:13:44 pm
They've started to take a few liberties with the story in episode 4.  Not sure I agree with this turn of events.


Oh bother I missed it.  iPlayer here I come.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: noisycrank on 13 March, 2017, 01:26:35 pm
Slightly OT, but:

Where Eagles Dare was a great movie; but now I've got the extended director's cut I fast-forward through the bits that Eastwood & Burton ruin. Fantastic hour on history of german winter uniforms, and the section on Austrian cable car technology is spell-binding, even on repeat views.
Helicopters?
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: spesh on 13 March, 2017, 02:23:21 pm
Slightly OT, but:

Where Eagles Dare was a great movie; but now I've got the extended director's cut I fast-forward through the bits that Eastwood & Burton ruin. Fantastic hour on history of german winter uniforms, and the section on Austrian cable car technology is spell-binding, even on repeat views.
Helicopters?

The Germans used helicopters in WW2 for transport and artillery spotting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Achgelis_Fa_223
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_Fl_282

Two Fa-223s were assigned to the German Army's Mountain Warfare School at Innsbruck, so helicopters being used in the film wouldn't have been completely anachronistic, but the lack of working German hardware when the classic war movies were being filmed perforce leads to substitutions.

See: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065207/faq?ref_=tt_faq_2#.2.1.2

Note that German WW2 copters tended to be twin or intermeshed rotorcraft - however, the Americans used what we would recognise as the standard helicopter design in the Sikorsky R-4, which saw service in the Pacific, 1944-45:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_R-4
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 13 March, 2017, 03:23:16 pm
Experienced AOP Pilots in the British Army were converting from Austers to helicopters in early 1945 at 43 OTU in Andover.  They used Mayfly helicopters which presumably did fly. 

Probably just as well they didn't try using them any earlier.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Mr Larrington on 13 March, 2017, 07:09:18 pm
There was a helichopter* in the book as well.

* Where Eagles Dare, not SS-GB
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: mattc on 13 March, 2017, 07:20:29 pm
Slightly OT, but:

Where Eagles Dare was a great movie; but now I've got the extended director's cut I fast-forward through the bits that Eastwood & Burton ruin. Fantastic hour on history of german winter uniforms, and the section on Austrian cable car technology is spell-binding, even on repeat views.
Helicopters?

The Germans used helicopters in WW2 for transport and artillery spotting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Achgelis_Fa_223
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_Fl_282

Two Fa-223s were assigned to the German Army's Mountain Warfare School at Innsbruck, so helicopters being used in the film wouldn't have been completely anachronistic, but the lack of working German hardware when the classic war movies were being filmed perforce leads to substitutions.

See: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065207/faq?ref_=tt_faq_2#.2.1.2

Note that German WW2 copters tended to be twin or intermeshed rotorcraft - however, the Americans used what we would recognise as the standard helicopter design in the Sikorsky R-4, which saw service in the Pacific, 1944-45:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_R-4
I have absolutely no interest in helicopters. You seem like a very boring man.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 14 March, 2017, 10:28:12 am
There was a helichopter* in the book as well.

* Where Eagles Dare, not SS-GB

Where Eagles Dare was one of the few (possibly the only) one of MacLean’s books that was a screenplay first, or so I have read at least.  So it’s not surprising that the book is very close to the film.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: rogerzilla on 18 March, 2017, 08:04:26 pm
I have absolutely no interest in helicopters. You seem like a very boring man.
;D
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: rogerzilla on 18 March, 2017, 08:16:42 pm
Most people seem to be comparing this with The Man In The High Castle*, which I found a bit uninspiring except for the bit when Mr Tagomi (a generally good egg among the Japanese/German victorious powers) slips back into our dimension for half an hour.  Of course, TMITHC isn't really about alternative history at all; that's just a useful vehicle for the whole alternative-realities conceit.  However, both stories have an unoccupied zone, the Nazis remain just as nasty as during the war, and the SS are still running things where possible. 

"Fatherland" is probably my favourite of the genre - really nasty Nazis and Heydrich running the SS.

*I've only read the book
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Jakob W on 18 March, 2017, 09:27:45 pm
Has anyone seen the TV film of 'Fatherland'? I thought the book was great, but gather the screen version got so-so reviews.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: rogerzilla on 18 March, 2017, 10:20:28 pm
It's shit.  Just read the book  :)
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 19 March, 2017, 09:04:33 pm
It's shit.  Just read the book  :)

Do you mean 'Just read the book*' or 'Just read the book**'?
* as in go away and do it
** as in I have just done it
or vice versa?
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Mr Larrington on 19 March, 2017, 10:59:35 pm
They really did shoot off at a tangent with tonight's finale :-\
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: caerau on 20 March, 2017, 09:20:01 am
Well I rather enjoyed it - having not read the book probably helped.


Though it did stretch my credibility filter a little at the end there, I thought the whole thing rather good on the whole.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 20 March, 2017, 11:05:49 am
It didn't seem like the end. Nor even the beginning of the end. Maybe it was the end of the beginning?
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: rogerzilla on 23 March, 2017, 09:05:05 pm
It's shit.  Just read the book  :)

Do you mean 'Just read the book*' or 'Just read the book**'?
* as in go away and do it
** as in I have just done it
or vice versa?
Read, to rhyme with reed, not with red.

Last episode of SS-GB was...er...untidy.  Not impressed, overall.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Jakob W on 23 March, 2017, 11:23:30 pm
Yeah, a bit hit and miss. Huth and Kellerman were consistently good I thought; both actors caught the properly Deightonesque note of cynicism.
Title: Re: SS GB
Post by: Mr Larrington on 24 March, 2017, 02:16:09 am
I can sort-of see why they discarded chunks of the book for the final episode and a half.  Certainly it'd be be harder to flog to the Yanks if Barbara had been killed utterly to DETH plus they'd already not bothered with her ex-husband and given his lines to her.  But all that stuff with the flat tyre and the collaborators was just padding.