The Casual Vacancy...anyone watching?

[Selks]

If so, thoughts so far?

I couldn't get on with the book but I'm enjoying this so far...a cast of fallible and largely unpleasant characters; plot pleasantly complex(ish), good filming - bucolic pretty England with a claustrophobic feel....

Will be interested to see how it develops.

I missed it. Grrr
We don't have BBC player in Ireland

I loved every minute, I have high hopes for the next episode. I thought it was well cast and the characters were largely believable.

I enjoyed the book but I think I would have liked this even if I hadn't read the story first.

Just been having a look at the reviews online and they vary from appalling in the Times (1star) to 4 stars in other papers like the Telegraph.

I was put off the book by the reviews - sounded incredibly simplistic and caricatured. So is a lot of Dickens, I know, but that's not my thing.

Felt the TV version likely to be the same, so didn't bother to watch. Just read the Times review which makes it sound just how I imagined it, but can't really judge as I haven't seen it. I do like Rowling detective stories though and would watch a televised version of those.

I quite liked the book and thought that episode 1 was quite good, although I agree with other posters that it could do to be a little bit longer - 4 or 5 episodes would have been better than 3.

I'm glad I read the book first though.

I've read the book and thought it was pretty good. I didn't think it was DH's cup of tea so told him not to bother.

We both watched last night and I was expecting him to hate it but it proved that there is still something unexpected about his views even after 40 years together as he thought it was very good and said I think I'd have liked the book .

Think trying to fit it into 3 episodes is going to take some doing but at least we won't be left with the awful sagging 4th and 5th episodes of the usual six parter. I know the end has been changed. Not sure why - they said it was too unremittingly bleak - that sounds like half the drama on the BBC to me ( thinks Happy Valley, Line of Duty, Missing) so I'm not sure why they felt it necessary to tamper with this.

I liked it, and I enjoyed the book. The social work manager made m a bit furious though, as if any senior manager would talk and behave like that!

Thought it was pretty boring. Haven't read the book.
We enjoyed Indian Summers at 10pm on C4 (+1) much more, so will probably watch that at 9pm next week instead.

I think the 'tart'comment was describing Krystal's mother, not Krystal. After all, this was what the copper was saying when she'd been held overnight in the cells, that she'd sell herself & wasn't worth 20p.

I quite enjoyed it, and thought the way so many characters were introduced was clever - I hadn't read the book & had no preconceptions but I had no problem with knowing who's who.

I wasn't that keen, the characters in the book are not like they are portrayed at all in this. The only one I liked was the social worker and Brian, he had a good heart.

I will watch the rest though to see how they change the ending as it is very sad in the book and I have heard its different. its a long complicated novel about social attitudes, snobbery etc and I'm not sure that will come across totally. have to see.

Just to clarify, Bakeoff, JK Rowling has written a book containing cliched, contrived stereotypes to prove that people are actually cliched, contrived stereotypes?

So all the types portrayed in the book are true representations of every single one of the types of people they are portraying?

The book really isn't simplistic. I think JKR is trying to make you think that then wham, sort of thing.
The book is very clever and very subtle IMO.

I'm obviously not explaining myself well, someone up thread said the characters were cut and paste stereotypes of certain sections of society, another poster said they were missing the point/proving JKR's point by thinking this, you, House are saying they aren't contrived stereotypes but individual characters, yet they, at the moment, seem to come straight out of a character 101 guide book.

I haven't read the book I am basing this on last night's first episode, and, so far, the characters portrayed seem to tick all the boxes to conform to a particular stereotype.

Of course it has occurred to me, I was merely asking another poster Bakeoff to clarify the 'missing the point' comment.

I look forward to the rest of the series and how it will develop and challenge all the impressions/assumptions/prejudices, and I shall probably read the book now as well.

I thought it was ok. Not brilliant, not awful.

Found the characters a little contrived and clichéd but will see how it unfolds.

Never read the book as, despite being one of the best-selling authors of all time, I think J K Rowling is a terrible writer.

They do seem cliched at the moment- archtypes- I can remember thinking that at the beginning of the book too.

In the book, the pleasure was going in the characters heads. I was missing that last night.

Still as pp said, it is beautifully shot and the acting is good...