Strike

[Hepzibar]

Liking it.
Casting excellent.

I LOVED the books and so wanted to love the tv show.

I thought it was absolutely dire.

I hated the way they changed Robin's accident avoiding to a weird shortcut through fields...I think she's well cast in appearance but they've changed the character quite a bit. Agree that Leonora was perfectly cast, as was Daniel Chard and Liz Tassel.
I think the problem is they've only given each book three episodes when it would have benefitted with more, as they've had to chop and change the plot and investigations about a bit to fit which imo means it feels quite disjointed.

I wondered if the accident was changed purely on a filming cost basis. Can't think of any other reason.

Matthew is spot on though, the way he was waffling on about Rugby , exactly as the meeting was in the books ( although Strike tried to get out of it on many occasion) He does not like Strike ( feeling is mutual of course!)
Tom Burke is so lovely , those eyes! i have never seen him in anything before.

DH was convinced the actress playing Leonora was Tracy Ullmann (she wasn't).

I loved it when Strike was trying to get random woman to drive him home. "Do you want more money or is it the general situation putting you off?"

I suppose the driving thing (Robin) portrays her more actively (choosing to use her skills to get out of a situation) than passively (reacting to a situation) but it was probably the cost.

i thought that Leonora looked a bit like Ms Ullman as well!
she was spot on to how i imagined her to look and sound , that was quite scary. Liz too.
Its so sad when they take her away from Orlando, her daughter.
She is an odd bod Leonora, but i really liked her!

I suppose a huge part of the pleasure for many viewers/mumsnetters is comparing the tv adaptation with the books and swapping observations with other readers on changes and similarities.

I've never read any of Rowling's books at all and I'm viewing Strike as a stand-alone dectective series which I expect to comapre with other good shows like Wallander, Shetland, Rebus, Wire in the Blood etc etc.

For me, it's not at the same level - it doesn't feel 'adult'.

The plots seem 'teenage' - the murders of 'top supermodels' and 'famous writers' - it's all a bit old hat, a bit Midsummery.

It also feels a bit odd watching the sexist cliches go unchallenged - like Strike tolerating that writer fella not wanting to talk in front of Robin. The whole - I don't want to interfere in your marraige by giving you a proper job stuff - don't bother your pretty little head attitude.

Quote from The Silence of the Lambs (movie 1991)

*

Jack Crawford: Starling, when I told that sheriff we shouldn’t talk in front of a woman, that really burned you, didn’t it? It was just smoke, Starling. I had to get rid of him.

Clarice Starling: It matters, Mr. Crawford. Cops look at you to see how to act. It matters.

Jack Crawford: Point taken.

*

Rowling should have this stuff in her head and not reinforce crap stereotypes - fiction has responsibilities too.

I think that Strike is aware of how controlling Matthew is ( even before he meets him) and how Robin relies on him. By him warning her off is just his way of saying ' if you want to do this type of work, you cant be the one to leave at 5 on the dot'. I think he is just trying to make sure she is aware that its not an ordinary job to be honest.
Maybe this doesn't come across that well on TV, but that is implied in book 2 when she makes it clear she wants to be more than a secretary.

I think I'm just taking it too seriously and should accept that it's proper bracket is somewhere on a sub-Jonathan Creek level (and I love Creek and Creek is a million times better).

Perhaps I've been taken in by the BBC scheduling in the 9pm 'serious drama' slot and forgotten that it's 9pm on a 'Sunday' which is more Songs of Praise/Antiques Roadshow - type of slot - something light and not very challenging slot - won't keep you awake before you have to go back to work on a Monday.

I probably just need to not watch it but I like the London scenery.

I also think if you took Robin/Holliday Grainger out of the show - it would probably be dead on its feet. I don't think Tom Burke's character could carry a solo show - Strike just doesn't have the maturity or gravitas of a 'proper' detective

Someone mentioned book 4, when is it coming?!

I'm loving this. Strike/Tom Burke is my new big crush.

futuristic- You seem to want to hate the show so it's unclear why you are continuing to watch it! I do think it's funny that you think Silent Witness is better, IMO that's a formulaic load of old drivel! We all like different things I guess. I really enjoyed the additional characters last night, the agent and publisher, it rather put me in mind of Morse.

@ lemonsandlimes123

Quite the reverse in fact!

If you read my posts you'll see I've come to the show wanting it to be great - wanting it to be as good as all the others I've mentioned.

Sadly it's just not.

I agree Silent Witness is really toshy - what about the others I've mentioned - do you watch/like/compare those? Wallander? The Killing? Rebus?

I thought the agent was comical - was she meant to be? Like in a Jonathan Creek?

She reminded me (I suspect unintentionally) of Jane Plough (Pluff) in Toast -

I'm enjoying it but found that the research wasn't brilliant. In the first set of episodes Iver Heath train station was mentioned, it doesn't exist.

I find Silent Witness unwatchable. It just doesn't work for me at all.

The house on Talgarth Road is actually on Talgarth Road. I like that detail. Those house fascinate me whenever I drive past as I don't know how they manage to curtain the amazing front windows.

Futuristic -I meant more that you are continuing to watch even though you now know you don't like it!

I think it is different to the the killing for example as that is one case over what 12 episodes whereas Strike is a faster turnover. I think I am enjoying the characters more than the plot if that makes sense! Though I do think the subsidiary characters in this second story are rather better. I thought the agent certainly had a comic edge but was a well written character and I think the wife (Leonora?) has real depth. I can see the characters really developing over time but maybe the plots need to be tightened up a bit.

Love it, but I wish they'd put all the episodes on like they did last time.

ARoseforEmily

It wasn't the lack of research, as in the book he does go to pinewood to interview the bloke, but I think he took a taxi from iver station or something. The description of the journey was spot on. But the then JK Rowling would know pinewood and iver heath like the back of her hand.

There is unfortunately loads of detail and thought processes missing in the tv series.

I think the depth of characters is also missing, and I do agree that strike in the series is too young and not the hardened slightly older seeming person, he his in the books.

I was also disappointed at the motorway accident being changed for a bizarre jaunt across fields.

But I do enjoy it, maybe only because I've read the books so already know back stories, and the lengths they go to piece things together, also the break downs of the mentality of the murderers.

For me it's nice Sunday night eye wash.

I'm also not keen on scandi dramas, I find them to cold and dark.

I do like Foyles War though.

Horses for courses.

I passed by this yesterday switching channels and saw torture scenes that sat very bizarrely with the general Midsummer meanderings.

The murder of a writer based on a scene in a novel is one of the oldest clichés in crime fiction.

I think you were right the first time Futuristic - I agree with your earlier post. I'm a fan of Scandi noir, French thrillers - Spiral, Les Flics, Braquo, DH is a big Montalbano fan.

By comparison this feels like it's for kids, torture aside.

The driving-through-the-fields thing was very odd. Why didn't she just turn round??

It wasn't exactly difficult driving either ,was it? Dry,flat field I could've done that with my eyes closed!

I've just watched this as I cant sleep and it annoys me so much! I didn't like the last story line as it was obvious and slow, but thought the characters had some potential. But this latest episode... just awful :( I haven't read the books. Not sure whether I should bother. The constant strange names are like nails on a blackboard!

What was that with the driving? Weird and you cant just do that across fields and crops!?!?! And why was she weaving about in a flat field?! (overhead shot) And in real life, all shortcuts turn out to be longer in the end ;)

I agree it is too Midsummery and Jonathon Creeky ish in a really annoying way because it isn't sending itself up - those shows knew they were hammy whereas this seems to want to be serious. Aside from the Robin & Strike all the other characters are cliched caricatures (R&S just a bit cliche!). Its like it was made by 2 different people.

I know there a bigger things to be annoyed about but this seems like it could have been so much better and they have wasted the money :( i need better things to watch when i cant sleep but am too tired and frazzled to do anything useful :(

I absolutely love it.

Much much prefer it to Wallander, Silent Witness etc, by a million miles.

@ quercuscircus - good post - sums up a lot of my feelings.

I think if this wasn't a BBC commission I'd be less hacked off with it but the bottom line is we, the licence fee payers are funding this, so it had better be good and it better do what it claims it will do - and this doesn't.

There are lots of great crime/thriller books out there that the BBC could have adapted but they couldn't be arsed.

Instead, they did the usual thing they always do nowadays, they chase the lowest common denominator in a battle with ITV - chase the money, bums on seats, quality doesn't matter.

They commissioned these books just because they are Rowling and there are people who would pay to watch Rowling mowing her lawn.

The quality of the work didn't matter to the BBC and it's quite apparent that there wasn't that much quality in the work anyway.

BBC chase viewers all the time now when the whole bloody point of the licence fee is that you are freed from the obligation to chase viewers and can make programmes based on artistic merit or public interest or educational value.

In other words the BBC could make programmes based solely on the reasons why it justifies getting the licence fee but it doesn't.
It chooses to aim for quantity of viewers over quality of programming when the point of the licence fee funding is to free the BBC from the commercial constraints that govern ITV, C4, Sky etc etc - who are mainly better at this stuff too.

It spends the licence fee trying to make low rent chewing gum to steal viewers from ITV - all part of its obsession with competing with/shutting down local media/news outlets and local radio etc etc.

Orwell had the BBC down to a tee.

Strike is annoying because it makes me aware of the better programmes that could have been made if the money hadn't been spent on it.

You don't have to make TV like this - it is a choice.

I'm really enjoying it. I like the bits of comedy in it. I had read the first book but not the second and I think I enjoyed the Silkworm episode more.

I certainly prefer it to Jonathan Creek, which managed to be both silly and boring.