DUBLIN MURDERS - mon and tue 9pm BBC’s

[Blondeshavemorefun]

Starts tomorrow

When a young, talented ballerina is found dead on an ancient stone altar, her death drags up another tragedy that befell this community years before - when three children disappeared into the local woods and only one returned

I guess it comes down to how far you are willing to suspend your disbelief. Most crime dramas have an element of the ludicrous if you think about it too much, but if it’s well written and well cast, and / or just fun, you can be persuaded to go along for the ride and overlook the more ludicrous elements. For me, Luther fell into that category - it could strain the credulity a bit (or a lot!) if you stopped to think about it, but I enjoyed the whole package so was not too bothered about lingering over the plot holes. Dublin Murders, on the other hand, has such gaping chasms in believability that it becomes impossible to get past them. Just my opinion. It started well though, I thought.

I wouldn’t have started watching if I’d known it was 8 bloody episodes! What is it with loads of series now. It used to be 4 or 6 not 8! Even War And Peace was only 3.

Sorry War And Peace was 6, which considering the length of the novel is appropriate.

They’d have done better doing a 4-parter just based on the first book IMO. Then maybe a second 4-parter on book two (although that definitely seems to be the weak link here).

Husband and I have absolutely no idea what’s going on.

Don't understand how they actually knew what Shane looked like - yet the PC simply produced the CCTV image and declared it to be Shane.

I usually pride myself (oh how the mighty fall) on having a good grasp of complicated plot lines but this has left me feeling totally confused. It just doesn't seem to make much sense. When I watched the last one I stopped it to ensure I hadn't missed out an episode by mistake. I'll stick with it to see if all becomes clear.

so the two books

one was children missing

other katy dead

is that right?

so mixing them, doesn that mean the end of book one they dont find out what happens to the 2 missing kids

or book two is set when book one is

puzzled

Blondes In The Woods was the missing children from 1985 and Katy's murder. The Likeness was Lexie's murder and Cassie undercover in the House of Weirdness.

They are two completely separate stories, so there should be two completely different endings!

I really don't see why the writers have thought it a good thing to combine the two

Just caught up with episode 5 and found myself zoning out. I'm done. I'm not wasting another three hours on this.

We started watching this recently, and have pretty much binged to catch up. I've read one of the books (the Cassie storyline) but not the other, but like everyone else I cannot for the life of me see why they combined the two. Why on earth didn't they do four episodes per book? Like, they'd still have been producing eight episodes, it just would have made more sense as two mini-series. It sort of seems like they've been doing that anyway, since the links between the two storylines are not exactly well drawn (yet, I suppose. But I can't see it).

Anyway, I don't mind the acting too much, though Tom Vaugn Lawlor (Frank Mackey) is basically doing Nidge - a pity as I've seen him in plays, and he's a good actor. The guy playing Daniel in the Cassie storyline is annoying (but I find him irritating in everything). I also hate the detective's boss - Lord Varys! - but seriously, laying it on thick with the swearing and inappropriate informality in an Irish lilt is bordering on the offensive (especially when it is clearly meant to be a contrast to Rob's buttoned-up Englishness).

What the hell is going on with the supernatural stuff? Have they forgotten about the academic having sex with his student on the altar, basted in red wine? WTF?

As I said, I haven't read the book about the killings in the woods, so here are my predictions: Rosalind is actually Sandra's daughter, and is involved in Katie's death in some way (some switch with the twin? maybe she meant to kill Jessica in order to escape from her caring responsibilities?).

Oh I see lots of you think the same re Rosalind! Though yeah, the four years thing doesn't make sense. I still think Rosalind is involved though.

So if the two books are separate. Then why would they say who killed KATY might have Killed/kidnapped the 1985 kids

Just to connect the stories I think @blondeshavemorefun.

I don't think they actually said why they are linked at all. Just said they were.

The Katie murder and the 1985 kids are storylines from the same book. The Cassie/Lexie storyline is the other book. So basically, anything at all to do with the woods, Adam/Rob etc, is from Into the Woods.

Oh sorry, read that badly. The lexie and katy/1985 disappearance are being connect to join the stories!!

But why would they do that?! The books are two completely different stories. Tana French has written 6 Dublin Murders books, and each one 'heroes' a particular character - but they're self-contained novels.

I am confused. Can't believe those students wouldn't twig that she wasn't the same Lexie. Who was the other Lexie anyway and why are they so interested in investigating her that they are going to such lengths of putting in someone undercover. And does anyone else thinK Adam/Rob is a real creep and going way over some of the police boundaries. Need to keep watching to see what happens but is a bit far fetched x

The reason they're investigating the other Lexie is that whoever that girl was, she wasn't Lexie! That's one of Cassie's undercover identities. So this girl, who has now turned up dead, has somehow been using Cassie's police identity - and no-one knows why.

BIWI, it’s such a pity that they have messed it up combing the two like this. They’ve apparently optioned all the Murder Squad books, but I’d say the rest won’t be made now.

Why do you say that, @medb22?

I think that the BBC moved away from the individual stories because as someone said up thread each of the books has a main detective and a lesser character. I'm Into the Woods ( Rob/Adam) has Cassie as a minor character. In the one where Cassie goes undercover she is the main character and Rob/Adam is barely mentioned. I'm guessing by combining the story you get time with both rather than all about one then all about the other. Also as someone also said up thread, Cassie's story in book form is much more descriptive about the stress/claustrophobic feelings of undercover work. Very difficult to adapt 2 hours of it on tv then wrap up on the 3rd. That's my thoughts but I've only read the books because I can't bear the suspense.

Should add I read the subsequent ending to Picnic on Hanging Rock by the author after the BBC adaptation. Still absolutely no idea.

BIWI, just based on audience/critical reception, which has been lukewarm in general I think.

happilybemused, yes, I think you are right about the crossover of characters. But I still think that they could have had each book in 4 episodes - they would have done a decent job in four hours for each story. That’s all they are getting, anyway, with the merged storylines. They could have still filmed the two mini-series at the same time, allowing the characters to crossover, and maximising the actors’ time/schedules.

Can you tell I love Tana French? :)