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 imagine the 'rising road' comment by Frank was a reference to the Irish blessing:

www.irishcentral.com/culture/may-the-road-rise-to-meet-you-meaning-irish-blessing

Irish friends of mine have been known to say it.

I loved it. It was different to the books and I agree with the posters who thought it would have been better as two four-part adaptations rather than trying to intertwine them. Certainly, with Cassie's time undercover being relegated to a back story, it made the story less clear and a tad frustrating. The second book is better than you would think given how it was handled here.

But I liked that not everything was explained at the end - as someone said, it never tried to be Midsomer Murders.

@stubledin the first scene was shown in the last episode after Rob had been to see Rosalind in her cell and she'd called him a 'reject'

Cassie and he meet in the basement where all the evidence was kept. She asks him what Rosalind has said.

It is slightly different to the first scene in that Cassie doesn't just walk out and say 'we won't see each other again'

In the last episode version she also tells him she'll miss him and to take care.

Not sure if the differences are due to one being Cassie's recollection of when happened and was said and the other Rob's.

Popping in to say that I loved it on the end.

I've decided that Rob/Adam killed his two friends and is repressing it.

@Stumbledin - to be fair, I don't think any of us who had read the books were trying to spoil the story, more to try and work out what was going on!

But you should have said you didn't want references to the books earlier in this thread. Now you've made me feel bad for talking about them

I've decided that Rob/Adam killed his two friends and is repressing it.

who tied him to the Tree or was he simply gripping it in fear.. I need CLOSURE

Thanks happilybemused - I didn't think about that because the first scene was really emotional but the last one they were both very repressed and buttoned up. That why I thought they were two different occasions.

And yes Encyclo! I thought that from really early on. That either directly or indirectly he has caused their deaths. But the suggestion seemed to be the wolf - by why no bodies.

Cetrainly thought it far and away better than for instance Keeping Faith! All of the cast seemed very convincing as characters.

I wonder if they will do a second series.

BOOK SPOILER ALERT

I came across a piece on medium.com about the ending of the book In The Woods (Rob's story).

You may or may not wish to read it, but in case you do, here it is

Its because I think when a tv series is adapted from a book or play it should be a rule that people who know the book or play do not comment about how it isn't the same or the book explains xyz.

I think those of us who had read the books tried really hard not to give away any spoilers. Saying "I don't think the series got across X or Y as well as the book did" in response to a lot of people complaining that they didn't really believe in X or Y isn't really a spoiler, nor is replying to direct questions about which book covered which plotline when no information beyond that is given. In fact mostly those of us who had read the books said quite early on that merging the two storylines into one drama meant we were as much in the dark as viewers new to Tana French's work!

It doesn't help though that the MN platform doesn't have a mechanism to hide spoilers from view like some other websites do.

But were there any spoilers? I didn't think there were

Thanks @BIWI - That article was excellent and perfectly explained why the ending of both tv series and book weren't tied up neatly and were, in my opinion, all the stronger for that.

No BIWI I don't think there were either, but any references at all to the books, spoiler or no, could have been hidden behind 'spoiler tags' if that mechanism existed, for people who wanted to see it as a standalone TV thing rather than an adaptation IYSWIM. However that functionality being lacking, we just tried really hard not to give away any spoilers! I don't personally class referring to the books in general, when it's not about plot points, as spoilers.

Pah. Hate endings like that. You don’t know what happened

Like the hanging rock picnic series /book

And bloody supernatural

I wanted to know what happened to the missing children. A wood /supernatural /Irish curse etc can’t make children dissapeer

Tho the ending with Rosalind killing/planning going g due to jealousy

was good

And I don’t didnt think any spoilers from those who read the book

recap e8

That recap says that Cassie and Rob/Adam both left the police. That wasn't the case - Cassie was told she'd never work murder cases again and Rob was being sent to some distant posting where there was nothing to do but count sheep. Or at least that was how I remember it in both book and tv series. I do think that journalist's theory on the symbolism of the wolf is pretty spot on though.

Thanks BIWI and others - you are probably right there weren't any real spoilers, but with a storyline like this and so many possibilities maybbe my jumbled brain over reacts if there is an implication of something else going on.

But apprecite those who start a post with spoiler alert.

But ... also think that there is a whole different conversation to be had which can be really interesting to compare a book to a tv adaptation. So a plausible character in a book made be made silly in a tv series.

I think I referred to the Handmaid's Tail but thinking about it, it was probably Poldark where those who had read the books really felt the interpretation on the screen had basically changed certain characters.

I realise it is a lot to do with how I watch tv. I am quite happy to go along with being fed a series in dribs and drabs and like having time to think it through. Though nearly always my conclusions are proved wrong within the first few minutes of the latest episode!

You've raised an interesting issue there, though, @stumbledin. I hate it when TV writers adapt, aka change a book. I know you can't just lift what's in a book and transfer it straightaway to the small screen, but I hate it when key things are changed!

I wouldn't be too bothered by the 'rising road' comment, Frank said all sorts of odd stuff: his parting comment to O'Kelly was 'stay hydrated'!

Gotta say I really enjoyed it in spite of the ludicrous plot. Dunno what to watch now... any ideas?

Giri/Haji also on BBC looks good, I've only seen the first episode.

Thanks BIWI

I read this after watching the end of the series and it makes sense of the ending. I did feel for Rob though :-(

@Charley50 I am watching The Team on More4. Only one episode has broadcast so you can get it on catchup

Crock of absolute shite. Sad I've wasted so many hours on this awful show. No way could the dog eat 2 kids in full. The search party was out 3 hours late they'd have sound remnants. Awful characters and completely nonsensical final episode.

No way could the dog eat 2 kids in full.

That wasn't what was suggested. The wolf was metaphorical.

What do people actually want from these types of shows?
All crime fiction requires us to suspend disbelief to an extent.
Would the series have been more enjoyable if the two kids killer had been found in the last five minutes of episode 6 (or 8)?
I quite like imagining it was the dog, it ate them up then stashed the bones for later munchies at his leisure. At least it would mean one less violent male was out there at large in the (fictional) world.