MovieChat Forums > X Company (2015) Discussion > Colonel Duncan Sinclair tunic ribbons wr...

Colonel Duncan Sinclair tunic ribbons wrong...


Based on the pilot episode, it seems like a good & very welcome WWII series...this time more from the Canadian w/a touch of British espionage side.

However although I can excuse SOME errors (as I posted elsewhere in this forum) on the SS/Police uniforms, I thought being CBC they could've got the ribbons on Col.Duncan Sinclair's uniform correct...they're upside down! (the Jubilee & Coronation medals are before the WWI Victory & War medals also in the wrong order).

It may seem like a little thing to some, but obvious mistake that makes it look like one the many D-Grade WWII flicks out there...shame.

Let's hope they fix some of the small things as they go.

reply

Nobody cares. It's trivial. What is important is the quality of drama. That's where the show is lacking, not in faithfulness to uniform insignia.

reply

Well perhaps you don't care...all fine but I do...consider it part of a period piece drama.

Just a personal issue when a Canadian show can't get it's own uniforms correct? Or would you also not mind if they were running around with modern assault rifles in a WWII show? All fine if it's a different timeline (as in the excellent 'Man in the High Castle' pilot...but not here. Just makes the whole thing look amateurish & low quality which is a shame.

I agree the script could do with a little originality & for me the character of Aurora irks me more than anything...in the scene with the radio, she's strong-willed & demanding they 'signal at all costs', then is nervous around the SS serving them lunch & then overly-protective & delays blowing the bridge nearly compromising the whole mission. They single out Alfred as the weak link - for me it's her.

reply

You're comparing apples to oranges. It's natural for specialists/buffs/nerds to view their subject through a microscope, but you need to step back and adopt a wider perspective, the one shared by 99.9% of viewers. Modern assault rifles put into WWII would be jarring to everyone. But you're talking about minutiae, arcane details that only a very few people recognize or care about. It only looks amateurish to that tiny group.

If you want a real example of a version of contemporary assault rifles placed in WWII, there is the absurd flying back and forth between occupied France and Canada between missions. Not only is this ridiculous, but it misses the off-screen opportunity to dramatize how they got out of occupied France in the first place. The writers don't seem to realize that this easy zooming back and forth between Europe and Canada radically undercuts the sense of peril. It actually makes the situation feel much safer. It's like they're on the Air Canada red-eye between Heathrow and Toronto. Or Doctor Who and his teleporting phone booth. Casual viewers may not notice the source of this undercutting; they'll just feel an odd lack of jeopardy and real concern, even though the plot seems to put the characters through their paces.

Even if they stop doing this, the damage has already been done. They let the air out of the tires. Now they're on the defensive, and have to re-pressurize.

I take your word for it that the insignia are off. A production with a bigger budget would likely have the resources to see to these details. Pragmatic, and sometimes very hard decisions have to be made as to how to allocate limited resources (human, financial, and time). Typically, those resources are going to be devoted to things that both cost the most and matter the most. Behind the scenes, you may have an understaffed costumer who couldn't source and put together all the proper insignia they'd have loved to include because they had so many other important tasks to accomplish in this historical drama. This can be very frustrating, because now they're going to be blamed by WWII history buffs for the flaws, which may have had nothing to do with carelessness.

Part of Aurora's problem is the directing (itself under the guidance of the head writer/s) and also that she's played by a bad actress. The casting in this series is problematic. But the writing is the main source of the trouble.

I'm now watching to see if and how they get around an early sense of repetitiveness (among other fundamental problems).

reply

I'm watching the first episode now, and the main problem I have with Col. Duncan Sinclair is that the actor playing him is absolutely terrible. Some of the worst acting I've seen recently.

reply

He (& some of the other cast, but especially that actor) are quite 'wooden'
in his delivery & (apparent) stern-faced approach to command, whereas the
German senior officers do have the expect air of superiority and/or confidence
that (likely especially SS) would have pre-D-Day...hey they'd just conquered a
lot of the known world in a very short time & 'The Resistance' (with these UK &
Canadian/US SOE operatives) are mostly an annoyance to stamp out.

Just a shame this series couldve been SO much more...perhaps a 2nd & 3rd (if
ratings/budget allow) will get them better scripts, accent coaches (Ze Germans etc) & push them to output HQ work? Fingers crossed eh?

reply