Based in Canada that went back and forth to France every week. Maybe based in England but Camp X, no. For me, I can't watch the show for that reason. It's a massive elephant in the room, which indicates the writers either have contempt for their viewers or are stupid and ignorant of WW2 real world history. Canadians have a proud history this does not do it justice. Bomb Girls was better.
shareSadly, Bomb Girls was aired on a network that cared more about ratings from foreign reality shows than quality drama, despite the considerable haul of awards and nominations that Bomb Girls collected over its 2 seasons, plus the telefilm finale.
Right show, wrong channel.
Bomb Girls was unfortunately inferior drama. Self-conscious, mannered dialogue; wooden/stilted acting; generalliy uninspired plotting. People recognized that, weren't engaged, and turned the channel.
shareI tried to watch that show...but couldn't get into it...
and I especially didn't like it when they went and casted americans for the roles.....when we had our own...and all that...
but the network that it was on had no commitment, at all...
how many Canadian shows have run past 2 seasons on global..
I am watching remedy...but I worry for it...after this year...
susan
Americans? Which of the actors on this show are American? All of the main cast are either Canadian or from the UK. Even Tom, the American propaganda guy is played by a Canadian.
share(Edited because I can be a total a$$ sometimes who can't read a person's post.)
If you read my rude reply to you, suzan, sincerest apologies for misunderstanding.
Ah...flims19 and TesubCalle
I think you may have misread what suzan28 wrote:
I tried to watch that show(emphasis mine)
Ulp!
I believe you're right!
That'll teach me to read stuff too quickly. Thanks for pointing out my egregious error.
Certa Bonum Certamen
Hi BetterLikeThis, maybe you missed the first 2 episodes where the agents were back at Camp X after a period in France. This did bother me. I thought it was very strange, but I can understand the writers weren't aiming at historical accuracy. The show really improved once they dropped this conceit. I suspect the producers realized that France is where the drama is stronger. "X Company" was originally titled "Camp X", but a show about agents training would not have been as exciting.(I have been to the Camp X location and wrote an article about the show.)I once worked for a man, an agent/commando, who helped partisans smuggle a jet engine and a mini sub out of Italy. He also came close to shooting Mussolini. Now there was a decision. He would certainly have been captured and killed. X Company has shown a lot of life and death decisions. Many heroes did not make it home. I had an argument on these boards with someone who thought the agents and the French Resistance were not heroes, but war criminals. Huh? Very strange. (Somebody had to say it!)
shareA show ONLY about agents training would not have been exciting. But I feel they missed a great opportunity by skipping the training altogether. Their first 3 episodes were subpar.
share[deleted]
I missed the first three episodes because of the night...Wednesday......I belong to a town hall, and have meetings three out of four Wednesdays a month....so, that's why I missed it...
watching an eppy a couple weeks ago on the computer was tedious...to say the least....it took me like 4 hours, off and on to watch it.....
so if it's on again Wednesday next year, I hope that cbc gets their act together, and gives better internet content...so those of us who can't watch live......I don't have a dvr....and I don't have time shifting, like I know others do......so that I can come home and watch it from Calgary of Vancouver, or whatever...
susan
can you get Canadian series from say best buy...or do you have to order them from cbc...or whatever network is showing them..
I haven't seen too many series Canadian in best buy.....HMV......whatever....just the American and or brit ones...that cost an arm and a leg over here
susan
[deleted]
Best bet is generally Amazon.ca.
share[deleted]
It's listed there now.
http://www.amazon.ca/X-Company-Evelyne-Brochu/dp/B00WAJ8O84/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1430765025&sr=1-1&keywords=x+company
I enjoy this show quite a bit. I know it's not historically correct, but it "feels" correct. CBC is good at costuming and props for their period shows.
The only actor that I knew on the show was Hugh Dillon and that was because of his time on Flashpoint. And a few episodes he did of Continuum.
As for a point that someone mentioned about no French being spoken, I have been assuming that when they are in public in France, they are actually speaking French to blend in. But it is done in English so that viewers don't have to read subtitles for the whole show. Just as a room full of Germans they speak English for the audience and not straight German with subtitles, again for the audience. In private or alone in doors they are probably only speaking English.*
*(my opinion on how/why it is done and not based on any facts that may or may not be known on how/why)
[deleted]
Oh, wow. You're another one of those who those who appear to believe that because episodes run weekly the events in an episode must take place within a week?
You must hate cliffhangers then as an order given in tv time would take a week (or longer)to be followed if it were real.
It's overtly implied that they head back to Canada after each mission, AND that they're assigned their missions by the Canadian head of Camp X. That's ridiculous. Once the spies were trained, they were shipped out to the UK and their missions were run from the UK. Period.
Plus these guys are constantly signaling back and forth between France and Camp X!
[deleted]
The mission thing is elided, yes. But you have to be careful when nitpicking to make sure your nits are airtight too. Camp X regularly communicated with Europe and the UK. The powerful transmitters picked up and passed along top secret codes, adn the HYDRA transmitter was one of the most powerful receiving stations in North America.
In short, and this is a highly scientific, well-considered position: "thhhhbbbbt!"
(Tongue-in-cheek, but not too far. It's pretty clear you haven't really watched the show that much. We're grateful that many others are responding to the stories, which is what we like to focus on. Forest, and all that.)
From my reading of Camp X's history, Ad101867-1 seems to have the relevant detail correct, that after Camp X the spies were under direct British orders, not Canadian. So Ad101867-1's nitpick about the spies being assigned their missions by the Canadian head of Camp X does seem based on historical accuracy. I believe that after Camp X the rookie spies went on to advanced training in Scotland and other UK sites before going to the continent -- if they made it that far. The Scots are tough bastards; I would have enjoyed seeing the spies go through the ordeal of stage 2, but, onward.
shareI admitted as much. The real Camp X was a training school, and much of the direction indeed did happen from England. We've elided that part, as historical shows elide a whole bunch of stuff. Would it surprise you to know that Richard III was actually not a bad king? This is an old debate. And we chose what we chose for dramatic reason. The problem with nitpickers is when self-declared experts decide "people were too dumb to notice..." A) I assure you, no one was too dumb not to know exactly what was being done, and why it was being done. but more importantly, B) the stuff about there not being traffic back and forth to Britain or Europe (and in the past, "how could they get from North America to Europe so fast" is in the category of 'thanks for the nitpick, but you're wrong, Chester."
shareWould it surprise you to know that Richard III was actually not a bad king?
No need for condenscension. I'm a fan of the show, for crying out loud.
You've employed the "old debate" tactic of "Hey, it was right for Shakespeare, so..." Aside from being pretentious, the defense is in error because the modes of storytelling are very different, prompting different assumptions on the part of viewers. Of course one should consider stories according to their individual natures.
So for example, in a purportedly historically accurate, naturalistic drama it shouldn't surprise anyone to learn that some viewers have stumbled to some degree when confronted by spies nipping back and forth between occupied Europe and the balmy shores of Lake Ontario. This is not some minor allowance. Again, the story context implies a relatively historically accurate presentation, unlike Richard III - and for the most part this is the case, or at least you've done a good job of disguising liberties. However, within this context the idea of recurring exits from occupied France to make transatlantic trips to Canada then back into occupied France again stands out as a very large stretch indeed. It hasn't ruined the story for me or my partner on the TV couch, but it has temporarily broken the spell whenever it's happened.
I think the idea, chosen for a dramatic reason, actually diminishes the drama. One, it's too blatantly far-fetched to be in character with the rest. Two, the idea of the spies returning to Camp X hasn't seemed to me to deliver enough payoff to be worth the sacrifice in verisimilitude. What happens at Camp X after the spies are deployed, and even when they've returned, has felt repetitive and relatively mundane.
Your employers were faced with a challenge: what to do with Camp X itself once this band of trainees were in Europe? I believe the best dramatic idea to keep Camp X in play wasn't to have them bounce back and forth. As a fan I like to reflect on my experience. How did a scene or episode feel? Why did I feel that way? I applaud good ideas and note the less-than-good ones. The bouncing back and forth was for me in the latter category. Forgiveable, but I think a miscalculation nonetheless.
OK, let's say for the sake of argument, some artistic license is taken to make the show more interesting, that's not a bad thing, but everything has its limits.
While the boy with Down Syndrome, and his fate made excellent drama, it did seem unrealistic, because unlike the Endlösung, the euthanasia program for undesirables with an Aryan origin was a commonly known fact, so the odds they could have kept it secret almost 10 years after the program was implemented is very slim. Speaking about the Endlösung and second front in Normandy, any recent history buff knows, that the Western allies didn't believe the first, and Churchill has campaigned for the Balkans on the second. Finally, there was a character based on Marcel Petiot, who the company manages to kill out of self defense.
So yes, as fan I enjoy the show, but treat it like The Man in the High Castle, it's not our reality, otherwise, as a fellow writer I'd be deeply ashamed for being disrespectful to the actual victims. Many people honestly believed Petiot was a hero saving people, and they would have needed a company to stop him.
Um, I'm pretty sure you're wrong and that they don't go back and forth between France and Canada weekly.
Like at the beginning of the second season, there was a big tado to get Tom to Canada safely. Then he came back. They are radioing Camp X for confirmation and such, but they don't go there after each mission. They camp out in the woods.
They eventually cut out that aspect - which is great - but for the first 2 or 3 episodes they did indeed traverse the Pond to come back to Camp X for debriefing and new mission assignments. That was ridiculous.
Overall, though, this is an outstanding series.
[deleted]
Are you kidding??? They're back and forth constantly! Did you watch just 5 minutes of the show and draw your conclusion from that?
Ironically, individual scenes and plotting are done quite well. But that back-and-forth across the Pond is, indeed, a giant and very dumb flaw in the whole thing.
[deleted]