UKC

Has anyone else been watching "The Terror?"

Series 1 is available on iPlayer now and I'm absolutely bingeing on it right now, fantastic cast and I'm am very much enjoying it.

What's really nice is that it's introduced me to the ill-fated Franklin Polar expedition which the novel which the series is based was written about (the series and the novel are dramatisations and so therefore are obviously full of events and story arcs that we have no reason to believe ever happened) which is a fascinating subject which I previously knew nothing of.

Super interesting side note is that one of the ships which was sent to rescue them was a converted barque which was renamed HMS Resolute, it too became stuck in the ice, was recovered by a whaling company and was presented back to Queen Victoria.  Before being broken up some desks were made from its timbers... And now President Biden sits at that desk every day.

Maybe that's just interesting for me as I have a thing for Oval office decor?

Anyway if you haven't seen it and like dark, creepy dramas then I recommend it. 

P.S.  No spoilers, I'm only on Episode 5!

I think I'm on ep6 or 7 and I'm enjoying it too. The cast is excellent and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest. Any idea if/when the other series are out?

Thanks for the comment about Biden's desk - hadn't realised it was related to this story.

Good to hear you're enjoying it too!

No, no idea if and when S2 will be on iPlayer, I've deliberately limited my reading to info about the expeditions rather than the series as I don't want to accidently come across any spoilers!

Thanks for the extra fun facts Iamgregp.

Indeed, it's a 'terrorbly' good series!!

I'm enjoying it too, some scenes seem far fetched, but as it develops you'll realise that they aren't. Also its great because no-one to this day really knows what happened!

Pleasure!

I'm trying to think think up a pun on Erebus now.  I've got nothing.

Three will come along all at once.

I'm really enjoying it especially after seeing Michael Palin's talk on HMS Erebus a few years ago. It was interesting.

Now i just wish the BBC could get their mix levels right. Why is the dialogue so damn low in the mix and the music and fx so loud!?

In that case you've already met the supernatural mutant polar bear bollocks which spoils the whole thing. Worth persevering though if you can ignore it.

A genuine pity because the chance to build a brilliant plausible story around the known facts was squandered. The tension and sense of menace in the first few episodes was fantastic.

Yeah the mix levels are a little off but this is a happening more and more in dramas these days. 

Did you see that Julian Temple docco on Shane McGowan the other day? Shane’s incoherent slurs mutterings were almost inaudible as you couldn’t turn them up as you were never more than 10 seconds away from really, really old music...

I think this is all to do with the shift from broadcasters shifting from PPM audio to LUF a few years back. Probably sounds brilliant in an audio post suite cranked right up, but in the confines of our living rooms when we can’t have the loud bits bone shakingly loud as we’ll wake the kids up it’s too quiet in the quiet bits!

Indeed.

There was enough of a well told story to have missed out the supernatural bit and still have a really good series.

Watched the first two eps last night, withe more teed up for tonight.

I've just read "Labyrinth of Ice" by Buddy Levy, an American book about an American (the "Greely") expedition a couple of decades after Franklin, and it's re-ignited my interest. I must dig out Barrow's Boys again. All fascinating. The general levels of optimism, given the woolen clothing and wooden ships, mark this whole series of expeditions with a weird madness. 

Yeah, I’ve got to that bit. It’s a bit silly isn’t it?  

I’m not letting it spoil the rest of it for me though! 

Maybe it’s a drama based on how the crew would have perceived a polar bear (bearing in mind most of them would never have seen one) had they encountered one, rather than the reality? Or maybe I’m just trying to justify the silliness to myself?!

They could have been stalked and eaten by a real polar bear. Quite terrifying enough!

Yeah, you’re not wrong to be fair! 
 

On a separate note, I never knew Jared Harris is Richard Harris’ son, or that he used to be married to Emilia Fox... He’s a dark horse that one. Brilliant actor though, unsurprisingly...

Yes, he is superb in it.

The do now, at least more so than recently: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/12/hms-terror-wreck-found-arctic...

 

Have watched all 10 episodes - fantastic all round.  Following that I have been looking into the Franklin expedition - fascinating right down to understanding where the ship wrecks were found, the stuff / bodies that have been found, and even google earth for looking at King William island.

A most excellent lockdown diversion.

Not really, because it's supposed to the story not just from the "western" point of view, but it's about Inuit folklore too.

It's says that in the first two minutes.

It's not a bear!

It's not a bear, it's Tuunbaq, Google it, then it might make more sense.

If you've watched it, go back and watch the first ten minutes of episode 1, it's all explained in the first two minutes, but there other important stuff there too.

There are references to the injuries NOT being "normal" for a bear throughout the series.

Whatever. Supernatural nonsense.

Agreed, whether it’s a Tuunbaq or a bear it’s the only element of the show (so far for me) that requires suspension of disbelief.

Either way, a very enjoyable show.

Folklore is just folklore though. Makebelieve creatures in Inuit minds don't attack real people. It's bollocks.

*loud, not old! Bloody iPhone typo 

Clearly a lack of imagination.

Spoiler alert!!! Alien wasn't real either.

On a serious note, the only description of what happened was from the Inuit perspective.

Again, that's the point though, from the sailors and our point of view it had to be a bear, from the Inuit (the people relating the story) it was an evil spirit. Most cultures have one, the devil, the yeti (though I'm not sure where they're evil).

You're right, a few of my s didn't "get" either, but when you know it's based on Inuit oral history, and real history, then I thought it made sense and made it a bit more than, "some blokes get trapped in the ice and......"

If you've watched it all, go back to the first episode and watch the start, honestly you'll see it in a different light.

I really enjoyed it, too.

Combined with the effects of something else? That's how I'm justifying the silliness

I think it's way beyond silly. I'm incredibly uncomfortable about this ill fated expedition and Innuit folklore being combined in what is a melodramatic horror story. I'd argue there are some whiffs of homophobia in it as well (the sexual behaviour of the lead villain and his partners). It is well acted and being an expensive production sumptuously filmed. A massive missed opportunity but most of the faults probably are due to the book on which it is based.

For those interested in the actual folklore:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupilaq

I know that it's spirit animal not just a polar bear, and that it's bound the the shaman and all of that, and I'm aware that this part of the novel which the book is based on is based on, and that many cultures have this manifestation of an evil spirit and all that....  

It's just that I don't believe in any of that - heaven, hell, god, the devil, ghosts, spirits, yetis, manifestations, hauntings, possesions... you name it! 

So for this series, everything else that happens falls within the realms of possibility for me whereas the spirit stuff doesn't and requires some suspension of disbelief on my part.  

I'm fine with that, I am able to watch things that are a fantasy - like you said in another post Alien isn't real either!

However, I think the point that some people are making is they feel the true story is incredible enough to be presented as a straight drama that requires no suspension of disbelief, whereas let's face it, Alien would be a bit dull without the Alien! 

Anyway, glad we agree that it's a great show.  I might read the book after I finish the series, the book is always better isn't it?

Alien is not based on a true story.

So what? The creature doesn't exist except in their foklore, so it simply couldn't have attacked the expedition.

Yes, that occurred to me too...

I shall. I expect it will just make me glad I didn';t pick up on the supernatural bollocks first time round and have my enjoyment of the first couple of episodes spoilt as well.

I'm not convinced it exists in their folklore, which is why I linked the actual folklore. At best it' seems a rather wild exaggeration of the folklore.

Yes, it's fantastic. I thought Adam Nagaitis who plays Mr Hickey was superb in it. 

I started watching it and enjoyed  the opening episode but when i got wind of a supernatural bear ( from UKC) I just threw the towel in. 

I might have another go, now I've seen so much praise in spite of the silliness. 

( It was the dragons which stopped me watching Game of Thrones, as opposed to the other half of the McShane critique)

Yes!  Brilliant isn’t he?

It definitely grated for me that the villain is gay. It used to be such a common trope in fiction but times have changed.

On balance it is probably worth it for some great scenes and acting (particularly Harris and Nagaitis).

Another thing was that the boats they dragged seemed to be tardis-like in their capacity. 

I think with Game of Thrones being works of fantasy and fiction, seeing dragons surely didn't come as much of a surprise? I mean it had Sean Bean in it to start with and if you can get past that then you were doing just fine.

The Terror is great because if the atmosphere provoked the genuine feeling of isolation and freezing temperatures and what that can do to your mental state etc, the fact that there was a 'monster' in it didn't bother me at all as there was so much more going on in the series.

Yeah, he was great and Paul Ready who played Dr. Goddsir was fantastic.

Yes wasn't he?  I was so taken with his performance I googled him and realised that I saw him in a play about 10 years ago.  Didn't recognise him of course....

If I'm not mistaken I was able to watch the whole of GoT series one without having to believe in the supernatural. Sure there were dragons' eggs but to me they were  just some polished pebbles worshipped by a superstitious clan of warriors. I'm pretty sure the dragons only appeared in S2. I could be wrong, rthough.

Jesus.  I only just got this.

Very good!

I have been enjoying this very much

I have only seen 5 episodes but I'm not sure yet whether the "supernatural" events are really intended to be such or are perceived as such by people suffering from lead poisoning who are also experiencing the pressures and terrors of life in such extreme conditions.

I must say I'd not set sail for the Arctic in a vessel called "Terror"!

It would have been great if the team behind this had got the job of reviving Doctor Who instead of Russell T Davis.

The fuzzy shot in the title sequence of one of of the explorers in goggles looks horrifically like the arrival of the original Cybermen from Mondas out of a snow storm in the Antarctic when I was a kid.

If so it is done quite extraordinarily clumsily.

No, I'm sticking with supernatural bollocks.

Isn't the opening scene the introduction of zombies (the white walkers)? Been a while since I've seen it though but I don't think there's ever any pretence it's set in 'our' world. 7 year summers/winters?

Russell T Davis I don't mind but if they could have replaced the following two that would have been great

I'm 4 episodes in and very much enjoying it. The other series (set in a Japanese internement camp) is also out on Amazon Prime (but I'm in France so the rights in the UK might be different if the BBC are currently broadcasting).

I just watched it again. I don't think I have a problem with passing it off as superstition and/or trying to put them off the trail of Crozier.

Aren't you missing the point here, though, it wasn't written for you, it was a narrative recounted by the Inuit.

If what you want is a documentary about the expedition, there are plenty of those around.

The whole premise of the story, is it's from the Inuit side, there's are no western narratives involved.

I'm not a fan of God or religion, but I'm interested enough to realise the Egyptian's worshipped a Sun god and their story / folklore with be written from that perspective. Similarly, the Aztecs, Mongols, etc.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to convince anyone, simply point out why it seemed a bit weird, a number of my mates were the same, because they'd missed the premise at the beginning.

I didn't know until at least halfway through, once I knew it was a different film.

Me too, he was in Chernobyl too, as was Crozier. Both very good actors.

For those interesting in the actual actual folklore:

tuurngait

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_religion#Tuurngait

I really don't think that is the case. It was just telling a story which happened to include a made up supernatural bear thing which the Inuit believed in but which, despite, being imaginary, managed to hunt and kill the expedition members. Totally daft.

I remember watching a Roadrunner cartoon as a 10 y.o and a friend complaining that  Wile E Coyote's plan would  have required planning permission from the local Building Control officer.... have we met before?!

A ridiculous comparison.

The first two minutes of episode one tells you this. I really don't see how you can't see this, but if you want to think it's daft, then carry on.

I shall carry on. It is utterly stupid.

His book on the Erebus was very good too, there’s a picture in it though that stays with you

Yep, that's also a good link to folklore that's been culturally appropriated and massively distorted (presumably by Simmons, who, I didn't realise until looking into what might have gone wrong in this show, has form on pushing back against liberal ideals.... his rant on Thumberg raised that to the world.... shame really as I liked his Scifi/fantasy).

I've nothing against fantasy. It's not hard to gently hint at parallel worlds for fantastic horrific beasts and a very different version of a failed expedition (where all the evidence we have is well documented). The producers even have the nerve to say its based on a true story. Even the stone bleakness of the island is exaggerated (it's not exactly hidden on Google Earth).

I haven't got far enough yet to know ...

Well document? Where, since they only found the ships in 2014 and 2016, it can hardly have been well documented otherwise they'd have go straight to them.

I don't want to spoil the movie, but where did this "well documented evidence" come from?

Considering where most of the "evidence" can from about where the ships where, it's hardly surprising it's intermingled with Inuit folklore, but I note you dismissed that as being appropriated too.

The fact they found the ship by consulting the Inuit and their oral history, says differently to me.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion.

I'm not here to try and change anybodies mind, simply to point out a major plot component, which quite a few people seem to miss. Me among them until quite far into the series.

So have you read any of the recent historical books on the subject, based on the new discoveries, to fairly judge that?

Some people like all sorts of crap on TV. This isn't crap but is is disrespectful to those who died and the local tribes.

Another point: why are the Europeans in light clothing on the island but the natives sled hauling in warm clothing? It's cliche after cliche in an inverted melodramatic horror.

Yes thanks, have you? You probably hit the nail on the head by using the word recent. The recent historical books where written well after the book the film is based on which was 2007.

How do you work that out? Which local tribes, and why?

It is a novel remember, you seem to want a documentary, if that's what you want go and watch one! There are plenty about, but none of them will tell you much about what happened to the crew.

They could have made it consistent with what is known about what happened to the crew (give or take a little artistic license). The fact that it isn't is why it is such a terrible missed opportunity, especially given how many aspects of it are so good.

Bloody hell Cobra Head, you’re the type of fella who could start an argument in an empty room 😂

ha ha , cheers, though it does take more than one to argue. I've only answered or corrected where people have posted to me.

Like I said quite high up I the thread, I think the premise that the whole story, and that's what it is, is based on Inuit oral history is pivotal to the series.

If you are unaware of this, then, I think it can feel a bit daft, once you know this, it becomes less far fetched.

I then get someone telling me I should read more about it, but at the time of the original book, they hadn't even found the ships. We knew of them but not where they where.

Also, the links to Inuit folklore, that the film was accused of misappropriating, were for Greenland not Canada.

There seems to be people disappointed this wasn't a documentary, when there are at least two of those in existence, the series is a different take on that.

Remember this is also against the background of suspected lead poisoning, so who knows what that does to a persons recollections or perceptions.

I did only come here to point out, it wasn't supposed to be a polar bear.

Enjoy the rest of it.

Exactly. They could have made it more of a blurred 'psychological thriller come ghost story', linked to a decline in mental capacity and superstition of some spiritual malevolent presence, due to the lead poisoning and help from coincidental attacks of an ordinary bear; especially given some in the crew had worked with the innuit and would know the legends, and sailors of the time were often pretty superstitious even when well.

The creature portrayed was physically 'real', despite the protestations of CH. So the transfer of a spirit to an exceptionally large polar bear is the only thing that could have made sense within the folklore. If the original book is a bit disrespectful and inaccurate it could have been updated and improved, as many books turned into modern productions are all the time.

A major missed opportunity in my view.

To lighten the subject a little, what are poster's favourite spiritual linked animals from film/TV.... I'll start with the aardvark from The Kingdom/Kingdom Hospital

Just for clarity, what is know about what happened to the crew?

I always thought the same with Yogi Bear - what's that shit all about?  Totally far-fetched. 

Would need to look it up, but I think graves were found from attempted walk south with evidence of lead poisoning. Inuit had met them. Ship found. So plenty of scope to fill in the gaps with a great, plausible story. What certainly didn't happen is that they were stalked and attacked by a make-believe creature. 

I can't comment without spoiling the series for people who've not seem it, but almost all of what you've posted isn't correct.

Of course they weren't stalked and attacked by a make-believe creature, but also in Victorian England, there were plenty of people who believed in Spiritualism so it's not confined to Inuits or other heathen cultures, add to that the already highly superstitious traditions aboard ships of the time and I'm pretty sure it would be easy to convince lead poisoned, frighted and starved sailors of just about anything was out to get them.

Move the story to the West Indies and it would be voodoo that created the peril.

I've had a quick google now and it all seems to be correct including the meetings with inuit according to local Inuit tradition. In addition the bodies suggested death by hypothermia, starvation and scurvy and there were signs of possible cannibalism. Various remnants of the land stage have been found. The recent discovery of the ships suggests that some may have returned to the ships and sailed them south. The notes in the cairn were found and confirm Franklin died on his ship and that the the others under Crozier were heading south.

Yes, but the big problem is that the creature is portrayed as being very real - if it is meant to be in their minds then it is done comically badly - given how good other aspects of it are, it is hard to believe that it was meant to be so.

Sorry I was going to leave this, because obviously it comes down to personal choice, but what do you mean by "given how good other aspects of it are" ?

Are you speaking historically?

No. aspects of the TV programme. 

Can I recommend The Fatal Passage by Ken McGoogan. It's a fascinating account of the events leading up to discovery of the fate of the Franklin expedition. It covers the part played by John Rae, and the way he was handled by Victorian society for his (supposedly) revelations about canabalism demonstrates the power that the upper classes had back then. 

Yeah, imagine Yogi Bear mixed up in some important part of TV series covering modern american history and sold as a true story. The same would apply to CH's suggestion of voodoo crow-barred into some real Carribean history. It's nothing to do with fantasy being far fetched, it's where it's use is appropriate and in real history that needs to be sensitive. The series is worth watching, so people can decide for themselves.

Thanks for pointing out this series. I’ve just finished watching it, after seeing this thread, and enjoyed the story.

Yeah I just finished it last night. Was very much engrossed in it!

ha  ha.

Since most people seem to have completed it now. How are you suggesting there are "good" bits"? The story is told almost completely from the Inuit point of view, with the exception of the wife trying to organise a search party.

If by "good bits" you mean the bits that are most like a documentary, then again aren't you missing the point?

The fact no one survived, tells you this, so although it might seem fantastical at some times, we are seeing most of this through their eyes, or more precise, through the ears of the Inuit oral history, so it's hardly surprising that it might have a bit of folklore mixed in with it.

I understand you didn't like it, but that's the whole premise of the story.

Hard to fault the building of menace and tension in the first few episodes before the ridiculous supernatural element was introduced.

Some great acting and set piece scene.

Nonsense. Hardly any of it is.

No, I mean the bits which were high quality television.

Again nonsense. We are seeing a dramatisation of what might have happened to the expedition taking into account the known facts (except, of course, the supernatural element).

I liked almost all of it except the supernatural element. Without that it would have been really excellent.

Since there were no survivors, can you explain how? If you watch the first 2 minutes of the first episode, you might just see the Inuit bloke telling the story to the two English blokes.

The bits without the Tuunbaq are as fictitious as the rest of it, it was eight years later before anyone knew anything about the fate of the people and that was from the Inuit.

There are very few know facts, beyond the ship got stuck and some people tried to go south.

The Terror

A thriller wrapped in a prestige drama package, The Terror makes for gripping, atmospheric supernatural horror.

Does what is says on the tin.

Yes, so what? Some of the knowledge about what happened came from the Inuit. The series ends with this same encounter in a just about plausible way.

Why can't you see the difference between plausible fiction and supernatural bollocks?

Yes, so make the story plausible and consistent with those facts.

If I had read that before starting to watch it, I probably wouldn't have bothered. The horror was naff and out of place.

I see what you mean, it's a dramatazation of a science fiction fantasy novel which is set in the context of the Franklin expedition which, as the story progresses it becomes more and more disassociated from the known facts.

So, although you enjoyed the series, you'd have preferred if it was a psychological thriller writer who had written it and the novel has stayed closer to the known facts about the expedition.

I think I'm with you on that, and I can't see why anyone would have a problem with that - it's all subjective.  

Just for the record, the whole Tunnbaq thing is an invention of Dan Simmons and isn't genuine part of Netsilik Inuit mythology.  It's fine to dismiss it as bollocks, you're not dismissing anyone's mythology.

How about ALL of the knowledge, at least until 2014 and 2016, depending on which ship.

Because it wouldn't be true. A lot of the knowledge seems to have come via the discovery of human remains.

What are the known facts though, because there really aren't that many, even less so when the film was made, even less still when the book was written.

Ditto, hardly anything known about what happened.

Because what you are asking for is a documentary rather than a psychological thriller, it is subjective but the description of the series sort of let's you know what you in for.

There are parallels though, and distinct similarities, like I posted earlier.

tuurngait, "killing spirit", pretty much sums up the monster in the Terror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_religion#Tuurngait

Anyhow, I'm out now. Cheers.

Until the facts are known, anything could have happened to them, so this story is just as valid as any other version of events.

No it is not. They could not have been attacked by a creature which did not exist.

how do you know it didn't / doesn't exist? like Justaname said, anything could have happened, there's no evidence to the contrary so far.

It is overwhelmingly unlikely to have existed. Happy now?

It was still there 150 years later when they made that documentary about the Thing.

Cobra Head's repeated assertion that very little is known of the expedition outside of the oral history of the Inuit just isn't true.  Via physical evidence we know that a number of things happened which aren't shown in the programme, and likewise there are some things which are in the Inuit oral history which aren't shown.

For example we know that a group of around 35-40 men reached the mainland near the mouth of the back river - various groups of Inuit saw them there (they were starving and could barely move by now), and bought items from them which were then recovered by rescue parties.  The star medal Crozier wore around his neck was amongst those artefacts and he was identified by a number of Inuit, In addition to this other relics from the expedition have been recovered from this site. Whereas In the drama, they never leave King William Island.

Also Inuit testimony was consistent in saying that the two ships were moored off Erebus bay, not in the positions they were reported in the note left in the cairn, so we have reason to believe (even before the wrecks were recovered which confirmed this) that at least some of the men returned to the ships and managed to get them moving again.  Again, this wasn't included in the drama.

Most puzzlingly for me is that there were at least 3 boats being hauled South on the island.  Only one was ever found, despite extensive searches, and even later though expeditions spent years on the island the other two haven't ever been found.  Did they go back to the ships or were they used to reach the mainland by the 35-40 who decided to leave the 3rd boat as their numbers were diminished?  None of the boats leave the island in the drama.

There is, of course, a lot of uncertainty about what befell the crew and I've read some interesting theories, the most interesting of which suggests they crew abandoned their 1948 haul rather quickly, then returned to the ships till 1850, managing to move them to Erebus bay where they were visited by several groups of Iniuit before finally trying again to walk south.  But this is just a theory and like you say there no way of knowing what the real truth is, but we know a bit more than Cobra Head is suggesting.

I didn't say there weren't parallels (indeed you could draw parallels to many religions and folklores) I said "it isn't genuine part of Netsilik Inuit mythology". Which is correct, in fact I cut n pasted this sentence from the Smithsonian magazine article which was written after speaking to the programme makers.  Here's another quote from it:

"The central antagonist of “The Terror” is the the Tuunbaaq, a monster invented by American writer Dan Simmons in the novel on which the series is based, and while it draws from the mythology of the Inuit goddess Sedna, it is entirely the creation of white authors."

So on that basis, it's ok to be dismissive of it and not offend the Inuit folklore because this mythical beast is the creation of a science fiction writer who has, slightly questionably, borrowed parts of a religion to make his boogie man. Many would see this an example of cultural appropriation. 

Yeah sure.  They were eaten by something that was invented by a science fiction horror writer in 2007.  Seems likely.

*1848 haul, obvs.

FFS! We do now, because we've found the boats for a start off, look when the book was written, look when the film was released, look when the boats were found. Then compare those dates, then compare with the information you've just posted.

Besides all of that, the book was a fictional account, the film was based on the book. Like I said if you want a documentary, go and watch one of them!!

No, you're wrong again here.

Read my post back again.  All of the information there is information that we knew prior to the Terror and Erebus being located.  

You seem to think that all we had by way of evidence was Inuit testimony up until the boats were found, whereas there have been countless contemporary and modern day expeditions who have uncovered a wealth of physical evidence which give us some ideas as to what took place.  I only gave a few examples but there are many, many more.

Oh and that theory I outlined?  From a docco recorded in 2000.  It too predates the finding of the ships.

None of what I wrote is dependent of the ships being found.

I recommend 'Frozen in Time: The Fate of the Franklin Expedition' by Owen Beattie and John Geiger

to anyone who wants the story of the expedition and an assessment of its fate.

Dave

Thanks Dave, will check that out!

documentary?  Philomena Cunk called it "contemporary footage".

A kind of Vodyanoi idea?  Like the BBC cold war horror "The nightmare man" from the 80s?

I'd love to see that again, and "Bird of Prey" with Richard Griffiths.

I've never seen either of those, though they look great. 

Is it just me or were TV Dramas a lot better 40 odd years ago?  

Interestingly I see Bird of Prey Series 1 had Mandy Rice-Davis of the Profumo affair in the cast....  I'm a big fan of Richard Griffiths, he really was a fantastic actor.

I have just received an advert for a NW Passage  cruise. Alaska to Halifax by Amundsen’s route.  Really brings it home how things have changed.

Not going too deep into the “scary monster” controversy, but the High Arctic can be horribly creepy, especially when the sun is in... and that’s during the daylight part of the year.

This is one of the best I've read so far.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Franklins-Erebus-Terror-Expedition/dp/1472948...

There's no monsters in it though

ha ha ha you mean this bit?

For example we know that a group of around 35-40 men reached the mainland near the mouth of the back river - various groups of Inuit saw them there (they were starving and could barely move by now), and bought items from them which were then recovered by rescue parties.

They reckon part of the reason they found the ships was because of global warming, giving more "open" time to be able to find them.

No I meant all of it.  

Whilst we’re here... Any chance you could stop with the condescending tone?  There’s really no need.

im happy to agree and disagree with you, but I’m not happy to sit here as you disrespect me, whilst I’ve not disrespected you.

Can we please keep this civil? I’d like to continue the discussion in a respectful manner, if that’s ok?

Michael Palin did an excellent talk on it live a couple of years ago - I went.

Just finished it myself and it was excellent, nicely built on that.

Awesome, glad you enjoyed it!  Bet that tall was brilliant, I’d have loved to have been there myself.

He wrote a book on it which is worth a read too:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/30/erebus-story-of-a-ship-review...

But you keep mentioning the evidence coming from the Inuit.

Didn't realise I was, maybe it's the way you read it.

Not disrespected you at all.

Thought we were being civil.

Cool no sweat, maybe it is the way I read it.  It’s difficult to get across tone in posts, and I’m a bit under the weather at the minute (jab side effects) so maybe I’m a bit sensitive today. 

Too late for me tonight, I’ve no chance of getting across what I mean in my current state!

no worries.

We've probably both spent too much time trying to explain something that would take two minutes face to face.

Absolutely!  In fact I think we'd have a really good discussion about it over a pint or two!

Pints.  Remember those!?