This is a very fair point and of course mine and my tv colleagues poor opinion of the show certainly do not nessisarily mirror the general public; those who make tv usually view things far differently, particularly for those in documentary the standards of realism and authentic dialogue are higher, and arguably unfairly so when applied to scripted melodrama.
My main issue with it was summed up by this part of the Guardian newspaper review:
…It’s marred by dialogue that is sometimes inaudible (as with Happy Valley, Taboo and 10 Rillington Place, I’m using subtitles) and, when audible, often hackneyed thriller speak.
The latter being equally true of their bond scripts imho. But I’m not suggesting that Guardian snippet is proof of a widespread dislike - rotten tomatoes rate it highly after all - just a reflection of my critique.
I sympathise with this predicament - suffered it myself - but once is bad luck, several times as you say rings alarm bells for me. Look, sure they could be that unlucky, but I’m opting to bet it’s that the quality of writing generally isn’t selling the product to everyone. Unfortunately I know all too well how hard it is to get a film made, but with bond script credits to your name it must be that much more possible if the scripts are good enough.
Of course I’m speculating a lot, but it’s all speculation unless anyone here can say otherwise.
Finally, SAF, you’re quite right, this is an old argument that only really pops up in times of slow news. I wrote that up before my first coffee of the day and should’ve known better 