I think I may be back in the "I'll enjoy A2A" camp. I'll just treat it like I treat Torchwood and all will be fine. No expectations of anything decent and lots of eye rolling. Because it seems to me like they've been hinting from the beginning that this is how you're supposed to treat it. That just because they have such fine actors, doesn't mean you should expect reason, layers and deftness of touch. That, actually, this is going to be over-the-top, loud and unsubtle - much like the decade it's depicting. And I can get on board that. See, I can totally be amused and entertained by silly, mindless crap. And then anything that's actually really very good can be a bonus. If A2A has a little tongue-in-cheekiness, I'll be good to go. (Apparently it has tongue-in-cheekiness? You know what I'm like about lantern hanging. I can forgive a lot of things with lantern hanging.)
I did tell you I'm a contradictory person.
... I'm as bad as they are, aren't I?
I won't let myself be fooled again into thinking it has any sort of merit above 'highly entertaining tv show'. And whilst I really do long for fiction that strives to be more than 'highly entertaining' and that realises its potential... Ashes to Ashes clearly isn't going to be the one to provide that. Which, no, isn't fair - because Glenister! Andrews! Lancaster! Hawes! Lombard! But it would be counter productive to spend my entire time whining about it not living up to expectations it was never intended to live up to.