Downton Abbey--Upstairs/Downstairs, Stiff Upper Lips, and Tea!

[*Jen*]

I don't think Fellows ever thought beyond season 1. Season 2 was rushed - they could have strung the war out for another series, rather than whipping through 4 years in 1. The show has skipped ahead about 15 years in 3, and yet the character development hasn't.

I get why they had to do it, but it was just so weak. Nothing happened the whole episode, and when that happens, you know there is doom. What more can they do? Edith can't marry editor dude unless his wife dies, and that whole storyline has been done with Bates.

Spoiler

Sybill and Matthew both dying the day their kids were born was hardly well thought out writing. The moment he got into that car I said to my sister "oh no! He's not confirmed for season 4". We both knew what would happen. I wish they hadn't shown it on Christmas. I don't know what was more depressing - his death or the writing.

I'll bet the baby is to be named Matthew and then baby Matthew and baby Sybill replace their dead parents in some future flash forward episode

[kittyjake5]

Christopher Stevens thinks it might be best to end it. From what I've heard, I think I agree

Don't read this article if you want to remain unspoiled which I had been trying to do since season 3 starts airing on PBS on Jan. 6. This article details the entire
season 3, I am spoiled. lol

[Reuven]

Oops! Sorry about that.

[danceronice]

Spoiler

Unfortunately the 'other way' to deal with an actor wanting out, besides finding increasingly-contrived ways of sending them out of town, is just flat-out replacing them, as they've apparently done in 'Midsommer Murders' and most infamously done with 'Betwitched.' That's really hard to sell in straight shows nowdays.

And actually, Wyliefan, I'd be fine with Fellowes pulling that one on Lord Peter. I think calling the books/short stories from Gaudy Night on good is only true if you don't do it in comparison to the others. The best Lord Peter books don't involve Harriet.

[Wyliefan]

Spoiler

Oh, them's fightin' words. Harriet Vane happens to be my favorite female character in all of literature. Over my dead body would Julian Freakin' Fellows get his murderous paws on her!

[vesperholly]

I don't think Fellows ever thought beyond season 1. Season 2 was rushed - they could have strung the war out for another series, rather than whipping through 4 years in 1. The show has skipped ahead about 15 years in 3, and yet the character development hasn't.

Actually it's only 10 years - DA started in 1912 and it's now 1922.

Lack of character development and character continuity is my BIGGEST pet peeve with the show. Gwen the maid leaves and TWO YEARS LATER, here's the "new" maid Ethel on her first day. Despite the tagline that the Christmas special is a year and a half later, Thomas and Jimmy are making evil eyes at each other like their run-in was yesterday.

[DBZ]

Regarding the Christmas special...

Spoiler

Well...Downton is officially over for me. Matthew's death was the point of no return, jump the shark moment if you ask me. Not that I cared that much about the character since season 1. Frankly, I thought he was written so blandly the past two seasons he became a completely flat character; but regardless, killing off a central--perhaps even THE most central--character whose plotline is the crux upon which the entire series is based upon, is a nearly impossible obstacle to overcome while still maintaining the integrity of the story, if there was any left to begin with.

Now that Matthew is dead, the entire series--built around all the drama regarding Downton's inheritance and Matthew's role in it, his on-again-off-again relationship with Mary, the clashes with Robert over modernizing the estate, etc.--feels like a complete waste in hindsight, especially given the lazy and flippant way they killed him. Downton's writers have a notorious history of hitting the "reset" button when it comes to its storylines--a cheap writing device that I would directly attribute to the show's decline in quality--but this reset takes the cake. Yeah, basically all the drama and crap we put you through for the past 3 years? It meant nothing. Doesn't matter. Mary just conveniently has a baby boy just as we kill off the only other sole inheriter, so yeah, that inheritance crisis we've drawn out for 3 seasons is all fixed in one episode, wrapped in a nice bow. Bleh.

Look, I know Julian Fellowes had no other choice. Dan Stevens wanted to leave. But the guy could've at least thought of a more compelling way to kill him...one that doesn't undermine everything that came prior and thus dissolving all sense of conflict/tension those moments were built on.

So yeah, I guess this is just a long-winded way of saying, "That sucked."

Oh, I also wish to echo those who said they were utterly bored by the episode. It was soooo boring. No sense of tenson whatsoever with anything.

[loulou]

Spoiler

Unfortunately the 'other way' to deal with an actor wanting out, besides finding increasingly-contrived ways of sending them out of town, is just flat-out replacing them, as they've apparently done in 'Midsommer Murders' and most infamously done with 'Betwitched.' That's really hard to sell in straight shows nowdays.

Not sure that can be considered a spoiler, but I'd rather be safe than sorry, just like Hanna.

Spoiler

For instance, they could protect the shows with stricter contracts. But they just have to find a way to, as you say, sell straight shows; this is ridiculous, expecially when it's season after season, and it's about a beloved show, not some trial pancake that burnt in the oven.

[danceronice]

Not sure that can be considered a spoiler, but I'd rather be safe than sorry, just like Hanna.

Spoiler

For instance, they could protect the shows with stricter contracts. But they just have to find a way to, as you say, sell straight shows; this is ridiculous, expecially when it's season after season, and it's about a beloved show, not some trial pancake that burnt in the oven.

Honestly, if "The Tudors" could figure out a way to deal with writing out the Duke of Norfolk, who was not only a real person but plot-critical to almost everything in seasons 2-3, you would think

Spoiler

Downton writers could figure out how to remove Matthew without being obvious about it, but it almost seems like Dan Stephens really wanted out *and* threw it at them at the last minute, so they basically had to go, crap, um...yeah, let's just kill him in a car wreck. Since actors aren't slaves (any more; I just saw a "Christmas" short from 1939 that was pretty much "You're under contract to MGM, STFU and read the stupid lines or else") you can't really FORCE someone to stay on a show if they don't want to...

Wyliefan: do we need spoiler tags for something based on books that have been out for seventy years? Really, the best Lord Peter books were Lord Peter on his own (forget Lord Peter books; "The Nine Tailors" is arguably one of the greatest mystery novels ever written). Oddly enough I don't find Sayers very good at writing women in general (except the Dowager Duchess of Denver and Lord Peter's elderly assistant). Peter's sister isn't very well-done either (and up until

Spoiler

she marries Parker

her taste is men is about as abysmal as Thomas's and Edith's combined). I think I get fed up with Harriet because first, I think she's an idiot for not snapping up the younger son of a duke who JUST SAVED HER LIFE when the opportunity presents itself (he's brilliant, he's wildly in love, he's comfortable settled without having to be the duke himself, he JUST SAVED YOU FROM

Spoiler

BEING HANGED BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD

, what more could a sane person possibly want?) and the television versions of her stories just not being very good. And then the continued stories after "Gaudy Night" just feel like...oh, I'm writing these because I have to, not because I actually have any good ideas about what to do. (I'm not including the modern novels; I haven't read them.)

[Wyliefan]

Wyliefan: do we need spoiler tags for something based on books that have been out for seventy years? Really, the best Lord Peter books were Lord Peter on his own (forget Lord Peter books; "The Nine Tailors" is arguably one of the greatest mystery novels ever written). Oddly enough I don't find Sayers very good at writing women in general (except the Dowager Duchess of Denver and Lord Peter's elderly assistant). Peter's sister isn't very well-done either (and up until

Spoiler

she marries Parker

her taste is men is about as abysmal as Thomas's and Edith's combined). I think I get fed up with Harriet because first, I think she's an idiot for not snapping up the younger son of a duke who JUST SAVED HER LIFE when the opportunity presents itself (he's brilliant, he's wildly in love, he's comfortable settled without having to be the duke himself, he JUST SAVED YOU FROM

Spoiler

BEING HANGED BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD

, what more could a sane person possibly want?) and the television versions of her stories just not being very good. And then the continued stories after "Gaudy Night" just feel like...oh, I'm writing these because I have to, not because I actually have any good ideas about what to do. (I'm not including the modern novels; I haven't read them.)

I couldn't possibly disagree more, about any of this, so we'll just have to agree to disagree! As for the spoiler tags, I used them because we were talking about

Spoiler

Fellowes (I just realized I've been spelling his name wrong!) and how he writes character deaths, and that was getting a little too close to Downton spoiler territory.

[loulou]

Honestly, if "The Tudors" could figure out a way to deal with writing out the Duke of Norfolk, who was not only a real person but plot-critical to almost everything in seasons 2-3, you would think

Spoiler

Downton writers could figure out how to remove Matthew without being obvious about it, but it almost seems like Dan Stephens really wanted out *and* threw it at them at the last minute, so they basically had to go, crap, um...yeah, let's just kill him in a car wreck. Since actors aren't slaves (any more; I just saw a "Christmas" short from 1939 that was pretty much "You're under contract to MGM, STFU and read the stupid lines or else") you can't really FORCE someone to stay on a show if they don't want to...

Spoiler

Of course actors aren't slaves, which is why no one would force them to sign a contract to begin with. If, say, an anchor man signs for five years at the news, and then some smashing opportunity rises, he'll simply give it up, because buying out of his contract is going to be more expansive than his career could afford. I don't think agreeing to a project makes anyone a slave, but surely it reflects on the project outcome.

[*Jen*]

I think the fact the actors aren't all signed for 5 years like a lot of actors are in US tv shows just really proves that they didn't think it would go for more than 1 season. It was the unexpected runaway hit of the year, and everything since has felt like an afterthought. I watched season 1 again recently with a friend, and watching season straight after was a huge disappointment

The writing was consistently week.

Spoiler

It was all 'oh no! A huge catastrophe! Oh don't worry, it's miraculously resolved itself. Now let's throw in the grim reaper to take that saccharine edge off". Lovely. Sybille was my favourite character. I was already bitter about the way she was written out, although her death did somehow redeem Tom's character and make him more like his season 1 self, but killing Matthew? There are so many other ways they could have written him out, rather than rushing to a Christmas special with a lost plot.

I'm going to bet the baby will be named Matthew and then, as the new heir, it'll be the circle of life. We can skip ahead 20 years to him being killed in WWII, or else confined to a wheelchair and miraculously healed in time to incestuously marry first cousin Sybil. I can forgive the totally out of place language (no one said "whatever" back then), but I'll just stick with watching Revenge for my dose of mindless soap from now. They do it much better

Sorry, I'm just bitter!

[Latte]

Sure I liked this person on the show, but, I will enjoy the show even without him. There are so many characters that are great to watch on the show that I will still love it for as many years as they want to make it.
It's the best thing that has been on tv for many years.

[Bostonfan]

Spoiler

Whatever happened to simply replacing the character with a new actor? They did it on "Bewitched" And Roseanne, and just about every soap opera ever made.

[Lorac]

Spoiler

Whatever happened to simply replacing the character with a new actor? They did it on "Bewitched" And Roseanne, and just about every soap opera ever made.

Spoiler

Mainly because this isn't classed as a soap!!! And even then it rarely happens in UK soaps - that it isn't unheard of!! Mind you my Mom is already campaigning for a Dallas type dream sequence for next years Christmas Special

[Wyliefan]

My best friend and my cousin have both just gotten into the show, and they're both all chipper and excited for series 3 (being completely unspoiled), and all I can think is, "Oh, you poor things."

[joeperryfan]

I'm not sure all I'm about to say needs spoilers but I'll put it there just in case.

Spoiler

I've only watched the end of the episode because my mother's cable was acting up... I wasn't fond of the way they ridded of Matthew, I wonder if it was that unfeasible to make him an unseen character... It probably wouldn't have been so upsetting if the author hadn't parted with Sybill in a similar fashion, couldn't he just have kept her in Ireland?
As far as next season is concerned I'm curious about what he will do with Thomas and Jimmy, I frankly don't think Fellowes has the skills to keep them in a realistic friendship...

[loulou]

I'm not sure all I'm about to say needs spoilers but I'll put it there just in case.

Oh, it's everyone's doubt.

Spoiler

I've only watched the end of the episode because my mother's cable was acting up... I wasn't fond of the way they ridded of Matthew, I wonder if it was that unfeasible to make him an unseen character... It probably wouldn't have been so upsetting if the author hadn't parted with Sybill in a similar fashion, couldn't he just have kept her in Ireland?
As far as next season is concerned I'm curious about what he will do with Thomas and Jimmy, I frankly don't think Fellowes has the skills to keep them in a realistic friendship...

Spoiler

I believe they couldn't just keep Sybill in Ireland, as they needed her husband and son for the show. Dying like flies, they need all the characters they can get.

As for Thomas and Jimmy, I think they might even forget about the story line at once. After all, as someone noticed, it was picked up again months and months after it started, as if no time at was passed.

[4rkidz]

My best friend and my cousin have both just gotten into the show, and they're both all chipper and excited for series 3 (being completely unspoiled), and all I can think is, "Oh, you poor things."

I'm totally excited for season 3 but now am alarmed by your comment? We just watched both seasons and the xmas special over the xmas break and we totally loved it! I must find out if we get the channel it is on starting on Sunday.. if not is it easy to find it online after it has aired?? The house I grew up in England.. had maid quarters with bells in the lower floor (a 21 room house).. my parents used to rent out the 'downstairs'.. didn't look anything like Downton of course.. I guess would be considered 'middle class'.. LOL..

[Wyliefan]

I'm totally excited for season 3 but now am alarmed by your comment?

Arrgh, sorry. Sometimes I don't use spoiler tags for vague things, and then I realize I should've.

Let's just say there are a lot of ups and downs during the season.