Spoilers What's on TV?

[Huntn]

That is true. Originally, Lady Sybil (beautifully played by Jessica Brown Findlay) had signed up for the first three series' of Downton.

Needless to say, at the time, nobody knew then that it would take off and become as enormously popular as it did, and when that happened, Jessica Brown Findlay made it clear at the end of the second series that she didn't expect to be around after the conclusion of the third season, which, in effect, gave everyone a year's notice.

So, her departure had been discreetly signalled in advance. Thus, Julian Fellowes was able to write her out of the series in a natural way (and that was a superb episode, genuinely harrowing and shocking).

I agree about 'an actor' "seeing stars". His departure was a lot more abrupt, and had not been signalled clearly. Moreover, apparently, he had been offered the option of appearing briefly, or for one or two episodes in Season Four, or even being killed off in the first episode of Season Four - all of which he turned down.

Inexplicably, (and I know I am not even responding even remotely rationally to this - he is a professional actor, after all) but I have not watched him in anything else subsequently.

While he has a perfect right to promote his career, I do think, however, that his exit could have been more graceful. Although he was criticised at the time. this was not in any way the fault of Julian Fellowes, who dealt with an abrupt departure as best as he could.

The smart actors keep their backup gig going while gingerly testing the waters before making rash changes.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The smart actors keep their backup gig going while gingerly testing the waters before making rash changes.

Initially, Julian Fellowes got quite a bit of grief (from fans and viewers) over the way the death of Matthew Crawley (played very well by Dan Stevens) was handled - abruptly dying in a dramatic car crash at the very end of the coda to Series Three immediately after his wife, Lady Mary (a brilliant Michelle Dockery) had given birth.

There seemed to be a feeling that he had tricked the audience, (a captive one, given that it was broadcast on Christmas Day when people want - or say they want - the predictable, or some sort of 'feel-good' tale) or 'broken the rules' of what a 'Christmas Special' is supposed to do, and that it might have been some sort of trick to inject some sort of a sadistic thrill to shock the audience.

But that is not what Fellowes does. He prefers to please his audience, rather than shocking (or traumatising) them.

And, equally obviously, while it went somewhat against his instincts and preferences, he eventually made it quite clear what had happened. Indeed, he also made it clear that other narrative options had been offered to Dan Stevens, (not least a death in the penning episode of Season Four, which could have been plotted a year or so further down the line and would have allowed viewers to accept what had happened more easily), but that these had all been turned down.

 

[Huntn]

Initially, Julian Fellowes got quite a bit of grief (from fans and viewers) over the way the death of Matthew Crawley (played very well by Dan Stevens) was handled - abruptly dying in a dramatic car crash at the very end of the coda to Series Three immediately after his wife, Lady Mary (a brilliant Michelle Dockery) had given birth.

There seemed to be a feeling that he had tricked the audience, (a captive one, given that it was broadcast on Christmas Day when people want - or say they want - the predictable, or some sort of 'feel-good' tale) or 'broken the rules' of what a 'Christmas Special' is supposed to do, and that it might have been some sort of trick to inject some sort of a sadistic thrill to shock the audience.

But that is not what Fellowes does. He prefers to please his audience, rather than shocking (or traumatising) them.

And, equally obviously, while it went somewhat against his instincts and preferences, he eventually made it quite clear what had happened. Indeed, he also made it clear that other narrative options had been offered to Dan Stevens, (not least a death in the penning episode of Season Four, which could have been plotted a year or so further down the line and would have allowed viewers to accept what had happened more easily), but that these had all been turned down.

Well Dan got his way and coincidently I just saw him in A Walk Among The Tombstones. He did a decent job.

 

[FieldingMellish]

The smart actors keep their backup gig going while gingerly testing the waters before making rash changes.

David Caruso could have used that advice quite some time ago. Good to see that he finally resurfaced in CSI after his failed attempt at movie stardom.

 

[SandboxGeneral]

I'm looking forward to seeing 'Better Call Saul' tonight and tomorrow on AMC. I just wish it aired earlier than 10 pm. Most days I can barely stay up past 9:30 anymore. So I'll set the DVR to record it just in case I fall out.

 

[balamw]

I'm looking forward to seeing 'Better Call Saul' tonight and tomorrow on AMC. I just wish it aired earlier than 10 pm. Most days I can barely stay up past 9:30 anymore. So I'll set the DVR to record it just in case I fall out.

For me, the DVR serves another purpose too, even if I am going to be watching "live" start the show at 10:15 and end it live without any commercial interruption.

B

 

[SandboxGeneral]

For me, the DVR serves another purpose too, even if I am going to be watching "live" start the show at 10:15 and end it live without any commercial interruption.

B

Yes! I do that too sometimes. DVR's are wonderful products.

 

[Huntn]

David Caruso could have used that advice quite some time ago. Good to see that he finally resurfaced in CSI after his failed attempt at movie stardom.

NYPD Blue.

 

[snorkelman]

I'm looking forward to seeing 'Better Call Saul' tonight and tomorrow on AMC. I just wish it aired earlier than 10 pm. Most days I can barely stay up past 9:30 anymore. So I'll set the DVR to record it just in case I fall out.

Over here accross the pond its 7am monday for first episode on netflix. I figure on getting ready for work between 6 and 7 then running for the front door at breakneck speed just before 8

Edit - got to see first one this morning - I'll avoid any spoilers suffice to say I felt it was a really strong start. Can't wait to catch next one!

 

[Centaurr]

i wanna watch Gotham but i dont get that channel for some reason? tried to move the antenna evrywhere, not working

 

[AustinIllini]

I'm looking forward to seeing 'Better Call Saul' tonight and tomorrow on AMC. I just wish it aired earlier than 10 pm. Most days I can barely stay up past 9:30 anymore. So I'll set the DVR to record it just in case I fall out.

For me, the DVR serves another purpose too, even if I am going to be watching "live" start the show at 10:15 and end it live without any commercial interruption.

B

Over here accross the pond its 7am monday for first episode on netflix. I figure on getting ready for work between 6 and 7 then running for the front door at breakneck speed just before 8

Edit - got to see first one this morning - I'll avoid any spoilers suffice to say I felt it was a really strong start. Can't wait to catch next one!

Better Call Saul discussion thread!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

'Wolf Hall', episode 4 (of six) on BBC 2. In a word, (or two), simply superb.

 

[Huntn]

'Wolf Hall', episode 4 (of six) on BBC 2. In a word, (or two), simply superb.

If you ever partook, how does it compare to TheTudors (a Showtime show here in the States), which I thought was pretty good?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

If you ever partook, how does it compare to TheTudors (a Showtime show here in the States), which I thought was pretty good?

Ah, well, er……

'The Tudors', ahem, was a rather different, for which read, very different, show. (For one thing, it played a bit fast and loose with the actual history). 'The Tudors' was history as entertainment, with the facts a secondary consideration, one where fidelity to fact was an optional extra, a luxury which could be foregone if it was deemed too complicated to stick with what actually happened.

'Wolf Hall' tells the story at a slower pace - in fact, in that respect, it is a little more like the classic TV series 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' from the late 60s.

'Wolf Hall' takes no liberties with the history, and is understated in its demeanour (and all the more chilling for that) unlike 'The Tudors'

This is a TV series which makes limited concessions to its viewers - it makes them wait and it makes them work and makes them think, but the payoff (such as the scenes leading up to last night's trial of Sir Thomas More) is astoundingly good.

The settings, (authentic), costumes (likewise), script (superb), cast (outstanding) and lighting (extraordinary) all make this a feast for the eyes, and mind. Personally, I find that time flies while watching it.

 

[Huntn]

Ah, well, er……

'The Tudors', ahem, was a rather different, for which read, very different, show. (For one thing, it played a bit fast and loose with the actual history). 'The Tudors' was history as entertainment, with the facts a secondary consideration, one where fidelity to fact was an optional extra, a luxury which could be foregone if it was deemed too complicated to stick with what actually happened.

'Wolf Hall' tells the story at a slower pace - in fact, in that respect, it is a little more like the classic TV series 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII' from the late 60s.

'Wolf Hall' takes no liberties with the history, and is understated in its demeanour (and all the more chilling for that) unlike 'The Tudors'

This is a TV series which makes limited concessions to its viewers - it makes them wait and it makes them work and makes them think, but the payoff (such as the scenes leading up to last night's trial of Sir Thomas More) is astoundingly good.

The settings, (authentic), costumes (likewise), script (superb), cast (outstanding) and lighting (extraordinary) all make this a feast for the eyes, and mind. Personally, I find that time flies while watching it.

Thanks for the report. In my defense I was aware that the Tudies played fast and loose with history, but still was able to enjoy it.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Thanks for the report. In my defense I was aware that the Tudies played fast and loose with history, but still was able to enjoy it.

Yes, I agree it was entertaining, but it was so creatively flexible with history that I ended up simply not watching it.

If I want murderous plotting set in a late medieval era as fiction, I can watch 'Game of Thrones' (which is excellent, but it doesn't pretend to be historical fact).

Possibly because my background is in history, I find I am extraordinarily intolerant of TV (or movies) which purport to be history but which bend the facts for entertainment purposes, or on the assumption that the audience are too thick or stupid to be able to follow or understand an intelligently made, challenging and interesting programme.

If I spot errors, or mistakes, or short-cuts, I simply cannot take the drama in question seriously, especially if it attempts to sell itself on the basis that this is how it was, that this is how it happened.

 

[Huntn]

Yes, I agree it was entertaining, but it was so creatively flexible with history that I ended up simply not watching it.

If I want murderous plotting set in a late medieval era as fiction, I can watch 'Game of Thrones' (which is excellent, but it doesn't pretend to be historical fact).

Possibly because my background is in history, I find I am extraordinarily intolerant of TV (or movies) which purport to be history but which bend the facts for entertainment purposes, or on the assumption that the audience are too thick or stupid to be able to follow or understand an intelligently made, challenging and interesting programme.

If I spot errors, or mistakes, or short-cuts, I simply cannot take the drama in question seriously, especially if it attempts to sell itself on the basis that this is how it was, that this is how it happened.

Thinking of the Tudors, it makes me wonder why such liberties were taken? Most likely for ease of story telling. I think a historical show or movie like this should include disclaimers.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Thinking of the Tudors, it makes me wonder why such liberties were taken? Most likely for ease of story telling. I think a historical show or movie like this should include disclaimers.

I think that they took such liberties because they thought it would make the story telling a bit easier, the old 'let us not tax the audience too much'.

The problem is that sometimes the short-cuts come back to bite you, and leave you with problems down the line which you hadn't considered when you took the initial 'short-cut'.

A case in point (in 'The Tudors') is the fact that Henry VIII had more than one sister. For the sake of story telling, they were conflated into one person, - which gave rise to some narrative confusion - but in reality, two different sisters married two different Kings.

Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor, married the King of Scotland (James IV), - this was the link (through her second marriage) that - eventually - allowed the Stuarts of Scotland to succeed to the throne of England after the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603, whereas his youngest sister Mary Tudor married the King of France, Louis XII, and, when he died, secretly married one of Henry's closest friends, Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk.

 

[Huntn]

I think that they took such liberties because they thought it would make the story telling a bit easier, the old 'let us not tax the audience too much'.

The problem is that sometimes the short-cuts come back to bite you, and leave you with problems down the line which you hadn't considered when you took the initial 'short-cut'.

A case in point (in 'The Tudors') is the fact that Henry VIII had more than one sister. For the sake of story telling, they were conflated into one person, - which gave rise to some narrative confusion - but in reality, two different sisters married two different Kings.

Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor, married the King of Scotland (James IV), - this was the link (through her second marriage) that - eventually - allowed the Stuarts of Scotland to succeed to the throne of England after the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603, whereas his youngest sister Mary Tudor married the King of France, Louis XII, and, when he died, secretly married one of Henry's closest friends, Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk.

Inexcusible! What is interesting is that there is good vieing for the throne going on in Game of Thrones and although it's fiction, I feel there is some resemblance to real successions in that might makes right. There is the King's idea of who should succeed him, and then there is everyone else with power, figuring out ways to jury rig the system, a couple of knives in the back or mysterious dissapearences.

 

[snorkelman]

Final episode of Spiral season 5 in UK (BBC4). Overall I'd give it a 7 out of ten Good but never picked up the pace of the earlier seasons.

edit after conclusion of series I'm now going to drop it to a five out of ten

 

[Huntn]

Final episode of Spiral season 5 in UK (BBC4). Overall I'd give it a 7 out of ten Good but never picked up the pace of the earlier seasons.

edit after conclusion of series I'm now going to drop it to a five out of ten

I see that is a French TV police crime drama show. Was that broadcast dubbed or with subtitles?

 

[snorkelman]

I see that is a French TV police crime drama show. Was that broadcast dubbed or with subtitles?

broadcast with subtitles - BBC4 in the UK have a regular Saturday night slot for foreign crime dramas in their original language

Spiral (usually) being one of the better ones - it's typically 10 to 12 episodes with one main plot line getting slowly developed, a secondary story running thru it and a few smaller stories getting resolved as it goes. Can be quite gruesome at times.

PS Netflix US used to have seasons 1 to 4 but currently only have season 4 available (could get a bit confusing if folks jump in that far into the show) Apparently Hulu have seasons 1 to 3 in the US now

 

[Huntn]

broadcast with subtitles - BBC4 in the UK have a regular Saturday night slot for foreign crime dramas in their original language

Spiral (usually) being one of the better ones - it's typically 10 to 12 episodes with one main plot line getting slowly developed, a secondary story running thru it and a few smaller stories getting resolved as it goes. Can be quite gruesome at times.

PS Netflix US used to have seasons 1 to 4 but currently only have season 4 available (could get a bit confusing if folks jump in that far into the show) Apparently Hulu have seasons 1 to 3 in the US now

Unfortunately I have mostly burned out on crime dramas as we have 3 CSIs and a couple of Law & Orders and my wife regularily binges on English crime dramas like Rosemary and Tyme and Midsummer Murders. Unless it's something super special, I'm less inclined in having to read my shows. However, we are currently watching Grantchester broadcast here on PBS. It's a low key crime drama, light on the gritty, about a minister involved in criminal investigations mostly involving residents of his village.

 

[snorkelman]

Unfortunately I have mostly burned out on crime dramas as we have 3 CSIs and a couple of Law & Orders and my wife regularily binges on English crime dramas like Rosemary and Tyme and Midsummer Murders. Unless it's something super special, I'm less inclined in having to read my shows. However, we are currently watching Grantchester broadcast here on PBS. It's a low key crime drama, light on the gritty, about a minister involved in criminal investigations mostly involving residents of his village.

Still to catch Granchester just not got round to it yet If I mention anything not in English in future I'll stick (Subbed) or (Dubbed) beside it as I expect some folks find the subs a chore

 

[FieldingMellish]

Tonight at 8 eastern time. NBC. SNL 40th Anniversary special.