shipperx

Unlike many in this forum, I like Regina redemption and root for her happy ending. I was also sad that Robin died and Regina lost her love interest. That said, I don't think the story has been about Hook and Emma stealing Reginas happy ending. Emma went 'Dark One' to give Regina a shot at her Happy e E ding. And Hook died because of the Dark One plot (and Rumple). This isnt a zero sum game. One character's 'happy end' doesn't preclude another's. And Regina has had several happy and heroic moments ( and hook and Emma have had multiple angst arcs in a row). Itll ok balance in the end . And I bet Regina eventually does get a happy ending as an ending. It actually isn't a contest.

It seems to me that this only proves that Belle is a dimwitted train wreck. In this episode she discovers that her husband murdered her ex and it honestly didn't bother her much. She also saw her husband be utterly contemptuous of the idea of remorse for murdering her ex and again she mostly doesn't care. Yet she couldn't forgive Gaston for being cruel to an ogre which--bad-- but in comparison to Rumple is...well...Rumple tortured Robin Hood and she got over that in a nano second, and she didn't blink at Rumple xhopping off (and keeping) Hooks hand, and Rumple murdering his wife (the first time), and his beating of the Sheriff of Nottingham, and his taking Hooks heart last year, and his killing the guy he sold her baby to, and, and, and endlessly and. And Gaston apparently did try to change and got murdered by Rumple for trying to help HER when she had been sold to the beast. So what exactly makes Rumple more forgivable than Gaston? Or it okay that Rumple has no problem deciding to murder Gaston again? And what on the frakking earth is the show doing claiming that Rumps is just being pragmatic when he decides it's okay to murder people to get what he wants? Rumps is a narcissistic siciopath and Belle his hypocritical enabler. Blech in both of them.

OMG, Belle is too stupid to live. Seriously. What part of her being tricked into killing the same guy twice results in her hugging Rumple? No sense whatsoever, either in the plot or in Belle's head. At this point I can't even pity her for being with an irredeemable monster. She's codependent with him. Bleh. (And OMG, how did she not manage any shock at his arranging to murder her ex? Bet she wouldn't care that he murdered HIS ex a second time either!)

I wasn't particularly perplexed by Edith's line of 'who do you think you're speaking to? Mama". Let's remember the haircut scene last season where Mary told the grieving Edith that Edith 'ruins everything' and Cora's response was... Well she did tell Edith not to be unfair. And yet I don't think it's about Cora favoritism. I think Cora is used to turning a blind eye to certain behaviors (such as the Mary attitude about Americans). I think that Cora sees herself as a devoted loving mother... And when the girls were growing up she probably left discipline to the Nanny. Cora very simply very rarely put her foot down. Mary probably interprets it as weakness. Edith probably views is as favoritism. It's not probably neither one or the other but a combination of Cora's coping mechanisms + the aristocratic child rearing mores if the time. B

I didn't take it as such. I took it as the author said she intended it --as an Austen Sense and Sensibilty comparison. In that book the sisters and their romances portray different sorts of romances (rewatched the Emma Thompson version recently, boy was Hugh Grant a boring drip in it.). Anyway, bookwise, both romances were intended to work (albeit with a bit of slight of hand). It wasn't just one sister triumphing by comparison (interpret triumph however you would like). Mary can and has had successful romance (see: Matthew), but this romance hasn't worked for many viewers, including some decided Mary partisans. It is not simply a case of people who don't much care for Mary being I unpersuaded. Some unabashed Mary fans have had problems with it, also. I personally think that part of the issue is that Talbot hasn't been developed very much as a character. But that's just my opinion. It's not inherently a problem to have a cool romantic lead (which is what Mary and Talbot appear to be intended as). It's that this romance didn't quite gel for many viewers --including many Mary fans. I was trying to think of a comparison and thought of Katherine Hepburn's 'ice goddess' in The Philadelphia Story, but when I thought of that I realized that parallel may have been what Fellowes was striving for with Blake and Gillingham ( pick who is Cary Grant and who is Jimmy Stewart). Honestly since Dockery was successful in the Mary Matthew romance I tend to think most of the hiccups are due to writing. I usually assume she's giving the performance she is intended to give.

A Dr Who Doomsday comparison isn't a particularly bad thing for this Once situation. It's been a while but, as I remember it, it was basically that Rose and the Doctor wound up in different dimensions. (In Who plot it was Rose's exit from the show, but she wound up with the alternate 'human' Doctor). Here I would think just do setup it's that Emma and Hook are 'in different dimensions' parallel. (Though in Doomsday they made it look like Rose could never show up again, she did in fact appear again at a later date). At any rate better Doomday's Rose scenario than what happened to Who's Donna (which I will never forgive) which was to have her memory permanently erased.

I tend to think of it a bit as the last temptation of Edith. Here she is, the woman of perpetually doomed romances and there's this guy who loves her and wants her. And it's the fairytale ending. She knows the truth will jeopardize that. She understands the need to tell the truth but she's seduced by 'just one moment more' then another 'just one moment more' then another. She procrastinates too long. And Mary steals the march and blows it up in the worst possible way. Spitefully. Edith is aware that it was her own fear and cowardice that she hadn't told Bertie, thus leaving the window of opportunity open for Mary's bitchery. Edith admits her fault to Bertie. She knows she was wrong and understands his position when he says he can't trust her. She does get that and accepts the blame for that. And none of that exonerates Mary. Yes, betweenEdith and Bertie, Edith made the (humanly) weak choice. He deserved to know and she dragged her feet to the point that even she is fuzzy about when she might have found the courage to come clean. That's all Edith's responsibility. But Mary deliberately blew things up in an arch and cruel manner out of pure maliciousness. THAT is Mary's character fault. She didn't 'cost' Edith Bertie. She did, however, intentionally harm her sister over breakfast. So Mary is responsible for her intent because that was Mary's choice and it was petty, vindictive, and cruel. And then she tried to play innocent (even though no one was buying). Edith admits her fault in regards to Bertie. She doesn't try to defend her actions. She accepted her part of this. But Mary tried to play innocent when everyone but the butler knows she's a bully where Edith is concerned, and, yes, she was deliberately out to harm Edith's relationship. That malice of intent is on Mary alone. Edith is responsible for her relationship with Bertie, but Mary is responsible for her own malice.

This relates to one of the things that makes the Mary/Talbot relationship seem so very plot mechanics as opposed to a love story. I was utterly baffled when Mary summoned Talbot to Downton to tell him she was okay to marry him now ... And he came. Why? Oh I know the explanation is that it's Downton Abbey and she is the star and this is the star location. But character-wise it just doesn't work and makes Talbot a chess piece rather than a character. If it were character he would have a POV. From his POV he fell for someone who hates his career, fears it, and also looks down on him for his lack of title and station. She breaks up with him over the phone the day his friend died. Then when he reaches out to her, she makes a lot of noise about titles and station, tells him she doesn't want him and tells him that he should leave. So a few days later she summons him to travel to her house. And he goes. What? Why should he be the one traveling to her summons? Why is she required to make no gesture and make no effort to regain a relationship? It's as lazy as expecting Edith to offer the olive branch rather than Mary making any effort of her own to heal the breach. One of the problems with Mary inside the story and in the meta is privilege. Her station has privilege. That's a given. And she's well aware of her station (see: many of her words this episode). Then she has privilege within the family dynamic. Most detrimentally as far as the writing goes is the privilege bestowed by Fellowes favorite. Because of this, the scene of Robert, Cora, and Rosamund chastising her is interrupted by something else, and everyone is ultimately about HER happy endin (however we the audience feels about the pairing. In the writing it's meant to be 'big love'). It's why Talbot arrives when summoned and is instantly on board with a wedding despite her behavior and despite to entirety of her 'winning him back' was summoning him to her turf. Same with Edith. Mary may have realized she crossed the line, but then she did nothing. The olive branch was offered by Edith coming to HER and Edith saying pax, and Edith wishing Mary happiness and reassuring Mary. Very, very little is ever required of Mary. Her parents can't voice much criticism, Livia conveniently dies to pave the way for Mary. Discarded suitors promptly arrive when beckoned and are happy to be friends (or to insta marry her) whatever her behavior without her ever making much effort to win their good will and Edith arrives to wish Mary love and happiness in the same episode where Mary quite spitefully resented and plotted against Edith's love and happiness. Mary isn't required to make much actual effort, and this is a problem in writing. If Fellowes wanted me to care about the Mary/Talbot romance he should have given Talvot a POV. And any reasonable POV after Mary's behavior would have entailed her actually doing more to win a happy ending than summoning him be phone call and him complying and wanting to insta marry her. He has virtually no character development in this scenario at all.

They didn't. Which in its own way is more damning. Each independently drew the same conclusion that if Mary knew the truth she would use the information to hurt Edith. One person thinking she'd behave badly can be dismissed as simply bias. But when everyone thinks so, it's a tell.

Where exactly is an unmarried young woman in 1914 supposed to go? Really, is her breathing while still in the same room supposed to be some sort of offense?On a slightly different topic, I've always disagreed with the assumption that things were supposedly fine or acceptable between them until the show started. That's not the way that screenwriting is supposed to work. When you are introduced to characters in screen writing the idea is to introduce them by showing what is situation normal for the characters. So were introduced to Downton with Mary not really giving a rip about her dead fiancé while her parents immediately start in on who will marry Mary. Edith is described (by her parents and in front of her) as not having 'taken' during the social season (i.e. She failed to impress anyone--admirer or her parents). She's the dowdy sister who crushed on the dead guy, not that the dead guy apparently ever noticed. Mary is introduced and described by their parents as the social superior, the catch, and as the center of familial attention and Edith told she has no particular advantages or attractions to speak of. This is simply their 'normal'. The thing that shakes up is that with Patrick dead, Mary is no longer guaranteed next countess because suddenly Matthew is the new heir. Screen writing 101-- situation normal then introduce a new catalyst for plot. So the sibling pecking order and behaviors predate episode one, then Patrick, Pamuk, and Matthew situations shake things up.

I did a double-take when served beans and sausage for breakfast at a B&B in Stratford Upon Avon in the late '80s.

[quote name="Andorra" post="1932827" { The only "deeper" conversation between Sybil and Edith, that we see, is in season 2, when Sybil tells her she is much nicer than before the war. To me that is telling. The main thing that tells me is that Mary is the primary protagonist of the show and it comes with a hefty dose of protagonist privilege. She gets to participate in more storylines. We see her get a haircut or going to a pointless fashion show when we don't even get to see Sybil and Tom's wedding or Edith being told of Michael's death. We have the who gets Mary's hand sweepstakes for two years but Tom doesn't actually get a love interest. Mary gets more airtime period. It doesn't surprise me in the least when she gets more oppportunity to interact with other characters when it is not directly related to her own story while nearly everyone else is confined and defined by their own storyline alone or as part of Mary's foil/sidekick. That's just the way protagonist privilege works. Mary is Fellowes favorite toy in the toy box.

By the time Marigold comes of age it will be WWII and their whole worlds will have changed, so it's difficult to say.

Martha had money. She lives in Newport, home is jaw droppingly huge mansions. It was just that she's a widow and it was tied into her son's inheritance. Cora got her dowry. Everything else would go to the son after the widow died.

Re: the 'drab' coat (that wasn't drab). Am I the only one who laughed and thought 'of course it did' when it was a perfect color match for the hat and harmonized with the dress? I did feel for Baxter having been unilaterally volunteered to alter a coat at 10pm the night before a wedding, though. Re: tv shows and simplifying professions, Edith editing a magazine on the fly couldn't be any more egregious than How I Met Your Mother's Ted designing a sky scraper on his own, without even an intern to help, and without structural, mechanical, plumbing and civil engineers....on a drafting table in his living room! Same with architecture. You don't get thanks, time off, or overtime for working late, even until the wee hours. You do it. That is all. It's a deadline and you do whatever it takes. Nights, weekends, etc. That's just some industries' cultures.

I'm okay with productions having characters pose more modern questions to explain things to modern audiences. Some things need to be setup for modern audiences. And having watched the PBS documentary series The Abolitionists it didn't strike me as particularly strange that one would be outspoken, because by and large many were. They did view it as a moral question and were often very outspoken about it, so I didn't have problems on that score. But being squeamish seems a definite sign that she didn't think this nursing thing all the way through. I am somewhat intrigued that the maid dragging the Southern Belle out of the hospital is 'Rose' from Lost, which makes me think there will be some development of that character in later episodes. Also clearly on top of morphine addiction, Dr Ted is going to have issues with racial bias. He may be a Union doctor, but he's from a slave holding Maryland family and had the racial views to go with it. Gary Cole's family is going to have problems from both sides of the war. I was somewhat unclear about who Diggs(Dix?) was affiliated to. Which character was that? And why did he come South?

I'm an architect. I'd assume they were structurally sound. It's the stringer that supports stairs anyway, and it was most likely disguised. Plus, structure can be cantilevered. You'd have to see sections through the stairs to truly know how they were constructed. But,frankly, craftsmanship was better then than now. The railings wouldn't be up to modern IBC code, however, but they would be grandfathered in. I watched The Imitation Game this weekend (Downton's Branson was in the cast). And even during WWII Keira Knightly's parents considered it unseemly for her to take a job in another city and live unchaperoned. There's more than a bit of societal pressure against Edith striking out to live alone (except with her 'ward') in London, and that wouldn't change for quite some time.

I'll just state that to Me Mrs Drewe has always seemed to verge on hysterics. A mother of three (four?) who has a child dropped in her lap is unlikely to become so instantly involved with the foundling that she ignores the well being of her other children which she did almost from the first as she was rejecting Edith's offer for financial help with Marigold and her future. A tenant farmer only has so much money. Dividing it between three, four, or five children makes a difference, so Mrs Drewe's immediate and constant rejection of Edith financial help was essentially depriving Marigold as well as her biological children of resources. Rejecting those resources by essentially offending her husband's boss's daughter was also repeatedly tempting fate (and the consequences finally visited upon them this episode). From the first Mrs Drewe has overreacted, be it jealousy when nothing was romantic shenanigans were happening, to assuming kidnapping when Edith had never left the grounds, to going to the mansion to tell the boss's wife with word of potential scandal in an effort to extort the child back after knowing that this was Edith's biological child. Mrs Drewe has been shrill to Edith in every single scene the two have ever shared from the very first. Not once. Not ever. Mrs Drewe tore Marigold's birth certificate to shreds. That always bothered me. Not only was it an action trying to deny reality, it was an attempt to suppress the truth, and it was the willful destruction of something someone else treasured. Mrs Drewe has been shown to be high strung from the first. Defensive and suspicious in virtually all instances. More demonstrably attached to a newly arrived foundling than she has ever been shown to be to her own children. Vindictive in both the birth certificate shredding and in her actions with Cora. Now she deliberately stole the child and, no, she is not a reliable narrator with regards to Marigold having been 'ignored'. Marigold was on an outing with the family. Mrs Drewe absconded with her at the first opportunity. And still she seems to refuse to recognize the truth that Edith is the biological mother-- as she did when she shredded the birth certificate. It just seemed to me that all the sympathy is on Mrs Drewe's behalf to the point that her flaws are completely dismissed. She's been high strung all along. She was hyper-possessive. She was reckless both in her confrontation with Cora, her 'barring the landowner's daughter' from the tenant farm, to shredding the birth certificate in the face of the bio mom, to absconding the child. Even her husband approached her as though uncertain of her stability. In theory, yes, I have sympathy for Mrs Drewe and think her situation sucked. But she never struck me as stable. She's been an odd duck all along. I just think Mrs Drewe is often treated as though she is unflawed when I have never considered her to be close to that.

I don't think that's feminist. I think that's Hollywood, controlled predominantly by men, over simplified expression of their (clueless) concept of what might sell.

I kind of thought that it might be like Season 1 and time in Hades is on an infinite loop so no pregnancy would progress during the season.

Just hope they don't copy Whedon more and have him be an incorporeal ghost. Saving the world and becoming s ghost plot really sucked.

I want Prince James to show up. I really, really want this.

Speaking of dwarfs, is Dopey still a tree?

When shelving baby Green Bean for the hell plot I wondered why they bothered birthing her yet. So much easier to explain not naming her and shelving everything had Zelena still been pregnant and locked up.

I think Killian was granting his father the right to redemption and to have changed, right up until he heard his father call his new son Liam 2.0 and feed the kid the same line he'd sold kid Killi before selling Killian and Liam Prime into slavery. Then Hook just saw red and murdered the man. I'm confused timeline and geographically. Would Liam 2.0 be 12 now or 40? And this wasn't entirely a Becoming redux. It was Becoming + Chosen redux. Yeah stabbing evil boyfriend through the heart to save the world was Angel (first name Liam) redux, but the guy chosen by the magical artifact to sacrifice himself and his telling the woman to let him sacrifice himself to be a batter man and to die a hero was Chosen Spike. Still very Whedon-y though. (Though Whedon plots are also full of holes).