skyways

I'll settle this dispute once and for all. It is DENKER who looks best in her coif! - so symetrical, so sleek, so eye-catching, so...............................

Milburn, I have a theory for this in a later thread which I can't include or discuss here. But if you don't mind, be on the lookout for my post after certain events as the season winds down. Those hoping for Napier should just stop it. He's done and done for. If Blake and Gilingham didn't happen how on earth will Napier happen???

He was handsome and had potential. Unfortunately the writing didn't do him or any of the suitors, even down to Talbot any favors.

Yes I did read that about how he found it a challenge to coach Matthew Goode to fit in to the whole Downton etiquettes. I remember reading it and thinking no wonder he came off as a cardboard.

O'Brien's nephew, Alfred.

Eith played while Mary sang.

So I got over myself and saw some of Season 6. It finally dawned on me that Mary's marriage was almost as if it was in defiance (and fear of Edith 'leaving her behind' so to speak). It was remarkable I wonder if it was accidental or Fellowes having a method to his madness. It reminded me of the time when she heard Matthew was engaged and coming to visit the abbey with his newfound. Mary quickly got Carlyle and announced that she too was serious and about to be happy! The smile Dockery as Mary had on her face when Talbot announced that he would be a car salesman had me laughing at how unconvincing and soo unMary-like it was. Her ending reminded me of a someone in real life who in her prime had all these choice bachelors, many serious and eligible good-looking coming for her hand, while she dismissed them with a cheerful wave of hand. And then suddenly finds her self alone and likely to be, when all her suitors have moved on and then she decides to marry the next man who shows interest even if he was less than ideal. On top of it all, Edith the sister who was always destined to be in her shadow (as Mary saw it) was about to hit the jackpot. It was remarkable how the drama played out like this. I'm convinced that if Edith's intended wasn't revealed as titled Mary would have continued dangling Talbot. After all there was no reason at this point NOT TO. This song and dance was playing out like all the others (smile, flirt, make seductive eyes, suggestive conversation......same old with Mary). Then suddenly Edith's drama interferes and Mary fearing herself as an unintended casualty (left high and dry with no prospects in the horizon) quickly made her move and agreed to what everyone was telling her to do. You have to admit it makes sense when you view it through the lens of the never ending feud between she and Edith. Mary got married because she was afraid and loath of Edith's lot ending up as the better of the two. Fascinating! That's why there was no romance between she and Talbott (the role could have been played by an effigy) and Edith had the dynamic and warm romance. Hmmm................It was always about their rivalry in love and life as far as Mary was concerned dating back to Matthew.

Case closed. Those who see Edith as only a recipient of Mary's tongue or Mary as the only vicious one have probably had Mary somewhere in their lives and couldn't match up or spit back. But that IS NOT Edith. She gives as good as she gets ( but probably hates that she can't fully take Mary down) but she'll keep trying. Both do not like each other.

Has anybody seen 'The time in between'? I think it's set in 1930's Spain? I'm not sure. Also I second 'Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries'

There's no point in watching the whole season. You're not alone.

The Crown looks nice. So this is about the young Elizabeth?

Ahh Poldark!! It's best to just checkout the thread in the Previously Forums to get a better sense. Is the War and Peace Version with Lily James out? I must warn those planning to see the more modern adaptations with Italians/British collaboration. It's ATROCIOUS! I haven't read the book so I was open-minded. The lines and dialogue sounded like what I would write when lacking confidence. The scenery, plot and presentation was great but the writing/acting was a mess. At times I thought it was like a satire? or something I don't know the word. (where people are saying something to look and sound serious yet the scene comes across the opposite?)

Outlander - It's like pouring manure in your mind. Gran Hotel - loved it....................at first.I felt stupid by the second series. It has like 100 episodes in each season and became truly, truly ludicrous. Velvet - ah traid....lawd knows ah traid..........but quite dull and the lead guy didn't convince me AT ALL. The Last Kingdom - quite good and very watchable medieval drama about England's birth. Anzac girls -- just ok. It's a war drama about 5 or so nurses. The writing is not that great in my view but the gritty war aspects was very well done. A Place called home - I started watching this but I don't know if I will continue. Try it. You might like it. The Hours - very nice period newsroom drama with Ben Whishaw and Romola Garai, although I might argue questionable in parts and cancelled at the WORST POSSIBLE time. Urgh! Little Dorrit - also recommended. Also wanted to add Scarlett Pimpernel - although good luck finding it. (maybe on youtube?). I recommend the Simon Bricker and Cora version because it's a series and keeps you more engrossed than the other versions. Bricker (Richard E. Grant) was superb in my view in this role. That's all I have for now. I believe I've seen all the good period dramas. They don't come along often.

And that's why that character was full of possibilities waiting to happen. At least I think I can give Fellowes this - he creates memorable characters all unique and individuals in their own way. No two characters are/were the same and all were played well by those who played them (except Matthew Goode). Even Bertie, Larry Grey, Farmer Mason, Denker all were more memorable than him. I can appreciate this at least. But back to stakes (my thread from the Christmas episode), Robert should have died early on and that would have raised the stakes of who runs the ship now that the new caretaker is a woman and a young widow. Then the suitors storyline would have made more sense and become more organic. That's why I fell for Blake because he embodied that present and future of Downton plot which in my view would have tied in nicely with Mary's often conflicting loyalties ( 'am I an aristo loyalist or am I ready to push Downton whole heartedly into the future?). Perfect conflict without easy solutions knowing now what we know of both characters, that they have strong views and opinions of their different positions. Blake was made all the more interesting because he came from Mary's background (unlike Matthew) and it would have been interesting to see (if he was developed), how he came about his views. Thomas should have been realistically fired in Season 3 and Andy? (is that his name) brought in earlier to stay. Of course he's no Thomas but we would have had him skulking around the village unable to find work (if Fellowes really wanted the actor that badly on the show). Daisy could and should have left after passing her exams and fulfill the dreams we were made to believe she had back in season 4. (Remember when she got to London how wide eyed she was about the larger world? But nooooo, Patmore only had to shed a few tears and Daisy stays back in the kitchen, effectively making Bunting redundant. Molesley's story, on the other proceeded the way Daisy's should have been allowed to proceed.

And therein lies the problem. After the hype of 'who will Mary marry'?!!!! even the producers were pushing this as the new concept of season 4, in the end there were no stakes and the ending when it came didn't even matter. Rosanna, I'm taking my next comment to the 'Unpopular' thread as I think it belongs there.

Season 4 for sure. I too liked Bunting as the perfect antagonist and the actress played her well. I truly saw her as vehicle to what Tom could become which is confident in his politics and having a real partner in this. (I mention Tom because most of her interactions were with him). But really is Fellowes the type of writer that is constantly listening to what the audience wants? Some part of me doesn't want to believe that. Looking back definitely Fellowes should not have changed directions as often as he did with some major storylines from Season 4. Unless he himself got bored with it? Which I can more readily believe.

Yes with regards to Bates/Brendan Coyle, I too believed Fellowes really enjoyed that character and that's why he seemed to have a storyline almost every season (the only downstairs character to manage this). I thought it was hilarious that the audience moved from 'free Bates' to 'enough about Bates'. He was a very interesting character in the early seasons. I agree also that season 4 can be forgiven for being the way it was considering what had happened prior. It was an opportunity for a clean start so one could approach that season without bias yet full of expectations. Good plot points were set-up that had good possibilities (Bunting as the newest progressive in town, Tom wondering where he belonged, Mary and Isobel getting closer, Mary as new estate care-taker and mother, Edith as an unwed mother in the early 20's, Blake and the changing face of aristocracy and food production, the new prime minister and the working class as personified by Daisy, Anna's attack and consequences on BOTH upstairs and downstairs (I sincerely thought there would be wider ramifications on Gillingham and Mary). Soooooo many possibilities but so very, very little materialized. For me Season 5 was the worst. I have little to no interest in 6 since nothing happened in 5. I liked the Christmas special of season 4 because of the glamour of Rose's coming out. For me the tone of that whole episode was appropriate. No plot unbalanced the other. It was a time for lightness and gaiety, no unnecessary or over-wrought drama and no plot needing to be rushed to a 'happy ending'. It was just clean, entertaining and well done episode.

Yes!Yes!Yes! to everything said above. I think if not for 'Lady Mary' and how Dockery played her I probably will not have kept up with the show as long as I did. I also realize that after Season 4, when I percieved that the writing for her had become one-dimensional and 'Lady Mary' became too brittle and a bit cruel atimes, my lost interest in the show coincided with that. That expression on her face when she realized about Edith was like, 'is he growing a second head or am I seeing double'? That expression was great. Remember when Blake implied as such to her and she was 'outraged' that he would suggest that she was like a housewife drooling over Douglas Fairbanks?? Even I thought that was harsh from Blake but maybe it has always been mainly physical attraction with Mary when it came to 'her men'. Her 'pairing' with Talbott would seem to back this up.

Bye bye Downton. I won't miss the show. Onwards to others!

It's funny I thought they were very passionate. Which is really odd for me to say because when I watched it when it first aired I didn't think so. But on re-watching, they were. Most of their scenes were bedroom scenes in each other's arms, or teasing and smooching.. It's Tom and Sybil that didn't get much between them after that first scene what with their arguing about morning coats and Sybil's pregnancy.

Yah! It was sooo subtle that the character herself did not know that she has changed!! Rubbish and ingredients! I agree with everything Susanflower and Roseanna said above. I seriously believed he was going to go that direction after Season 3 with the coming of the new Labour Government which was introduced the first episode of Season 5, the changing power shift within the society ( as represented by both Blake and Bunting), and emerging of the lower class (as represented by Daisy and to an extent Jack Ross). Yet we got From Russia with love, Bunting and endless Dinner fights and Mary/Tony that went nowhere. I didn't know what people meant when they used to say Downton was soapy (ok it used to offend me) but these last few seasons finally explained it to me. Not that it was wrong it of itself but when you consider the intertwining of real history and the lives of Downton that was Seasons 1 and 2 and a part of 3, you have to shake your head at the serious downturn in focus. I remember watching an interview with Fellowes when he was asked this some seasons ago ( I think it was between 4 and 5) about his response to people who think it's gone inaccurate and soapy. His response at the time puzzled me. He said and I paraphrase that real-life is basically soapy, n'est pas? I remember listening to that and saying 'meaning what'? Now I know.

Wait what happened to Eugene? I missed the first part. I want to like Aafrin/Alice or at least care about both together but something doesn't quite ring true to me. Would someone like him, so dedicated to currying British favor, and afraid of his own shadow be that reckless to play with a female 'Britisher'?? I don't believe that.

Why do people misunderstand this scene? Leofric is trying the best way he knows how to help Uthred escape certain death by execution. 'Let God decide' is a way to settle misunderstanding where the parties involved claim the truth. He tried to back Uthred's version of the story but it wasn't enough as he knew Odda meant him to die. He SAID all this as soon as he appeared in the scene. Obviously Alfred was going to rule in favor of Odda (as there was evidence that Uthred raided against Wessex) and against Uthred. Leofric was giving him a chance to fight for it. Of course he was not going to say, ' I won't survive this my Lord'. Uthred is a much better fighter than I am'.

Does anyone watch Bollywood? Mr Sood looks so much like Bobby Deol.

We will soon meet Iseulth Shadow Queen and Leofric's death right?