Llywela
-
Posts
4.4k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Llywela
-
-
I will expect the new season to air on ITV through the autumn, then, culminating in the Christmas special - which fits the pattern of previous seasons.
-
1 hour ago, limecoke said:
I read that they will introduce Richard Carmody in series four, presumably to take the place of Tristan. In the books, Carmody was a minor character in one chapter of the second book. A student interning with the practice for a short time. An interesting character, rather upper-class and proper who met his match in a large animal practice but went on to greatness in the field of veterinary medicine. In this version of the show, who knows what he’ll become. Love interest for Mrs. Hall? Could go just about anywhere. I’m sure they’ll surprise me.
That tallies with the discussion up-thread about a new character coming in to take Tristan's place at the surgery. From the book character description you give, I can see plenty of potential for fish-out-of-water stories about the newbie without ever needing to touch on his love life. We'll have to wait and see how he plays on-screen, though.
-
2
-
-
On 6/19/2023 at 3:46 AM, Maren said:
I watched season 3 and the last episode had an end scene that really felt like the show was ending. No cliffhanger or anything but it felt like a goodbye from the cast.
How have you watched season 3 to the end? Only one episode has aired so far. Even ITV's online hub only has the one episode, they've not made the rest of the season available to online viewers.
I just watched that first episode of S3 and my big question is: where did Job and Brad go? They spent two seasons building up this big mystery around Job and now he's suddenly not there anymore, no resolution and no explanation.
-
17 hours ago, ceecee said:
I see season three will be airing in Britain...any idea of when PBS will be getting it? I can't remember the lag time between. Thanks!
Yes, the new season begins on Sunday over here. I believe there was a bit of a lag before it reached America in the past - looking back at old posts (I was talking about the end of season 2 in October; then a flurry of new posts hit in April), I'd say it was a good six months. But maybe they won't delay so long this time?
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, smartymarty said:
I didn't understand why George delayed the sex. He said it was because he wanted to see Venus through his telescope, but that didn't preclude having sex any other time of day (or night). Unless we're supposed to believe that he was having tremors before and after the sex night, but how would he know the tremors would stop long enough for him to spend the night with Charlotte?
Are you asking from the point of view of only having seen as far as this episode, or having seen the whole series? Because this is explained later.
-
2 hours ago, MissAlmond said:
Actor Glenda Jackson who won two Academy Awards for Women in Love (1970) and A Touch of Class (1973) and nominated for Sunday Bloody Sunday (1972) and Hedda (1975) has died, age 87.
https://deadline.com/2023/06/glenda-jackson-dies-oscar-winning-actress-87-1235417903/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65916692
That one made me gasp a bit when I saw the headline, although it shouldn't really, given her age. She came out of retirement a couple of years ago to make an absolutely beautiful TV Movie called 'Elizabeth is Missing', based on a book of the same name (which is well worth reading, btw) - the story is about a missing person (although not really the one in the title) but it is told from the point of view of an old woman with dementia, and it really packs a punch, all the more so because it is a perspective not often seen - she's so muddled and she knows she is muddled but can't do anything about it and no one will listen to her or take her seriously, she gets all the details wrong on one level yet completely right on another, she solves a 70-year-old mystery and it brings her no peace, because she can't retain new information. Really powerful. Jackson was wonderful in it.
-
16
-
2
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, chambers said:
Were there any real-life sisters who acted in Classic Who?
I don't know about sisters. I can offer you father and son - Patrick Troughton played the Doctor in the late 1960s (and again in guest spots in the 70s and 80s) and his son David has had guest roles in both Classic and New Who. Plus another son, Michael, has also been in New Who. (A number of grandchildren are also actors and may well have been in the show as well, I don't have time just now to look it up).
No sets of sisters are jumping at me off the top of my head, though.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Artsda said:
That Charlotte was asking Violet how she had 2 marriages in 2 years. Charlotte was there. I guess it was to show difference between 2 absent parents versus hands on ones.
Charlotte was there, but she was an external observer of events rather than an active participant. She knows that Violet managed to get two children married off in two years because she watched it happen but her observations did not tell her how it was achieved.
Not all of Charlotte's children were unmarried going into this season; it wasn't 13 all unmarried (15 children in total but only 13 survived into adulthood). The Prince Regent had a wife and daughter - it was the daughter's death that triggered the race to create a new heir, because there was no spare. They'd all been satisfied that one heir was sufficient, Charlotte included, only to belatedly realise that they were wrong. At least one of the daughters was also married but had no children - we saw her telling Charlotte about her many miscarriages in one of the episodes.
That they all, perhaps, should have paid more attention to the danger of having only one legitimate heir before that heir's premature death was the general thrust of Lady Whistledown's mockery all season. The whole family was too complacent. And Charlotte's interest in the Ton's marriage market as a distraction from her family problems then compounded the issue, making her too easy a target for Lady W's sharp pen.
-
4
-
-
45 minutes ago, Anduin said:
Yeah, I get you. I just meant that it's possible to have a good story featuring a previously unpopular character. :)
Oh, I agree. Bonnie Langford is a wonderful actress who did not get to showcase her talent in her original run, and her character is full of unrealised potential. I'm really interested to see what they do with her.
I wish RTD had been more open to revisiting the stories of former companions in his first run, when more of them were still with us. A great many of them have interesting stories still to be told.
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, Anduin said:
Have you ever listened to the audio adventures? Some of the Six and Mel stories are pretty good. They tone down both characters personalities just enough to make it work. I half-remember one especially, set in, I think, an airport. Wish I could remember the name.
Big Finish audio adventures have done wonderful things with some of the less-well-loved characters of the '80s. I was talking specifically about Mel's era of the TV show, which is what the vast majority of people will know her for, rather than the more niche audio adventures, which are great but have a much smaller audience..
Then again, we already know that characters from Big Finish are going to be drawn into the RTD2 era, so who knows how it is going to play out!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, DanaK said:
Who alum Bonnie Langford is back as Mel Bush for Series 14
I just saw the headline and came here to see if you'd posted it already!
Interesting. Bonnie's time on the show coincided with a very difficult period, in terms of production, and is regarded by many as a low point in the show's history, for various reasons, but Mel's story was intriguing, in its way, and completely open-ended - her relationship with the Doctor was so...timey-wimey, long before River made an out-of-order relationship a whole big thing. I'm really curious to see if they pick up any of those loose threads that were left dangling, so long ago. Mel left the TARDIS to go travelling through space with Sabalom Glitz, and that was somewhere way in the future, but we know from her brief appearance in Jodie Whittaker's last episode that she is living on Earth in our current time. There's a massive gap in her story there. I wonder how much we'll learn about what she's been up to and how she got back here!
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:
All bad apartments on tv are by train tracks and they shake and have loud noise when a train goes by.
I'm sure somewhere that really happens but I doubt it's common.
We have enough railway lines where I live that it is relatively normal for people to live near them. I grew up near a railway line. I live near another line today, and so do my parents. My office is close to the line, too. It can be loud, yes, but after a while you stop noticing it. Living near a railway line certainly does not equal 'bad apartment' here. It's just normal.
I've never know anything to rattle as the trains go by, though.
-
6
-
-
I think the article words it a little confusingly, but I definitely read it as a replacement for Tristan at the vet practice, rather than a replacement for Callum as Tristan.
We'll have to wait and see how it plays out!
-
7
-
-
9 minutes ago, Blergh said:
Wait! What happened with Callum Woodhouse?! Why did he part ways with the show for Season Four?! It took a lot for me to get warmed up to Mr. Woodhouse as Tristan because I'd liked Mr. Davidson's OS performance.
OK, I see that what's done is done and they now have one James Anthony-Rose playing Tristan. I'll do my best to give him a chance but I'm not sure the chemistry will work as well. For one thing, Mr. Woodhouse is somewhat beefy and strapping so one could believe that HIS Tristan could actually stand up for himself to the force-of-nature Siegfried (Timothy West) whereas this newbie seems a bit more slightly built so the viewer can't be so sure he won't be completely blown out of the water by Siegfried.
I don't think Callum Woodhouse has been replaced as Tristan. The article speculates that the new cast member seen on site might be a new vet working at the practice to cover Tristan's absence, as he was called to active service at the end of the last season.
-
5
-
2
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, wlk68 said:
Am I the only one who thought the actor playing George looked like Nicholas Hoult who played Peter on The Great? Huzzah!
You aren't the only one, no. Others have commented on the resemblance in these threads.
The funny part is that this series and The Great are roughly contemporaneous. Charlotte married George in 1761. Catherine the Great married Peter in 1762. Now there's a crossover to contemplate!
-
3
-
-
38 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:
The Holts and Duggars were BFFS with Jim and JB's friendship starting in childhood. Their two oldest were to be married - but, well Josh. Bobye Holt recently was granted a life restraining order against her husband.
Bobye was 14 years old when someone set her up on a blind date with 19 year old Jim, they tell us in episode one of this docu-series - Jim hastily adds that he had no idea, he was told she was older, she looked mature. But finding out her real age didn't stop him continuing to date her and then marry her when she was of age.
I've never watched any of the Duggar shows, but I have lurked in this forum for a few years - ever since the Josh scandal broke and I came here to find out more, since it was the first I'd ever heard of these people. I figured I would watch this docu-series. One episode down, three to go...
-
13
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:
So streaming only?
We don't know. We literally don't even know that a new series is actually happening. There are reports that the idea is being floated, and chances are that much is true, but it might not come to anything. If and when a new series does start filming, we'll probably learn more about the plans for its release then.
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:
I give it two years at most before the husband/baby daddy drops her. There will be plenty of young, pretty things around who are available and not going to jail.
Has anyone been following the crazy scandal going on in UK television? I wasn't familiar with the people or the show but it's being compared to a real-life Morning Show. Phillip Schofield was a beloved children's show host who went on to host This Morning for 21 years. So first he came out as gay on live tv a few years ago, which was a surprise to his wife. A few days ago he resigned amid reports he was feuding with his co-star. Nope, having an affair with a much younger male colleague and then lying to cover it up.
The part I bolded should be getting him investigated by the police.
I've followed the story kind of, since it is all over the news here, inescapable. It's been a really big deal. Schofield has been the golden boy of British telly for most of my life - he was a hugely popular presenter of children's TV when I was young, and then made the move into hosting breakfast television, where he formed what has always been presented as a wonderful partnership with his co-star Holly Willoughby. I've never watched their show - I actually found their presenting style quite mean-spirited - but they have been hugely popular for two decades. Schofield has always had something of a boy-next-door appeal...but the cracks have been forming for some time now. His coming out came as quite a shock, given that his public image had always been that of the contented family man, happily married with two daughters. Well, he wouldn't be the first gay man to marry and have a family while in the closet, but the manner of his coming out drew a lot of side eyes. It wasn't kind to his family, shall we say. They deserved at least a head's up that their lives were about to be imploded on national telly.
Then his brother was convicted of sexually abusing a teenage boy earlier this year. Schofield took time off during the trial, but public sympathy was largely still with him. After all, he isn't responsible for his brother's crimes. Rumours of the feud with Willoughby began around about the same time, though - and then exploded last month, culminating in his resignation. And then the revelations since.
It's been quite startling to see how fast he went from golden boy to public whipping boy.
-
4
-
1
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Egg McMuffin said:
The original series was played out by the time it ended. The two movies were nice codas, but that should be it. I could see them doing a spinoff or a prequel, but reviving it with the original cast seems like a mistake.
I agree. If they are going there again, I really hope there are some new ideas and a definite plan. The original series was so repetitive!
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, LadyAmalthea said:
That article is a whole big yikes. I’m certainly interested in the whole book, especially as on Twitter Ryan names Sleepy Hollow as another show she was interested in writing about.
It took courage for Harold Perrineau and others to go on the record about this. I only watched the first season of Lost but the part about his character’s son really got me, from having to challenge the script to Malcolm David Kelley being written off because he had a growth spurt. Aren’t they on a magic mysterious island where such issues can easily be written into the show? SMH.
4 hours ago, Anduin said:On Star Trek: Deep Space 9, Cirroc Lofton really sprouted. As I remember, nothing was made of it, he got the same amount of screen time as before, he was just taller. These things happen. They're only a big deal if you decide to make a big deal.
I mean, children grow. That's what they do. You would think that anyone hiring a child actor for a show they hope and expect to run for a number of years would be aware of that fact and factor it into their plans!
I'm glad I never got into Lost. I caught a few episodes in the first season (I loved Sun and Jin) but it quickly became apparent that it wasn't the show I'd expected it to be, going in, so I lost interest.
(The blurb I saw just said it was a show about survivors of a plane crash having to work together to survive on a remote island and I really liked the idea of that show - strangers thrown together, having to cooperate to survive. But it became clear that the show was going down a more mysterious, mystical route, and I wasn't getting attached to the lead characters or their problems at all, the characters I did like barely seemed to feature, so I bailed.)
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, chediavolo said:
Do only airing in UK, not on PBS?
I wouldn't know. Downton Abbey was originally commissioned by and for ITV, that's why they are involved again here. The original series was sold internationally and the films were released internationally, so if a new series is made, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be sold internationally again.
-
2
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, chediavolo said:
What is ITV?
A free-to-air public broadcast television network, second largest broadcaster in the UK, second only to the BBC. ITV is commercial, BBC is non-commercial.
-
1
-
1
-
-
This was a lovely little series. Full of inaccuracies and anachronisms, but lovely to watch. The young Charlotte and Agatha were an absolute delight. So was the young Brimsley. And George. Wonderfully drawn characters played by fantastic young actors.
On 5/5/2023 at 10:48 PM, Enero said:I really enjoyed how the show didn't just stop at the royal family granting people of color in England titles, they started to explore how it went beyond just titles that tradition meant that anyonr granted titles were also granted land to go with those titles, and then what happens when the Lord of the house dies, what's the line of succession? Will that wealth be allowed to be passed on within the family? If so, how? Very interesting topics.
That actually really bugged me. I can see why Shonda went with it as a plot point, but it was an anachronism too far for me - it just isn't possible to create a new peerage title without settling the issue of succession up-front, succession is inextricably linked to the act of creation. Creation of a new title requires Letters Patent, and succession forms an integral part of the Letters Patent proforma, decided and laid out anew for each individual case. I could live with all the other anachronisms, and I understand why the plot wanted this one to be part of the story, but it was an anachronism too far for me and broke my suspension of disbelief.
Plus, you know, wealth and property laws in the 18th century weren't so far removed from ours - once land and property were legally bestowed upon someone, they belonged to them and would pass to the next in line upon that person's death, the land and property wouldn't 'revert to the crown' even if the title did, not unless there was no legitimate heir. And the show covered over a year, in the earlier timeline. The legalities would very definitely have been worked out in that time.
I guess I just know too much about how these things work to be able to suspend my disbelief in this regard!
Did not spoil the show, though. I found the overall story really moving and far more engaging than the fluffiness of regular Bridgerton.
On 5/7/2023 at 5:52 AM, Enero said:Speaking of the heirs I thought out of the 13 of them at least one, heck maybe even two would’ve been traditional in having a solid marriage and a couple of kids but they were all “virgins” and “whores”. Lol. And perhaps they all turned out so non traditional because of the mental illness of their father? Though I don’t know how much of an impact that would’ve had since they likely didn’t see much of either one of their parents and were raised by nannies.
- The court ladies making disparaging remarks about Queen Charlotte’s taste in music as the young protege Mozart brilliantly played the piano, per the Queen’s request as she enjoyed his music and found him to be talented. I had to laugh at the ladies of the court ignorance.
- Charlotte refusing to drink alcohol due to her 2nd pregnancy. I guess it could be argued that she is well aware of the power of alcohol and concluded that it might not be good for her pregnancy, even though there was no scientific data to back that up at that time. My understanding is during that period women continued to drink, smoke etc. while pregnant as they didn’t know the negative affects it could have on the baby.
- George joining Charlotte while she was giving birth. This was absolutely unheard of back then. But we saw it on this show. That was actually one of my favorite George moments, not only him helping her through the birth, but when he remind the Archbishop of where his bread is buttered and told him move out of his way. Loved it!
Well, the Prince Regent was married and had a daughter (who died in ep1) so they weren't all 'virgins and whores'. Not all of the daughters were unmarried, either. Just most of them!
I can forgive the court ladies being ignorant of Mozart, since he was still just a recently discovered child prodigy at the time, rather than the world-famous classical musician we remember him as today!
Charlotte refusing alcohol due to her pregnancy was a definite anachronism, but it made for a good shorthand to convey her second pregnancy. Although of course it would have been just as easy for her to simply say it. And yes, George attending her during the birth was another anachronism, but a great character moment.
On 5/8/2023 at 12:00 AM, greekmom said:The romance between the two footmen were also well done. I would have liked to know how Renyolds passed. I also liked how Billsbury was very honest with the Queen in the present time telling her that she wasn't a very good mother (which I don't understand why she didn't make any matches for her daughters. Really it is her fault that her daughters died as spinsters).
Well, historically speaking, it was more down to George than Charlotte that most of their daughters never married.
Also, it's Brimsley, not Billsbury.
On 5/8/2023 at 4:36 AM, quarks said:It might well become her business? After all, Violet still has six unmarried kids, and we don't know the marital status of Lady Danbury's kids - or, for that matter, possible grandkids. So Violet kinda does have a vested interest in knowing whether or not any of those four kids might be a half sibling. Especially if Lady Danbury does end up having a fifth kid, passing that kid off as Lord Danbury's - sure, she didn't look pregnant/seem to be pregnant at the end of this series, but who knows?
I think it very unlikely that Lady Danbury had a fifth child by Lord Ledger - and if she had, I think enough time had passed by the time she actually slept with him that she'd have found it hard to pass the child off as her late husband's.
On 5/18/2023 at 2:30 PM, chaifan said:Lady Danforth
Danbury. Her name is Lady Danbury. Not Danforth.
-
1
-
On 5/12/2023 at 8:10 PM, DearEvette said:
I remember when the first season of Bridgerton came out and Simon was of course black and Shonda and co. kinda gave a quick explanation of how they created the integrated society, it was met with a lot of skepticism. But I have to say this show is really filling in the blanks and it is doing a really good job of it, imo. It isn't just a handwave, despite the fact that Augusta's impulsive decree made it seem like it. I am impressed that they are following through with the very real 'lack of details' that happen when a big 'do it quick' change is made. They could have easily just gone ahead and let us assume that the regular laws of succession applied. But it is smart storytelling to build in that little bump in the road. How precarious the new world order is for this new nobility. The reminder there is still an 'our side' and 'their side' and the historic ease reneging on a promise through neglect.
On 5/16/2023 at 10:07 PM, tennisgurl said:I really like how they are filling in the blanks on how the aristocracy was integrated instead of just waving a hand and asking us not to think about it. The issue of succession so soon after a title has been given is one that should definitely be brought up, its easy to see how this would get complicated and how people from Agatha's "side" would be worried about how their new positions might not last a generation. The Dowager Princess decided to combine the two sides was a spur of the moment idea she enacted without thinking about the details, and it shows.
I'm torn on this subject. Because on the one hand, yes, it was a spur of the moment thing on Augusta's part and it does make for good storytelling to show the new integrated society as precarious in these early stages. But on the other hand...that just isn't how the peerage works. And I can't suspend my disbelief enough to believe that in the months that have passed, in-show, the legal details wouldn't have been thrashed out already. Because succession is an integral part of the creation of any peerage. The creation of a new peerage requires Letters Patent, which spells out in black and white exactly how the succession is going to work (lifetime peerage, inheritance by legitimate male heirs of the body, special remainder to legitimate siblings or legitimate heirs thereof, or whatever). You simply cannot get one without the other. If Augusta's spur-of-the-moment decision to bestow new peerages was followed through on with the legalities necessary to make those peerages real - which we know it was, because it has been established that the new peerages are real - then we can be damn sure that proper Letters Patent were issued, because that is how a new peerage is created, legally. The Letters Patent is what makes the new peerage real. And if there are Letters Patent, then the issue of succession is already settled up-front, because it forms an integral part of the Letters Patent, that detail is always included, it is part of the basic proforma, because succession is very important to the aristocracy. There is no plausible way for that discussion not to have already happened and been settled. So that broke my suspension of disbelief quite a bit, no matter how much I told myself that this is a fantasy alternate universe where the timeline doesn't even work, so what am I worried about? But I just couldn't bring myself to suspend reality for that detail.
Also, all that agonising over whether Agatha's solicitor would talk to a woman and over how strange it was for her to go out for a walk. Both were completely normal at the time. Wealthy widows have been taking over the running of their husbands' estate since long, long before the time this show is set, and that generally involved conversing with solicitors. And noblefolk rambling around their estates - visiting other peoples' estates and rambling around those too - was also a common practice at this time. We're in the era where tourism (for the upper classes) really started to take off. Visiting country estates and going on picturesque walks (they even used the word picturesque in this episode) was fashionable at this time. Agatha taking a turn around her own estate should not have been seen as anything out of the ordinary, except inasmuch as it was not her usual habit.
-
4
-
2
-
Faux Life: Things That Happen On TV But Not In Reality
in Everything Else TV
I've got one for this thread, although this may be a UK thing, but it occurred to me recently just how often the British soaps do a variant of the 'who's the daddy?' trope in which a couple have a baby, the father names the baby after some beloved dead relative of his, only to later learn that the baby isn't his after all. Bonus points if the child ends up being raised by its real father, merrily going through life named in honour of someone they aren't related to by someone they have little to do with.
I can think of so many examples of this happening in the various soaps. Jack Webster in Corrie (named by Tyrone in honour of Jack Duckworth, then revealed to be Kevin Webster's son) Arthur Fowler in Eastenders (named by Martin Fowler in memory of his dad, then revealed to be Kush's son), Louise Mitchell in Eastenders (named by Mark Fowler in honour of his grandmother, then revealed to be Phil Mitchell's daughter)...and the list goes on and on. Yet I really don't think it is something that happens so frequently in real life!