DCWash

I thought the "Commodities" episode (Episode three from last season) did a pretty good job of explaining how there WOULD be people of color in Paris and the port cities of France during this period. I mean, if you really know your history, you could pick apart the details--that schematic of how to pack a slave ship was genuine but obviously from the 19th century, for instance--but in general thematic terms it was accurate and should make a lot of sense to the casual viewer.

Having just gone through updated threads, my first thought upon reading that was, "Oho! Somebody's going to get their wardrobe malfunctions!"

Go to Quebec. No all of them, maybe, but yeah, I'd like Quebec to feature fairly prominently, maybe as a long-term story arc. Historically, Quebec was high on the French agenda at this time, after all. Seeing some of the poncey types in the wilds of North America could be fun; seeing how the tough and capable Musketeers handle the wilderness could be even more fun. Can you imagine Porthos the soldier from the slums meeting an Iroquois warrior? Go to Quebec. No all of them, maybe, but yeah, I'd like Quebec to feature fairly prominently, maybe as a long-term story arc. Historically, Quebec was high on the French agenda at this time, after all. Seeing some of the poncey types in the wilds of North America could be fun; seeing how the tough and capable Musketeers handle the wilderness could be even more fun. Can you imagine Porthos the soldier from the slums meeting an Iroquois warrior?

I watched this in "British time," so I don't know what behind-the-scenes stuff is available to y'all, but if you get a chance, watch the Cardinal's first scene with Milady again, and closely. In all the swooping and swishing of capes and clothing, Capaldi apparently got his thumb caught up in either his or Maimie McCoy's costume (I forget which) and actually dislocated it, but continued filming without missing a beat. Without missing a beat, but not without suddenly going pale and almost passing out from the pain; McCoy, whose face was mere inches from Capaldi's when it happened, couldn't help but notice something was wrong. Apparently, you can tell something's up if you know what to look for when you watch that scene.

I hope we hear more in coming episodes about how Porthos rose through the ranks from guttersnipe to the king's guard. Because I'm sure it's a pretty amazing story. Though there's no doubt that all three of Our Musketeers have fully earned their positions and do good jobs, it's almost expected for someone with Athos' background to be in the palace and for someone like Aramis to be at least an officer. Not so for somebody from the Court of Miracles, who, at best, would be cannon fodder.

Okay, this is two glasses of wine when I don't have to go to work the next day talking, but you know what this show is? It's "Robin Hood" with a brain. In other words, eye candy and swordplay that doesn't make you wince at the stupidity and make you feel like you have to completely apologize for watching it. (This is coming from somebody who's already watched the entire BBC first series.) The bad guys are a little more complex than mustache-twirlers. The good guys aren't saints. There's enough moral ambiguity to make you, every now and then, go, "Hmm. You know, you've got a point there." But, really, mostly, on a hot summer night what you watch it for it for the cool sword fights and the pretty boys and the sumptuousness of it all. Sans guilt!

There's been a touch of activity on the TWoP "Musketeers" thread, from whence I got this article about how they're going to hand-wave away Richelieu in Series 2 and who the replacement villian will be. It's about as official as you can get. Kind of funny, too. (And a different story from the first official-sounding version I heard a while back.)

I have a vague memory that they specifically said 1630 early on, like in the opening title of the opening episode, and then left it at that and haven't mentioned it since. I'm really weak on French history, though, so I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between events of 1625 and 1636. But that goes back to what I was talking about using historical fiction as your source material. There are SOME limits--I mean, I don't want to see Daniel Boone show up in a target shooting contest with the Musketeers or something--but I'm willing to cut them a lot more slack about "accuracy" when the whole thing (exceot for a few secondary characters) was made up from scratch to begin with, and everybody knows that. Of course, that attitude could stem from my ignorance and I might care a lot more if I knew a lot more. In the mean time, those Czech palaces and backstreets look awfully good. I do like that the whole premise of the show is in its title: "The Musketeers." Not "The Three Musketeers" ("but there's four of them!" I remember thinking as a child), not "The Young Hero D'Artagnan and His Sidekicks," but "An Ensemble of Swashbuckling Musketeers." Ah, but one thing to bear in mind in these days before DNA testing is the possibility that Louis really IS the father. Because this non-doltish Louis knows how to count backwards from nine and surely Anne has enough sense to let her husband near her for insurance sake, if nothing else. Given that Anne did get pregnant earlier, it's quite possible his little swimmers may have outraced Aramis'. Not saying it's likely or that it actually happened, just that ambiguity, not certainty, should be the order of the day with these things.

17th-century France: Equal-opportunity cleavage (pecs AND boobs!) and incredibly sculpted facial hair. Where the bad guys sometimes do the right thing and the good guys sometimes do the wrong thing, rapiers abound, and Musketeers actually use muskets.