ZoloftBlob

Whats interesting about that case is that I think the people who submitted it weren't very clear about what they were suing over because that case couldn't be touched with a ten foot pole even with a mediator. As near as I can tell, it wasn't actually about Star Wars toys at all. The plaintiff was making *replica* costumes including helmets and art work sorts of things for fans. I suspect they called it star wars toys and then the producers realized they were actually talking about fan produced stuff and that's why they couldn't show any of it.

Well, really she already has. George is the heir and I am pretty sure the show runners wont kill an adorable tot simply to rehash the lack of a male heir story. And no, from a realistic standpoint, it doesn't work that Mary is being chased by three similar yet subtly different suitors because Mary is not in any way a catch. She's a woman in her thirties with a child who is already an heir to a title and an estate. Only Evelyn Napier seems to have his own estate at this point and he is hardly the front runner. Gillingham lost his estate - it's a girl's school as I recall, and Blake's wealth and status is somewhat weird as well since he may be well moneyed but is unlikely to back Mary's "Downton forever!" views. She has no money or status to offer because all of her money and status came from Matthew (which hee hee came from Cora) and would all pretty much go to George and I don't know many men who would enjoy being married in a household where the wife's child with the dead first husband would be the ultimate ruler.

Please do, but also do give two grown adults with fully formed brains their share of blame. You don't have to *accept* being spoiled. There's a reason I am not under the thumb of my parents. Its because I chose it. When my siblings complain about how taking the bait sucks... I gently remind them that they can get jobs and earn money without mom and dad always helping.

I think the point is that that a) it's been stated on the show that Will is getting speech therapy so there's really no need to debate whether he's receiving help and b) just because he is receiving speech therapy, that doesn't mean he's going to be instantly better or that there will be constant demonstrable progress. That a child is not demonstrating progress is not an indicator that a parent isn't doing enough or providing enough.

Heee! I've actually written one where Matthew's death was staged by the Sycorax to get vengeance against Harriet Jones and the Doctor has to straighten it out despite the Dowager Countess disliking him for what went down at Torchwood Manor....

Zola may, it's one of those things that once you think about it, you kinda keep thinking about it. :) I can also make a convincing argument that Mary and Matthew both had leanings, she was a little overly against marriage. Back to Edith... She not a favorite of mine but there's a point where her getting the shit end of the stick isn't entertaining.

To be fair - and I might stray off Edith solely - I never really understood why it was always Mary being pressured to marry Matthew when all three daughters were of a reasonable age and Matthew marrying any of them would have put Robert's children in control (sorta) of the family money. I can see why they weren't told to fling themselves at him, but it was just odd. That said, Edith was just trying way too hard with the gayest seeming straight man on the show. Season one Matthew was this weird hot mess - he seems to be a successful lawyer, he's reasonably good looking, and he lives with his mom, and seems appalled at the idea that the Earl's three attractive daughters will be thrown at him, thereby ruining his... swinging bachelor life where he has tea with his mom and rides a bicycle. Everything about the church visit screamed Matthew thinking "eww girl cooties" at Edith. I'm being a little facetious, because I think you're otherwise correct - the story would have been more interesting if Edith and Matthew had sparked a little bit - and it frankly would have made the whole competitive thing between Edith and Mary not look so unpleasantly one sided. I also admit, watching season one, to wondering why Sybil and Matthew never were even suggested. The rare times they were in scenes - thinking specifically of the "political riot", the actors really played well off each other. Well, I know, the story was always Mary and Matthew but....

Jessica Findlay said she was offered the option to resign at the end of season two and didn't. I don't know why Dan Stevens wouldn't have been offered the option at the same time and if he hesitated - and he obviously did - then regardless of Fellowes's writing process, Stevens gave them a reasonable amount of time and notice to handle the character's departure. I mean, how much notice is reasonable?

Well, i don't mind, per se, it's just a bit unbelievable . Not that Michelle Dockery isn't pretty or anything but she's not that much of a catch from a historical perspective. Like I said, all the boys in 1924 are not going to be looking for widows in their mid thirties with children in tow. Mind you, I think it's perfectly in character for Mary to be handling a three man assault on her purity six months after Matthew's death. ;) She's not one to mourn forever. :)

No, the kids look old, George especially since I think he was an infant the last time we saw him. I don't mind except that it goes to the unreality of Mary. Hear me out. She was what, supposedly 22? in 1912? (and I suspect I am being generous). It's now 11 years later in a country denuded of men, she's a 33 year old widow with an heir who will inherit her estate, in theory she's still damaged goods from the Pamuk incident, but we're all supposed to believe she's the hottest ticket in town and there's at least two, possibly three men all willing to break engagements to be the next Mr. Mary Crawley?

Oh I think Matthew needed to die, Obviously, because Mary as a character can't do anything of interest with Matthew alive but off at the sanitorium in Arizona having his TB treated. ;) But Matthew probably didn't need to die graphically and violently in an episode that everyone knew would air on Christmas day, and I don't like Fellowes putting it all on Stevens that they had no choice since Stevens only gave them short notice... When in fact Stevens gave everyone plenty of notice that he didn't intend to sign for season four. There was plenty of time to kill Matthew off in season three. Fellowes went with a petty bitch move, in my opinion.

It wasn't kind of cheesy, it was a cheese fondue :) As was the whole wheelchair routine because he's a male lead in a show about 1910's and 1920s - there was no way they were keeping him in a chair. I certainly knew Matthew was going to stand up at some point. And barring a significant change in plot, there was no way for Matthew to be alive but off screen, I agree. The only reason I could see an episode in season four would be a slightly more sympathetic "Matthew is stricken with leukemia and lets let everyone say goodbye" episode... which also would have been terribly cheesy. Now I love cheesy, so I would have been fine but its not everyone's taste. I just don't like Fellowes putting it on Stevens that it had to be that way. Take my "Matthew gamely dying of cancer" thoughts - that could have easily been written into season three to let the audience know Matthew is going. Or if Fellowes genuinely wanted to leave the door open (I don't believe he did simply because Matthew alive but "away" means no dating storylines for Mary) then god knows "went to Germany and was abducted by the Nazi Party" is in play on this show.

I wasn't blindsided, I just thought it was petty vengence by Fellowes against Dan Stevens, and the unwitting audience got to be the collateral damage. Fellowes can insist all he wants that Stevens refused to "come back" for one or two episodes in season four to leave the door open - there's at least one interview where Fellowes says this. But at the end of the day, Stevens's contract was up, and he didn't wait to tell people he wanted to leave. If a happy ending was important to Fellowes, there was time to write it. And I get why Fellowes was pissed, because the Matthew and Mary arc was the story, and he couldn't force Stevens to do the show. But, and it's funny, because I was discussing this with a friend in reference to a fanfic, the character of Matthew is nothing but a dummy for beating on the show anyway, and poorly written. I mean, Matthew begins as a reasonably good looking guy, upper class, who is 27 and living with his mom. He appears to have utterly no friends or prior aquaintences, he's got no family but his mom and his presumbly dead father, and the distant cousins barely seem to know he exists. He's treated like an interloper, Mary merrily yanks his chain because he might end up not the heir, he finds a nice girl that everyone hates because she isn't Mary and he isn't marrying his cousin, he ends up paralyzed, he recovers only to have Mary yank his chain again so that Lavinia can lay a horrendous guilt trip on him on her death bed, he then gets clobbered with an inheritance that he feels like shit about and everyone treats him like an asshole for not being a money grubbing whore (and this was also basically a rehash of Daisy and WIlliam's plot) he finally caves, produces the heir and dies in a car wreck. The only piece of luck Matthew ever had was dying before it was revealed that Mary cheated on him. :) I mean, I can see why Dan STevens wasn't happy with some of the storylines. I would have preferred he stay with the show but.... I can see his side of it, and I didn't like how it got portrayed as his doing something wrong and Fellowes acting like the guy gave them notice the day before filming ended. If the happy ending or leaving the door open was really important to Fellowes, he had the power. Instead he went with the car crash. I can't blame Stevens for that.

admittedly I didn't start watching Downton until this year, but I have to agree. It was hilariously melodramatic and the timing on Christmas day was just lovely. But we're not supposed to think the writer/producer was mega pissed and took it out on the audience :)

Is it all made up? I'm not familiar with the site. And I don't have issues with Dan Stevens. He made a choice and frankly, never came off as disrespectful about it, in my opinion, or arrogant. He didn't write his last episode and as near as I can tell, didn't spring it on Julian Fellowes that he wanted to leave. Personally, as much as I loved Matthew, I think there wasn't much to do with Matthew in a Season four unless he was having an affair (which considering the character's ongoing schtick about honor, seems wildly out of character) or if Mary was having an affair (far more likely considering Mary's character but would never ever happen unless Mary ended up the precious little victim over it)

Does the packaged set that has the first three seasons contain the cut bits? Or do I need to invest in the UK dvds?

I tend to say "name names" on this kind of thing. As a Matthew fan I wish he'd stayed but really, it's not that big of a deal. He was obviously willing to burn a bridge and if people have issues - I am totally willing to buy he's a douche who came on to someone on the cast if... someone on the cast is willing to say "Dan Stevens was a douche to me because..."" So far no one on the cast is willing to call him out publically.

Oh let me explain the feud, based on a few good guesses. Music brother is Daddy's favorite and endorses Daddy's lifestyle. Music brother also probably has hit harder stuff in the past and was likely brought into the business by mom to keep him busy/under control. Music brother, for all his protests, clearly does nothing with the hotel except jam and party, and knows Dad will back him up because Dad loves to jam and party, and mom isn't going to make anyone fend for themselves. Restaurant brother is mom's favorite and probably didn't want to invest his life in the hotel/restaurant/hippie commune. He's stuck out of family obligation - if he runs off, the place will fail. Because he's pissed, he's also passive aggressive and he and music brother are in a little war constantly over who the good son is. Mom more than likely knew restaurant son was making a profit in the restaurant because its probably keeping the whole place afloat. She's just glad to have someone around who isn't constantly high.

Eh, I thought the 33 year old was being kind of a dick to sue a kid over an accident. I mean, the kid was eleven. I thought, although she didn't explain it well because she went off on a rant, that sometimes you have to remember that not every event is a take em to court event. Suing an 11 year old over what was clearly a accident - it wasn't like the kid vandalized the bike, for several thousand dollars is the punishment being way overblown.

I always thought Anna did it.

Bleh... I hate the name. But then, Edith can't have nice things, now can she?

I was thinking of the maid (Ethel?) who got pregnant who was shown the door and told repeatedly to lie in the bed her whore vagina had made her, not Edna, who ultimately was fired for something similar. (This show has a lot of women with names that start with E that have premarital sex).

I don't think someone in 1920, someone in particular who was horrified at the idea of anyone knowing he was once a stage performer, would be as understanding as Carson was. I mean, he was going to let Thomas leave with a good reference (until Jimmy was a big girl's blouse about it) and not blather it all over? This, the same household where Edna was summarily dismissed for having sex with a man? Thomas, the disliked, arrogant, prone to theft and nasty behavior Thomas gets a "you were born that way" pass from Carson, the same guy who is horrified if the silver isn't properly stored? It felt unrealistic to me. Frankly, Bates struck me as out of character in being unwilling to let Thomas dangle on that hook. I also don't think by the day's standard that Jimmy was overreacting - this was a time where homosexual men were arrested for less. When we apply our 21st century sensibilities, of course it's appalling (although I still would argue that in 2014 a pretty good assault case could come from one man sneaking into another man's room and getting into bed with him wouldn't be treated as merry hijinks from a legal standpoint) but the fact that everyone is so blase about the fact that Thomas is doing something they consider close to evil just rang false. I could see Bates not pressing the point, but actively conniving to help Thomas? Nope.

Oh agreed, and it's not the first time he's played grumpy old dad to the younger staff. He does it to Anna the night she is raped (though I think that was in part because Anna was uncharacteristically flirty, and he's been judgemental and nasty to Daisy at times. Not without reason but for a guy who isn't a saint, I agree he can be quite sanctimonious. I had more of problem with how he treated Jimmy because when I look at it from 21st century eyes, it's not a crime for Thomas to be gay, but it is a crime for Thomas to sexually assault an unwilling partner, so Bates telling Jimmy to not be such a priss about attempted rape jars. I mean, this is the second time we've seen Thomas do this (the first was with Pamuk). I actually like Bates but I think they need to do something with him other than have him brood around the house. I hated the prison story line for the same reason I hated the "Matthew is paralyzed" storyline because I knew both storylines were there to increase the man pain. Agree btw that Carson's comment to Thomas was very 21st century. If Thomas was a more likeable character, like WIlliam for example, I could see the household being quietly tolerant but really.

I thought this was more of an example of bad writing coupled with wish fulfillment about the open mindedness of people in the 1920s. What Thomas did to Jimmy wasn't, in my opinion, a cute little sitcom moment. If Thomas had misinterpreted a woman, and hopped into bed with her and rubbed her down, even in modern times, he'd be on the hook for attempted rape. Yes, O'Brien set both Jimmy and Thomas up, but Thomas ran with it in a really predatory fashion. And frankly, while Lord Grantham might have fond remembrances of his time in the showers of Eton, Bates always struck me as disliking Thomas in part because Thomas was gay. And because Thomas is a sleazy manipulative tool, but the "not a man's man" thing seemed part of Bates's dislike so Bates really should have been jumping for joy over how cleanly and neatly Thomas was being excised from the household. I'm not suggesting Bates is anti gay, btw, just that he would consider it all a part of Thomas's flawed character. Carson came off more sympathetic to Thomas so Bates suddenly going to the wall for Thomas just came off strange.