Sanditon - General Discussion

[LennieBriscoe]

I find myself increasingly annoyed with the main writer. There needs to be a purpose for characters, their presence and behaviors.

Why even have the character of Lady Susan? She amounted to a lousy Dear Abby and of no use as a financial savior.

Why that risible entry of a manic Edward at the ball? The cast must have howled after that filming. 

Why does Sister Parker not seek a husband, in the tradition of the day?

Why does Old Lady Denham not bequeath some project money to Tom?

Why, for that matter, can Sidney think of no other source of financial aid for Tom other than Eliza (and why should she help, anyway?)? Might he not beseech the newly-married Babington, his chum? 

Why is Sidney shown telling Charlotte that he does not love Eliza? Does the writer think such an admission would enhance his character?

Why does the writer deny the decent and humble Jolly Parker true happiness? 

Ultimately, the story, like the family, revolves around Tom. Yet his character evolves not one whit. 

Well, ain't I just the literary critic? 😝

 

[Kohola3]

36 minutes ago, LennieBriscoe said:

So, class, how do we reconcile the ending with our great expectations?

Charlotte---Loses her naivete and heart, but ultimately not for the better man. She returns home the proverbially sadder but wiser. 

Sidney---Loses his world-weariness and heart, but ultimately finds that blood is thicker than true love. He prefers going through life a misunderstood man.

Eliza---"Wins" with money, the false triumph of cynicism over love.

Esther---Learns that love calms the soul and that attractiveness shines from within.

Lord Babington---Shows us the true transformative and redemptive power of love. 

Tom Parker--- Exemplifies the true visionary, willing the present to bend to the future. 

Young Mr. Stringer---Exemplifies the other half of the visionary coin: its manifestation. Personal desires, whether love or career, are secondary.

Jolly Parker---Resigns himself to a life without true love, much like his brother Sidney, and for the same reason: blood ties. 

Sister Parker---See above.

Well said!  But for Georgiana..........nada.  She gazes fondly at her picture of Otis, dances with  Jolly Parker and then simply disappears.

As Lady Catherine de  Bourgh pronounced sternly, I am most seriously displeased.

[eleanorofaquitaine]

I think that the reality is that they expected there would be more than one season, so they didn't necessarily feel like they had to tie up every plot line in this episode. 

[LennieBriscoe]

Ha! You're right, Kohola3! Georgiana "simply disappears"! 

Surely her character might have at least been shown as gainfully employed, or in some other way her own person. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by LennieBriscoe

[scenicbyway]

12 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I think that the reality is that they expected there would be more than one season, so they didn't necessarily feel like they had to tie up every plot line in this episode. 

By having cliffhangers the writer thought that surely they’d get a second season.  Instead, the dwindled audience that was left at the of the series tries to reconcile the “ending” that was not meant to be the “ending.”  Had the series continued I think we would seen Charlotte back at Sandition maybe exploring life with Stringer and then eventually Sidney unless he really turned out to be a Willouhby.

[Kohola3]

14 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I think that the reality is that they expected there would be more than one season, so they didn't necessarily feel like they had to tie up every plot line in this episode. 

Yes that was the plan, a second season but the show didn't score well in Great Britain.  They were hoping that if it did well in the US, that would make a difference.  Thus the (sort of) cliff hanger ending.

[LennieBriscoe]

24 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I think that the reality is that they expected there would be more than one season, so they didn't necessarily feel like they had to tie up every plot line in this episode. 

Agreed, but the writers and producers don't have such a decision sprung on them at the last minute. 

And the Sidney/Charlotte storyline.....well, there simply is no coming back from his marriage to Eliza for them, Season Two or no.

IOW, if surprised by the kibosh on further episodes, the writer(s) could as easily have  had Sidney propose to Charlotte, ending with our seeing the beginnings of their wedding preparations, even as Charlotte could leave temporarily for home to inform her parents. And no more Mrs. Theo James! 😁

Jolly Parker could still be going home with his sister, but their carriage conversation could have been him assuring her that she would always be welcome to reside with him and any wife he might take. That took me about ten seconds to compose!

Perhaps instead of the dopey "Edward" scene at the ball, a fake-out "embarrassment" to Esther to force a stop to her marriage, the writer(s) might have had Lady Susan arrive, maybe even with the Prince Regent, have them see the devastation of the fire, and then allow them some noblesse oblige as the royals pledged moneys to help the restoration.

But the writer(s) didn't ask me. 

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by LennieBriscoe

[JudyObscure]

13 minutes ago, LennieBriscoe said:

I find myself increasingly annoyed with the main writer. There needs to be a purpose for characters, their presence and behaviors.

I think Andrew Davies is way over-rated. He writes like a teen age girl, "Let's have a ball!"  "Lets have Sidney coming out of the ocean naked!"  "Lets do that again!"  Why he's hired to "update" classics is beyond me.  If we wanted, "Sex in the City" we would just watch "Sex in the City."  Most of us who love Regency Romances and Victorian Gothics love them because things were different then.

Who's worse with money?  I say Lord Grantham, Tom Parker at least worked hard to make his dreams happen, Lord Grantham would play cards with someone who thought there was a silver mine beneath the eels in the Cambridgeshire marsh lands and, bang, there goes all Lady Cora's money.

I quit watching after episode four because the squinting and frowning and loose glossy lips of Charlotte  was more than I could bear, but caught up just to watch the finale.  A wasted Sunday.

[LennieBriscoe]

In literature, the Adonis Rising From the Sea scenes should have symbolized Sydney's rebirth in some significant manner. Instead, we get a character who, for whatever help he thinks he is giving his brother, decides to deprive TWO  women of their chances at true love: the one he marries; and the one he leaves.

Indeed, Sydney does to Charlotte precisely what Eliza had done to him: marries another for financial reasons. 

Not exactly the metaphorical cleansing of Sydney. I guess sometimes a nude swim is just a nude swim.

Edited February 24, 2020 by LennieBriscoe

[JudyObscure]

15 minutes ago, LennieBriscoe said:

Not exactly the metaphorical cleansing of Sydney. I guess sometimes a nude swim is just a nude swim.

Yes, better symbolism would have been Sidney slipping face down in the mud as Charlotte's carriage sped away.

[eleanorofaquitaine]

49 minutes ago, LennieBriscoe said:

Agreed, but the writers and producers don't have such a decision sprung on them at the last minute. 

And the Sidney/Charlotte storyline.....well, there simply is no coming back from his marriage to Eliza for them, Season Two or no.

  😁

 

 

I mean, I've watched enough soap operas in my lifetime to know that just isn't true. So I am going to have to disagree with you there. (And yes, to my mind, Sanditon is really just a high-minded Georgian soap.... and that is not a bad thing).

I don't like the way it ended but understanding that they were likely planning for future seasons, I am not offended by it, either.

FYI, I am posting from my phone and couldn't figure out how to remove the smiley face.

 

[NeenerNeener]

I'm disappointed with how this ended. Charlotte packs up her kit and trundles her buns back home. Not an Austen ending at all.

[Popples]

1 hour ago, LennieBriscoe said:

Jolly Parker could still be going home with his sister, but their carriage conversation could have been him assuring her that she would always be welcome to reside with him and any wife he might take. That took me about ten seconds to compose!

I thought that's exactly what he was going to tell his sister. The "confirmed bachelor" angle was a total cop-out.

[LennieBriscoe]

17 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I mean, I've watched enough soap operas in my lifetime to know that just isn't true. So I am going to have to disagree with you there. (And yes, to my mind, Sanditon is really just a high-minded Georgian soap.... and that is not a bad thing).

I don't like the way it ended but understanding that they were likely planning for future seasons, I am not offended by it, either.

FYI, I am posting from my phone and couldn't figure out how to remove the smiley face.

 

I'm not sure which part you deem not true,  the last-minute cancellation, or the no-comeback for S&C.

I'll grant you the latter, though even a high-falutin' soap opera should have internal character integrity in the sense of "But he wouldn't DO that!" Of course, Luke and Laura ruined that concept a century ago, heh.

But if the former, that is, hurriedly coming up with different storylines as a finale, this wasn't a live production. Or are soap operas no longer live, either? 

I'm just MAD, dammit! That big smooch and then.....FEH!! 

 

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, LennieBriscoe said:

Tom Parker--- Exemplifies the true visionary, willing the present to bend to the future.

??? 
I would say Tom Parker exemplifies the Ponzi scheme. In the end all the Parkers will be in the poor house and Young Stringer with them. 
Hopefully Georgiana comes of age before then and leaves Sanditon behind. 
 

2 hours ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

He wasn't surprised by how much Tom owed. He was surprised that Tom hadn't insured the project. 

Sidney should have known. In the end, Sidney was an idiot too. 

[eleanorofaquitaine]

5 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Sidney should have known. In the end, Sidney was an idiot too. 

I wasn't commenting on whether or not Sidney was an idiot. (Though I don't think it was unreasonable for him to believe his brother had insured the project). I was only clarifying what he was surprised by - he wasn't surprised by the fact that his brother owed a lot of money, he was surprised that he didn't have the project insured, meaning that his brother was on the hook for the debt, not the insurance company. 

[LennieBriscoe]

The Parkers in the poorhouse all depends on how wealthy the new Mrs. Sydney Parker, former widder lady, is. 

I meant, about Tom as visionary, that he is completely blinkered as to how he is negatively affecting today in regards to family and employees. I don't believe for a second that he deliberately is running a scam, like some Recency Amway salesman. IMO, he has his brother handle the finances because he, Tom, is consumed with a dream. 

[eleanorofaquitaine]

12 minutes ago, LennieBriscoe said:

I'm not sure which part you deem not true,  the last-minute cancellation, or the no-comeback for S&C.

I'll grant you the latter, though even a high-falutin' soap opera should have internal character integrity in the sense of "But he wouldn't DO that!" Of course, Luke and Laura ruined that concept a century ago, heh.

But if the former, that is, hurriedly coming up with different storylines as a finale, this wasn't a live production. Or are soap operas no longer live, either? 

I'm just MAD, dammit! That big smooch and then.....FEH!! 

 

I am disagreeing with the idea that there could be "no comeback" for Sidney and Charlotte. Of course if there were more to the story, there could be a comeback for them.  And quite honestly, I am not sure this is an issue of character.  Sidney was in his own version of the Kobayashi Maru, a no-win situation. His brother had already exhausted all of his credit, so obviously he wasn't going to get financing through traditional channels. Sid could have let the entire family go into financial ruin, but that wouldn't exactly demonstrate great character, either.  He was trying to make the best of a very bad situation that wasn't even really his own doing, and unfortunately, he had to hurt Charlotte in the process.

Quite honestly, what Davies did here is subvert the usual trope of a female character marrying for money to save her family. It's clever in its own way.

[HoodlumSheep]

2 hours ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

He wasn't surprised by how much Tom owed. He was surprised that Tom hadn't insured the project. 

He seemed pretty surprised to me when Mr. Parker said 80,000...

Considering how Jolly Parker hasn't shown attraction to anyone, i feel like he leans more towards being ace than gay.

This is just hypothetically speaking:

A marriage of convenience, but involving different people.

instead of Meh Parker and Eliza...why not Jolly Parker and Georgiana (if they both agreed to it ofc)?

Georgiana has a bigger dowry than Eliza, right?

And ofc i mean marriage in name only, basically. They can get married but just stay good friends.Georgiana would no longer be pestered by potential suitors and Jolly Parker seems to be one of the only men she tolerates, so why not? Just an idea. 

Ofc that'd open the sidney x charlotte possibility back up that'd ruin my headcanon that charlotte realizes there's better men out there than sidney *cough* young stringer *cough*...and i guess it'd be far less dramatic than how they ended things. Lol.

5 hours ago, Lily H said:

My ending is that she realizes that she's actually in love with Stringer, who becomes a famous and wealthy architect (maybe in America?), and they live happily ever after.

I second this. 😛

*Sanditon Season 2: Electric Boogaloo - The Rise of Young Stringer* needs to be a thing 

11 hours ago, treeofdreams said:

I think I have put my finger on why I can't get engaged with Sanditon - it is because the characters have no depth.  Esther is the only one who I find interesting but the others all seem so flat.  Hmmm.

This. Her, Lord Babington (though i wish we got to know him more outside of his interactions with esther), lady denham (who after hitting a low after that disasterous dinner party...rose like a phoenix in terms of likability) and Young Stringer were the only ones i was invested in. And Jolly Parker. Jolly Parker didn't get much but he proved his worth too. He still managed to be very likable despite the lack of focus.

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by HoodlumSheep

[LennieBriscoe]

It's not so much I think Sidney is wrong to be his foolish and profligate dreamer brother's keeper; it's that his breaking one woman's heart and deceiving another's do not strike me as consistent with the former's nobility of purpose.

[shapeshifter]

37 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

Quite honestly, what Davies did here is subvert the usual trope of a female character marrying for money to save her family. 

True. And this annoys me. 

 

34 minutes ago, HoodlumSheep said:

instead of Meh Parker and Eliza...why not Jolly Parker and Georgiana (if they both agreed to it

This could have made sense. 
When did the writers find out there would be no second season? I am left wondering if Davies et al. left the show with the main characters getting unhappy endings because that's how he felt about not getting a second season?
I am guessing Georgiana's line to Charlotte about not trusting Sidney might have been written at the moment Davies (or whoever the main writer was) got the news of no second season.
If there was a second season planned, episode 7 should have been the finale, or at least 8 would have ended with Charlotte and Sidney gazing into each others' eyes before any fires.

[Kohola3]

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

When did the writers find out there would be no second season?

I doubt they knew during the filming.  A second season supposedly depended on how well the ratings were for the first season.  They couldn't tell based on airing just a couple of episodes.

Such a disappointment no matter how you look at it.  And then they scheduled it on my PBS station for 90 minutes - but did the sales pitch at the beginning (for 10 minutes) and another 20 minutes at the end.  So my hopes for an outstanding finale were dashed.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Why, for that matter, can Sidney think of no other source of financial aid for Tom other than Eliza (and why should she help, anyway?)?

Yeah, exactly how does this arrangement work? Did Sidney specifically tell Eliza he would marry her if she used her money to help out his brother?? And she said "OK?" How desperate is she? Or worse, is Sidney simply marrying her so that he will get control of her money, then turn around and hand it over to his brother? I don't understand why anyone would continue throwing good money after bad at this point. I'm with Lady Denham, I think she should have called the police and had Tom thrown in debtor's prison.

[Kohola3]

11 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Or worse, is Sidney simply marrying her so that he will get control of her money, then turn around and hand it over to his brother?

Wasn't that the norm back then?  The husband controls everything?  If that's the plan, then he's a jerk.  Supporting your family should only go so far especially if the dipwad brother of the group is the one blowing through the money.

And Charlotte is far better off with Young Stringer who, at least, seems to have a conscience.

[iMonrey]

I'm not loving the fate of poor Stringer. He throws away his chance at a better life because he feels guilty about yelling at his father right before he died. So unnecessary, so cliched, so dumb. The apprenticeship he was offered may not be available after he finishes rebuilding Sanditon. He'll live out his life no better off than his father was. I was hoping the least Charlotte could do was talk him out of that bad decision and urge him to go to London as he planned.

Edited February 24, 2020 by iMonrey

[Kohola3]

12 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I was hoping the least Charlotte could do was talk him out of that bad decision and urge him to go to London as he planned.

I predict that would have been part of season 2 if there had been one. It was, as you say, just stupid.

[doyouevengohere]

I'm glad Esther got to be happy.  I felt sorry for Clara and sad that she was banished.  She grew up being molested and raped by Lady Denhem's male relatives; she felt used and just wanted peace to live as she wished.  She knew it took money for a female to live on her own so I don't blame her for wanting to get the fortune.  Now she has to live with married relatives , some that might even rape and molest her again.    I didn't care much for Charlotte or Sidney so I'm not terribly disappointed they didn't end up together.  Young Stringer was hotter and nicer and should have spoken his mind to Charlotte.  I guess when this was written the writers didn't know there wouldn't be a season 2 yet so they had to leave some loose ends.  Arthur was the nice brother and I do hope if the show continued that he and Miss Lamb would get together and the sister would live with them.

[Shanna Marie]

6 hours ago, scenicbyway said:

Had the series continued I think we would seen Charlotte back at Sandition maybe exploring life with Stringer and then eventually Sidney unless he really turned out to be a Willouhby.

Most likely, she would have come back to Sanditon in season 2, run into Stringer again while he's busy rebuilding the place, and as soon as things seem to be happening between them, Sidney shows up again with his engagement called off. Oh no! What will Charlotte decide? Can she trust Sidney again?

This is the problem in trying to do this sort of thing as an ongoing TV series. It turns it into a soap opera because you can't get your main couple happily married in season one (well, you could, but they never seem to do it that way). We can only pair off a secondary couple. Everyone else's fate has to be kept hanging.

Maybe it would have been better to wrap up these storylines, then let any ongoing series be about the various people who come to the resort, like a Regency-era "Love Boat," but with their stories spread over a season instead of in single episodes. The season one characters could be like the "crew" who helps/interferes with their lives.

[eleanorofaquitaine]

1 minute ago, Shanna Marie said:

Most likely, she would have come back to Sanditon in season 2, run into Stringer again while he's busy rebuilding the place, and as soon as things seem to be happening between them, Sidney shows up again with his engagement called off. Oh no! What will Charlotte decide? Can she trust Sidney again?

This is the problem in trying to do this sort of thing as an ongoing TV series. It turns it into a soap opera because you can't get your main couple happily married in season one (well, you could, but they never seem to do it that way). We can only pair off a secondary couple. Everyone else's fate has to be kept hanging.

Maybe it would have been better to wrap up these storylines, then let any ongoing series be about the various people who come to the resort, like a Regency-era "Love Boat," but with their stories spread over a season instead of in single episodes. The season one characters could be like the "crew" who helps/interferes with their lives.

It didn't turn into a soap opera, it was already a soap opera. Granted, a soap opera based on some high quality base material in the form of a novel fragment from Jane Austen, but a soap nonetheless.

And I, for one, would be all for it. There is nothing wrong or bad about soap operas. At the end of the day, soap operas are just about relationships, family, love, friendships, etc. All of the same things that Austen was interested in.  So I would been all for seeing if Sidney and Charlotte are able to find their way back to each other; how Babbington and Esther's relationship worked out, and whether or not Edward found a way to worm himself back into her good graces; or if Georgianna was able to find love herself. All of that would be soap material... and again, that's okay, IMO. 

[norcalgal]

15 hours ago, TrininisaScorp said:

Fucking hell!  I have a couple friends that watched the whole thing and haven't been engaging with me about it, now I know why.  THAT is how it ends?!  And there is no more?  It is messed up that they gambled on a season 2, and now all that will be left is fanfic. 

Poor Stringer!  He's the real dude that got screwed: Dad's dead after a big fight, lost the girl, AND gave up on his big London dreams?!  Come to mama, I'll make it all better.  Stringer deserved better!

I'm a sucker b/c I was HERE for the cliff walk and kiss with Sidney and Charlotte (close your eyes, fellow Austenites), and they were so cute at the ball redoing that balcony scene.  The way it ended when Sidney came back was so very tragic. WTH?! Him stopping the carriage was just cruel. 

Is Jolly Bro basically saying he is gay, and has no interest in the ladies?  He really grew on me.  I loved that even with his whinging, he was the first to jump in to throw water on the fire. Turned out to be one of my fav supporting characters.

I am RAGING at those people collecting money on PBS before the show started:  "In true Austen fashion, a satisfying ending". Fuck outta here!  Why!  WHY!?

Yep - Stringer really got the short end of the stick. If there had been a season two I think Young Stringer would have had a kinder fate (a patron or other apprentice offer).

7 hours ago, LennieBriscoe said:

Ha! You're right, Kohola3! Georgiana "simply disappears"! 

Surely her character might have at least been shown as gainfully employed, or in some other way her own person. 

Yes, it was so weird that in the episodes leading up to this finale, the show took pains to present Charlotte and Georgiana as friends, but Charlotte was never shown to say goodbye. They didn't even interact at the ball, did they? Their friendship turned out to be kind of pointless...

[Kyanight]

49 minutes ago, norcalgal said:

 

Yes, it was so weird that in the episodes leading up to this finale, the show took pains to present Charlotte and Georgiana as friends, but Charlotte was never shown to say goodbye. They didn't even interact at the ball, did they? Their friendship turned out to be kind of pointless...

Pointless like Charlotte befriending Lady Susan, too.  Other than a small crowd of the elite arriving for the boat race - what was the point? Jolly's friendship with Georgiana?  The point?  Even Charlotte and Georgiana's friendship - since they apparently stopped speaking to each other - why make it a point of showing that relationship develop?  I believe it probably all has to do with the belief that there would be a second season. (Or more.)  Damn those Brits!

[iMonrey]

Quote

This is the problem in trying to do this sort of thing as an ongoing TV series. It turns it into a soap opera because you can't get your main couple happily married in season one (well, you could, but they never seem to do it that way). We can only pair off a secondary couple. Everyone else's fate has to be kept hanging.

The problem is that ITV is constantly looking for the next Downton Abbey. They tried it with Victoria and I strongly suspect this was another hopeful to fill that slot. I think it might have had legs but there are too many Austen devotees who turned their noses up at it. I wouldn't know typical Austen if it hit me over the head so I liked it just fine. I had some problems with it, but I wasn't tearing my hair out and stamping my feet screaming "this isn't genuine Austen! This is not authentic Austen!"

Edited February 25, 2020 by iMonrey

[treeofdreams]

One thing I did like about this episode was Esther smiling and laughing!  She seemed like an entirely different person without that stepbrother's stranglehold over her.

[Kyanight]

5 minutes ago, treeofdreams said:

One thing I did like about this episode was Esther smiling and laughing!  She seemed like an entirely different person without that stepbrother's stranglehold over her.

And I was pleasantly surprised at how great of a person Lord Babington turned out to be.  At first I wasn't sure about him.

[LennieBriscoe]

Regardless of when the writer(s) learned of the series cancellation, it still made no sense for Charlotte to depart Sanditon without our seeing her bid adieu to Georgiana, her closest friend there. I mean, Charlotte got attacked in an alley while looking for G. 

And if at the last second G. could be given the line about not trusting Sidney, then there was time to re-write and re-film other scenes. 

But if the writer(s) filmed this entire Season and were informed afterwards about no Season 2, then I simply cannot countenance how Sidney's character was purposely written at the end. Wouldn't that dramatic kiss of S&C have been a much bigger deal, like literally sealing the marital deal, than it would be today? 

Ah, well. 'Tis but a fragment of a fiction, and it doesn't get much more ephemeral than that.

 

 

[norcalgal]

47 minutes ago, Kyanight said:

And I was pleasantly surprised at how great of a person Lord Babington turned out to be.  At first I wasn't sure about him.

ITA!  I was surprised to see that Lord Babington had more to him under the surface than I first thought (sympathy/understanding, insight into the human heart, and fortitude to stick with Esther given her behavior towards him, and also society's possible criticisms after Edward's dramatic pronouncements at the ball). 

[Shanna Marie]

2 hours ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

It didn't turn into a soap opera, it was already a soap opera. Granted, a soap opera based on some high quality base material in the form of a novel fragment from Jane Austen, but a soap nonetheless.

I think it's a case of expectations. All the other Austen adaptations have been complete stories rather than ongoing sagas, so when you see a Jane Austen drama, you expect it to be wrapped up in a fairly tidy bow. At the very least, you expect the main plot and the main romance to be resolved. They went heavy on the "Jane Austen!!!" angle in the marketing. I think it might have been better accepted if they'd gone more with pitching it as a Regency saga inspired by one of Jane Austen's unfinished works, or as a kind of Downton Abbey in the Regency era.

But even a soap like Downton Abbey seemed to have more closure at the end of a season than this. They'd mostly wrap up the storylines that were going on (though not necessarily wrapping up all the relationships), then cliffhang on the thing that would drive them into the next season -- like ending season one with the announcement of WWI. This ending just sort of unraveled everything that had happened in the season without anything to really propel the action to the next season. It was a lot of negatives -- Stringer's not going to go after his dream, the resort has burned down, Charlotte's leaving town, Jolly Brother and Sickly Sister are going after the next miracle (quack) cure, Georgiana's there, Sidney's marrying for money. None of that's even a good "ooh, things are about to get interesting!" cliffhanger.

I didn't hate it. I didn't like it as much as I wanted to. But there's nothing to make me excited about wanting to see more, no story thread to make me want to see the next season, aside from an overall desire to see something resolved.

[Kyanight]

8 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I didn't hate it. I didn't like it as much as I wanted to. But there's nothing to make me excited about wanting to see more, no story thread to make me want to see the next season, aside from an overall desire to see something resolved.

I loved ALL of your post - but personally I really enjoyed this one-season series so much - and I would love to see another season.  You are right.. there were certainly no cliff hangers and everything ended on a depressing note - but I honestly cared about a lot of the characters and had a great time watching each episode.  I purchased my DVD from Amazon and I would have bought more seasons had there been any.

[Birdie Bird]

I was highly disappointed how Sanditon ended.  I had high hopes on buying the DVD once it was released, but that wrong ending changed my mind.  I will not be purchasing the DVD, and I loved watching Sanditon and could not wait to see it each Sunday on NPT.  It did not end right.  Jane Austin would have never ended Sanditon the way it end for she was a romantic.  Jane Austin made her readers not only see the romance but feel the romance, and her readers walked away feeling good, not horrible.

[humbleopinion]

Lord Babington proved  more of a gentleman and deserving of love than that fortune hunter Sir Sidney who is no better than Sir Edward....

Stopping the carriage to tell Charlotte he doesn't love Eliza but is marrying her money because to quote Renata(from BLL)  "I will not not be poor"....was a fake out....it didn't make Charlotte feel any better but made himself feel less guilty....boo hiss

 

 

[JenMD]

Vulture has an article up that clears up a lot of the questions about the finale.  Contains S2 spoilers, should a 2nd season ever happen.

Quote

Our thought process was, “let’s tell this story, but let’s tell the story of the town as well, so let’s see if we can turn it into a returning Jane Austen series.” So we don’t necessarily have to finish everything in that [first season].

It’s the only Jane Austen out there where you can take it beyond the one arc. It was designed to be the midpoint of Sidney and Charlotte’s story. That being said, the series is also designed so that it works as a self-contained story.

Eh, I found it incredibly unsatisfying for a supposed self-contained story.  But maybe that's because we're only at the midpoint of Sidney and Charlotte's story.  Sigh.

 

Quote

Could a second season still happen? 
We’ve always said, and iTV has also said that they would like to see it get picked up and carried on elsewhere. But the truth is, it just didn’t get the numbers high enough. So were it to continue, we would need a new partner. Which is why the U.S. figures matter, because if it does well and people love it, then these things can happen.

Spoiler

Quote

Please just reassure me that if you ever did somehow get a second season, Charlotte and Sidney would get together. 
Absolutely! We’re not that perverse!

 

I don't know if spoilers about a possible S2 need to be spoilered, but I'm ever cautious.

As for the show itself, Lord Babington and Esther saved it for me in a big way.   I would never have suspected I would be so invested in them at the start, but I was rooting for them hard.  And they had such a lovely wedding. 

[iMonrey]

I feel two ways about Esther. I think Lord Babington deserves better, for one thing. And while at times I did feel sympathy for Esther, I have a hard time seeing her as a victim. But it was nice seeing the two of the happy together at the end. 

[Kohola3]

Amusing recap of the finale.

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

And while at times I did feel sympathy for Esther, I have a hard time seeing her as a victim.

I thought she was beyond redemption at first but ultimately I was happy for her.  You know her creepy brother would have ditched her in a heartbeat if he'd found some rich woman to marry.  

[Kyanight]

1 hour ago, Kohola3 said:

Amusing recap of the finale.

I thought she was beyond redemption at first but ultimately I was happy for her.  You know her creepy brother would have ditched her in a heartbeat if he'd found some rich woman to marry.  

Agreed!  Sometimes wounded people are prickly and cold because they've been hurt too many times.  That is how I saw Esther.  Babington "healed" her soul, so to speak.

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, humbleopinion said:

Lord Babington proved  more of a gentleman and deserving of love than that fortune hunter Sir Sidney who is no better than Sir Edward....

Best post so far in my not so  humble opinion, @humbleopinion! Too bad the script didn't make Esther and Babington the main characters. Then this would have been an Austen story.

 

4 hours ago, JenMD said:

Vulture has an article up that clears up a lot of the questions about the finale.  Contains S2 spoilers, should a 2nd season ever happen. 

Thank you for posting this article, @JenMD!  I too do not know whether or not we should spoil quotes from it, so, I am also using Spoiler tags. Note the person being interviewed,  Belinda Campbell, is a producer, not a writer. To me this means that she might have ideas about a script that are not realistic WRT literary conventions, realistic character development (which I already found strained in Sidney), etc., specifically:

  Hide contents

[Kathryn VanArendonk (Vulture writer/interviewer)] Could a second season still happen?

[Belinda Campbell (Producer)] We’ve always said, and iTV has also said that they would like to see it get picked up and carried on elsewhere. But the truth is, it just didn’t get the numbers high enough. So were it to continue, we would need a new partner. Which is why the U.S. figures matter, because if it does well and people love it, then these things can happen.

Please just reassure me that if you ever did somehow get a second season, Charlotte and Sidney would get together. 
Absolutely! We’re not that perverse! (Kathryn VanArendonk {Vulture writer/interviewer}, Belinda Campbell {Producer}), Feb. 23, 2020)

 So maybe the terrible, horrible, no-good, series ending was ordered by the Producer in the mistaken belief that this (*!%#$) would make some other entity want to pick up a second season?????

 

2 hours ago, Kohola3 said:

Amusing recap of the finale.

I thought she was beyond redemption at first but ultimately I was happy for her.  You know her creepy brother would have ditched her in a heartbeat if he'd found some rich woman to marry.  

And thanks for linking this recap too, @Kohola3.
Especially WRT:

Quote

It’s weird that Babington was fine with Esther saying she likes him but does not love him, but let’s ignore that

not because I agree with the recapper, but rather because it gives me an opening to share that, as a long-ago divorced, older woman who did not like my ex enough and was heartbroken because my decade-long hopes of an Austenian real-life marriage disappeared forever, I disagree.  Liking someone is more valuable to a successful, happy marriage, IMO; falling in love rarely lasts. So I vicariously enjoy and celebrate Esther and Babington's marriage, believing that such a love might exist somewhere across time and space. 
If, as I suggested above, Davies was ordered by the producer to foil Charlotte and Sidney's happiness in some misguided belief that this would buy a second season, I believe that he wrote Esther and Babington's joy to express what he might have done for Charlotte and Sidney as well, left to his own literary devices.

Also from the recap:

Quote

Arthur’s friendship with Georgiana is a treasure, as he’s the only person trying to lift her spirits. His sister Diana is worried he’s going to marry and leave her, but he assures her he’s gay via Regency Englandspeak (“I don’t really know how ladies work”; “I’m a lifelong bachelor”). Arthur finishes out the series by winning the hearts of introverts everywhere with the following: “Much better to be snug in one’s own home, toasting crumpets by a roaring fire.” Has anyone investigated the possibility that Arthur might be Winnie the Pooh?

Yes. Georgiana and Charlotte were true friends. Georgiana would have happily married Arthur to save Sidney from marrying Eliza and having Charlotte's heart broken --well, probably not "happily" unless Arthur happily agrees to let Otis Molyneux be her lover --not likely in 19th century England --or is it? 

Edited February 25, 2020 by shapeshifter
linkage

[treeofdreams]

Is this the first version of an Austen story where a couple is shown in bed together?  I can't think of any others.

[shapeshifter]

9 minutes ago, treeofdreams said:

Is this the first version of an Austen story where a couple is shown in bed together?  I can't think of any others.

I'm not familiar with the many Austen-based works, but based on many readings of the originals, I was offended seeing Charlotte and Sidney kissing before at least being betrothed, if at all. Oddly, the married couple in the bed did not bother me as much.

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

 Liking someone is more valuable to a successful, happy marriage, IMO; falling in love rarely lasts. So I vicariously enjoy and celebrate Esther and Babington's marriage, believing that such a love might exist somewhere across time and space. 

Lady Denham said that it's better to be loved than to love.

That reminds me of Agatha Christie Sad Cyprus where Poirot says to the heroine in the end that loving her cousin who fell in love with another girl made her unhappy but if she marries a man whom she doesn't love but who loves her and has already made everything for her, he will make her happy.  

[Roseanna]

12 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

But even a soap like Downton Abbey seemed to have more closure at the end of a season than this. They'd mostly wrap up the storylines that were going on (though not necessarily wrapping up all the relationships), then cliffhang on the thing that would drive them into the next season -- like ending season one with the announcement of WWI. This ending just sort of unraveled everything that had happened in the season without anything to really propel the action to the next season. It was a lot of negatives -- Stringer's not going to go after his dream, the resort has burned down, Charlotte's leaving town, Jolly Brother and Sickly Sister are going after the next miracle (quack) cure, Georgiana's there, Sidney's marrying for money. None of that's even a good "ooh, things are about to get interesting!" cliffhanger.

I think that Sanditon's difference with Downton Abbey is that in Sandition everything was caused by outward circumstances (Sidney and Charlotte's marriage is prevented by the fire and Tom's debts - well, or also Sidney's decision to marry for money which no Austen's hero wouldn't done) whereas in DA the events and decisions were caused as much or even more by the psychology of the characters (Mary and Matthew were separated because she didn't accept his proposal before his position was secured which he took to mean that she was shallow and didn't love him, not knowing that she had also afraid to tell him about Pamuk).

[Roseanna]

23 hours ago, LennieBriscoe said:

Why, for that matter, can Sidney think of no other source of financial aid for Tom other than Eliza (and why should she help, anyway?)? 

Eliza has no say because once they she are married, her money becomes Sidney's money.

I would rather ask why would she marry a man who she knows doesn't love him but another. Has she no pride at all? Or does she beliece that his love comes back when they live together?