Sanditon - General Discussion

[Kohola3]

44 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Has she no pride at all?

Well, she ditched him to marry for money so apparently not.

[Kyanight]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

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?

Eliza isn't motivated by love whatsoever.  We could assume that she originally was going to marry Sidney for love (and it's definitely an assumption) - but we know that when a higher rank and more money became available she dumped Sidney like a hot potato. (So love was doubtful because Sidney had enough money to take care of her.)  Higher rank and wealthier dude dies leaving Eliza quite settled in life and she chances to meet Sidney again and soon surmises that he is interested in another lady.  At that point he's a conquest... she wants him so that Charlotte can't have him.  It's kind of like Robyn on Sister Wives - what Eliza wants - Eliza gets.  It's a "game" in life.  She clearly knows the rules of that day and age - in that her husband will control her wealth - but right now she wants Sidney so that no one else can have him.  She is definitely the type to have an affair or two sometime down the road.

[shapeshifter]

8 minutes ago, Kyanight said:

Eliza isn't motivated by love whatsoever.  We could assume that she originally was going to marry Sidney for love (and it's definitely an assumption) - but we know that when a higher rank and more money became available she dumped Sidney like a hot potato. (So love was doubtful because Sidney had enough money to take care of her.)  Higher rank and wealthier dude dies leaving Eliza quite settled in life and she chances to meet Sidney again and soon surmises that he is interested in another lady.  At that point he's a conquest... she wants him so that Charlotte can't have him.  It's kind of like Robyn on Sister Wives - what Eliza wants - Eliza gets.  It's a "game" in life.  She clearly knows the rules of that day and age - in that her husband will control her wealth - but right now she wants Sidney so that no one else can have him.  She is definitely the type to have an affair or two sometime down the road.

There’s a bit of a parallel vis-à-vis the Eliza-Sidney and Esther-Babington pairings which Austen would likely have elucidated more, perhaps with an exchange of gossip or speculation between two other characters, such as Lady Denham, Lady Susan, the Beaufort sisters, Sidney’s pals, etc.

[HoodlumSheep]

An update about the season 2 situation (*i only posted the link but then it turned into the whole image, so sorry about that, i don't know how that happened).

Also some (like, 3 of them) of the cast's wishes about their character's futures if anyone's interested:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/specialfeatures/sanditon-casts-wishes-for-their-characters/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=mastersocial&utm_campaign=sanditon_2020

*My shipper logic based on that article:

Charlotte's actress: hopes charlotte continues to pursue an interest in architecture

Young Stringer: an architect/future architect in the making

👀 in conclusion: charlotte x young stringer = architect power couple that totally happens at the end of season 2 👀

Edited February 25, 2020 by HoodlumSheep

[Kyanight]

15 minutes ago, HoodlumSheep said:

An update about the season 2 situation

I just had an epiphany!  I wonder if whether the series would continue or not was MOSTLY based on how much FINANCIAL support they garnered from the U.S. viewers???

[seasons]

I wonder - could they all be playing us on some level about a second season? Would it be possible to just get all the cast available and back together? Something just feels weird about this whole thing. I know it's happened to some extent for other shows, but i just can't put my finger on why this doesn't seem to add up. 😕

[Kyanight]

4 minutes ago, seasons said:

I wonder - could they all be playing us on some level about a second season? Would it be possible to just get all the cast available and back together? Something just feels weird about this whole thing. I know it's happened to some extent for other shows, but i just can't put my finger on why this doesn't seem to add up. 😕

I don't know, but I like your kitty in your profile pic!  😄

[seasons]

1 hour ago, Kyanight said:

I don't know, but I like your kitty in your profile pic!  😄

Lol thanks! ☺

i found it under "Judgy Cat"! I love his snarky face.

[scenicbyway]

6 hours ago, Kyanight said:

I just had an epiphany!  I wonder if whether the series would continue or not was MOSTLY based on how much FINANCIAL support they garnered from the U.S. viewers???

Nope, it flopped in the UK.  PBS raises money for themselves which helps buy shows not produce them.  The real crime is that they showed it here knowing it the ending.  

[scenicbyway]

6 hours ago, Kyanight said:

I just had an epiphany!  I wonder if whether the series would continue or not was MOSTLY based on how much FINANCIAL support they garnered from the U.S. viewers???

Nope, it flopped in the UK.  PBS raises money for themselves which helps buy shows not produce them.  The real crime is that they showed it here knowing it the ending.  
 

Why on earth have him stop the carriage to break her heart again?  That was just cruel.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, scenicbyway said:

Nope, it flopped in the UK.  PBS raises money for themselves which helps buy shows not produce them.  The real crime is that they showed it here knowing it the ending.  
 

Why on earth have him stop the carriage to break her heart again?  That was just cruel.

1. Either the writers had been assured of a second season when they wrote the cruel scene of having Sydney stop the carriage to break Charlotte's heart again and so the writers figured it would make viewers like us want to watch the second season to see it resolved, 
   or
2. the writers had just been given word as they were writing the last episode that there was not going to be a second season, and so they wrote a cruel scene to express how they and the entire cast and crew felt about the canceled second season (but then, as I posted above, they left in the joyous Esther-Babington nuptials to show what could have been for Sidney and Charlotte).

However, even though Sidney apologized in this episode for his terrible behavior towards Charlotte early in the series, IRL a leopard doesn't change his spots. If there was a second season, I would prefer Young Stringer to accept the apprenticeship in London after all --perhaps as a result of encouraging letters from Charlotte, and for Charlotte to marry him as a partner rather than just a wife, which she would have been with Sydney.

[scenicbyway]

8 hours ago, Kyanight said:

I just had an epiphany!  I wonder if whether the series would continue or not was MOSTLY based on how much FINANCIAL support they garnered from the U.S. viewers???

Nope, it flopped in the UK.  PBS raises money for themselves which helps buy shows not produce them.  The real crime is that they showed it here knowing it the ending.  
 

Why on earth have him stop the carriage to break her heart again?  That was just cruel.

[scenicbyway]

I just read a Vulture article that was titled “the Sandition creators know you’re devastated by the Ending”. They are too.

They go onto say that the finale was meant to be the midway point for Sidney and Charlotte.  They are meant to be together and this was just a bump in the road.  Surely Sidney would’ve found another way besides marrying the rich girl because he was meant to be the romantic hero.

The town of Sandition was meant to the main character which is why the show/novel wasn’t called “Charlotte.” They’d like a second season to clear up the mess that was the finale.

[norcalgal]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

1. Either the writers had been assured of a second season when they wrote the cruel scene of having Sydney stop the carriage to break Charlotte's heart again and so the writers figured it would make viewers like us want to watch the second season to see it resolved, 
   or
2. the writers had just been given word as they were writing the last episode that there was not going to be a second season, and so they wrote a cruel scene to express how they and the entire cast and crew felt about the canceled second season (but then, as I posted above, they left in the joyous Esther-Babington nuptials to show what could have been for Sidney and Charlotte).

However, even though Sidney apologized in this episode for his terrible behavior towards Charlotte early in the series, IRL a leopard doesn't change his spots. If there was a second season, I would prefer Young Stringer to accept the apprenticeship in London after all --perhaps as a result of encouraging letters from Charlotte, and for Charlotte to marry him as a partner rather than just a wife, which she would have been with Sydney.

I've made clear from the beginning that I'm on Team Stringer.  As it is, I guess I can just fanfic that Charlotte and Stringer were endgame...

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, scenicbyway said:

Why on earth have him stop the carriage to break her heart again?  That was just cruel.

Yes, and what's even more important, Austen's hero wouldn't have done it. Only a villain like Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility could reveal that he didn't love his wife whom he had married for money.

Sidney is no hero although Andrew Davies thinks he is.

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

If there was a second season, I would prefer Young Stringer to accept the apprenticeship in London after all --perhaps as a result of encouraging letters from Charlotte, and for Charlotte to marry him as a partner rather than just a wife, which she would have been with Sydney.

I am also for Stringer, but in Austen's time a man who had to earn his own wasn't respected, one had to inherit property. Of course Captain Wentwonth in Persuasion was an exception.  

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

However, even though Sidney apologized in this episode for his terrible behavior towards Charlotte early in the series, IRL a leopard doesn't change his spots. 

Well, Darcy did change just as Elizabeth after they had realized their pride and prejudices (both qualities could be applied to them both). In fact, realizing one's errors about oneself and others is the constant theme in Austen's novels.

However, it seemed that Sidney behaved badly simply because the writer had decided that it would make him a romantic hero. There was no reason to be rude towards Charlotte when they met, and still less reason not to reveal Charlotte that he wasn't a racist when she accused him of that. But then when she had  really behaved foolishly by going alone to London, he quite suddenly said that she shouldn't change!

There was no real development of characters at all! They were simply puppets in the plot where there was nothing new (those "shocking" scenes weren't that).

Austen was much more daring in her time: he didn't reform such charming but shallow men as Willoughy in Sense and Sensibility and Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park but revealed their wickedness or weakness and saved Marianne and Fanny from marrying them. 

[LennieBriscoe]

On 2/24/2020 at 2:49 PM, doyouevengohere said:

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.

Poor Clara was no worse a schemer than was Esther and seemed to help Lady Denham more, but there ya go.

Maybe Young Mr. Stringer felt that he could not offer Charlotte a lifestyle (yet) that Sidney Parker could. Plus, he had not the same proximity to Charlotte that would've helped his pursuit.

We shall have to agree to disagree as to who is the hotter man. 😁

Edited February 26, 2020 by LennieBriscoe

[LennieBriscoe]

As to character development:

Well. I suppose we are to view Sidney as a Byronic Hero** all brooding and tragic, forced through the vagaries of fortune to sacrifice True Love in order to be his Brother's Keeper. The authorial problem, though, is that Sidney enters the story as cynical, and he departs us even more so. That's a regression.

We can only hope that Charlotte has not acquired any of Sidney's cynicism or, to put a forgiving light on it, his excessive pragmatism and can retain her hopeful openness to Life and Love. But we aren't shown this happenstance before she rides away. 

Indeed, I agree with Roseanna about the lack of character development---and never mind the "Possible Season Two" argument, for that excuse could go on as long as "Gunsmoke"---but for one:

Esther. She not only learns what True Love comprises; she embraces it,  jettisoning her prior degrading behaviors and obsessions. We SEE her change. We SEE her smile real smiles with Lord Babington as she freely enters marriage with him, after he pursues her with kindness and caring. Finally, we SEE the new Lady Babington turn happily in the marital bed to her husband. 

** https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byronic_hero

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by LennieBriscoe

[Kohola3]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I am also for Stringer, but in Austen's time a man who had to earn his own wasn't respected, one had to inherit property.

Well, Austen seemed to write Uncle Gardiner, a tradesman (in P&P) in a good light who put up his hard earned money to bail out the family.  I wonder if her writing was changing to reflect societal changes at that time.  And who knows if those first 11 chapters had much about Stringer in them anyway.

 

[Roseanna]

12 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

Well, Austen seemed to write Uncle Gardiner, a tradesman (in P&P) in a good light who put up his hard earned money to bail out the family. 

It's true that Elizabeth's Uncle Gardiner was in trade, but no heroine in Austen's books married a tradesman. Clergy and navy were possible. 

In any case, if Charlotte were to marry Stringer, they had to wait for years until he could become an architect and support a family. 

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, LennieBriscoe said:

Well. I suppose we are to view Sidney as a Byronic Hero** all brooding and tragic, forced through the vagaries of fortune to sacrifice True Love in order to be his Brother's Keeper. The authorial problem, though, is that Sidney enters the story as cynical, and he departs us even more so. That's a regression.

Charlotte Bronte's Mr Rocherter was a Byronic hero, but he had to to humbled not only mentally but physically in order to become worthy of the Jane Eure (or to make sure that he couldn't treat her as badly he had treated his mad wife).

Regarding Sidney, why would Tom and other Parkers accept such a safrice from Sidney? After all, it all was Tom's fault. He was an enthusiast who invented "castles in air" without caring about cost. Why would rich people come to Sanditon although they had already much better places to spend their holidays by the sea? Earlier he didn't have to afford to pay to workers and now he didn't have taken insurance.       

[Kyanight]

45 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Regarding Sidney, why would Tom and other Parkers accept such a safrice from Sidney? After all, it all was Tom's fault. He was an enthusiast who invented "castles in air" without caring about cost. Why would rich people come to Sanditon although they had already much better places to spend their holidays by the sea? Earlier he didn't have to afford to pay to workers and now he didn't have taken insurance.

Tom was a dreamer, but he really didn't have the "know-how" to accomplish those dreams.  He was foolish to put his wife and children's welfare at risk by spending money he didn't even possess on his dream.  It's wonderful that he loved Sanditon - so live there and raise your little ones there.  Invite your friends and family to visit - but WHY does EVERYONE have to love it as he does?  Everyone has their own likes and dislikes.  Tom had enough money to live on comfortably - it's like he found this obsession, and damn logic, reason, harsh truths and lucid thought.  By golly he was going to build this huge grand sea resort and people WOULD love it and come by the hundreds!

As for Sidney's sacrifice, it's possible his brothers and the rest of the family might not even find out.  Sidney could say he was able to get the money from some bank somewhere... or a rich "backer".   

I'm on the fence with who Charlotte should have ended up with.  I just didn't feel any romance or love at all between Charlotte and Sidney - other than his looks, WHY would she fall for him?  He certainly didn't treat her very nicely - and many people are disappointed in love at some point in their life, but they don't then take it out on any other possible match they meet.  I guess he was "jaded" - but other than his looks and body coming out of the ocean - still don't see the draw for Charlotte.  As for Mr. Stringer, she always treated him as just a friend.  Mr. Stringer certainly had more admirable qualities.

[Kohola3]

11 minutes ago, Kyanight said:

I just didn't feel any romance or love at all between Charlotte and Sidney - other than his looks, WHY would she fall for him? 

I know chemistry is hard to quantify but what I take for chemistry was really lacking with those two. 

[Shanna Marie]

2 hours ago, Kohola3 said:

And who knows if those first 11 chapters had much about Stringer in them anyway.

I don't think Stringer's even in those first 11 chapters, unless maybe there's an offhand mention of a name that I don't recall. He's strictly Made for TV. I don't recall Austen ever writing a character along those lines. The closest I can think of might be the farmer in Emma who loves Harriet, but Emma gives the bad advice for Harriet to reject him because he's not a gentleman. He's the hard-working, decent guy with prospects that a girl who can't expect a gentleman should be happy to find, but mostly offscreen and never a candidate for the heroine. My guess is he might have been used in the hypothetical season 2 to create some conflict, like he and Charlotte are getting close when Sidney changes his mind and Charlotte is torn, but they'd have probably ended up introducing a new character to pair Stringer up with after Charlotte chose Sidney.

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

However, it seemed that Sidney behaved badly simply because the writer had decided that it would make him a romantic hero. There was no reason to be rude towards Charlotte when they met, and still less reason not to reveal Charlotte that he wasn't a racist when she accused him of that. But then when she had  really behaved foolishly by going alone to London, he quite suddenly said that she shouldn't change!

There was no real development of characters at all! They were simply puppets in the plot where there was nothing new (those "shocking" scenes weren't that).

I think that was my big problem with that relationship and why I wasn't exactly heartbroken when Sidney didn't end up with Charlotte in the finale. They felt like puppets, not characters, so why care? Sidney was rude and obnoxious Because Conflict. They were trying to do Darcy 2.0, but Darcy had reasons for the way he acted, some of which were valid and some of which weren't. If Sidney had reasons for being so awful to Charlotte, we never learned them. Then they had Sidney do the Darcy About-Face and come to Georgiana's aid with Charlotte, akin to Darcy saving the day with Lydia's escapade, except there was no real reason for Sidney to suddenly stop being a jerk (since there was no real reason for him to have been such a jerk in the first place). With Darcy, there was at least an obvious turning point -- the failed proposal in which Lizzie told him how she saw him and he realized that he was being a jerk, with everything he did afterward being his way of showing he'd realized the error of his ways and was trying to change. Sidney just seemed to change because they were at that part of the story. I guess maybe he realized that his behavior had led Charlotte to think he was so terrible that she helped Georgiana get away from him? But I don't think we got the same kind of clear "come to Jesus" moment of transformation that we got with Darcy. It's funny that the writer who did so well in dramatizing the Darcy story in P&P doesn't seem to have understood at all how that worked, so he couldn't translate it into his own story without having Austen's framework.

But then Sidney ditching Charlotte to marry for money was the sort of thing that Austen villains did. He ended up coming across more as a Willoughby than a Darcy, so the admission that he'd ditched Charlotte, in spite of really loving her, to marry for money seemed to me more like a "whew, dodged a bullet there" moment than a heartbreaking roadblock on the path to true love. In an Austen story, she might get home, take a walk in the rain, and get really sick from heartbreak, but then she'd meet someone better or realize that someone she already knew was a far better choice than a cad who'd marry someone he didn't love just to get her money. Though I suppose Sidney is a tiny step above Willoughby, since at least he was getting the money to help his brother and not just because his own horrible past had kept him from getting an inheritance he'd been counting on. Still, he's a character who would have been a villain in an authentic Austen story, the one who causes character growth in the heroine by breaking her heart and making her realize how bad her choices were, so she's then capable of seeing the true worth in the decent guy who's been there all along but whom she overlooked because he wasn't dramatic/romantic enough. With Austen, that wouldn't be Stringer, since he's not a gentleman. There probably would have been another Lady Denham relative showing up who was pure, good, and worthy, if maybe a bit boring compared to Sidney, and poor in spite of his "gentleman" status (but not hanging around Lady Denham just to try to get her money), and Charlotte would realize he's a good guy in spite of having no prospects or income. Surprise twist -- Lady Denham ends up leaving him everything, so Charlotte gets both love and money.

Stringer would end up with, say, the daughter of the doctor Tom recruits to run the "health" part of the health resort, or possibly the daughter of an old soldier (not an officer) who comes to town to recuperate from his lingering war wounds. She's a beauty, so the various young gentleman try to dally with her, even though they could never marry her, but she (with the help of Charlotte, of course) sees the value in Stringer.

[Possum]

Babington and Esther were the saving grace of this show.  Of all of the gentlemen, Babington was the only one I really liked.  Esther became likable when she spilled the beans to a sick Lady Denham.  Their story was the most interesting of this show, and at least we got one happy ending.

Tom Parker was personable but rather stupid and somewhat selfish.  To put buying jewelry for his wife ahead of paying the hard-working men he owed made him a bit of a jerk.  Although he was nice to Charlotte and others, it really was all about him, him, him.  Not to get insurance was just plain stupid.

I was never enamoured of the Sidney/Charlotte pairing but still felt cheated when he said he would marry Eliza.  It was an easy financial out for him.  Most of all, it showed that he wasn't willing to do what it took to be with Charlotte.  Marrying Eliza was the quickest and easiest option but there had to be other solutions.  Although in initial anger Lady Denham said Tom should go to debtors' prison, most likely she could have been talked around.  

Speaking of Lady Denham, I found it interesting that she told Esther how she once fell for a charming man who dumped her to marry money.  Maybe that was a warning of what was to come with Sidney and Charlotte.

Charlotte returns to her family hurt but with experience of how love can hurt.  Although I didn't like that ending because it is Austen, it makes sense that her first venture into romance might be one of pain, just like it is for many of us in the real world.

[KarenX]

Pure Speculation:

Obviously Georgiana will bargain her 100,000 pounds for the chance to marry Otis—and act the wealthy financial backer and turn the tables on her guardian.

And then Sidney can break his engagement and take up again with Charlotte. And Stringer can miss his chance in London and go straight to America.

Edited February 26, 2020 by KarenX
To finish my thoughts

[LennieBriscoe]

This series....I wish I knew how to quit it!  😉

So, to Sidney. It was simply not enough to have him say  (to paraphrase) that in Charlotte's presence he is a better man. First of all, this is quite the limited sphere; a good man is so to the world. But more to the point: No, he isn't! (See: Carriage, Farewell at the.)

There could have been a parting based on sacrifice, kept secret from Charlotte. Perhaps Sidney will have humbled himself to work for Young Stringer or given his every penny to Tom, and thus felt financially unworthy of Charlotte. AS LONG AS IT DIDN'T BETRAY ANOTHER'S HEART, though we were given no reason to like Eliza and every reason to regard her fate as Karmic, we could lament the final parting whilst admiring Sidney. 

Now, he's a punk. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by LennieBriscoe

[LennieBriscoe]

39 minutes ago, KarenX said:

Pure Speculation:

Obviously Georgiana will bargain her 100,000 pounds for the chance to marry Otis—and act the wealthy financial backer and turn the tables on her guardian.

And then Sidney can break his engagement and take up again with Charlotte. And Stringer can miss his chance in London and go straight to America.

If so, more fool Charlotte be. 

[treeofdreams]

There is no way I would want Charlotte to end up with Sidney.  He stared out as a jerk, he ended as a jerk.  "Being a better man" when he was with her is a very selfish reason for him to love her.  (Although did he ever say he loved her?  This seemed to be all about loving himself.  Did he ever give her any other reason for wanting to be with her?)  And, as others have mentioned above, I never saw any chemistry between them.

I didn't see any chemistry with Stringer either.  He was attracted to her, but she seemed to just regard him as a friend.

Perhaps with further development of the story she could have found someone else.  Perhaps Lady Susan would take her to London and she would find someone more worthy there.

Edited February 26, 2020 by treeofdreams

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Though I suppose Sidney is a tiny step above Willoughby, since at least he was getting the money to help his brother and not just because his own horrible past had kept him from getting an inheritance he'd been counting on.

Sidney is lots of steps above Willoughby, morally speaking, IMO. But Charlotte would be better off with someone without so much baggage. 

 

1 hour ago, Possum said:

Tom Parker was personable but rather stupid and somewhat selfish.  To put buying jewelry for his wife ahead of paying the hard-working men he owed made him a bit of a jerk.

IMO, Tom Parker is an arrogant fool, and in the end would likely cause the financial ruin of his entire extended family and Stringer.

 

1 hour ago, Possum said:

Charlotte returns to her family hurt but with experience of how love can hurt.  Although I didn't like that ending because it is Austen, it makes sense that her first venture into romance might be one of pain, just like it is for many of us in the real world.

Yes, been there, done that, even lathered, rinsed, and repeated. But Jane Austen always gave me an escape from that. This version of Sanditon failed to do so. 
 

 

[iMonrey]

Quote

Perhaps Lady Susan would take her to London and she would find someone more worthy there.

I have a suspicion that the plan for Season 2 might have been Lady Susan dying and leaving all her money to Charlotte. That way Sidney could dump Eliza and marry Charlotte after all.

Granted this wouldn't reflect well on Sidney but so far nothing he's done has either.

Long-term, if the show had been permitted to go on for multiple seasons, I could see Charlotte following Stringer to London and marrying him, then crossing paths with Sidney and Eliza at various times, just to show they are still enamored with one another.  Then somewhere down the line Stringer dies, Eliza dies, and Charlotte and Sidney finally wind up together.

[TrininisaScorp]

Interesting that people are side eyeing Masterpiece/PBS for showing the only season of the show knowing the ending.  It isn't the first time, but it looks like folks are now gunshy about other 1 season productions, like Beecham House.  The post about Beecham House on PBS Passport is covered with Sanditon fans asking why they should bother.  It's a wee bit overdramatic, IMO, but my feels are similar (with a little more **shrug, that is what fanfic is for**) about why they went with it knowing it was going to end that way. 

[Kyanight]

23 minutes ago, TrininisaScorp said:

Interesting that people are side eyeing Masterpiece/PBS for showing the only season of the show knowing the ending.  It isn't the first time, but it looks like folks are now gunshy about other 1 season productions, like Beecham House.  The post about Beecham House on PBS Passport is covered with Sanditon fans asking why they should bother.  It's a wee bit overdramatic, IMO, but my feels are similar (with a little more **shrug, that is what fanfic is for**) about why they went with it knowing it was going to end that way. 

I can only speak for myself, but this is what I have to say:  Despite being disappointed at the ending, I am NOT sorry I watched Sanditon.  I enjoyed it immensely. 

[treeofdreams]

Does anyone know when Beecham House is airing on PBS?  I thought I saw something about March 1.

[Popples]

12 minutes ago, treeofdreams said:

Does anyone know when Beecham House is airing on PBS?  I thought I saw something about March 1.

It's going to be on PBS Passport starting March 1; no word when or if it will be shown on regular PBS at all as of yet. That's such a shame, because they've been hyping it for a year.

[treeofdreams]

Thanks.  I was looking forward to it.  Oh well.

Edited to add:  I just read the reviews on Amazon and

Spoiler

Beecham House apparently ends just like Sanditon, with no story resolutions, but with the hope that there will be a season 2.  Disappointing.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by treeofdreams

[Kohola3]

Did I enjoy it?  Yes, I did.  Will I rewatch it?  No.  Would I have preferred another ending or second season?  Yes. 

But it beats the sugar out of 90% of the other crap on at the same time so I'm good with it.

[dcalley]

There is a forum here for Beecham House:

https://forums.primetimer.com/forum/4418-beecham-house/

[Roseanna]

14 hours ago, LennieBriscoe said:

So, to Sidney. It was simply not enough to have him say  (to paraphrase) that in Charlotte's presence he is a better man. First of all, this is quite the limited sphere; a good man is so to the world. But more to the point: No, he isn't! (See: Carriage, Farewell at the.)

 

13 hours ago, treeofdreams said:

There is no way I would want Charlotte to end up with Sidney.  He stared out as a jerk, he ended as a jerk.  "Being a better man" when he was with her is a very selfish reason for him to love her.  (Although did he ever say he loved her?  This seemed to be all about loving himself.  Did he ever give her any other reason for wanting to be with her?) 

I agree.

However heartbroken Sidney was because Eliza dumped him ten years (!) go, that was a hallow reason to treat all people badly, and especially to treat his ward Miss Lamb whose father had asked him to guard.  It seems Sidney had never even tried to win her trust and reagard - which would have been necessary in order get her to trust his estimation about her lover. Also, when he asked Charlotte to keep an eye on Miss Lamb, he never told his reasons for it and thus was partly to blame for her error of judgment.

And how was Sidney actually a better man even Charlotte's company? He was civil and gave her compliments, but that's not enough for being a better man. In the rowing scene he flirted with Charlotte while aiming to marry Eliza or at least unsure whom to choose. In any case, that was rather like Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park who wanted all girls to fall in love with him.

 

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

However heartbroken Sidney was because Eliza dumped him ten years (!) go, that was a hallow reason to treat all people badly, and especially to treat his ward Miss Lamb whose father had asked him to guard.  It seems Sidney had never even tried to win her trust and reagard - which would have been necessary in order get her to trust his estimation about her lover. Also, when he asked Charlotte to keep an eye on Miss Lamb, he never told his reasons for it and thus was partly to blame for her error of judgment.And how was Sidney actually a better man even Charlotte's company? He was civil and gave her compliments, but that's not enough for being a better man. In the rowing scene he flirted with Charlotte while aiming to marry Eliza or at least unsure whom to choose. In any case, that was rather like Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park who wanted all girls to fall in love with him.

Yes. As an example of a typical entitled man, Sydney is a well-drawn character, but as an Austenian hero? No.

And we see Eliza as a sort of villainess, or at least a spoiler, but, really, from her perspective, she waited however many years to be able to marry Sydney, and now he's no longer in love with her, in spite of all of his pining away.

******

I'm still not clear with regards to Otis's role in Georgiana's kidnapping. 

[Kyanight]

3 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

And we see Eliza as a sort of villainess, or at least a spoiler, but, really, from her perspective, she waited however many years to be able to marry Sydney, and now he's no longer in love with her, in spite of all of his pining away.

But ACK - that's so skeevy!!  She COULD have had him as a husband but dumped him for money and title.  HE could have married another woman years ago but did not.  To think that he is hers any time she wants him is so shallow.  She was an easy character to dislike.

[shapeshifter]

16 minutes ago, Kyanight said:

But ACK - that's so skeevy!!  She COULD have had him as a husband but dumped him for money and title.  HE could have married another woman years ago but did not.  To think that he is hers any time she wants him is so shallow.  She was an easy character to dislike.

Yes, Eliza was portrayed as unlikeable.

But looking at it from the perspective of a woman of that time, and also seeing how Sidney himself had to be baled out by Tom after Eliza broke the first engagement, I think Sydney was just a very charming, attractive man with whom ladies were  easily and completely smitten, and Eliza was wise to go for the older, stable, (perhaps sickly?), more-monied first husband, perhaps even promising Sydney some day soon all of hers would be his. 

And now I've just talked myself into wanting to see a season 2 in which Eliza and Charlotte become friends, and handsome, dashing, charismatic Sydney becomes fat and bald, LOL. 
--Not that there's anything wrong with a fat, bald, good guy, but Sydney had a temper that could be quite intolerable, IMO. Strip away the gorgeous man stuff, and Sydney isn't so much of anything.
IDK. I suppose if Sydney really did marry Eliza to save Sanditon for  his brother and his brother's family's sake, he would be a good guy. But as far as we know, he ultimately married her for his own financial comfort.

 

 

[ichbin]

On 2/26/2020 at 5:51 AM, LennieBriscoe said:

Poor Clara was no worse a schemer than was Esther and seemed to help Lady Denham more, but there ya go.

That's the part that bothered me the most.  Why did that character get to potentially live happily ever after?  She had been a total bitch earlier and seemed to have had an easier life than Clara.  

[Kyanight]

1 minute ago, ichbin said:

That's the part that bothered me the most.  Why did that character get to potentially live happily ever after?  She had been a total bitch earlier and seemed to have had an easier life than Clara.  

It's hard to say whether she had an easier life - we can definitely surmise that her life wasn't filled with the abuse that Clara had to endure.  Perhaps Clara will have a "happily ever after" as well.  She is young and pretty and has accomplishments.  

[buttersister]

Hope you liked season 1 of my Lord Babington and Esther in Sanditon! Characters that evolved and earned their love story. I enjoyed that.

In my season 2, Charlotte beckons Stringer to London and the two fall into each other's arms and the world of London architecture. Romantic! He forgives himself. She swears off lip gloss. 

That Parker family? Sorry, don't care about any of them. Sydney, especially, is an ass (and not even for Eliza). Tom is a dreamer? Tom is an idiot, spending the insurance money to buy stuff for Mrs. Tom that he obviously couldn't afford. 

PBS made the best of a bad situation that's out of their hands. The pledge drives wrapped around the last episode, well, they're in the fund-raising business, so that just makes them Sydney.

Edited February 28, 2020 by buttersister

[KarenX]

1 hour ago, ichbin said:

That's the part that bothered me the most.  Why did that character get to potentially live happily ever after?  She had been a total bitch earlier and seemed to have had an easier life than Clara.  

 

It’s true that Esther was there scheming in opposition to Clara for her aunt’s favor, but she was schemings in an honorable, traditional way, following the rules of the gentry since time immemorial. Clara broke the rules by actively interfering with a will and literally setting fire to her aunt’s stated wishes, and for scheming with Boy Cousin against Esther in secret at the same time. Also, Clara gloated in arrogance right to Esther’s face about it.

Very unbecoming of a lady. Esther however comported herself acceptably. Except for the incest.

Edited February 28, 2020 by KarenX

[Kyanight]

53 minutes ago, KarenX said:

 

It’s true that Esther was there scheming in opposition to Clara for her aunt’s favor, but she was schemings in an honorable, traditional way, following the rules of the gentry since time immemorial. Clara broke the rules by actively interfering with a will and literally setting fire to her aunt’s stated wishes, and for scheming with Boy Cousin against Esther in secret at the same time. Also, Clara gloated in arrogance right to Esther’s face about it.

Very unbecoming of a lady. Esther however comported herself acceptably. Except for the incest.

Which wasn't even incest since the two weren't related by blood in any way whatsoever.  In addition - they never had sexual intercourse.  After Clara found that out, she was rather rude about it to Esther.  The very definition of "Incest" means that sexual intercourse was involved.  It's very probable that Esther was a virgin which was the norm at that time - although it CERTAINLY was not Clara's fault that she was not one.

Clara ALSO slept with Edward for the sole reason of hurting Esther - which was really low.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Kyanight

[Kohola3]

17 minutes ago, KarenX said:

Very unbecoming of a lady. Esther however comported herself acceptably. Except for the incest.

There was no incest.  They were not blood relatives in any way. They were related by marriage only.

[LennieBriscoe]

9 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Yes, Eliza was portrayed as unlikeable.

But looking at it from the perspective of a woman of that time, and also seeing how Sidney himself had to be baled out by Tom after Eliza broke the first engagement, I think Sydney was just a very charming, attractive man with whom ladies were  easily and completely smitten, and Eliza was wise to go for the older, stable, (perhaps sickly?), more-monied first husband, perhaps even promising Sydney some day soon all of hers would be his. 

And now I've just talked myself into wanting to see a season 2 in which Eliza and Charlotte become friends, and handsome, dashing, charismatic Sydney becomes fat and bald, LOL. 
--Not that there's anything wrong with a fat, bald, good guy, but Sydney had a temper that could be quite intolerable, IMO. Strip away the gorgeous man stuff, and Sydney isn't so much of anything.
IDK. I suppose if Sydney really did marry Eliza to save Sanditon for  his brother and his brother's family's sake, he would be a good guy. But as far as we know, he ultimately married her for his own financial comfort.

 

 

I don't recall Tom's saving Sidney's financial rear end. IF TRUE, it totally explains Sidney's actions with money up to and including the ending.

As to your last paragraph, there is no question of "if". Sidney broke his own heart as well as Charlotte's not because he sought Eliza's money for himself, for it is not he who needs money, but to help his brother. We are given no evidence otherwise. NEVERTHELESS, I maintain that his means to justify the result preclude Sidney's being a "good guy," at least, not totally.