Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

S04.E01: Gold Stick

Recommended Posts

On 11/15/2020 at 11:15 AM, Daisy said:


I think Gillian is nailing it. Here is Thatcher 
 

 

i know what you mean in regards to Diana. I mean. for me. I wasn't even born yet, but you still... know the story. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I

 

Thank you for posting this. This helps me to see GA is absolutely killing the PM.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

16 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

I disagree with the statement in bold - I found Denis Thatcher to be delightful in his own way.  He's your clueless nerdy dad who recognizes that mom is the dominant personality in the family and just goes with it, so as a result, he and his wife have a better relationship than, say, young Phillip and Elizabeth.  Though it's interesting that somehow this season, Phillip has grown up, gotten over his power issues, and learned to appreciate the Queen better.  

I agree with you here on the Thatchers.  I am finding the Thatchers' marriage a high point of the show.  He's clearly not cowed by her and she obviously adores him.  

I knew what was going to happen to Uncle Dickie (Mr. Wordsworth was not and his eyes widened when the explosion happened, though he has seen enough shows to know that the montage indicated something was afoot).  The juxtaposition of his death and his letter arriving while Charles is grieving certainly gives the viewer an impression of Charles as an unhappy man manipulated into settling for someone he doesn't really want.  Furthermore, the theme of the Abdication being a watershed event for the Windsors is continued as, once again, the heir to the throne cannot marry the woman he loves,     Edward VIII cast a long shadow even after his death.

 

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Very strong opening episode.  I knew what was going to happen with Mountbatten too but they did an amazing job ratcheting up the tension before the terrible event occurred.  Really stellar work from Charles Dance, Tobias Menzies and Josh Connor.

I wish I could say the same for Gillian Anderson.  Her Thatcher is TERRIBLE.  Why did she decide to speak and act as if Thatcher was pushing 90 instead of being 54 years old?  I've seen/listened to video of Thatcher.  She speaks in a deliberate manner but doesn't...speak...sooooo....slooooowly.  

From what I read about the episode from a historian, Thatcher never would have said to the Queen about women in the cabinet and never believed that but the answer was much more complex then what The Crown went for.

Edited by benteen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Finally sat down to watch it.   Managed to remain mostly spoiler free too but that was sooooo hard.

Oh MY.   the Crown is back.   Season 3 opener was so blah.   This one was anything but.   

I knew Dickie was going to die.   I even knew how.   I even knew CHILDREN were on that boat who would die/be severely injured.  You knew it was coming with all the heavy music and flashes between Dickie on the boat, the Queen and Anne stalking the stag and Charles fishing.   But still when it went BOOM, I jumped.   Great cinematic choice having it shot from under the boat.   

The Queen when the line of cars heads her way whe she is sitting enjoying a moment with Anne was wonderfully done.   Just a simple line "It's never good news when they come in packs like that."   Her face on getting the news was soooooooo much more expressive than in Aberfan.   Guess she learned to show emotion.   Olivia Coleman is coming into this role.  

Gillian Anderson is great as Margaret Thatcher.  I mean really good.   I have a friend who does not pay attention to casting news and did not know it was GA until I told him.   But goodness they are really treating her as someone who runs roughshod over everyone in her quest to be shown as the hardest worker, most attention to duty person ever.   My husband, yeah he's retired which means he will stay OUT OF THINGS NO WORRIES.   Instead of seeing the question as polite chit chat.    Nope, all business all the time.   Not time to chat must work work work.   And not with any silly women either.   

Oh lovely, Diana and Charles meet cute.   Why couldn't they do it the way it was historically known to happen.   Still would have had the moment of Diana manipulating the situation and Charles wondering who this cute this little thing was.   More on them later to avoid going into other episodes.

Anne's kidnapping attempt was shortly before her wedding.    Which would have been in Season 3.   In Season 3 when she is driving to the palace for the confrontation during the blackout, she was already married.   In Season 4, you can barely tell she is married, because she always seems to be hanging with the Queen rather than at her own home tending to her interests and her child.   While the actress is wonderful, they really shouldn't have her around so much.   

But the show was not going to go into the Troubles, or Anne's personal life all that much.   The show is the Crown, not British History, or even the British Royal Family Like You've Never Seen Them Before.   It's about the Queen and Charles and how being Monarch/Monarch in waiting controls so much of your life.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the season opener. The actress that plays Anne has a quite talent, I dont think the script is using her to the best advantage, but I enjoy her every time she is on stage. I too though Charles Dance would've made a great older Prince Philip, but Tobias Mendez is giving it his all despite being a bad physical choice. 

Gillian Anderson as Margaret Thatcher will be interesting to watch. The 80s fashion, with Diana wearing that HUGE SWEATER, omg I loved!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not loving Anderson's portrayal of Thatcher here. It borders on parody if you ask me. Yes - I know Thatcher really talked like that but the way Anderson is imitating her is almost campy. 

On the other hand I'm finally getting used to Oliva Coleman and Tobias Menzies as Elizabeth and Phillip after a whole season of trying. And I think the actress playing Diana is nailing it. She's maybe not quite as stunning as Diana was but she's got the voice and mannerisms down pat.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

 

On 11/15/2020 at 11:29 AM, Popples said:

If not that they could have at least shown her attempted kidnapping; that was a massive strike against this show for me.

Whyyy did they not include that? That is classic Anne!

On 11/16/2020 at 9:17 AM, Clanstarling said:

 

I'm fairly neutral when it comes to Diana - but I do believe she embraced a fairy tale that led her to an unhappy life and tragedy. My take on Sarah Spenser on the telephone was that Sarah was jealous - and spiteful. Whether or not Diana was as manipulative as some say.

Not sure if she was jealous per se--I think she made her peace with the situation--but she wildly misplayed her cards with Charles. He ended the relationship after she gave a very indiscreet interview with the press. 

14 hours ago, merylinkid said:

I knew Dickie was going to die.   I even knew how.   I even knew CHILDREN were on that boat who would die/be severely injured.  You knew it was coming with all the heavy music and flashes between Dickie on the boat, the Queen and Anne stalking the stag and Charles fishing.   But still when it went BOOM, I jumped.   Great cinematic choice having it shot from under the boat.   

Oh lovely, Diana and Charles meet cute.   Why couldn't they do it the way it was historically known to happen.   Still would have had the moment of Diana manipulating the situation and Charles wondering who this cute this little thing was.   More on them later to avoid going into other episodes.

I was absolutely dreading the bombing. I had to stop the stream because I was hyperventilating so much. My mother is very sad over that bombing--Dickie, as a cousin to the Romanoffs, had a lifelong tendresse for Maria Nicolaevna, the third Grand Duchess. He always kept a picture of her in his bedroom. When the '79 bombing happened, my mother saw it as full circle--the same violence that destroyed the Romanoffs coming back to destroy the Mountbattens.

I kind of loved the Charles/Diana first meet-cute as long as people understand it was nothing like that (no costumes). 

She was nicknamed Duch specifically because there was a family joke that she was going to marry Andrew who, as the second son, was expected to be given the title Duke of York (as indeed he was). Even if Charles didn't know Diana, he knew her family, and her family knew his.

Thanks for the Margaret Thatcher clips--I was thinking it was a very exaggerated performance but it sounds pretty true to form.

ETA: How cute was Diana's ruffled high collar shirt? That was THE fashion staple of '81-'82. Can't wait til they show her famous black sheep sweater!

Edited by CeeBeeGee
  • Like 7
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I could only watch up to Thatcher's meeting with the Queen.  I grew up in the UK during this period, and Thatcher's election had enormous and long-reaching (negative) repercussions for the country and for my family.

One of a handful of times I ever saw my mother cry was when we heard the announcement of Mountbatten's death, and I just can't bring myself to watch.

If it weren't for Covid, maybe I would have persevered, but it's too much right now.  The fact that Gillian Anderson is nailing it makes it worse, because the sound of that voice still literally makes me nauseous.  It's just all too close to home.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 13

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/16/2020 at 12:12 AM, 3 is enough said:

Phillip strikes me as a horrible person. He married Elizabeth thinking that he could be the power behind the throne, and when that didn't happen he was jealous that his son would be King some day (never mind that he is still waiting).  There's a strong "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" vibe when it comes to his relationship with Charles.  Not to mention all of the other nasty things he has said and done over the years  I do wonder why she is so devoted to him.

By "she" I'm guessing you mean the queen.  If so, I think you've missed the point of the monarchy and the whole theme of this series.  Queen Elizabeth said the role of the monarch is to provide stability and continuity.  She's the focus for  national identity, unity and pride.  She's head of the household; she observes the traditions and responsibilities of her position with an iron hand wrapped in a velvet glove.  And she makes sure everyone else in the family does as well.  She's all about presenting the proper image to the people of the U.K. and the world.  And considering the decade QE was a child of and how she was raised, there's no way in hell she was going to have her marriage end up in divorce.  Now Phillip has always been a piece of work, but she loved him and she probably put up with a lot of crap from him during the course of their marriage.  But at some point, I think they managed to become a real team.  Watching this series, and having lived through all of the stuff they're referencing, albeit from the gaze of an American, I've often thought the wealth and privilege the royal family has doesn't really hold a candle to being the master of your own destiny, especially for certain individuals.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/17/2020 at 3:43 PM, KLovestoShop said:

And you may greatly disagree, but I don’t like Ms Coleman in this part.  She looks, nor acts, like the Queen in any way. 

I completely agree with you!  I dislike her portrayal so much so that I stopped watching the series 2 episodes in of Season 3.  She brings a comical, almost dingbatty air to the role that comes off too caricature-like for me.  She lacks the gravitas that Claire Foy brought and that the Queen deserves. 

Luckily for me, from what I have read about Season 3, I missed nothing great.  I came back for Diana. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Cementhead said:

She brings a comical, almost dingbatty air to the role that comes off too caricature-like for me.  She lacks the gravitas that Claire Foy brought and that the Queen deserves. 

Several times in Season 3, we thought she looked like Carol Burnett doing a comedy skit of the queen.  Season 4 is much better.

  • Like 10
  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

There continues to be a huge controversy over this show in the UK.  Now, everyone and his brother are calling for the writers to put a disclaimer before every episode that much of what you see on the screen is not true and made for dramatic license.  They tear apart everything that you see on screen including how Charles is being so negatively portrayed.    

I think the Queen is portrayed as a nasty, vindictive harpy during this season, and I don't like that one bit.  I truly think Coleman was the totally wrong choice for the part. But the actress who's playing Diana is really good.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

As always, one has to simply accept that Peter Morgan is being true to history in order to enjoy the show. But with that caveat, I liked learning that Charles actually was enchanted by Diana. I'd always thought it was purely an "arranged" marriage that he was forced into against his will, or to which he acquiesced in the name of "duty." That's certainly not the story being told in Episode 1.

In other news, the show certainly has an unambiguous take on the IRA, doesn't it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Cementhead said:

I completely agree with you!  I dislike her portrayal so much so that I stopped watching the series 2 episodes in of Season 3.  She brings a comical, almost dingbatty air to the role that comes off too caricature-like for me.  She lacks the gravitas that Claire Foy brought and that the Queen deserves. 

Luckily for me, from what I have read about Season 3, I missed nothing great.  I came back for Diana. 

It's a slightly better watch after completing season 4.  

They tied Coleman's hands in season 3, in several ways, documented here or in media threads.  I think they edited her horribly, and kept ALL emotion out.  It was shocking, after Claire Foy abley portrayed the Queen's reserve and stoic public face, while still allowing us behind the mask, with her breathing, or a subtle eye flicker.  

For example, watch her as she's watching the ballerina Philip was fucking.  Outwardly, calm, same old queen, but just with how she used her body we saw EVERYTHING she was feeling.

There are dozens of other examples of Foy's amazing skill.

10 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Several times in Season 3, we thought she looked like Carol Burnett doing a comedy skit of the queen.  Season 4 is much better.

Yup.

8 hours ago, KLovestoShop said:

There continues to be a huge controversy over this show in the UK.  Now, everyone and his brother are calling for the writers to put a disclaimer before every episode that much of what you see on the screen is not true and made for dramatic license.  They tear apart everything that you see on screen including how Charles is being so negatively portrayed.    

I think the Queen is portrayed as a nasty, vindictive harpy during this season, and I don't like that one bit.  I truly think Coleman was the totally wrong choice for the part. But the actress who's playing Diana is really good.

 

Oh FUN!

Now I need to search for those articles!  I wonder how many are being prompted by the men and women who must protect their livelihoods?  

4 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

As always, one has to simply accept that Peter Morgan is being true to history in order to enjoy the show. But with that caveat, I liked learning that Charles actually was enchanted by Diana. I'd always thought it was purely an "arranged" marriage that he was forced into against his will, or to which he acquiesced in the name of "duty." That's certainly not the story being told in Episode 1.

In other news, the show certainly has an unambiguous take on the IRA, doesn't it?

So far, yeah, but we are mostly seeing the IRA only through royal eyes.

I think Charles needed a baby maker and a wife, and Diana charmed him as she charmed us all.  He was running out of options and his "batchelor" schtick was getting old.  As was he.

Diana fit the bill, so why not?

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

 

On 11/15/2020 at 4:50 PM, swanpride said:

this through and through male cabinet of Thatcher was kind of unusual during that time.

And they seemed to try to convey that it was unusual by having QEII chatter about how she liked to guess who will be in the cabinet and seem surprised when Mrs Thatcher announced that she has not chosen any women, but then apparently her guesses were almost all spot on so she must not have had any women predicted on her list (or at least Margaret Thatcher didn't tell Denis that she made mistakes by guessing women who weren't there). It would have made more sense to have the Queen guess some potential female ministers and be wrong.

  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, KLovestoShop said:

There continues to be a huge controversy over this show in the UK.  Now, everyone and his brother are calling for the writers to put a disclaimer before every episode that much of what you see on the screen is not true and made for dramatic license.  They tear apart everything that you see on screen including how Charles is being so negatively portrayed. 

Back last season I complained here that the Charles on view didn't match up at all with my perception of the real Charles, so I'm not sorry to hear the show is being ripped to shreds.

The real issue--with all historical drama, but with this one in spades--is the desire of the show to eat its cake and have it, too. If the show did have a disclaimer saying, "By the way, none of this actually happened," no one would watch it! It's only the audience's belief that it is seeing the truth that makes the audience interested in the show in the first place! And Peter Morgan knows this. It would be perfectly legitimate to present a history that was a product of the author's imagination, if that were disclosed. But it isn't being disclosed.

Edited by Milburn Stone
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, swanpride said:

It's a historic show, not a documentation. Fictional accounts of history are always above all fictional.

Is the show being presented as fiction? I would question that.

Share this post


Link to post

13 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

Is the show being presented as fiction? I would question that.

I see it as a longform biopic.  Just like every biopic ever made, established facts are fudged to make the creator's themes more apparent.  The show is Peter Morgan's vision of Queen Elizabeth II and those who orbit her.  Even when the show touches upon known historical events, the viewer sees how Peter Morgan believes the characters reacted.  The show does weave into the dialogue actual quotes from the various real life counterparts, but it's still written dialogue not a transcript.   

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

The real issue--with all historical drama, but with this one in spades--is the desire of the show to eat its cake and have it, too. If the show did have a disclaimer saying, "By the way, none of this actually happened," no one would watch it! It's only the audience's belief that it is seeing the truth that makes the audience interested in the show in the first place! And Peter Morgan knows this. It would be perfectly legitimate to present a history that was a product of the author's imagination, if that were disclosed. But it isn't being disclosed.

It's kind of doing both. The show and Peter Morgan are up front about what they make up and what is in the historical record IF you are the type of viewer who searches on line to fact check or listen to podcasts on "the making of..."  So, NOT the vast majority of viewers.

I don't doubt that Morgan is aware that people (practically all of us) accept historical drama as what happened. We certainly remember it better than info from books because it is designed to capture our attention and lead us to certain conclusions.  All of this has "the bottom line" as a motivator.  Not sure I'd watch it if they were scrupulous about not showing anything that is not know as a fact (most of the interesting parts).

Sadly, the more you know about the subject matter, the less enjoyment you get from the fictionalized version. (Did you know that Charle's fly fishing form in this show was atrocious? Aficionados were appalled!) ;-)

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

One thing I can say, I think without any dispute...  the cinematography in this episode was excellent!  I loved the first part with the cutting back and forth between all the hunts - Charles' fishing in Iceland, the stag hunt, the lobster boat, the guy in the car "hunting" Dicky", etc.  The nature shots were outstanding, and the theme of the hunt was used so well.  For me, it really set the tone for this season. 

I still haven't completely warmed up to Oliva Coleman as QE, but I think the role suits her better when she's clomping about in the mud at Balmoral.  I still wish they had simply aged up Claire Foy for these seasons.  I think part of it is that Clair Foy is the same height as QE, while OC is 3-4 inches taller, and overall larger built.  So I just don't see QE when I look at her. 

I'm undecided on Gillian Anderson as Margaret Thatcher.  Watching the clip someone posted above, I think she does a good job, but her voice seems so forced.  It reminds me of someone who has had a stroke or other trauma learning to speak again.  Every word seems forced, nothing seems to flow naturally.  And the hair!  MT had big hair, but I think the show went a little overboard. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/23/2020 at 7:12 PM, Milburn Stone said:

The real issue--with all historical drama, but with this one in spades--is the desire of the show to eat its cake and have it, too. If the show did have a disclaimer saying, "By the way, none of this actually happened," no one would watch it! It's only the audience's belief that it is seeing the truth that makes the audience interested in the show in the first place! And Peter Morgan knows this. It would be perfectly legitimate to present a history that was a product of the author's imagination, if that were disclosed. But it isn't being disclosed.

Already Aristotle wrote that history tells what happened, but poetry (as fiction was then called) tell us what *might have* been happened.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

On 11/19/2020 at 7:02 AM, merylinkid said:

Great cinematic choice having it shot from under the boat. 

And adding to that dramatic shot is the fact that you see a lobster pot sinking toward the bottom just before the boat explodes -- as if one of the boys has just set it over the side.  That small item reinforces the cinematic illusion that there were actually people on board that boat when it blew up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/27/2020 at 8:08 AM, chaifan said:

And the hair!  MT had big hair, but I think the show went a little overboard. 

Actually the show was spot on. Google images of Maggie T. from that era. Her hair could have supported orbiting satellites. I think the show deliberately made it bigger as her term in office went on, but it really wasn't off the mark.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

And as I said earlier, Thatcher really spoke that deliberately. That was partly due her originally having a very shrill voice -"me things the lady screams too much" - so she deliberately trained herself to speak lower and more controlled.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Started watching the season last night and I am even more amazed than I thought I would be at Gillian Anderson's portrayal of Margaret Thatcher.  I said in the media thread earlier based on watching the preview that they should just hand her the Supporting Actress Emmy, and I stand by that prediction.  

I really liked the introduction of Diana Spencer, even if didn't really happen like that.  The actress has the mannerisms and voice down really well.  The hairstyling and costume departments deserve an Emmy just for her character alone.  I liked the quick scenes of Diana as a teacher's aide, it was easy to see the exuberance and joy that captured Charles' eye.  I remember the famous picture of Diana holding the child on her hip, and was glad to see some of this role in the show.

I do think the time jumps are a bit jarring.  Particularly the fact that at the show's start, Charles is apparently dating Sarah Spencer and she is very much interested in him.  He meets Diana.  Then apparently in a blink, Sarah is about to get married and he calls to ask permission to date Diana.  I get that the show has to cover a lot of real time in comparatively little show time, but if there was a "one year later" or something indicator, I missed it.  How did Sarah go from hoping she was going to be the Princess of Wales to marrying someone else without even a mention of their breakup?  Same thing with Anne... there was never any mention of her getting married or having been in the Olympics, and all of a sudden we learn that her marriage and equestrian career are both failing and in trouble.

I get that the show is focused on the Queen and the concept of the monarchy, but I do wish we could have seen more of Helena Bonham Carter.  She was criminally underused in this episode, I hope they find more for her to do.

On 11/15/2020 at 11:12 PM, 3 is enough said:

Phillip strikes me as a horrible person. He married Elizabeth thinking that he could be the power behind the throne, and when that didn't happen he was jealous that his son would be King some day (never mind that he is still waiting).  There's a strong "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" vibe when it comes to his relationship with Charles.  Not to mention all of the other nasty things he has said and done over the years  I do wonder why she is so devoted to him.

I liked the Matt Smith portrayal of Phillip, but I truly can't stand Tobias Menzies.  Granted, I have greatly disliked this actor ever since he was a snivelling Brutus in HBO's "Rome", but there's something about his dour looks and his monotone voice that puts me off.  The inclusion of this "he chose YOU" scene I guess was meant to reinforce the idea that Phillip is a second or third class citizen in the family and always will be.  After Season 3's Phillip-focused episode (which I thought was one of the most dreadfully boring and awful episodes of any TV show I have ever seen), I thought he had come to some terms with his role, but I guess this scene is meant to show that he's still the same jealous ass that he was in the first two seasons.

On 11/22/2020 at 9:30 AM, Cementhead said:

I completely agree with you!  I dislike her portrayal so much so that I stopped watching the series 2 episodes in of Season 3.  She brings a comical, almost dingbatty air to the role that comes off too caricature-like for me.  She lacks the gravitas that Claire Foy brought and that the Queen deserves. 

Luckily for me, from what I have read about Season 3, I missed nothing great.  I came back for Diana. 

I don't mind Olivia Colman here, but I do agree she does seem to be portraying her as slightly dingbatty.  Almost like she's channeling her Oscar winning turn as Queen Anne from "The Favourite".    I'll give her a chance however.  I know that Imelda Staunton is going to portray Elizabeth in the final two seasons, and all I can think of when I think of her is Dolores Umbridge playing at being the queen, and I shudder.  So I think I will try and enjoy Colman here while I can.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/15/2020 at 3:06 PM, swanpride said:

Not sure if she said that, but it sums up her attitude pretty much. Frankly, Imho there has never been a female Prime minister, not really. Because being female isn't just about gender, it is also about a certain attitude. Thatcher acted like a man (and a pretty macho man) to get where she was, and she had no time to even touch the system. I guess she thought that women's right were a waste of time because women just could lift themselves to the top if they just wanted to, because she managed to do it.

I always wondered if she would ever be ready to admit that her version of a better Britain was a complete failure if she saw the results today. But I guess she just would blame others for being "too weak".

Rightly so, IMO.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Just watched the first two episodes, as with a show this good I like to pace myself.  Off to a ripping good start!  

The Mountbatten killing was sad, but for such a control freak he was tone deaf to the repeated warnings and heightened unrest.   I thought the slogan was a bit tacky, however.  

crown2.jpg.9bfa11e35f3303301189b2c9bdd33766.jpg

 

Stunning camera work throughout.

crown1.thumb.jpg.70bf82c50e65b9df0ebc9d41c57d64f8.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

The Mountbatten killing was sad, but for such a control freak he was tone deaf to the repeated warnings and heightened unrest.  

 

Please see my comments in the forum on History:  Beyond the episodes.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, blackwing said:

I liked the Matt Smith portrayal of Phillip, but I truly can't stand Tobias Menzies.

He's a really heavy breather, that guy, in that I can actually hear him breathing sometimes in his scenes.  And seems to speak through clenched teeth.  I've never seen him in anything else but he is certainly trying something interesting with his take on Phillip that is not at all similar to Matt Smith's portrayal.

Emma Corrin is doing a spectacular job as Diana but I think the Hair Department let her down some with that bad wig.  It needed to be much more feathered & full to look like Diana's.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Cementhead said:

I've never seen him in anything else but he is certainly trying something interesting with his take on Phillip that is not at all similar to Matt Smith's portrayal.

You should watch Outlander.  He plays two different characters, generations removed from each other.  TOTALLY different types of people.  He's amazing in that.

  • Like 7
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

You should watch Outlander.  He plays two different characters, generations removed from each other.  TOTALLY different types of people.  He's amazing in that.

I really should watch that because it sounds like it is right up my alley but it seems like it is a big series to take on so I need to build myself up to it, lol.  Probably right about now would be good as Winter quickly closes in on us. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

You can watch the first two seasons and then pause. It's basically the first big arc.

And yes, I like him in those double roles too, but not as Phillip. I guess because there is some underlying aggression in the way he acts which fits both of his roles in Outlander (for different reasons) but is a little bit too much for Phillip.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I actually felt a little sorry for Philip in this episode, for the way Dickie basically took his place with Charles.  It's always easier to talk with someone who isn't so close or judgmental, but Dickie's views on marriage and women were unconventional and outdated at the same time.

crown1b.thumb.jpg.20a0c80da83b03b30fbab0a26d7b67e7.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/15/2020 at 2:37 PM, Aliferously said:

 

I was aghast that Philip, was jealous of his own son. Just what the hell? You're in your 60's, how is this even reasonable?

 

I sort of understand this from my own experience:  when my dad passed away very suddenly some twenty years ago, my now-ex husband treated his death as though his own father had died (which he had some 20 years before mine).  As a result, he was so deep in mourning that he neglected me, whose father it was that died.  It was probably what ultimately led to our divorce four years later.

My thought was, you already got to mourn a father.  How about helping me?  He made it all about himself.  I was pretty much left to cope on my own.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
saoirse

Stick to discussion of the episode, please. Discussion or mention of future events is NOT ALLOWED in episode topics, including mention of individuals who have not yet appeared or events that occur in future decades. Posts will be removed; repeated violations may incur further sanctions.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size