Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

1923 in the Media

blackwing

By blackwing
in 1923

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

blackwing

blackwing

  • Author
On 2/3/2023 at 8:44 AM, Artsda said:

 

 

On 2/3/2023 at 1:29 PM, SnazzyDaisy said:

 

I'm happy to see that the show has been renewed... but didn't we get burned by Taylor Sheridan once before?  There were articles claiming "1883" had been renewed.  Then some weeks/months later, Sheridan clarified that "oh by renewal, I mean that I'm continuing the Dutton story in 1923".  So it wasn't a renewal of "1883" in the sense that we got to continue the characters' stories.

I am cautiously optimistic that there will actually be a second season.  I'd be thrilled to see Helen Mirren and Harrison Ford continue the story.  But Elsa already pretty much told us that Spencer dies.  She said it in the first episode and more or less said it again in last night's episode, something about it being his final journey.  I would think he already wrote the whole 8 episode season already, and not knowing whether the show would be renewed or not, I would hope that he resolves the war with Banner.  So what will a Season 2 bring?  Jack and Elizabeth raising a baby.  Teonna Rainwater.  And what else?

Besides, I thought Sheridan had already decided he wanted to film a World War II series in the 40s.  I won't believe anything until it actually gets released.

Link to comment
Affogato

Affogato

(edited)

https://news.yahoo.com/4-details-might-missed-season-163915880.html
 

near the end if this largely descriptive review of the show there is a soeculation about the historical source of Arthur:

“Prince Arthur of Connaught, born in 1883, was a British military officer and a grandson of Queen Victoria who served as Governor-General of the Union of South Africa in the 1920s. His father was the Earl of Sussex and also named Arthur, just as in the show.

The younger Arthur married his first cousin once removed, the Duchess of Fife, who was the granddaughter of Arthur's uncle, King Edward VII, and named Alexandra. The real-life story goes that they had a son together and lived happily ever after (although Alexandra did secretly become engaged to another man before meeting Arthur their plans to wed were called off as her parents disapproved).”

there is also an interesting idea about Sam showing up at the Comanche reservation  

 

Edited by Affogato
  • Like 2
Link to comment
blackwing

blackwing

  • Author
7 minutes ago, Affogato said:

https://news.yahoo.com/4-details-might-missed-season-163915880.html
 

near the end if this largely descriptive review of the show there is a soeculation about yhe historical source of Arthur  

 

I still chalk up Alex being called the "Countess of Sussex" to poor writing.  The article clearly indicates that Arthur's mother is the Countess of Sussex.  There cannot be two Countesses of Sussex.  Unless the mother is a Dowager, which she isn't, because her husband the Earl is still alive.  The article suggests that Alex has blue blood herself.

But one thing is certain, when it comes to Taylor Sheridan, only he knows for sure.  I find the suggestion that he did "research" to plot this particular storyline to be laughable.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Affogato

Affogato

(edited)
3 hours ago, blackwing said:

I still chalk up Alex being called the "Countess of Sussex" to poor writing.  The article clearly indicates that Arthur's mother is the Countess of Sussex.  There cannot be two Countesses of Sussex.  Unless the mother is a Dowager, which she isn't, because her husband the Earl is still alive.  The article suggests that Alex has blue blood herself.

But one thing is certain, when it comes to Taylor Sheridan, only he knows for sure.  I find the suggestion that he did "research" to plot this particular storyline to be laughable.

It seems likely Sheridan saw this story. The names are close and he’d be trolling that time period for details  

 

In the historical story the younger Arthur must be the ‘prince in succession’. In the show I think it works better if the elder Arthur is the prince and a Duke, making Arthur g thhe younger the earl? I think it is unlikely that is Alexandra’s title, i think Arthur durvived and was sputtering. 

Edited by Affogato
Link to comment
blackwing

blackwing

  • Author
6 hours ago, Affogato said:

It seems likely Sheridan saw this story. The names are close and he’d be trolling that time period for details  

 

In the historical story the younger Arthur must be the ‘prince in succession’. In the show I think it works better if the elder Arthur is the prince and a Duke, making Arthur g thhe younger the earl? I think it is unlikely that is Alexandra’s title, i think Arthur durvived and was sputtering. 

I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to continue to try and decipher the crap that Taylor Sheridan is shilling, because like much of his writing, it doesn't make sense. 

But for what it's worth, on the show, I thought they very clearly addressed and referred to the older man, Arthur's father, as the Earl of Sussex.  So he isn't a Duke or a Prince.  I understand that it's possible to have multiple titles (like Prince Harry the Duke of Sussex or Prince Edward the Earl of Wessex).  But if Arthur's father was a Duke they would have called him a Duke.  If Arthur's father was a Prince they would have called him a Prince. 

And I believe the reference to "the Prince" who demanded that Spencer be cast ashore didn't get mentioned until after Arthur had went overboard, so Arthur cannot be the "prince in succession".

My explanation is that once again, Taylor Sheridan thinks he is a fantastic storyteller, when in actuality, he's complete shit.  He really does need to have more people, including actual script editors, get involved in the process.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Affogato

Affogato

(edited)
33 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to continue to try and decipher the crap that Taylor Sheridan is shilling, because like much of his writing, it doesn't make sense. 

But for what it's worth, on the show, I thought they very clearly addressed and referred to the older man, Arthur's father, as the Earl of Sussex.  So he isn't a Duke or a Prince.  I understand that it's possible to have multiple titles (like Prince Harry the Duke of Sussex or Prince Edward the Earl of Wessex).  But if Arthur's father was a Duke they would have called him a Duke.  If Arthur's father was a Prince they would have called him a Prince. 

And I believe the reference to "the Prince" who demanded that Spencer be cast ashore didn't get mentioned until after Arthur had went overboard, so Arthur cannot be the "prince in succession".

My explanation is that once again, Taylor Sheridan thinks he is a fantastic storyteller, when in actuality, he's complete shit.  He really does need to have more people, including actual script editors, get involved in the process.

I haven’t read Peter Whimsey in decades and that is where I learned British Peers, that and Shakespeare. it isn’t a hill I will die on. 
 

i don’t remember anyone being addressed very clearly. But the older man would likely not have called Alex countess, so I bet arthur the younger was rescued. Also if he had died I bet Spencer would have needed to be remanded to custody. Letting him go because of self defense sounds like the older man’s voice of reason. Arthur the younger’s killer would need to stand trial or people who let him go would have been in trouble. 
 

yes I would not be reading this if it was a novel nor would I make an effort to go to a theater for a movie.  It is not memorable writing. On the other hand I feel that way about most tv and I don’r watch it. I don’t expect good writing.  I’m in this for Ford and secondarily for Mirrin. 
 

 

Edited by Affogato
  • Like 1
Link to comment
blackwing

blackwing

  • Author
24 minutes ago, Affogato said:

i don’t remember anyone being addressed very clearly. But the older man would likely not have called Alex countess, so I bet arthur the younger was rescued. Also if he had died I bet Spencer would have needed to be remanded to custody. Letting him go because of self defense sounds like the older man’s voice of reason. Arthur the younger’s killer would need to stand trial or people who let him go would have been in trouble. 

Initially, some employee ran up to the captain and said that there is a duel on deck between "some American and the Earl of Sussex".  Thus seeming to indicate that Arthur is the Earl of Sussex.  But then later on, it seemed clear that his father is the Earl of Sussex.  So I would attribute that employee's reference as mistake.

I thought the older man who referred to Alex as the Countess of Sussex was the captain.  I agree with you that it's possible that Arthur survived.  Ordinarily I would think it would be odd that he survived but nobody thinks to mention anything at all about it, not even on the next day.  But... Taylor Sheridan.  My theory, as I stated on the episode thread, is that Arthur survived and his granddaughter is Silver Hair who is trying to take over the Dutton lands.

The captain very clearly indicated that, based on the testimony of Jennifer the Bridesmaid, Spencer acted in self-defense.  So regardless of whether Arthur died or lived, Spencer was exonerated by the captain.  The incident happened in international waters where the captain is the authority.  Thus, there would be no trial.  However, the unidentified "Prince" demanded that Spencer be kicked off the ship and put ashore immediately.  And the captain complied, because he said the ship was a British liner.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
Link to comment
Affogato

Affogato

3 hours ago, blackwing said:

Initially, some employee ran up to the captain and said that there is a duel on deck between "some American and the Earl of Sussex".  Thus seeming to indicate that Arthur is the Earl of Sussex.  But then later on, it seemed clear that his father is the Earl of Sussex.  So I would attribute that employee's reference as mistake.

I thought the older man who referred to Alex as the Countess of Sussex was the captain.  I agree with you that it's possible that Arthur survived.  Ordinarily I would think it would be odd that he survived but nobody thinks to mention anything at all about it, not even on the next day.  But... Taylor Sheridan.  My theory, as I stated on the episode thread, is that Arthur survived and his granddaughter is Silver Hair who is trying to take over the Dutton lands.

The captain very clearly indicated that, based on the testimony of Jennifer the Bridesmaid, Spencer acted in self-defense.  So regardless of whether Arthur died or lived, Spencer was exonerated by the captain.  The incident happened in international waters where the captain is the authority.  Thus, there would be no trial.  However, the unidentified "Prince" demanded that Spencer be kicked off the ship and put ashore immediately.  And the captain complied, because he said the ship was a British liner.

I guarantee you that if Arthur had died the captain would not have let him go free. It is a British liner. Arthur is a peer. 

Link to comment
circumvent

circumvent

I was looking at something on YouTube and came across a recent interview with Helen Mirren - and two other actors (Pedro Pascal and Ariana DeBose), one of those late night shows, I guess. They were talking about their recent projects, film, TV and stage. Helen talked about some Marvel movie she made, Shazam. Pascal talked about The Mandalorian and The Last of Us, Ariana DeBose talked a little bit about Hamilton, her Oscar for The West Side Story, the Tony Awards. They showed clips and talked some behind the scenes stuff.

Helen did not talked about 1923. The only mention was when she said "I worked with Harrison Ford". She never said the name of the show or anything else.

I find it interesting, in an intriguing way. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
Link to comment
Affogato

Affogato

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put this, but after repeated talk about Leopards not attacking people, which seemed wrong, I thought I would gather some information. this article from the Guardian, 2018--

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/23/mumbai-leopards-stray-dogs-protect-sanjay-gandhi-national-park

Points out that there are more leopards than there would be in a normal range because of the dogs, which serve as prey animals. Note that the leopards kill people, but the article points out that they kill dogs that bite people (spreading rabies) and reduce the population of dogs that are expensive to sterilize (in a control effort). I've read similar things about Sharks in fishing grounds, that they will gather but are less of a danger to humans because the of the food supply, and when fishing stops for some reason there are human killings.

Wikepedia has an article on Leopard attacks, which seem pretty common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_attack

It seems that they do increase or decrease depending on what is happening. One line that struck me, from this article, is: "Leopard attacks on humans tend to occur at night, and often close to villages. There have been documented incidents of leopards forcing their way into human dwellings at night and attacking the inhabitants in their sleep." 

So often hunters were hired to get famous leopards who were known man eaters, and in an area where a lot of change was happening, loss of prey and upheaval and the establishment of agriculture, you can see hiring someone like Spencer if you had a local leopard problem, or you would hire someone like Spencer to get trophies for a group or protect a group of people on Safari, perhaps like Alex and her then fiance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hunter

Yes, very colonial, as is almost everything the British empire touched.

In any case, Leopards, very dangerous creatures. there may be some cases where they shy away from humans, they would need a place to get away from them (might not always be possible) but also many cases when they apparently climb into your hut and eat you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
circumvent

circumvent

3 hours ago, Affogato said:

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put this, but after repeated talk about Leopards not attacking people, which seemed wrong, I thought I would gather some information. this article from the Guardian, 2018

I was one of the people who had issues of how it was portrayed in the show but what I said was that leopards don't hunt in pairs, they are solitary, and that they would not, after hearing a gun shot, ambush a human. Of course leopards attack people. But they also fear people so after a gun shot they would run away, not hide in the tall grass waiting for humans to make a mistake - after a whole lot of commotion. If that's happening, then everything Sir David taught me is wrong

  • Like 1
Link to comment
blackwing

blackwing

  • Author
6 minutes ago, Artsda said:

This will be big mainstream for him. 

 

 

 

I see her books at B&N and the airport all the time.  I had never heard of this woman before a year or so ago, it seems she has exploded in popularity and has so many books on the best seller list at one time.  So a movie adaptation seems inevitable.

However... Brandon Sklenar?  Really?  He's possibly among today's worst actors.  A block of wood has more personality and acting ability than him.  Admittedly I haven't seen him in anything but this show, but my perception of him is that he has limited range.  Even when his character was supposed to be carefree and happy, he seemed dry and devoid of joy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
CountryGirl

CountryGirl

5 hours ago, Artsda said:

This will be big mainstream for him. 

 

I just finished "It Starts With Us" (the sequel) and read "It Ends With Us" last month (a bit formulaic but I gobbled them up in a few days) and I can see Brandon as Atlas. 

 

 

Link to comment
blackwing

blackwing

  • Author

I really thought that Helen Mirren had a chance at an Emmy nomination, she is far and away the best thing about this show.  However, I guess even Kevin Costner couldn't get a nomination for Yellowstone, even though he won the Golden Globe a few months ago.

Link to comment
circumvent

circumvent

On 7/17/2023 at 3:41 PM, blackwing said:

I really thought that Helen Mirren had a chance at an Emmy nomination, she is far and away the best thing about this show.  However, I guess even Kevin Costner couldn't get a nomination for Yellowstone, even though he won the Golden Globe a few months ago.

Different people vote for these awards. The foreign press vote in the Globes. Actors (maybe directors and producers too) vote in the Emmy's. different perspectives, I guess

Link to comment
circumvent

circumvent

Cross posting

Listening to a podcast about the writers strike, with one of the writers for Bear, interesting fact: Taylor Sheridan is NOT supporting the strike (neither is Ryan Murphy). They are producers who make a lot of money on the backs of the workers and don't want to give in an inch of their profits. 

I never liked him, now I know he is a real douche.

I have a lot of criticism about the writing in shows but that's a result of costs being cut, the non-existence of writers room where thy can discuss plots and stories, the lack of a head writer with more experience to guide the new ones, the pressure to deliver (assembly line style)

All the producers, millionaires and billionaires, would still be millionaires and billionaires if they paid the workers a living wage. Bunch of assholes

Link to comment
Snazzy Daisy

Snazzy Daisy

Missing 1923 Actor Cole Brings Plenty Found Dead

Quote

Per a statement from the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office in Kansas, Cole Brings Plenty‘s body was discovered in a wooded area on Friday after a person noticed an unoccupied vehicle nearby and notified authorities. The exact cause of death has not yet been revealed.

Brings Plenty was a suspect after allegedly being involved in a domestic violence incident on March 31.

spacer.png

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Snazzy Daisy

Snazzy Daisy

(edited)

Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren Snuggle Up, Brandon Sklenar Starts His Journey Home in 1923 Season 2 First Look (Exclusive)

spacer.png

Harrison Ford and Hellen Mirren in '1923' season 2. 

 

spacer.png

Helen Mirren and Harrison Ford in '1923' season 2. 

 

spacer.png

(L-R) Ross Crain as Marshall Thomas, Sebastian Roche as Father Renaud and James McShane as Marshall Kent in season 2 of 1923. 

 

spacer.png

Brandon Sklenar as Spencer in season 2 of 1923. 

 

spacer.png

Michelle Randolph as Elizabeth and Darren Mann as Jack in '1923' season 2. 

 

spacer.png

Brian Geraghty as Zane in '1923' season 2. 

 

spacer.png

Jerome Flynn as Banner Creighton and Timothy Dalton as Donald Whitfield in season 2 of 1923. 

 

spacer.png

Aminah Nieves as Teonna in '1923' season 2. 

 

ADDITIONAL IMAGES:

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.png

 

Edited by Snazzy Daisy
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Snazzy Daisy

Snazzy Daisy

1923 Season 1 Comes to Paramount Network

Quote

All episodes of 1923 Season 1 are available to stream on Paramount+.

In addition,Paramount Network will air Season 1 in its entirety starting Sunday, Dec. 8. Single episodes will air Dec. 8 and 15; two episodes will air for the following three Sundays, wrapping with Episodes 7 and 8 on Jan. 5, 2025.

 

 

Link to comment
Daff

Daff

I don’t subscribe to Paramount plus, and was glad to see this finally airing on the cable network. Two days ago, I set it up to DVR the series, and this morning I noticed that it disappeared from the record list. The name changed in the guide from 1923 to Yellowstone 1923.

Link to comment

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.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...