Unpopular Opinions

[ZoloftBlob]

I have to admit mowgo - that's my opinion too - Charles should have been a contender

[Ide]

I agree.  Mary making Charles breakfast, after saving the pigs, was the most romantic scene she's had with any of her post-Matthew beaus.  The two of them had real chemistry together.

 

Yes he didn't behave like a lovesick puppy around her and stood up to her. I think she needs that. The pig-saving was brilliant, that obviously change his view of her.

 

Edited November 3, 2015 by Ide

[Kostgard]

Yeah, what the heck happened with Blake? He was the only one in Mary's string of suitors who actually had chemistry with her. And they clicked so well and even had a "moment" in the rain and mud with the pigs and she actually stooped to performing a tedious domestic chore like cooking for him. The rest of Mary's suitors were just all, "Hello, I am handsome and rich and I am here to woo you. Consider yourself wooed. Now be a good girl and accept my proposal." 

 

But then suddenly Blake was all, "Well, I'm off to Poland. Bye!" and that was that. Did things not work out with the actor or something?

 

My UA is that I have a soft spot for Napier. No, he has no chance at all. But he's been devoted to Mary for so long and even when he found out what happened with Pamuk, he didn't judge her, and instead came to warn her that the someone had spilled the beans and the rumors were flying.

[skyways]

I

agree.  Mary making Charles breakfast, after saving the pigs, was the most romantic scene she's had with any of her post-Matthew beaus.  The two of them had real chemistry together.

 

 

Yes It always surprised me when people said she and Charles didn't work!!! It was very obvious and Charles with his wicked sense of humor would have been amusing to watch. Talbot is plastic and I can't help feeling that those rejoicing that Matthew Goode showed up got exactly what they deserved. Not so unpopular opinion. He can't barely move his lips when speaking and the fact that he's a familiar name is distracting.

 

But then suddenly Blake was all, "Well, I'm off to Poland. Bye!" and that was that. Did things not work out with the actor or something?

 

Blake whom I really liked was unfortunately a victim of Fellowes bad writing. Nevertheless it could have been worse - look at Napier, Pamuk, Matthew and Matthew Goode!

Edited November 2, 2015 by skyways

[SusanSunflower]

I've guessed personality clash ... Julian Ovendon has quite a resume and was immediately cast in another series. ... he mentioned in the interview I posted yesterday that at least part of the pig scene was improvised** ... my suspicion is that Fellowes really really doesn't actually like anyone deviating from his scripts ...  and that the usually utterly bland direction  -- giving nothing away -- is because that's just how he wants it ... So unless specified by Fellowes, in the script, no good moods, no bad moods, no boredom or excitement -- just flat readings. . 

** pig scene being the liveliest, most fun and "natural" moments that I remember, possibly in the entire 7 seasons, except a few giddy moments with Pamuk and Matthew ... 

Edited November 3, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[Athena]

That's too bad about Blake. I'm also in the Blake/Mary camp especially now we've seen how disjointed the chemistry between Talbot and Mary are. I like Goode, but he and Dockery aren't clicking. I blame the writing too.

[SusanSunflower]

well, my unpopular opinion last season was to hope that the publisher returns from the grave ... maybe Blake could return from Poland ... maybe arm in arm ... holding mistletoe. 

[ZoloftBlob]

I'll say it.

 

I don't see whats so incredibly handsome about Matthew Goode. He's nice looking, don't get me wrong but really not seeing what the fuss was about.

[onthebrink03]

I'll say it.

 

I don't see whats so incredibly handsome about Matthew Goode. He's nice looking, don't get me wrong but really not seeing what the fuss was about.

I think it's a matter of each to his (or her) own.  I've always liked Matthew Goode.  I think he's a nice looking man and I think he's a gifted actor.  That being said, as much as I looked forward to his time on Downton, and I was so very, very much, is how much I am disappointed in the reality.  Instead of being da bomb, his presence has proven to be a dud of magnificent proportions.  So for me, it's just such a waste and I do blame Fellows lazy writing for most of it.

 

Julian Ovenden as Blake was the best and obvious choice for Mary up until something happened to change Fellows mind (that or he lost his mind) and he had no idea how to wrap up that story line properly and where to turn next.  I'd love to know what happened that took Blake off the table as I thought he was perfect for taking on Mary with all her issues and airs.  And the chemistry between Julian/Blake and Michelle/Mary was fantastic.  I just don't see it with any of the others ( and that's including Tom/Allen) and it will be a shame if Mary ends up with the "best I can do because my Plan A fell through" because Julian Fellows had no real idea how to continue the show once Dan Stevens beat a hasty retreat.  I want a happy ending for sure.  But I would dearly love to have one that makes sense as well.  Asking too much?

[HoodlumSheep]

Never cared for Sybil. I think she's an overrated character and her "perfectness" really grates me.

I love Lady Mary. She's awesome.

Didn't like either Gillingham or Blake. That pig/breakfast scene with Blake was awful. It was a complete cheesefest straight out of the Hallmark channel. I found that scene to be awfully done.

Evelyn deserves the world and more.

Edited November 4, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[Avaleigh]

Blake just came across as Mary's BFF. Tony didn't work because he was hypnotized right from the off and said something about how dead Matthew was a "splendid chap" but Mary should marry Tony because he's, you know, alive. I think I laughed out loud when I saw that scene for the first time. 

 

My unpopular opinion is that I thought a mountain was made out of a molehill when it comes to Mary and supposedly having too many suitors because she's in her thirties and it's post WWI. In addition to the real life examples of older women who would have been contemporaries of Mary's who dealt with this very thing, I've never understood how having two guys in the picture is overkill post WWI or not. Evelyn was never in the running. It wasn't even hinted at. He didn't try or make any effort and neither did Mary. Tony was the main one trying. Blake spent most of his time irritating Mary and then turned into the BFF who goes with her to fashion shows and gives her advice on her relationship with Tony. 

 

HoodlumSheep, I loved Sybil, but I totally get what you mean about how she was annoyingly perfect. She was written as having no flaws. The one time she did something that could have been harshly criticized she quickly saw that what she was doing was wrong and put an end to it. 

[skyways]

Mary being actual friends with another aristo or even another person not named Anna would have been something to see wrt Blake. We would have enjoyed seeing another side to her. That would have been more believable if allowed to develop, than the 'I don't even know what I'm looking at' romance or whatever we are seeing now.

[DianeDobbler]

I'm another who was never all that on board with Sybil. I don't believe the actress was all that great. I actually didn't find her terribly convincing in her love for Tom. The acting was a bit one note, but it was mostly the love for Tom part where I felt she fell short.

 

Unpopular or not, felt Charles Blake and Mary had no romantic chemistry, he emerged best as sassy best friend, he was far too short, and ... that's about it. Unless he finds himself in a project where the role suits him to a tee, I don't find him leading man-ish.

 

Another thing - it really seems to me as if ladies maids are utter anachronisms at this point, and the entire "getting you dressed routine" seems ridiculous in 1920something. Going from my P.G. Wodehouse, Jeeves was the valet of Bertie Wooster, but was more a man about the house. He kept Bertie's "things" pressed and at the ready, but was also a major domo/butler and at times a footman (bringing in tea and so forth). The era is about the same as Downton Abbey's. I just don't believe a maid standing there literally dressing, undressing, and handling accessories in the 1920s, when clothes were far less complicated than they were a decade prior. I think at this point we'd see the maid's job as more generalist, sort of a personal assistant, maid, and not this LITERALLY dressing and undressing stuff.

Edited November 5, 2015 by DianeDobbler

[Eolivet]

I always looked to Mary's reaction, or Fellowes' previous writing, for indications of how couples go. My unpopular opinion is it was blatantly obvious from both of those that Blake was never going to work. He and Mary were screwball romantic comedy, like something out of a 1930s movie, but that was never how Fellowes wrote any of his other romantic pairings, so I didn't see how he was going to start there.

 

I found Matthew remarkable, not because Mary had fun with him, but because Mary got upset by him -- the "cold and careful" Lady Mary Crawley showed unpleasant emotions in relation to his behavior. She cried over him, worried about him, took care of him. Mary would've been trained to laugh and act pleasant among any suitor or any male, really. I didn't find the fact that Mary laughed with Matthew over salty pudding as notable as the fact that she looked longingly out the window when she found out Matthew left. So, I was shocked by the fact that she laughed with Blake was supposed to be "romantic." She never showed any emotion over Blake other than pleasant banter. His actions never upset or bothered her in any way -- a clear indication she felt little for him but friendship.

 

I will never believe in a thousand years that Blake was supposed to end up with Mary, because Mary never seemed to care what he said or did in any way, shape or form. Say what you want about "creepy" Gillingham, but Mary wiped away tears when she found out he was engaged.

 

Another unpopular opinion (clearly): I like Henry Talbot. I like him because Mary likes him -- because Mary cares what he does, because his actions impact Mary's feelings and because Mary gets upset over him. Love is a funny thing, so when I see Mary being moved by him...it makes me moved by him.

 

And a very unpopular opinion? I think it's freaking hysterical that he's a race car driver. I find the pearl-clutching that inspires absolutely hilarious, when Matthew died in the dumbest way possible (taking your eyes off the road -- HA HA HA HA HA). I understand why the danger makes Mary upset, and I think that's a good story. But let's call a spade a spade here: Henry races cars for the thrill and because he's good at it. Matthew was a terrible driver who got into a freak accident. The common denominator is "cars," but that's sort of where it stops. I mean, I'm pretty sure Jackie O remarried someone who rode in a car every once in a while.

[Andorra]

 

 

I like him because Mary likes him

 

 

I wish we had seen it on screen that she likes him. For me she seemed so very uninterested and cold all the time. Tom seems to care so much more about Henry than she does.  Sadly. 

[ZoloftBlob]

And a very unpopular opinion? I think it's freaking hysterical that he's a race car driver. I find the pearl-clutching that inspires absolutely hilarious, when Matthew died in the dumbest way possible (taking your eyes off the road -- HA HA HA HA HA). I understand why the danger makes Mary upset, and I think that's a good story. But let's call a spade a spade here: Henry races cars for the thrill and because he's good at it. Matthew was a terrible driver who got into a freak accident.

 

Well, I find it hilarious because it tells me how disconnected JF is to the audience. I agree with you that the story of Mary being upset with a suitor who does something dangerous for a living is a good story... The problem is that by making Henry a race car driver, instead of say, a saucy aeroplane pilot or a yacht racer, or a big game hunter, JF is intentionally invoking the memory of Mary's dead husband, He Who Must Not Be Named, and further draws attention to the prior storyline that he is so determined to erase.

 

I mean, I get it, it's another of JF's "Fuck You Dan" moments but frankly I really doubt Dan Stevens cares, and the only people it does hurt are the audience members who are still irked by the Christmas Day Massacre.

 

My unpopular opinion? I think the audience would like Henry Talbot a lot more if the dangerous profession he was in that made Mary concerned wasn't similar to the method by which Matthew died. Judging by the reaction I've seen to it, I think if JF really wanted people to forget Matthew and love Henry, he made a misstep in invoking the memory how Matthew died complete with Mary witnessing a car crash.

 

Whereas if Henry just did something daring and dashing (and he'd rock the old school pilot outfits) and Mary was worried about the danger, then perhaps we could have had a story.

 

*Just for the record, I think making Henry a race car driver is a hilarious "Fuck you Dan" from JF, I just don't think the target cares and it ends up bothering fans who would have otherwise given Henry more of a chance.

Edited November 5, 2015 by ZoloftBlob

[Eolivet]

I'm not sure Fellowes is that hung up on Dan Stevens anymore. Wasn't he invited to some Downton reunion that led to some picture with Dockery? Matthew was referenced in the CS and Anna mentioned him this year.

 

Wouldn't it be a very unpopular opinion that Henry as a race car driver is Fellowes trying for Mary to work through her issues with Matthew's death, that it's deliberately invoking Matthew's death not (just) as a middle finger, but as a way for Mary to come to grips with her demons and move on. She told Gillingham how much Matthew still filled her head and she didn't want to be free of him. If Henry was an airline pilot, that would allow her to compartmentalize Matthew's death. Making Henry a race car driver forces Mary to confront her past and decide whether her past pain is more important than her future happiness. It would be seen as a harder choice and more interesting drama if it referenced anyone other than Matthew, and if it was written by anyone but Fellowes.

 

But I don't think the general audience knows or cares about that little drama. The complaints I've seen about Henry Talbot seem to be mostly objecting to the fact that Henry is boring, not so much a race car driver. Sure, his profession might make a portion of Tumblr cry into their M/M gifsets, but as you said, the general audience was ready to accept race car driver Henry Talbot in the CS and now they're not. What changed is he was interesting race car driver Henry in the CS and he's boring race car driver Henry now. But he's still a race car driver.

 

I stopped thinking that the public cared about Matthew and Mary (or anything the online fandom did, really) when the L.A. Times did a poll after season 2 about why you watch Downton Abbey and 90% said because of Maggie Smith.

[MissLucas]

I'm torn about this - part of me likes that Henry is a racing car driver because we got those great scenes with plenty of vintage racing cars last week. Fans of historical racing cars savored those scenes like fashion lovers who swoon over Lady Edith and Lady Mary's dresses. Plus we got to see the magnificent interior of the Royal Automobile Club. So for purely aesthetic reasons I appreciate his calling.

But other than that it leaves me cold and I'm not buying the drama JF wants to sell me. Matthew did not die because he took unnecessary risks and it's not as if Mary has shunned cars since his accident or stayed away from partaking in risky sports herself so that George would not become an orphan. Her sudden freak-out about Henry's dangerous life-style seems OOC.

[DianeDobbler]

I think the reason people found Mary and Three Suitors overkill was because of how it was presented. Wasn't there a series finale shot of Mary with three men, while the other women looked on and smiled? It's how it was played, not who they are on paper. It's a relatively small cast, Mary and those three guys in various formations took up a lot of airtime and a ton of the screen, and so for me and I imagine others, it was overkill and also dull.

 

I have concluded Michelle Dockery just doesn't click with very many leading men. I compare her to Laura Carmichael, who even clicked with MARY's leading men, as well as her own. And the actress who played Mabel had immediate chemistry with the actor playing Gillingham, this despite all the material used to showcase Mary and Gillingham.

 

It's fine for me that Tony is a race car driver; the fact that his buddy died at the race was OTT for me.

Edited November 5, 2015 by DianeDobbler

[ZoloftBlob]

You might want to check out tumblr then. There's definetely some irritation there over the nature of Henry's profession

 

2 minutes ago

 

I'm not sure Fellowes is that hung up on Dan Stevens anymore. Wasn't he invited to some Downton reunion that led to some picture with Dockery? Matthew was referenced in the CS and Anna mentioned him this year

 

That was the BAFTA awards and I don't know that JF had control of the guest list and a large number of ex DA actors were there to where it would have been remarked if Dan had been intentionally uninvited. As it was, people were concerned that the actress who played Sybil wasn't there. As for references to Matthew, I would simply note that we can count on one hand how many times his name has been said in three seasons and in comparison we've had a cavalcade of "How we all loved and miss Sybil".

 

Matthew did not die because he took unnecessary risks and it's not as if Mary has shunned cars since his accident or stayed away from partaking in risky sports herself so that George would not become an orphan. Her sudden freak-out about Henry's dangerous life-style seems OOC.

 

Yeah part of the problem here is that Mary has had NO issues with cars over the last two seasons and this all seems very forced. And again, if JF doesn't want to invoke the memory of Mary's dead husband, and considering how no one says his name unless absolutely forced, it sure seems like JF doesn't want it happening... then making Henry a race driver and treating Mary and the audience to a car crash with fatalities seems an odd choice.

[Eolivet]

You might want to check out tumblr then. There's definetely some irritation there over the nature of Henry's profession

 

I believe it. I'm just saying Tumblr does not equal general audience (another unpopular opinion).

[ZoloftBlob]

People here haven't been particularly pleased either. I agree about tumblr - they were really on the Evelyn/Mary train for a while and that ain't happening but what constitutes the general audience then? Heck, I wanted Henry to be cool and dashing and he's ended up quite the dud. (and that doesn't seem to be unpopular opinion)

 

Here's a truly unpopular opinion. I don't care in the slightest that Robert has a dog. I'm also secretly hoping Thomas commits suicide just so something will happen other than Carson and Elsie quibbling at each other while the upstairs folk debate the hospital that none of them actually give a shit about.

[SusanSunflower]

Actually I suspect Talbot is a race car driver because that was easier. Being a pilot would have required vast expense in research and stunt-doubles , plane rentals (care and feeding and security of same), that I would guess also wasn't something Fellowes wanted to research exhaustively ... early aviation -- like old locomotives -- has an avid and probably rabid following of enthusiasts. My grandfather was an early flier in WWI for the French ... it was expensive enough that to keep flying he became a mercenary in North Africa and as far as I know gave it up altogether when he returned to the United States. If Talbot were a flier, his character would have had to explain how he could afford such a hobby ... American barnstormers "put on shows" to pay for the privilege and were often, like Lindberg extremely skilled mechanics ... 

 

I'm guessing Fellowes had some personal reason for not making Henry an equestrian but I really cannot image what that could be... Has Dockery said if she "likes" her times in the saddle? Would her riding have stood up to scrutiny if there had been more of it?  Does Goode hate horses? 

Edited November 5, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[sark1624]

My "unpopular" opinion is also i dislike the Talbot characther maybe in the las 2 episdes change, but i hate the dashing/macho alfa man in shows and real life. I think that Fellowes tired of the lack of the suitors for Mary went for a winning card a famous, good looking actor but the history of the character is lame. The fact that him is race car driver also is to compare the way of life of Mary (rural aristocracy) with the new times. Also is strange that Bertie has the same tastes of Mary (love for Brancaster estate and rural life) and Edith love for her London modern life. 

 

Also i hate all concernings the Bates, Anna and her husband, i preffer a lot more the hospital drama that anything that those two  can bring to the show. Also i think that the hospital thing is not about the health issues, the main point is that finally Cora replaces Violet as the big lady in the village, even Violet assumed this. 

 

ps: the scene when Molesley cries a little after they tell that he can become a teacher was very touching.

[ZoloftBlob]

Today. 1:34 pm

 

Actually I suspect Talbot is a race car driver because that was easier. Being a pilot would have required vast expense in research and stunt-doubles , plane rentals (care and feeding and security of same), that I would guess also wasn't something Fellowes wanted to research

 

Oh I know it would have been expensive but really, Matthew Goode in the white silk scarf, leather jacket and cute little almost steampunk goggled hat?

 

I don't find him that good looking but with the right accessories, even Snoopy looks hot...

[DianeDobbler]

Carson/Mrs. Hughes always struck me as the sort of older couple about which a show runner is more cozily self-congratulatory than actually responding to what the audience likes. I don't find Carson's insensitivity and lack of consideration out of character, precisely, it's simply that there really is no sign the two of them care for each other. 

 

Maybe not unpopular, but I recall when Downton started I was leery of Mrs. Patmore, I was all for Daisy's bettering herself, and felt that Mrs. Patmore's then-unacknowledged attachment to Daisy might hold Daisy back. And also Mrs. Patmore's somewhat dog in the mangery ways in general. Now that we're at the end, I adore Mrs. Patmore and think Daisy can take a flying leap.

[MissLucas]

Agreed on Mrs Patmore - I wasn't too fond of her but now she's one of my favorites. The character has undergone quite some transformation. And now that Mrs Hughes has lost her spark in marital bliss Mrs Patmore is my favorite downstairs character.

[Ide]

• I like Thomas Barrow, not because of what he said and did, but rather despite everything he said and did. Every bad thing he has done or said was absolutely mean. But I like to look behind these actions. Like we heard it in the last episode these are things that unhappy and hopeless people are able to do. And I'll always love what Mrs. Baxter said "you are your own worst enemy!" and to quote Tom "every bully is a coward" that also applies for Thomas. I hoped the CS after season three would be a turning point for him but wasn't really. I wish there were something for him to live for. I know "Every fairytale needs a good old fashioned villian" to quote Moriarty in "Sherlock" But he isn't a villian. Guys like Moriarty and Heath Ledgers Joker in "The dark knight" are/were villians.

I don't care about "Chelsie" when people got excited that they might getting together I coudn't care less. It's not that I don't like them at all (although I'm not sure about Carson) but they were definitely not one of the reasons why I liked DA.

Cora! Well...she is a wonderful mother, but as a character? There is nothing, I'm not sure if it's just badly played or if that's what she supposed to be like. There is just one facial expression, head slighty tilted with a smile that gets annoying after you saw it couple of times.

I couldn't care less about Moseley either. I know he is kind and supportive but.... I don't know.....

I often find Isobel tiring, although I mostly agree with her opinions.

I can't stand Jimmy Kent, (I'm not sure if that is an unpopular opinion?) but he is an arrogant and self-regarding a**hole.

[DianeDobbler]

I don't care about "Chelsie" when people got excited that they might getting together I coudn't care less. It's not that I don't like them at all (although I'm not sure about Carson) but they were definitely not one of the reasons why I liked DA.

 

Chelsie? Actually when I was pasting it, I thought'd you'd written "Carlisle" and I had an "I never thought Carlisle was handsome or even a good actor!" comment ready to second your motion. Oh well, doing it anyway. Remind me who Chelsie is? 

Cora! Well...she is a wonderful mother, but as a character? There is nothing, I'm not sure if it's just badly played or if that's what she supposed to be like. There is just one facial expression, head slighty tilted with a smile that gets annoying after you saw it couple of times.

 

 

Yeah, I can do her rhythms and how she'll emphasize the last word in a sentence in my sleep. The one thing she does well, which I find odd, is putting her foot down. Anger and enough is enough. In my observation, sort of feeble actors, as feeble as I find Elizabeth McGovern, overdue the anger when called upon. Can barely have a plausible ordinary conversation but just go OTT when it's time for anger. I've read it's because anger is an easily accessible emotion (on the other side of the coin, but similarly, the type of fear that a rape storyline calls for in an actress is often something they can hit out of the park even if their acting isn't terribly good otherwise). Anyway. McGovern's anger as Cora was always convincing. When the character said she'd had it, I believed she'd had it. Maggie Smith can act, and Elizabeth McGovern can hardly act, but when Cora tells the Dowager something's final, Maggie Smith seems to very easily believe it. *I* think it's because McGovern always plays it as if she IS ready to get past whatever the issue is, and is just not having it with her opponent. She's always focused on the situation as opposed to the person, and that makes it believable. She's not trying to win a scene, as a lot of actors try to do. She, her OWN character, is just expressing how it is for HER, and that seems to impact those opposite.

[Andorra]

Chelsie? Actually when I was pasting it, I thought'd you'd written "Carlisle" and I had an "I never thought Carlisle was handsome or even a good actor!" comment ready to second your motion. Oh well, doing it anyway. Remind me who Chelsie is? 

 

 

 

Carson and Hughes = Charles and Elsie = Chelsie

 

Don't care for them either. 

[skyways]

They should have been left the way they were. I disliked the pairing too - total fan service that story line.

[Eolivet]

OK, my unpopular opinion is Downton is an ensemble series.

 

Why is that unpopular? Who was supposed to lose screen time to develop Mary's relationship with Henry Talbot? (other than Spratt and Denker, who Fellowes insists on trying to make happen, for whatever reason) I read media articles that say "Talbot was never developed" and again...who do you kick offscreen? Which one of the regulars, in the show's final year, gets scooted to the side so Mary's love interest can be properly developed? Who gets shafted for The Mary Show?

 

My unpopular opinion is if I feed three meals to a child and the child hates all of them, there are two things happening. One, I'm a bad cook, and two, that's a picky child. Fellowes "fed" the audience three suitors and the audience hated each one. To me, that's not entirely Fellowes' fault -- the audience plays some role there, too. As I've said before, I think they were bound and determined to hate Matthew's Replacement, and thus three separate actors were picked apart because they were Not Matthew. Fellowes was never going to satisfy the audience because they were determined to hate everything he did when it came to Mary. So, yes: Fellowes didn't write them well (and predisposed the audience to hate them because of how he treated Matthew), but the audience bears some responsibility for this, too. After the third meal is rejected, I start side-eying that the child didn't like any of them.

 

So, my final unpopular opinion is I wish Fellowes had realized right at the beginning that he was in a no-win situation with the audience and pushed ahead with Mary marrying Gillingham at the end of season 4, which was his original plan. It would've come off as exactly the same as Henry, the audience would've been unhappy for a while, but then realized there are other characters on the show and focused on them. Think of all the screen time and storylines other characters could have had if we hadn't had to do the Suitor Dance with Mary for three seasons, all to satisfy an audience who was ultimately going to hate any Not Matthew suitor anyway.

 

Gillingham had an interesting backstory (a former soldier who was described as being depressed from the war, and he had a failing estate). His failing estate could've been contrasted with Downton instead of bringing on Dude Who Used To Employ Mr. Mason. Mary could've been more integrated into the (#@$#%#$^) Mr. Green storyline, since it was Gillingham's valet. He seemed more traditional than Mary, which would've been interesting to see her as the more forward-thinking one. If they had another son, Mary would've been faced with one inheriting a title and no estate.

 

And I honestly think if season 4 Gillingham had been Mary's husband, the audience would've gotten over it. They'd have stewed about it for half a year and then just accepted it. And moved on to other things and other stories (and Fellowes would have, too). Matthew Goode could stay on The Good Wife, Julian Ovenden could do his nice Carlisle thing and Mary's love life would not have been the focus of the last three seasons.

 

Because when you're faced with an unhappy, picky child, it's always easier to leave the first meal in front of him. If he's hungry enough, he'll eat eventually.

[Llywela]

Why is that unpopular? Who was supposed to lose screen time to develop Mary's relationship with Henry Talbot? (other than Spratt and Denker, who Fellowes insists on trying to make happen, for whatever reason) I read media articles that say "Talbot was never developed" and again...who do you kick offscreen? Which one of the regulars, in the show's final year, gets scooted to the side so Mary's love interest can be properly developed? Who gets shafted for The Mary Show?

I don't think anyone needed to get the shaft for one of Mary's suitors to be better developed. They just needed better use to be made of the screen-time they had.

[MissLucas]

Well since this is the unpopular opinion thread I might as well get out with it: I wasn't Matthew's biggest fan and I was actually excited at the prospect of Mary finding a new man. And even if the majority of the audience thought otherwise it was up to Sir Julian to create a character compelling enough to overcome that obstacle. I expected the first suitor to show up after a decent period to be a dud because for dramatical reasons moving on should  not be easy. But they were all more or less duds incl. Henry and it wasn't just a problem of not having enough screen-time (though I think nobody would have complained about cutting the hospital plot). Bertie did not get more screen-time yet we know a lot more about him as a person than we do about Henry.

[Andorra]

I don't think anyone needed to get the shaft for one of Mary's suitors to be better developed. They just needed better use to be made of the screen-time they had.

 

Exactly. We knew Matthew was right for Mary after they met once! 

 

And I still think that Tom/Mary would have been a better and more popular choice. Because the audience saw their relationship grow and loved both characters. He should have gone there, I bet there would be less dissatisfaction. 

[SusanSunflower]

I agree -- I accepted that Mary -- beautiful with the trappings of wealth and title (if illusory) would have been a desirable "catch" within her circle ...

even if IRL rapidly approaching her sell-by date given a shortage of men and a wealth of daughters coming of age and availability ...

Because I was not in love with Mary, unlike some in the audience, I held no predisposition to dislike any of her suitors, in fact, the more I liked them, the less I wanted them saddled with Mary for the duration ... 

As I've said before, the audience didn't warm to the suitors because there was no chemistry, because Mary plainly was not "in love" -- dulling the enthusiasms as that might have been -- Gillingham was written as stalkerish, untrustworthy (and bad in bed and in his taste in servants) ... with additionally a suspected secret motive (at least Carlyle's agenda was plainly acknowledged) ... and Blake was a self-declared also-ran and neutered ... 

Edited November 13, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[Eolivet]

I don't think anyone needed to get the shaft for one of Mary's suitors to be better developed. They just needed better use to be made of the screen-time they had.

 

As a writer myself, that kind of critique drives me nuts. What is "better developed?" It's a nebulous criticism to which a writer can never really respond. Should Henry have had more scenes with the family? Should he and Mary have talked more? About different things? Should he have spent time around George? What did we need to see that we didn't?

 

"Development" comes off as being like a famous Supreme Court justice described pornography: I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it.

[RedWolf]

OK, my unpopular opinion is Downton is an ensemble series.

 

Why is that unpopular? Who was supposed to lose screen time to develop Mary's relationship with Henry Talbot? (other than Spratt and Denker, who Fellowes insists on trying to make happen, for whatever reason) I read media articles that say "Talbot was never developed" and again...who do you kick offscreen? Which one of the regulars, in the show's final year, gets scooted to the side so Mary's love interest can be properly developed? Who gets shafted for The Mary Show?

 

...

 

 

So, my final unpopular opinion is I wish Fellowes had realized right at the beginning that he was in a no-win situation with the audience and pushed ahead with Mary marrying Gillingham at the end of season 4, which was his original plan. It would've come off as exactly the same as Henry, the audience would've been unhappy for a while, but then realized there are other characters on the show and focused on them. Think of all the screen time and storylines other characters could have had if we hadn't had to do the Suitor Dance with Mary for three seasons, all to satisfy an audience who was ultimately going to hate any Not Matthew suitor anyway.

I agree that Downton is an ensemble. I think the problem is that JF started adding characters who don't really serve a purpose other than comic relief. (Spratt and Denker)

 

And IMO if JF showed how Talbot was good and right for Mary instead of having everyone tell her (and the audience) how perfect he was and how in luurve they were and gave him more character development than "I love CARS and Mary" and/or actually stuck with what we saw in S5 CS (I saw that he was observant when he asked Mary all those questions about Sinderby's mistress and little boy and that he could keep up with her but then JF has him make that gold digger comment to Mary on the stairs which had me yelling at the screen "It's the CARS you daft [and IMO creepy] man) I could have swallowed their romance. Because even though I am a Brary shipper at the beginning of series 6 I was resigned to the fact that Talbot was endgame and so I was hoping that JF would get me invested into their romance or at least happy for them as he did with Rose/Atticus and as he has with Edith/Bertie. As it is I felt as if it was shoved down my throat and I can either keep it down or not.

 

I also agree that JF should have just stuck to his guns instead of being so indecisive about who Mary should end up with in series 4 and 5 and then throwing shaving cream on half the fandom this series. Because IMO he really did. He threw it on the Evelyn fans with that 10 second clip, he threw it on the Thomas fans when he barely dealt with his suicide attempt, he threw it on the Mary fans who feel that she is better than that, he threw it on the Tom fans when he gave him no storyline outside of Mary, and he threw it on the Edith Fans since he hasn't given her a happy ending (Although she really did come out better than Mary in that episode.). I do have to say that the actors (especially AL, MD, and LC) really did shine this series with what they were given.

 

Thank you for sharing your opinion Eolivet.

[DeccaMitford]

I stopped being interested in Mary and Matthew's romance the second they got engaged; everything about the two of them was boring after that. None of their problems had stakes, and I don't think Michelle Dockery plays happiness very well. It tends to come across as a kind of bland smugness, which made Mary just as unpleasant as she is when she's miserable and catty, but less entertaining to watch.

 

I was happy when Matthew died, since it was one of the few times since the end of season two where it seemed like something that mattered had actually happened, and that Mary's suffering would be something other than temporary. I didn't mind stories about Mary finding love again, although I can't say I was looking forward to them, precisely. Mary as a character is most interesting to me when she wants something and she can't have it; the last time I found her love life compelling was when she was engaged to Richard Carlyle and pining for Matthew, while still being (rather unexpectedly) perfectly nice to Lavinia. But when Matthew died, Mary was taken back to square one as a character that unexpected things could happen to, and I was looking forward to seeing that play out. And I was interested in the idea that Matthew inspired Mary to become a better version of herself, and she didn't know how to be that person without him. I looked forward to that struggle, to seeing if she could manage to be that better person on her own or if she even wanted to without Matthew there to reflect it back to her. The romance angle came secondary to that, at least for me.

 

My real unpopular opinion is that I can't bring myself to care what happens to Tom; he's the most inconsistently written character on the show. Allen Leech does what he can, and is a pretty talented guy (I liked him a lot on Rome) but Tom is such a nothing of a character at this point; he seems to only exist so Mary has someone to talk to. Fellowes so transparently has no idea what to do with him.

 

Also I hate Carson and I hope his wife poisons him.

[shipperx]

My unpopular opinion was that I wasn't particularly bothered when Matthew died. I thought Fellowes had gone over the top with the ouji board Lavinia blessing from beyond the grave and the convenient death of her father leaving him a fortune to save Downton. It was tragic he died but if the show was going to focus on Mary (and it always did) then it would be good for story arc to have her face some adversity. Then it turned into the Mary Sweepstakes and I thought how naive I was that Fellowes would have her actually struggle through much adversity.

[TheGreenKnight]

My unpopular opinion is I don't/didn't care about Mary, Matthew, Henry, Gillingham, or Blake, so they could just have had it out together and it wouldn't have mattered to me. Most of the time when Mary's on screen, my eyes glaze over. I've stayed interested in this show post-season 3 for Violet/Isobel, Edith, and several of the downstairs characters. Definitely not Mary, so who she did or didn't end up with wouldn't have mattered to me.

 

Strangely enough, the only man she was with I had an interest in was Carlisle, and he was controlling and insecure--but that's how I think of Mary, too.

[amensisterfriend]

I really loved how the show ended. Objectively, I agree with the more popular opinion that it was unabashedly sentimental and some of the happy endings didn't feel fully earned, but somehow it worked for me. A few more:

 

I used to enjoy Mary tremendously, but by the last 2-3 seasons I pretty much hated her, and not in a fun 'love to hate' way. 

 

Conversely, I grew to LOVE Edith, despite/because of her flaws. And Edith/Bertie delights me far more than it should. 

 

Mary/Matthew was always kind of a yawn for me, as was Tom/Sybil. 

 

Despite my meh-ness on Tom, I thank the TV gods that neither of Sybil's sisters ended up with him. 

 

Cora's bizarre accent, line deliveries and general manner of speaking is so bizarre to me that I can barely focus on what she's actually saying. (I felt weirdly validated when this article mentions it, because I seriously thought it was just me! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3374218/And-lived-happily-Edith-Downton-Abbey-saw-syrupy-sentimentality-make-ardent-fan-gag-Christmas-finale-end.html) 

 

I still kind of enjoy Bates and Bates/Anna. Lord help me. 

 

I didn't care who Isobel ended up with or if she ended up with anyone at all. 

 

I really wish Mary had ended the series contentedly single. 

 

This show was kind of a mess, but I'll miss it. 

[tenativelyyours]

Catching up on some posts I missed when I was playing catch up on some episodes and wanted to remain unspoiler'ed.  I always wondered about Gillingham.  I was a bit off from most of the other commentary in regards to their weekend experiment.  The general consensus seemed to be that he was bad in the sack.  Going back to rewatch that episode and I concur with myself on my original take and that he was probably quite good in fact.  And it was the realization we see over that weekend that Mary does find him sexually compatible.  It is that she realizes everything else she wanted in a husband is not there.  Or not there enough.  It makes a bit more sense if Fellowes was planning on putting the two together.  And I think how much better the show might have been had he gone in that direction.

 because

I found Henry dull and sudden.  With Tony there could have been a whole season of him fitting in and perhaps bringing about a better Mary.  Remember how before Matthew's death he over and over again told the audience what a magnificent and wonderful person Mary was to the point of making me nauseated.  And Fellowes simply let doomed Matthew tell instead of writing Mary and showing us.  With Gillingham we could have had that.  We could have seen Mary married to a person she saw as her equal.  Because for me, one of things that Fellowes never addressed with Mary in my eyes was that she always seemed to deign to love Matthew.   So it never seemed that she loved Matthew fully.  She loved him in many ways despite of who he was.  Not because of who he was.  So when Fellowes had to write Matthew out,  it left a hole he never could figure out how to fix.

 

But then again I think the true unpopular opinion is that looking back I am thankful the actors leaving forced Fellowes to kill them off.  Yes it left the show pretty much on a permanent wobble.  But imagine if they had not been killed off.  Imagine if Matthew and Sybil were still alive and the show went six seasons.   For me, Fellowes only changed a character by having to kill them off.  Sybil would have been still brave in the face of being poor and 'common'  Her wardrobe would have gotten more dreadful and Fellowes would have had Tom do even more stupid out of character and completely implausible things to make poor martyr Sybil suffer the indignities she deserved for thinking democratically.  And what about Matthew?  What the hell would Fellowes do with Matthew for those seasons?  I cannot even imagine.  And without those deaths I think to fill plot Fellowes would have taken the Bates non-existent crime spree and subsequent punishment to untold miserable lengths.  It was horrific enough as it was. 

 

So I guess as a masochistic watcher to the end I am glad that Matthew and Sybil died.

[Andorra]

My unpopular opinion is: I'm really, really glad the show is over and no, I'm not going to miss it one bit. Since season 4, it has been one disappointment after the next , so I'm glad it went out before it mutated to a complete joke. 

[amensisterfriend]

This seems relatively unpopular: S2 is my very favorite season. Yes, even more so than the far more popular S1 :) The last 2-3 episodes of S2 is arguably my favorite stretch of the whole series, and the S2 Christmas special is still probably my very favorite DA episode. A related UO is that I adored Lavinia for some reason. She's the kind of character I'd normally dismiss as too 'perfect' and dully sweet to be believable, but somehow she just really worked for me. 

[Roseanna]

Tenativelyyours, re: Gillingham.

As the CS ended in a promise that there would be a fight about Mary between Gillingham and Blake, it was a letdown that nothing of the sort happened S5 but Mary had already made her decision for Gillingham - on what grounds, it wasn't told to us - and only wanted to know whether they suited to each other in bed.

During their weekend we saw them in bed in the morning and nothing seemed to be amiss - but after Gillingham left, Mary's face fell. But the reason wasn't told to us.

However, it was Gillingham who had suggested the weekend, so he seems to have been sure that he could convince her with his bed skills. And if he had failed, he would have know it but he seemed afterwards completely unaware why Mary didn't accept him. Did Mary fake?

In the finale, Violet spoke that Gillingham wasn't intelligent enough and strong enough. As for intelligence, we never had any information whether Gillingham possessed it as he never spoke about anything but his love for Mary. But the same applies to Henry (plus cars of course). Blake must be intelligent on the basis of his government job.

The other quality was strength and also in this relation is hard to say whether Gillingham qualified as he never met any test of character but the same applies to Blake and Henry. Maybe Gillingham fell too easily for Mary in order to interest her, but why it took from her so long to realize it? Blake was a little more difficult conquest (Mary had actually show him in the pig scene that she had guts) but Henry fell for the trick "when a woman is rude to a man, he will become interested in her".

Maybe it was so simple that during their tryst Mary realized that Gillingham was a bore as a long-time company? But we were actually never told the reason.

[Roseanna]

Looking back, the show should have ended after S3. Then there would be no need to kill Matthew off, only Sybil.

The alternative would have been that Matthew would marry Lavinia and Mary Carlisle in S2. Matthew would be fairly contented in his marriage as Lavinia was a perfect wife material, but Carlisle would love Mary without ever getting even normal decent behavior from her so that her coldness would get us to have some sympathy towards him.

But in some time the unavoidable would happen and Matthew and Mary would have an affair or at least one night. Eventually their spouses would find out and there would be a lot of angst to everybody.

Finally Carlisle would loose his his fortune in 1929 and make a suicide and Lavinia would die after giving birth to a son. After Matthew suffering guilty feelings and Mary suffering of his high morals they would get their happy end. But it would be Lavinia's son who would be an heir which would annoy Mary so much that she would be worse towards him than ever towards Edith. The only matter which prevented her to hope that he would die in WW2 would be that she would bear only three daughters to Matthew.

[Andorra]

 

Looking back, the show should have ended after S3. Then there would be no need to kill Matthew off, only Sybil.

 

There wouldn't have been a need to kill off Sybil either. They could have just let them move back to Ireland at the end of season 3 and everyone would have been happy. Tom integrated into the family with the cricket game, Matthew and Mary with the heir to the estate. Perfect!

 

I'm sad it didn't end that way. If someone asks me if he should watch Downton, I always say: "Yes, but stop after Episode 3.1". It's the perfect ending and it went completely downhill after that. 

[Roseanna]

Andorra, of course there would have been no need to kill Sybil for the plot.

But if a character is without flaws, she's more fit to live in heaven. And every drama needs a great death scene that causes as much angst as possibly and the deaths Lavinia and William didn't really qualify.

It tells something of JF that he didn't dare to kill of even older characters in the S6 although even the common sense tells that people can't live for ever.

[amensisterfriend]

But if a character is without flaws, she's more fit to live in heaven

 

Ha! And ITA :) My UO is that while Sybil's death scene and the aftermath were extremely effective and almost too painful for me to ever rewatch, I didn't mind the actual absence of Sybil from the show at all. Sybil was not only too flatly perfect, but the casting choice never quite worked for me---the actress didn't really exude the sweetness,energy and passion that I gather Sybil was supposed to. Lavinia was arguably too perfect as well, but somehow the acting and writing just worked for me, and I found her a 'real' character in a way that I never did with Sybil. 

 

The related UO here is that Tom and Tom/Sybil as a couple also always ranked really low on my reasons for loving (or, at times, not loving!) the show. I was just kind of indifferent.  And if Tom had left the show right after Sybil's death or even sometime before it, I wouldn't have cared at all. I know his fans are rabid about him, but the actor/character never quite did it for me. 

 

Another UO is that the more I rewatch S6, the more I really kind of love it. I have bizarre taste! 

Edited December 28, 2015 by amensisterfriend