Poldark: Now, Then, and Before (the Books, the Original Series, and the Remake)

[Nidratime]

This actress may be playing Caroline. There's some reference to it on Facebook, according to people who have Facebook. (Not me.)

 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3538539/

 

ETA: Ah, looks like it's true. Here's photos of the some of the significant players:

 

https://www.facebook.com/483979435006691/photos/pcb.924119054326058/924118860992744/?type=1&theater

 

I also recognize the fellow playing Caroline's uncle from British detective/mystery shows.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Nidratime

[CTrent29]

he is transformed from a mercurial, witty, sardonic, depressive ne'er-do-well rake into an ineffectual fop who can't do anything right.

 

 

 

So what?  Actually, the 1970s production didn't portray Francis as a witty, sardonic depressive ne'er do well rake until latter half of Series One.  In the early part of the series, Clive Francis portrayed him as a loser . . .  and a cold one at that.

 

 

I'm curious . . . how do many of you feel about the changes made to the ending of Series One (1975)?  You know . . . the ending that featured Trenwith being burned to the ground?

 

 

The real problem is that everyone wants AN EXACT adaptation of the novels.  And that is possible.  Finance and the fact that some material do not translate well get in the way.  Wake up and realize that this demand for an exact replica of the novels is virtually impossible.  I've never heard of a television or movie adaptation that was exactly the same as the novel.  And no such adaptation will ever exist.

 

 

 

Anyway, if Horsfield wanted to mess around with the characters, she should have spent more time developing Verity into an indispensable member of the Trenwith Poldarks because she was highly competent, very responsible and able to manage Trenwith far better than Francis or Elizabeth ever could, not because she's a  homely spinister and aglorified maid-of-all-work. In other words, make Verity the Poldark who should have inherited the works but didn't because she was a woman.

 

 

 

Why?  So that we can have a glorified female character who can do everything?  That's not good writing.  Worse, that's completely changing the nature of Graham's story. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by CTrent29

[Llywela]

I don't like the sweeping changes to the text made by the 1975 series, either - but I think I'm more critical of the changes made by the 2015 series because it advertises itself as a truly faithful adaptation of the novels, and isn't. It simply makes different changes than the 1975 show did.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Llywela

[CTrent29]

I just finished watching Episode Seven of the 1975 series and was disgusted by how the Mark and Keren Daniels story arc ended.  Frankly, it was no better than how it ended in the 2015 series and in Graham's novel, "Demelza".

 

Why on earth did Winston Graham include this terrible story arc in the first place?  So that Mark could tell Ross about copper lode in a now defunct mine?  Good grief!

 

 

 

I don't like the sweeping changes to the text made by the 1975 series, either - but I think I'm more critical of the changes made by the 2015 series because it advertises itself as a truly faithful adaptation of the novels, and isn't. It simply makes different changes than the 1975 show did.

 

 

 

You actually took Debbie Horsfield's claims seriously?  Producers like her are always making such claims to draw in the viewers or the moviegoers, because these people seemed to think that the only decent movie or television adaptation is one that is completely faithful.

 

I'll say this . . .  Episodes One to Seven of the 2015 series seemed to be more faithful (if not completely) than the 1975 series. Not that I care.  If I feel that the changes are unnecessary or are detrimental to the saga, I'll dislike them.  If the changes improve Graham's original plot, I'll support them.  But I refuse to blindly demand that all adaptations be completely faithful to its source novel.  Why?  Because, it's impossible.  Such an adaptation would be too costly and would further hamper any movie or television production.

 

 

 

Also, P15 has focused more closely on Ross and Demelza's relationship, covering the early stages of their marriage in far more detail than P75 did

 

 

No, it did not.  I'm watching both series simultaneously.  The 1975 DID NOT explore Ross and Demelza's early relationship more than the 2015 series.  Worse, they dumped that ridiculous "Demelza gets knocked up" story arc in Episode Four that ended up pissing off Winston Graham.

Edited April 3, 2016 by CTrent29

[LJones41]

I think the 1975 series has been idealized too much by fans.  I've just recently watched the first eight episodes.  One, the Francis Poldark portrayed by Clive Francis in this series proved to be just as much of a loser than the one portrayed by Kyle Soller in the 2015 version.  Worse, the writers didn't really get into his mindset, until Episode Five.  I suspect that the Francis Poldark many remembered from the 1970s series finally appeared in Episodes Nine to Sixteen, which featured the adaptations of "Jeremy Poldark" and "Warleggan".  I suspect the same will happen with Soller's Francis, when Horsfield adapts the two novels in Season Two.

Also Ralph Bates, who portrayed George Warleggan in the 1975-77 series did not resemble the literary version that much.  He was a bit on the stocky side, otherwise, he was NOT a big man.  Not by a long shot.  And he portrayed George in the same manner as Jack Farthing - as a wannabe aristocrat.

On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 3:04 PM, Nampara said:

The failure to deliver perfection is something I can overlook, as long as a project's strengths outweigh its weaknesses.

 

I agree.  I have never seen a movie or television series that did not have its share of weaknesses.  Both the 1975 series and 2015 series that adapted both "Ross Poldark" and "Demelza".

[Llywela]

Hmm. Okay, we're two episodes into season two now, and I do intend to keep watching, but I have to admit that this adaptation is leaving me cold. I wanted so much to like it, went out of my way to be enthusiastic in the beginning, but something just isn't working for me. And I feel strongly that it really can't call itself a truly faithful adaptation, however closely it adheres to the broad sweep of events, too much has been changed in very insidious ways.

Jeremy Poldark is a long book. I can't believe we've had two whole episodes devoted to Ross's trial, and with a large number of completely new scenes and characters popping up in places they should not be. The melodrama is being ramped up out the wazoo at the expense of character integrity and development.

I also think that the writer is struggling to rein back some of the damage created by season one - I'm getting the impression she only read the first two books to write season one, and made a few decisions whose future impact she didn't realise until she got onto the next two books. Francis springs to mind in particular - season one did an absolute hatchet job on the character, leaving season two with too much ground to make up in presenting him in a more sympathetic light, which wouldn't have been necessary if he hadn't been ripped to shreds so comprehensively. It wasn't necessary to assassinate the character in that way in season one - heaven knows Book!Francis is a weak character who makes a lot of mistakes and is his own worst enemy, but he also has a lot of finer qualities that were removed completely from his show counterpart in that first season, which he needed to bring balance to his character, which has been sorely lacking.

I'm not happy with what the show has done with Dwight, either - my favourite character in the books. This Elizabeth isn't convincing me, and George Warleggan is hopelessly miscast.

I just really wish the writer would have trusted more in the story as told in the book, instead of messing around with it for the sake of melodrama, with anything and everything skewed always to make Ross look good. Like, even silly little things - like how in the book, Dwight's testimony was a huge blow to the prosecution, but the show made it go badly just so that the case would look worse and then Ross's speech be the hero moment to turn it around. Not necessary - overly melodramatic. Or having Elizabeth go to Bodmin and Demelza tell her about the pregnancy - would never have happened in the book.

Give me drama over melodrama any day.

I do enjoy this Demelza, though, and was moved by her sorrow over Julia every time, especially in the quiet, little moments. And I'm liking this version of Caroline so far.

[CTrent29]

Quote

Jeremy Poldark is a long book. I can't believe we've had two whole episodes devoted to Ross's trial, and with a large number of completely new scenes and characters popping up in places they should not be. The melodrama is being ramped up out the wazoo at the expense of character integrity and development.

Actually, "Jeremy Poldark" is the shortest of the first four novels.  I would also point out that so far, Horsfield is following the same pacing as the 1975 series.  "Ross Poldark" covered four episodes in both the 1975-77 series and the current series.  So did "Demelza" and "Jeremy Poldark".  The big difference is that while the 1975-77 series only covered "Warleggan" in four episodes, this series will cover the same novel in six episodes.

 

In other words, you would be probably be making similar complaints about the 70s series if you were watching it - not only the pacing, but also the lack of a truly faithful adaptation.

[Llywela]

As I have said before CTrent29, I am well aware of the failings of the previous adaptation as much as its strengths. But the strengths and failings of the previous adaptation really have no bearing on my opinion of this version, which I was talking about without any reference whatsoever to the other. It is getting tiresome that your reaction to any criticism of this version is to say 'oh, but the other wasn't perfect, either'. No, it wasn't, and I wasn't claiming that it was. I wasn't referring to it at all, in fact. I'm talking about this version - which, like the other, has both its strengths and its weaknesses. It isn't a binary opposition - criticism of the one does not equal blind adoration of the other. The two can be assessed independently of one another.

Jeremy Poldark might well be the shortest of the first four novels, but it is still a long book, and must necessarily be compressed to fit into six episodes, especially since two of the six were devoted to the events around Ross's trial - with a lot of new material inserted, at that.

As for episode four, which has just aired here, I am really cross that Jeremy's birth was changed to make Ross the hero once again. He shouldn't have been anywhere near, he was miles away and didn't get home until it was all over - Demelza rescued herself. But of course that moment has to be taken away from her to allow Ross to play the hero once again. It always annoys me in any show when one character inflated at the expense of another. I remain unconvinced that the writer really understands all the characters in this story, many of whom feel 'off' to me in various subtle or not-so-subtle ways. Debbie Horsfield hadn't read the whole series before she wrote season one, and to me it does show in some of the decisions she made for season one, such as her exaggeration of Francis's flaws (and complete removal of all his strengths), which left her with a lot of additional work to do redeeming him in season two (she might have played things differently if she'd known where his story was going). And I still don't like this version of George. But the cinematography remains absolutely stunning and there have been some very cute moments, and I do love Eleanor Tomlinson's Demelza and Ruby Bentall's Verity. I'm enjoying Kyle Soller as Francis as well - he's bringing a lot of nuance to the role.

[CTrent29]

Quote

As for episode four, which has just aired here, I am really cross that Jeremy's birth was changed to make Ross the hero once again. He shouldn't have been anywhere near, he was miles away and didn't get home until it was all over - Demelza rescued herself.

 

Yes, I was annoyed by that change as well.  Perhaps one day, some producer will make a third adaptation that will be a lot closer to Graham's novel than these first and second adaptations.

 

 

It is getting tiresome that your reaction to any criticism of this version is to say 'oh, but the other wasn't perfect, either'

 

That is because I keep encountering comments that the 1975-77 series was a lot more faithful to the novels than they actually were.

[Llywela]

13 minutes ago, CTrent29 said:

That is because I keep encountering comments that the 1975-77 series was a lot more faithful to the novels than they actually were.

Yes, but you are saying it in response to posts that don't mention the previous adaptation at all, still less idolise it!

That said, one of the things that bugs me about this version is that it claims to be more faithful to the books than the last, when I'm not convinced it is, it simply makes different choices. Neither one can claim to be truly faithful. They would need a lot more screentime to have any chance of achieving that!

Edited September 26, 2016 by Llywela

[Ceindreadh]

Ross 'rescuing' Demelza wasn't as bad as I'd thought it would be. It looked like she was practically ashore under her own steam before he came along. 

 

Question, how many eps are there in this series? I thought it was going to be 8 eps again - 4 per book. 

[Llywela]

3 minutes ago, Ceindreadh said:

Question, how many eps are there in this series? I thought it was going to be 8 eps again - 4 per book. 

I believe Horsfield asked for and was granted an extra two episodes for the season, so there will be 10 eps altogether.

[LJones41]

Quote

Yes, but you are saying it in response to posts that don't mention the previous adaptation at all, still less idolise it!

 

This particular thread is about the current adaptation, the 1970s adaptation and the novels.  What are you getting at?  I get this feeling that I'm not allowed to discuss both the current adaptation and the old one . . . on this thread.  Why?  Since when do I or anyone else have maintain my comments to such a narrow field?

 

And I don't care what Debbie Horsfield had claimed about this version being more faithful.  I never bought her claim.  It's easy to see that she made this claim all in the name of ratings.  Nor did I ever think she would be able to maintain this claim.  So, I see no reason why I cannot point out the changes made in both adaptations . . . on this particular thread.

[Llywela]

12 hours ago, LJones41 said:

 

This particular thread is about the current adaptation, the 1970s adaptation and the novels.  What are you getting at?  I get this feeling that I'm not allowed to discuss both the current adaptation and the old one . . . on this thread.  Why?  Since when do I or anyone else have maintain my comments to such a narrow field?

If you look back at the conversation, LJones, you will see that I was talking very specifically to CTrent, who was responding to any comment about the current show with a very flat, blanket statement of 'but the old show wasn't perfect either' - whether this comment was relevant to what was said or not - which I have been finding increasingly reductive and stifling of any actual debate - which, for the record, I would love to have. I want to be able to discuss and compare all versions of this story, but I also want to be able to offer standalone commentary on one without having to every time add a qualifying statement that I don't think the other is perfect either, because it should not be assumed that I think that just because I critiqued the one.

I asked for this sub-forum to be set up, because I wanted to be able to chat freely about the show, but I'm struggling to find a place in it. I'm not welcome in the episode threads, because I know too much. Try to discuss the current adaptation on its own merits here and that too gets shut down.

Maybe I should just admit defeat, accept that there is no place on this board for me to discuss this show, and remove the forum from my follow list.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Llywela

[DHDancer]

14 hours ago, Llywela said:

Maybe I should just admit defeat, accept that there is no place on this board for me to discuss this show, and remove the forum from my follow list.

No! Don't do that!  I enjoy your posts immensely as a kindred soul.   Personally I would just not read too much into these other responses...

Stating the obvious:  There is no such thing as a perfect adaptation of anything --- books by their nature depend on our imagination so readers will always have different interpretations of the text. Once someone adapts it to the screen, that element of imagination is replaced because we have actual images of the adapter's interpretation of the source material.  We either accept their "vision" or not.

I'm struggling with the 2015 adaptation because it it too superficial imo ("too pretty") and while Turner is wonderful eye candy he is NOT an 18th century man and that rings false to me.

Ah well.  Please all, lets continue our discourse :)

[LadyPenelope]

I haven't seen the original adaptation but I have read every book and was so excited to find somewhere to discuss it - don't anyone go anywhere! 

I have been really enjoying the season. There are a few little things that annoyed me - I thought the trial was a bit silly as based on what we saw, Ross should really have been convicted. The book was a bit more balanced and relied less on shock tactics.

I am unreasonably irritable that the three central women have all swapped hair colour - I realise it makes no difference to the show but it bothers me a little. I love the Dwight/Caroline scenes so much more than I expected but I find Caroline slightly off in a way I can't quite put my finger on - she just doesn't feel true to character.

I am probably the only person in the world who loves Elizabeth (so much more than Demelza, although she does grow on me as the series goes on) but I like her character development this season. I would rather they hadn't bothered creating a friendship between Elizabeth and Demelza only to have it turn frosty so quickly - more unnecessary drama. I also hated Elizabeth asking Dwight if Francis had been going to kill himself - felt anachronistic and out of character. 

Overall, lots of little things I would have changed but I am enjoying it, and it doesn't hurt that Aiden Turner is just an absurdly attractive man.

[CTrent29]

I'm another who tends to like Elizabeth more than I do Demelza.  Elizabeth strikes me as a complex person with her share of flaws and virtues.  I have no problem with that.  On the other hand I have a problem with Demelza.  She comes off as a bit too idealized for me.  Some have claimed that Elizabeth is more idealized.  Well yes . . . from the characters' viewpoints.  But as a reader and a viewer, it seemed to me that Winston Graham had created a borderline ideal in Demelza.  And that idealized portrayal has carried on in both the 1970s series and the current one.  I once asked a few people to name the flaws she sees in Demelza.  The only flaw anyone could see was Demelza's naivety.  That's it.  And that naivety will gradually disappear as she grows older.  But what about her other flaws?  Will they manifest or will Demelza end the series as a beautiful, yet middle-aged and idealized woman?  I hope not.

 

I disliked the way the current adaptation portrayed Keren Daniels.  It struck me as rather shallow and one-note.  However, I have a problem with the way the 1975 series had portrayed Francis Poldark in Episodes One to Eight.  I found it a bit inconsistent and badly written - especially in Episodes Five to Eight.

[Llywela]

2 hours ago, LadyPenelope said:

I am unreasonably irritable that the three central women have all swapped hair colour - I realise it makes no difference to the show but it bothers me a little. I love the Dwight/Caroline scenes so much more than I expected but I find Caroline slightly off in a way I can't quite put my finger on - she just doesn't feel true to character.

I thought this Caroline very promising at first, but after four episodes I'm finding her a little more in earnest than Caroline ever read to me - as if she believes and means the shocking things she says, rather than saying them deliberately to shock, which is how the character more often comes across to me on paper. I think that's the difference. She's being played a little too straight - she plays better with more of a twinkle in her eye, and without it just isn't as fun or sympathetic. But hopefully that will come in time, perhaps, as layers get peeled back and the character grows. Or then again, maybe not - I'm coming to the conclusion that Debbie Horsfield interprets many of the characters in this story differently than I do. And I feel it does show in her work that she doesn't know the story as a whole, but simply read each book as she adapted it, so perhaps makes choices that she may not have done if she knew how the later story would play out.

Also, thanks for kind words, folks.

[LadyPenelope]

Quote

I'm another who tends to like Elizabeth more than I do Demelza.  Elizabeth strikes me as a complex person with her share of flaws and virtues.  I have no problem with that.  On the other hand I have a problem with Demelza.  She comes off as a bit too idealized for me.

Yeah, I like Demelza, but she isn't a complicated character which doesn't make for particularly interesting reading/viewing. She is also incredibly idealised by Graham and the plot - she doesn't have any flaws, she is beautiful, ageless, admired by everyone around her, welcomed into society, etc, etc. I think Elizabeth is much more interesting, and also such a tragic character - she is damned by her good breeding and good looks, and has an unhappy life and horrible death because of the actions of the men around her. She has plenty of flaws but they are all rooted in her background and upbringing - she was raised to be an ornament, wife and mother, and she does those things wonderfully, but it isn't enough, and she has no way of coping with a world where it isn't enough.

On the other hand - and I don't suppose the show will ever get there - but I thought the relationship between Ross and Demelza in the last book was interesting. They don't have an unhappy ending but it is much more neutral than I was expecting - there is a lot of distance between them, with so many things unspoken. People have mentioned upthread that the show (and the 1975 version, which I haven't seen) is putting emphasis on the Ross/Demelza/Elizabeth triangle when that isn't a focus in the books, but I think it's the opposite - the show is very much playing Ross/Demelza as the great love story, whereas I think the books are much more realistic in the portrayal of their relationship. I'm not saying it's a CW-style love triangle by any stretch, but there is an ambivalence there that I don't see in the show - it seems absurd at this point in the show for Ross to be having flirty asides with Elizabeth, having made it so clear in the first season that Demelza is the love of his life.

Quote

I disliked the way the current adaptation portrayed Keren Daniels.

Well, I haven't seen how the 1975 version did it but I loathe that whole storyline, which basically boils down to 'it's okay to murder a woman if she's a bit of a bitch'. I feel the same way about the Verity/Blamey storyline - I am absolutely with Francis on that one, and I wish the show had made more of the fact that it is because he is worried for Verity that he acts the way he does. He isn't a monster who is trying to control her; it's just generally good practice not to marry a man who murdered his previous wife. I know the books are a product of their time, but really. There are no extenuating circumstances when it comes to abuse and murder.

Quote

I thought this Caroline very promising at first, but after four episodes I'm finding her a little more in earnest than Caroline ever read to me - as if she believes and means the shocking things she says, rather than saying them deliberately to shock, which is how the character more often comes across to me on paper. I think that's the difference. She's being played a little too straight - she plays better with more of a twinkle in her eye, and without it just isn't as fun or sympathetic. But hopefully that will come in time, perhaps, as layers get peeled back and the character grows. Or then again, maybe not - I'm coming to the conclusion that Debbie Horsfield interprets many of the characters in this story differently than I do. And I feel it does show in her work that she doesn't know the story as a whole, but simply read each book as she adapted it, so perhaps makes choices that she may not have done if she knew how the later story would play out.

That might be my problem with her, and it's a shame because I loved Caroline in the books. This Caroline looks too modern, and never seems like she's being particularly arch or cynical or ironic - she's just a bit of a brat. I didn't realise that Debbie Horsfield hadn't read the entire series - that would explain the above issue re: Ross not being able to decide on his epic true love for Demelza.

[Brattinella]

I find it very offensive when all one can do is criticize the other posters' opinions.  That is not what this board is for.

Back on topic: I love this show!

[Llywela]

On 01/10/2016 at 8:19 PM, CTrent29 said:

I'm another who tends to like Elizabeth more than I do Demelza.  Elizabeth strikes me as a complex person with her share of flaws and virtues.  I have no problem with that.  On the other hand I have a problem with Demelza.  She comes off as a bit too idealized for me.  Some have claimed that Elizabeth is more idealized.  Well yes . . . from the characters' viewpoints.  But as a reader and a viewer, it seemed to me that Winston Graham had created a borderline ideal in Demelza.  And that idealized portrayal has carried on in both the 1970s series and the current one.  I once asked a few people to name the flaws she sees in Demelza.  The only flaw anyone could see was Demelza's naivety.  That's it.  And that naivety will gradually disappear as she grows older.  But what about her other flaws?  Will they manifest or will Demelza end the series as a beautiful, yet middle-aged and idealized woman?  I hope not.

Demelza is a very idealised character - Graham based her on his wife, who he clearly loved very much and considered perfect. Demelza does have flaws, however. She has a sharp temper and is very impulsive, tends to plunge headlong in pursuit of her gut instincts without pausing to think things through, acting more on intuition than judgement - sometimes it pays off for her, but it can also at times make things worse.

Elizabeth, on the page, is a bit of a cold fish, a woman who gives very little away - many men idolise her, but few truly know her. The Elizabeth we're seeing on-screen in the new adaptation has quite a different personality - she's been brought out of herself and into the action a lot more than in the book.

I just watched episode five. There's a lot that disappoints me about this adaptation, but damn, that made me cry. :(

[Glade]

I just watched episode 5, and I still find Elizabeth (and her never-ending, trite conversations with Ross about their relationship) as bland and boring as ever--but of course every man everywhere is just falling all over himself to be in love with her, as she is queen of the bores.   What really perplexed me though is why exactly the episode ended with a 'to be continued' message; what is there to continue?  Unless it's all an elaborate dream sequence and he isn't dead, why not just start a new episode, unless there is some rule that all the episodes have to be at least six months apart in the timeline.

[LiveenLetLive]

Thank goodness we can talk about the UK version here...first I find the actress playing Caroline very good, but why in God's name did they have her wearing a very modern shade of lipstick when she secretly met Dwight? As for the ending, I had completely forgotten that 

Spoiler

Francis dies and that Elizabeth ends up marrying George--I have never read the books, but was a watcher of the 70's version, I had honestly forgotten about that hideous turn of events...ugh

I spoilered my comment because I am not sure of how much we can talk about episodes that have not aired in the States yet.

[Llywela]

3 hours ago, Glade said:

I just watched episode 5, and I still find Elizabeth (and her never-ending, trite conversations with Ross about their relationship) as bland and boring as ever--but of course every man everywhere is just falling all over himself to be in love with her, as she is queen of the bores.   What really perplexed me though is why exactly the episode ended with a 'to be continued' message; what is there to continue?  Unless it's all an elaborate dream sequence and he isn't dead, why not just start a new episode, unless there is some rule that all the episodes have to be at least six months apart in the timeline.

Yeah, I was puzzled by that, too. It can't even be to signify the gap between books three and four, because we're already into book four. Maybe it was just meant to highlight the shock death?

Quote

I spoilered my comment because I am not sure of how much we can talk about episodes that have not aired in the States yet.

Everyone in this thread should be aware of the full story still to come, surely, as this is the thread for comparing all versions.

For once, I didn't mind most of the changes made in ep 5 - like bringing Verity to Trenwith for a visit, so she could have a proper reconciliation with Francis and be there when the news broke of his death. I did regret a few things that were left out, though - like Caroline 'capturing' Ross as a highwayman on her return to Cornwall, because that's such a fun conversation (they'd changed and compressed the sequence of events, though, which didn't allow for it). Or during the dinner at Killewarren, when Elizabeth tells Ross she still loves him - we got lots of meaningful glances down the table to Demelza, but not the moment from the book when Ross catches Francis's eye and realises that he knows and has always known, and Ross suddenly understands so much about his cousin that never made sense to him before. And I regret that they showed Francis letting go of the nail, rather than the nail slowly but surely working loose and finally giving way, as happened in the book, where they later found it clutched tight still in his hand. On the whole, though, a strong episode - very much Francis's episode, one last moment to shine before the end. :(

Edited October 3, 2016 by Llywela

[Brattinella]

Wow.  I REALLY didn't want to know what happens in next week's episode!  Isn't this thread marked UNAIRED IN THE US?  I don't think even hidden spoilers are allowed in unaired episodes.  I'm so bummed. :(

[Llywela]

12 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Wow.  I REALLY didn't want to know what happens in next week's episode!  Isn't this thread marked UNAIRED IN THE US?  I don't think even hidden spoilers are allowed in unaired episodes.  I'm so bummed. :(

I'm sorry you've been spoiled, but the thread is not marked 'unaired in the US', sorry. It is very clearly marked 'spoilers'. Those of us watching at UK pace have to have a space in which we can discuss the episodes as they air, and this is that space - there is nowhere else for us to post.

But seriously, if you don't know what happens in future storylines, this really is not the thread for you anyway - this whole thread is one big spoiler, since its purpose is to discuss all versions of the story, including the 1975 adaptation in its entirety as well as the 12-novel series on which both shows are based. This thread by its very definition pre-supposes prior knowledge of the full story.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Llywela

[Brattinella]

Well, my mistake.  But I am still bummed out and will be sticking in future to the ones I KNOW I have seen.

[Clawdette]

We just got Episode  3 in the US and a welcome change from the book was that Jud isn't naked when he rises from the dead but is in burial clothes.  I know there is a clamoring for Poldark's bare skin but I don't think that wish applies to everyone!

[LJones41]

Elizabeth, on the page, is a bit of a cold fish, a woman who gives very little away - many men idolise her, but few truly know her. The Elizabeth we're seeing on-screen in the new adaptation has quite a different personality - she's been brought out of herself and into the action a lot more than in the book.

 

To me, cold fish means that Elizabeth is a very private and introverted person and is not in the habit of freely expressing her emotions.  This is a crime in the eyes of many.  As an introverted woman myself, I've been accused on many occasions of being too introverted.  I forgot that in Western society, introverted women are not admired.

 

I just watched episode 5, and I still find Elizabeth (and her never-ending, trite conversations with Ross about their relationship) as bland and boring as ever--but of course every man everywhere is just falling all over himself to be in love with her, as she is queen of the bores.

 

I wonder . . . will Elizabeth be described as "trite", "bland" or "cold" every time she is on the screen . . . especially when she shares a scene with Ross?  This is beginning to feel like a campaign for character assassination.

[LiveenLetLive]

I will say that I find this Elizabeth infinitely more attractive than the '70's version--that Ross remained conflicted about that Elizabeth was a continued source of perplexity to me at the time. 

[Llywela]

1 hour ago, LJones41 said:

To me, cold fish means that Elizabeth is a very private and introverted person and is not in the habit of freely expressing her emotions.  This is a crime in the eyes of many.  As an introverted woman myself, I've been accused on many occasions of being too introverted.  I forgot that in Western society, introverted women are not admired.

I don't mean it as a complaint - I'm an introvert myself. My point was, Elizabeth is not a character who gives much away. The books only rarely give insight into her POV and she isn't given to expressing herself freely. She's very contained, very controlled. I think that inscrutability is part of the reason so many men put her up on a pedestal - they see her outward beauty and apparent vulnerability (she is frequently described as looking fragile) and they want to look after her, but they are also intrigued by her because she gives so little away. That's her personality. She isn't bland or trite. She's very contained, and it's often hard to know what she's thinking. That's in the books, at any rate. The Elizabeth of the new adaptation is much more open.

[Glade]

In the current adaptation, from the writing and acting I just haven't found Elizabeth (or the universal admiration she receives from everyone around her) very convincing.  Maybe that will change with the coming events, but I doubt it.  I definitely prefer the Demelza we're seeing.

[Haleth]

I haven't read this topic since I don't want spoilers, but I've started reading the books and wanted to express my dismay.  Demelza is 13???  Good lord, that makes me really uncomfortable, knowing what is to come.

[Llywela]

21 minutes ago, Haleth said:

I haven't read this topic since I don't want spoilers, but I've started reading the books and wanted to express my dismay.  Demelza is 13???  Good lord, that makes me really uncomfortable, knowing what is to come.

Um, yeah. And her age is a plot point early on, although from the timeline later established she must turn 14 pretty soon after arriving at Nampara. Modern sensibilities of course are the reason the character was aged up for TV - although the timeline was also fudged to develop the romance as quickly as possible on-screen, whereas in the book several years pass before anything happens between them, and Ross sees her only as a child and a servant during those years, albeit a very likeable one who brings a lot of life back to the household; it isn't until much, much later that he sees her with new eyes as a woman to be desired. He is 10 years older than her, which is a significant age gap, especially at that age - but not uncommon at the time, I believe. My own great-grandmother was 12 years younger than her husband, married in the 1890s, and family legend would have it that he met her as a child and then waited for her to be grown up before making his move; they married as soon as she turned 18 and seem to have been perfectly happy together, despite what sounds like an icky and inappropriate origin story. Which is why Ross and Demelza's story rings true to me, for all that we, reading today, cannot help but side-eye the situation severely.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Llywela

[Haleth]

Right.  Where I am in the book Ross only refers to Demelza as "the child" so it's a bit icky that he eventually sees her as a romantic partner, even if she is "of age" when it happens.  It's true that it wasn't unusual for older men to seek very young wives in that era.  The best literary example I know of is Sense and Sensibility.  Brandon is 35 and Maryanne is 16.  (And in the movie most of the characters were aged up.)

[skyways]

Ditto Liveenletlive I had completely forgotten THAT event as well. I don't know how......... And I agree that the inconsistences mean that the producer hadn't read the series into the later books hence some jarring notes like the Ross/Elizabeth head scratching conversation with Elizabeth shooing him away no less! In the book I found the whole thing even more annoying for different reasons. There was no shooing away or admonishing by Elizabeth if I remember correctly and Demelza wasn't even there to hear all that.

I watch basically for Caroline and Matthew Crawley.............I mean Dwight.

[LiveenLetLive]

On 10/8/2016 at 6:06 PM, skyways said:

 I watch basically for Caroline and Matthew Crawley.............I mean Dwight.

Me too! I find the 2 actors so beautiful and they have excellent chemistry. 

For book readers do they ever make it clear why the Warleggans hate Ross in particular? Especially Uncle Cary's (or whatever his name) tirade tonight, when their plan to get Ross thrown in prison was foiled, was truly unhinged. Ancient Aunt Poldark and Warleggan trading insults is very funny--the actors make that bit work well. I just wish, and I can only assume that it is the book's fault since I found this true of the 70's version, that there was some simmer between Ross and Elizabeth--some sexual pull that just isn't there and God knows with Turner in the role it shouldn't be hard to drum up some chemistry, LOL.

[Llywela]

3 hours ago, LiveenLetLive said:

Me too! I find the 2 actors so beautiful and they have excellent chemistry. 

For book readers do they ever make it clear why the Warleggans hate Ross in particular? Especially Uncle Cary's (or whatever his name) tirade tonight, when their plan to get Ross thrown in prison was foiled, was truly unhinged. Ancient Aunt Poldark and Warleggan trading insults is very funny--the actors make that bit work well. I just wish, and I can only assume that it is the book's fault since I found this true of the 70's version, that there was some simmer between Ross and Elizabeth--some sexual pull that just isn't there and God knows with Turner in the role it shouldn't be hard to drum up some chemistry, LOL.

The feud is much more of a slow burn in the books - in fact, in the first book, Ross and George would even call one another 'friend', although they've never liked each other much since their schooldays. That dislike grows into mutual hatred slowly, and is more personal to George rather than his whole family - Cary's outburst in ep 6 would be OOC for his book self, iirc, who is far more pragmatic and focused intensely on profit-making. Ross and George's mutual hatred grows initially from their diametrically opposed worldviews and very different business practices. Ross starts by disliking the way the Warleggans do business, and chooses to bank elsewhere when he opens Wheal Leisure, which they resent, while they, being nouveau riche, are affronted by his attitude, taking for granted (and even rejecting) social status they as a family have striven for years to attain and all the while looking down on them as socially inferior. And it is the accumulation of all kinds of minor and major resentments over a period of years that grows into full-blown feud, after which it kind of no longer matters how it began, to either Ross or George, because hating each other has become habit. Each resents everything the other stands for. Debbie Horsfield has done a lot of lovely stuff in this adaptation, but one thing I really regret is that she has stripped out all kinds of nuance and development from almost every character and storyline - including the feud between Ross and George - in order to pare the story down enough to fit it into the episodes available, I guess, but I still regret it.

You know, I don't think Ross and Elizabeth's attraction to one another even is about sexual pull. It's about what might have been - that sense of the one that got away, would the grass have been greener on the other side, kind of thing. And also, for Ross, I think it's about feeling needed - the strong macho man taking care of the vulnerable little lady, whether he recognises that need in himself or not, and I'm not sure he does, at least not yet. We saw it in episode six - Ross preening in response to Elizabeth's flattery, telling Pascoe that he has to help Elizabeth because she's so helpless and alone, while all but dismissing Demelza's needs and concerns because he feels she's better able to fend for herself and therefore doesn't need him as much (while her nagging reminds him of all his own flaws and failings). On a pragmatic level, he's right - Demelza is better able to fend for herself. And that's exactly why he's drawn to Elizabeth right now, in his own time of crisis. Because he feels helpless at home - he has got his family into dire financial straits and can't see any way out, so he feels a useless failure. But with Elizabeth, he can play the hero, supporting her in her hour of need, and that gives his ego the boost it needs. Elizabeth isn't an easy character to read, but one thing Graham stresses over and over in the books is that her fragile appearance is what attracts men, like moths to a flame - something about her attracts a particular type of man by appealing to his more protective, nurturing instincts. She doesn't do it deliberately - at least not always - but it's part of who she is. And that facet of her is appealing to Ross right now because it makes him feel better about himself. And Graham also tells us that Elizabeth is so used to being seen as fragile and helpless, while others do the managing for her, that she doesn't realise her own strength - when she really has to, she is capable of far more than she believes she is. But she doesn't recognise that about herself, so in her time of need, she tends to cling to the most stalwart support she can find - which is currently Ross.

There were a few book scenes I was delighted to see in this episode - although, as sexy as the stocking scene was, I did rather miss the teasing that accompanied it in the book! And they also cut a number of details I might wish to have kept - like Caroline's insistence to Pascoe that her purchase of Ross's debt was an investment, not charity (although it totally was charity) - mainly, I suppose, because I like how it pays off later, but Horsfield won't have read that far ahead yet, which is a shame.  I'm certain she'd have made numerous choices differently if she knew the entire story, rather than just the bit of it she's adapting at any given time.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Llywela

[skyways]

And you were thinking of leaving the thread...................................... Excellent analysis. I too was surprised to see the stockings scene.

[Llywela]

Well, episode 7 was pretty tense - and I knew what was going to happen and was still on the edge of my seat. I really appreciated how close Ross and Dwight's stories in this episode were to the original novel, and my heart broke for Caroline as circumstances overtook her plans. I was in two minds about Gabriella Wilde earlier in the season, but her interpretation of Caroline has grown on me since we began to see the woman behind the facade.

I'm trying to decide whether I like it or not that the show had Caroline pay a visit to Demelza this early - on the one hand, I'm all for additional female interaction, but on the other hand I do appreciate about the books that not all the major characters actually know one another, and I like that despite both being major characters Caroline and Demelza don't get to know each other until after Dwight goes missing. It works for the show, though, I suppose, to bring them together as friends a bit earlier.

The George-Elizabeth story, however, I'm finding less convincing - Horsfield is straying from the source material here, not trusting Graham's characters or their motivations. I'm trying to pick apart the changes she's made to understand why she's making them - having George manipulate Elizabeth so blatantly, to make her more dependent on him. Is it to make Elizabeth seem more sympathetic? Or is it to make George's villainy clear? Possibly a bit of both. I think Horsfield fell into much the same trap with George in season one that she did with Francis - she misinterpreted both characters and exaggerated them according to that misinterpretation, only to find when she reached the next pair of books that she needed to backpeddle. It's the danger of adapting a lengthy series of novels without having read them all up front! And so season one gave us a Francis without any redeeming features whatsoever, his flaws exaggerated and his virtues removed, and it also gave us a George who was strangely sympathetic, anti-hero rather than antagonist. Season two has had to backpeddle on both counts, because the story takes the characters in a different direction perhaps than Horsfield anticipated. Francis's redemption worked well - lurking on Tumblr certainly suggests that all the fans who hated him in season one came to love him in season two, although personally I'd have preferred a more balanced presentation of the character from the start. And George is fast becoming an out-and-out moustache-twirling villain this season - which isn't really his character in the book any more than the more sympathetic presentation of him in season one was. Book!George didn't need to manipulate Elizabeth with scare stories to make her turn to him for help. He simply remained her friend throughout, even while Francis was at odds with him, and after Francis's death Elizabeth was so stressed out by the burden of running the estate that she was glad to receive George's support. I don't see why that needed to be changed, except to underline George's villainy - I don't feel Elizabeth needed to be made such a naive victim for viewers to sympathise with her situation. And it seemed a stretch to have her so perplexed about Ross not answering her notes when she'd been plainly told that Ross was away from home, although they tried to cover that by having Prudie lie that Ross had received the first note, which was also a bit of a stretch when all Prudie had to say was that the note arrived after Ross left, which was merely the truth! But the episode wanted to make Elizabeth feel that Ross was letting her down, and twisted itself in knots trying to achieve that.

Season one also, of course, both altered Dwight's backstory completely and underplayed him to the point where many fans barely even knew he existed - I'm really glad he's being allowed to step forward as a major character now, because he's always been a favourite of mine. I just wish there had been enough space in season one to allow his story to play out properly.

I'm also a bit puzzled by George's plans to build a bank, because I thought he already was a banker - that's how his family made their fortune. I'm almost certain they already had bank premises in the novels, from the start, but I may be misremembering. Either way, I don't think this is a book storyline, so I'm not quite sure where it's leading.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Llywela

[Nidratime]

Being in the U.S. I haven't seen this version's episode 7 yet, but I have to bolster your recollection that the Warleggans were, indeed, bankers from the get-go. In fact, when Ross returns from America and decides to open Wheal Leisure, he makes a point of banking with Pascoe's rather than with the Warleggan's despite his partners encouraging him to do otherwise. Many of the local gentry banked with the Warleggans -- including some of Ross' business partners -- and that's why they had such a hold over them. The fact that Ross was adamant that they not bank with Warleggans was an another important reason why George and he were at odds, as it sewed a level of distrust and suspicion against him.

If they are only *now* becoming bankers, I'm very surprised by that. What kind of business has the show had them in thus far?

Edited October 18, 2016 by Nidratime

[Llywela]

7 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Being in the U.S. I haven't seen this version's episode 7 yet, but I have to bolster your recollection that the Warleggans were, indeed, bankers from the get-go. In fact, when Ross returns from America and decides to open Wheal Leisure, he makes a point of banking with Pascoe's rather than with the Warleggan's despite his partners encouraging him to do otherwise. Many of the local gentry banked with the Warleggans -- including some of Ross' business partners -- and that's why they had such a hold over them. The fact that Ross was adamant that they not bank with Warleggans was an another important reason why George and he were at odds, as it sewed a level of distrust and suspicion against him.

If they are only *now* becoming bankers, I'm very surprised by that. What kind of business has the show had them in thus far?

Thank you! I'm pretty sure the show has portrayed them as bankers from the start, but George is now talking about building a bank as if it's a new venture. Presumably he means bank premises - which begs the question of where they've been conducting their business from before now, in that case. I mean, at that time most banks were small, local affairs, and Warleggans would be no different - when Ross visits Pascoe, his bank is run from his house, pretty much. So I'm confused by George's talk of building a bank. I guess he means a grand premises to replace wherever they are operating from currently - which can't be their house, as they live in their grand nouveau riche mansion out of town, so they must already have a base of operations in Truro from which their fortune was built, in which case I still don't understand why George is talking about building a bank. I guess I just need some clarity in the dialogue to clear the issue up!

[JenMcSnark]

Just wanted to thank you all.  My daughter made me come in this thread because Tumblr spoiled her to Francis dying.  I absolutely adore Francis and the actor's portrayal is awesome, so I'm very sad to see this confirmed.  Normally, I prefer to be spoiled because I get too tense, but I hadn't felt that with this show...until now. 

We were thinking about not watching E4 or the future eps, but I did and loved it!  It was so good that I'm going to stick with the show until I can't.  

And with the analysis on this page, I think I may be able to convince my daughter to keep watching too.  :-)

[LiveenLetLive]

Well tonight's episode was certainly sexy and sort of gave me what I wanted when I commented upthread about the lack of "simmer" between Ross and Elizabeth--plenty of simmer tonight, LOL. I really like the actress playing Demelza, but I sometimes do miss the feistiness that tiny little Angharad Rees brought to the character in the 1970's version--although that wallop at the end, good for Demelza!

[Llywela]

2 hours ago, LiveenLetLive said:

Well tonight's episode was certainly sexy and sort of gave me what I wanted when I commented upthread about the lack of "simmer" between Ross and Elizabeth--plenty of simmer tonight, LOL. I really like the actress playing Demelza, but I sometimes do miss the feistiness that tiny little Angharad Rees brought to the character in the 1970's version--although that wallop at the end, good for Demelza!

Yeah, I get torn between the two actresses - it's weird having multiple versions of the same characters in my head! I thought episode eight was strong, and for the most part fairly true to the book. Elizabeth and George remain the weak points, for me - I've tried, but I just can't find either actor convincing in their roles, and it doesn't help that their story is being mucked about with currently. As in episode seven, I can only presume changing the story to have George coercing Elizabeth so strongly is to increase sympathy for her while making his villainy plain, but I still don't feel that either was necessary and would better prefer the writer to have more faith in the original story. I did, though, really appreciate that she kept so much of the original dialogue in George's proposal - in particular the exchange where he fells Elizabeth she is 'so frail', but she counters that she is stronger than he thinks she is. That is Elizabeth's relationship with men right there in a nutshell. They see her as this beautiful, fragile creature that they must protect, and seek to keep her that way for their own sakes, because they like how looking after her makes them feel about themselves, while she does have fits of seeking to escape that trap and stand on her own feet, yet never quite believes herself capable of doing so, which leads her always to seek that protection once more. Also, one thing I always find striking about George's character in the books is that he never once, in all 12 novels, believes for even a second that any woman would want to marry him for love. Not once. (He always aims high, of course, which makes him accutely aware of his lack of 'breeding'). And that character note came through strongly in his proposal here.

The Ross-Elizabeth sub-plot was, as always, very uncomfortable viewing - and not very much altered from the novels, in that Ross does force himself on Elizabeth while she protests, but instead of cutting away at that point, as the book does, the show stays with them a little longer to show Elizabeth responding, and I can't quite decide if I think that's better or worse. It is just an uncomfortable, difficult storyline in any version - Ross at his very worst, and his negative qualities have been on display throughout this season. He isn't a character who was ever meant to be a romantic hero. He is a complex and deeply flawed protagonist, which is not the same thing. He is a high-minded man with forward-thinking and relatively liberal principles, but he is also arrogant and stubborn, possessive, with more than a bit of a hero complex. He likes to be in control, he likes to be able to fix things, and that's a quality that can be both good and bad, depending on the circumstances.

Dwight is my favourite character in any version of this story, and I'm loving how much focus he's getting this season - I just wish his story had been done justice last season, too! S1 really needed more episodes. Also, I think Horsfield is doing a better job of balancing and blending the sub-plots this season, allowing the various story strands to play out over a period of weeks, interwoven with one another as they are in the books, instead of trying to compress them each into single episode storylines, as she tended to in S1.

[LiveenLetLive]

17 hours ago, Llywela said:

Yeah, I get torn between the two actresses - it's weird having multiple versions of the same characters in my head! I thought episode eight was strong, and for the most part fairly true to the book. Elizabeth and George remain the weak points, for me - I've tried, but I just can't find either actor convincing in their roles, and it doesn't help that their story is being mucked about with currently. As in episode seven, I can only presume changing the story to have George coercing Elizabeth so strongly is to increase sympathy for her while making his villainy plain, but I still don't feel that either was necessary and would better prefer the writer to have more faith in the original story. I did, though, really appreciate that she kept so much of the original dialogue in George's proposal - in particular the exchange where he fells Elizabeth she is 'so frail', but she counters that she is stronger than he thinks she is. That is Elizabeth's relationship with men right there in a nutshell. They see her as this beautiful, fragile creature that they must protect, and seek to keep her that way for their own sakes, because they like how looking after her makes them feel about themselves, while she does have fits of seeking to escape that trap and stand on her own feet, yet never quite believes herself capable of doing so, which leads her always to seek that protection once more. Also, one thing I always find striking about George's character in the books is that he never once, in all 12 novels, believes for even a second that any woman would want to marry him for love. Not once. (He always aims high, of course, which makes him accutely aware of his lack of 'breeding'). And that character note came through strongly in his proposal here.

The Ross-Elizabeth sub-plot was, as always, very uncomfortable viewing - and not very much altered from the novels, in that Ross does force himself on Elizabeth while she protests, but instead of cutting away at that point, as the book does, the show stays with them a little longer to show Elizabeth responding, and I can't quite decide if I think that's better or worse. It is just an uncomfortable, difficult storyline in any version - Ross at his very worst, and his negative qualities have been on display throughout this season. He isn't a character who was ever meant to be a romantic hero. He is a complex and deeply flawed protagonist, which is not the same thing. He is a high-minded man with forward-thinking and relatively liberal principles, but he is also arrogant and stubborn, possessive, with more than a bit of a hero complex. He likes to be in control, he likes to be able to fix things, and that's a quality that can be both good and bad, depending on the circumstances.

Dwight is my favourite character in any version of this story, and I'm loving how much focus he's getting this season - I just wish his story had been done justice last season, too! S1 really needed more episodes. Also, I think Horsfield is doing a better job of balancing and blending the sub-plots this season, allowing the various story strands to play out over a period of weeks, interwoven with one another as they are in the books, instead of trying to compress them each into single episode storylines, as she tended to in S1.

I think, looking through modern eyes, that they had to show Elizabeth responding or it would have seemed like rape (let's face it) I think that Horsfield did well to tiptoe around the issue (sort of) or the audience would get hung up on whether it was consensual or not, it was pretty despicable--but "romance novel" hot. I agree with you about Dwight...he is decent and dreamy and I actually care about his romance with Caroline.

Edited October 25, 2016 by LiveenLetLive

[Llywela]

4 hours ago, LiveenLetLive said:

I think, looking through modern eyes, that they had to show Elizabeth responding or it would have seemed like rape (let's face it) I think that Horsfield did well to tiptoe around the issue (sort of) or the audience would get hung up on whether it was consensual or not, it was pretty despicable--but "romance novel" hot. I agree with you about Dwight...he is decent and dreamy and I actually care about his romance with Caroline.

I dunno - I've seen a huge amount of controversy about that scene as it was played, with accusations of fueling rape culture by implying that if you force a woman to have sex with you she will eventually give in and enjoy herself because she wants it really - which is the big problem with the scene as written by Graham in the first place, because Elizabeth is very clearly saying no at the point he cuts away. It's the bodice-ripping genre, I suppose, but that doesn't make it any less unpleasant. 'Controversy over Poldark rape scene' was even a banner headline on the BBC website yesterday, so if they intended to show an unambiguously consensual sex scene, they failed miserably. But that scene is always going to be ugly, no matter what they do with it. It is Ross Poldark at his very worst and there's no getting away from that. But it also has to happen, because there's another eight books worth of plot contingent on that night.

[Writing Wrongs]

I guess I missed some stuff. I stopped watching after a few minutes. I've been struggling with this show. I finally realized that, for me, there aren't any likable characters. I guess we're supposed to root for Ross, but I just find him awful and arrogant.

[nodorothyparker]

A couple of feminist sites I follow are doing a fair bit of gnashing of teeth too because apparently both Aiden Turner and Heida Reed had earlier given interviews assuring audiences that the rapeyness of That Scene had been fixed.  What they've ended up with is slightly better than what's on the page, I think, but it's still very much in the vein of Rhett carrying a struggling Scarlett up those stairs in Gone With the Wind, down to both women seeming perfectly pleased with themselves and the entire situation the morning after.   I suppose it's going to be one of those things where you're either going to have to chalk it up to the notion that times and attitudes were different and Ross really isn't the romantic hero this adaption often seems to want to paint him as or you don't and you're out.  I'll admit here to being a little perplexed by those who got this far and still haven't picked up that while Ross has a lot of good qualities he isn't always a good guy, although I would guess a lot of that has to do with Aiden Turner and the promotion of his abs.  He's been downright unlikable for much of this season and this is him at his worst.

Edited October 25, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[LiveenLetLive]

2 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

A couple of feminist sites I follow are doing a fair bit of gnashing of teeth too because apparently both Aiden Turner and Heida Reed had earlier given interviews assuring audiences that the rapeyness of That Scene had been fixed.  What they've ended up with is slightly better than what's on the page, I think, but it's still very much in the vein of Rhett carrying a struggling Scarlett up those stairs in Gone With the Wind, down to both women seeming perfectly pleased with themselves and the entire situation the morning after.   I suppose it's going to be one of those things where you're either going to have to chalk it up to the notion that times and attitudes were different and Ross really isn't the romantic hero this adaption often seems to want to paint him as or you don't and you're out.  I'll admit here to being a little perplexed by those who got this far and still haven't picked up that while Ross has a lot of good qualities he isn't always a good guy, although I would guess a lot of that has to do with Aiden Turner and the promotion of his abs.  He's been downright unlikable for much of this season and this is him at his worst.

Ross has definitely been a dick--that is why Dwight is there, to show a more temperate decent man (although when offered up, he gave into that Daniel's woman in season 1.)  I have been known to enjoy a bodice ripper now and again, LOL, so I had no big beef with the scene other than I knew that it wouldn't play well (look at the whole Game of Thrones brouhaha over Jamie and what's her name having sex under their dead son's body--but that seemed way more gross than the Poldark scene IMO.)