Poldark (2015) Series 2 Speculation WITH Spoilers

[Nampara]

This information perhaps could have been filed under "Poldark in the Media," but after Series 1 concludes in the United States, there will need to be a thread for early Series 2 talk, so I figured I'd just start one now.

 

See this new interview with Aidan Turner: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-stucky/follow-the-good-work-aida_b_7895756.html

 

Here is the most important part:

 

Q: One last question, about Poldark. You're starting filming again in September, is that correct? How long will you film?

 

A: Yeah, it's going to be longer than it was last year. We're going to start September, I think first week of September, something like that, or second week of September. I think we run until ... I think we go until like the first week in April. We've two extra episodes this season, which is amazing. The shoot is probably seven and a half months or something like that. A bit longer than last year. But looking forward to it, can't wait to get back there. I love shooting the show, I love Cornwall, and adore everyone in the show, so it'll be fun.

 

(Emphasis added.)

 

Does this mean that Series 2 will have 10 episodes rather than eight? Great news, if true. Can anyone confirm this?

[Milz]

That's what it sounds like. Optimistically the added episodes will allow them to develop the characters more. Pessimistically, this also could mean more Cornish countryside and seaside filler shots.

 

I do hope, however, they will add a time indicator at the beginning of each episode. Something like "Spring 1791" or Guy Fawkes Night 1790" so it's more obvious how much time has passed between episodes.

[Llywela]

I do hope, however, they will add a time indicator at the beginning of each episode. Something like "Spring 1791" or Guy Fawkes Night 1790" so it's more obvious how much time has passed between episodes.

Heck yes, I'd like to see that, too - it would make such a difference! Downton Abbey does it, and it does help.

[Nampara]

I do hope, however, they will add a time indicator at the beginning of each episode. Something like "Spring 1791" or Guy Fawkes Night 1790" so it's more obvious how much time has passed between episodes.

 

Yes, very good suggestion. But what exactly is the Poldark 2015 timeline?

 

I'm going to mention the books here, but I don't consider this spoiler material because virtually everyone is aware of it (and it's even built into the novels' subtitles). The original timeline is very clear. Ross was born in 1760, and Demelza in 1770. They meet in 1783, and marry in spring 1787. Demelza's first time at Trenwith is Christmas 1787. Julia is born in 1788. The events of the second novel (the end of Series 1) are completed in mid-1790.

 

Poldark 2015 fudges Demelza's age, and may have confused the overall timeline in the process. The action in Cornwall still begins in 1783 (we know this because of the "1781" on-screen tag for the war and the "Two years later" tag for Ross's return). It appears that it's still 1783 when Ross meets Demelza at the fair, because he's just begun to fix up Nampara at that time. But Demelza's age is uncertain -- 15 to 17, perhaps? It appears that no more than two years pass before they marry, because Ross says, "I engaged you for two years," when Demelza is leaving the day after they sleep together. This would make Demelza's age 17 to 19, but what year is it? 1785? Or is it still supposed to be 1787 somehow? We know that as of Christmas at Trenwith, the French Revolution has not yet occurred (the characters discuss the situation in France briefly), but it appears to be getting closer. Eventually, certain historical events will directly bear on the story, which will only add to the confusion about the dates. 

[Milz]

Yes, very good suggestion. But what exactly is the Poldark 2015 timeline?

 

I'm going to mention the books here, but I don't consider this spoiler material because virtually everyone is aware of it (and it's even built into the novels' subtitles). The original timeline is very clear. Ross was born in 1760, and Demelza in 1770. They meet in 1783, and marry in spring 1787. Demelza's first time at Trenwith is Christmas 1787. Julia is born in 1788. The events of the second novel (the end of Series 1) are completed in mid-1790.

 

Poldark 2015 fudges Demelza's age, and may have confused the overall timeline in the process. The action in Cornwall still begins in 1783 (we know this because of the "1781" on-screen tag for the war and the "Two years later" tag for Ross's return). It appears that it's still 1783 when Ross meets Demelza at the fair, because he's just begun to fix up Nampara at that time. But Demelza's age is uncertain -- 15 to 17, perhaps? It appears that no more than two years pass before they marry, because Ross says, "I engaged you for two years," when Demelza is leaving the day after they sleep together. This would make Demelza's age 17 to 19, but what year is it? 1785? Or is it still supposed to be 1787 somehow? We know that as of Christmas at Trenwith, the French Revolution has not yet occurred (the characters discuss the situation in France briefly), but it appears to be getting closer. Eventually, certain historical events will directly bear on the story, which will only add to the confusion about the dates. 

 

 

This why we need a time tag on the episodes! I think there was a comment that it had been " years" since Verity last saw Blamey. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say "I haven 't seen you in years", I mean more than 5 years, not 2 or 3 years.

 

 

( You forgot to mention that the actor playing Geoffrey Charles looks like he's 6 -8 months older than newborn Julia (the last time we saw him.) and Julia looks like she's 4 months older than Jinny's baby (the last time we saw them!))

[Nampara]

( You forgot to mention that the actor playing Geoffrey Charles looks like he's 6 -8 months older than newborn Julia (the last time we saw him.) and Julia looks like she's 4 months older than Jinny's baby (the last time we saw them!))

 

Bambino chronometry is very unreliable on Poldark. They either age too slowly, or even appear to age backward.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the producers were deliberately withholding specific dates from the audience after episode 1 because they're aware of the problems I allude to above. Perhaps they assume that no matter what they said, it would contradict some other fact presented within the show (which is probably true).

[Milz]

Bambino chronometry is very unreliable on Poldark. They either age too slowly, or even appear to age backward.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the producers were deliberately withholding specific dates from the audience after episode 1 because they're aware of the problems I allude to above. Perhaps they assume that no matter what they said, it would contradict some other fact presented within the show (which is probably true).

 

I speculate in Series 2, Geoffrey Charles will be  15 months of age and will remain that way until Series 3 when he appears as a 16 year old (with an teenager attitude) having a one-nighter with Margaret the Whore who hasn't aged at all.

[Nampara]

If we do get the 10 episodes, will they be divided 5/5 between the two novels covered? That would be the logical approach, and would be consistent with Series 1, but I wonder whether a 4/6 split for Series 2 might not work better. Jeremy Poldark deals more with external events, while Warleggan focuses more on character development, and is a considerably longer book. The themes of the latter might benefit from a more thorough exploration. (I assume that a 4.5/5.5 division would not be practical or artistically desirable.)

[Llywela]

If we do get the 10 episodes, will they be divided 5/5 between the two novels covered? That would be the logical approach, and would be consistent with Series 1, but I wonder whether a 4/6 split for Series 2 might not work better. Jeremy Poldark deals more with external events, while Warleggan focuses more on character development, and is a considerably longer book. The themes of the latter might benefit from a more thorough exploration. (I assume that a 4.5/5.5 division would not be practical or artistically desirable.)

Good question - it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

Can't really speculate as to content, having read the books and knowing what happens in them, but...is this thread doing book spoilers or not? I'll put my thoughts behind a spoiler cut, anyway - book spoilers ahead, don't read if you don't already know:

I'm really interested to see what the show makes of Caroline and her relationship with Dwight, given how sparsely portrayed the secondary characters have been so far. There is one scene I'd dearly love to see properly included - it comes at the end of Warleggan, when Ross has just contrived to bring Dwight and Caroline back together, and Demelza asks how he managed it. He says, "Oh, it was easy - I asked myself 'what would Demelza do?' and I did it!" I really want that line to be included!

[Nampara]

Can't really speculate as to content, having read the books and knowing what happens in them, but...is this thread doing book spoilers or not?

 

I didn't try to make it a spoiler thread because I figured people who haven't read books 3 and 4 would still want to talk about what might unfold in Series 2, based on what happened in Series 1. The thread as a whole is for topics like Series 2 dates and production plans as well as discussion of possible Series 2 storylines.

 

Edited to add that I wouldn't consider it a spoiler to mention new characters who, based on the books, are expected to appear in Series 2, and to discuss which actors might play them. I'd consider it a spoiler only if specific plot points involving those characters were revealed. However, I'm not a mod and I don't make the rules here.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Nampara

[Nampara]

I'm surprised the BBC hasn't made an announcement yet about the casting for Caroline Penvenen. Isn't filming supposed to start in about a month?

[Nampara]

Still no actual Caroline Penvenen casting announcement, but the news is out that the role will be played by Gabriella Wilde. Does anyone know whether she's a good actor? If I've seen her in anything, I don't remember it.

 

It looks as though Wilde will be playing Penvenen as a blonde. This continues the practice of keeping different hair colors for Demelza, Elizabeth, and Caroline, but it's funny how the lineup keeps varying from the books (brunette, blonde, redhead) to Poldark 1975 (redhead, blonde, brunette) to Poldark 2015 (redhead, brunette, blonde).

 

Wilde is 26, which is the same age that Judy Geeson was when she filmed her first Poldark series. That's too old for Caroline as she first appears in the story, but if the program eventually gets all the way to The Angry Tide, her age will be a pretty good fit. I also think that Wilde looks younger than Geeson did, which should help for the Series 2 Caroline.

[Llywela]

The casting news is out: here

 

 

This series introduces other key characters to Winston Graham's sweeping 18th century saga of Cornish life, including John Nettles (Midsomer Murders) as Ray Penvenen, one of the county's wealthiest landowners, and Gabriella Wilde (Endless Love) as his niece Caroline Penvenen, a beautiful and manipulative heiress. Hugh Skinner (W1A) plays Unwin Trevaunance,a prospective MP who hopes that Caroline (and her fortune) will consent to marry him. But does Caroline's heart lie elsewhere?

 

Got to admit, I'm dismayed to read this official bio describing Caroline as 'manipulative'. Caroline is many things - she's strong-willed, arrogant, forthright,  unconventional, quick-witted, more generous at heart than she likes to admit, and prone to using railery and humour as a shield to hide her true feelings - but she isn't manipulative! It concerns me, reinforcing the belief I reached in season one that Horsfield has no real understanding of the characters in the work she is adapting. Either that or she simply has no interest in remaining faithful to their book personalities - which, as so often said, is not how an adaptation that purports to be 'faithful' should work. I'd been cautiously optimistic that season two would be improved, since the larger episode order should allow slightly more room for development, but this blurb does worry me a bit.

 

Interesting to note that despite the timeline being so enormously contracted in season one, the start of season two is nonetheless correctly placed in 1790, where book 3 kicks off.

[Nidratime]

Yes, I wondered about that manipulative characterization myself. The only thing I can think of is that Caroline did have her uncle wrapped around her finger. She loves him, of course, but she also manipulates him so that she gets what she wants.

[Llywela]

I just don't read Caroline as manipulative at all. She likes to get her own way, but to me the word manipulative suggests someone sly and scheming, whereas Caroline is very direct and straightforward by nature, refreshingly so. She'll find a way to work around a problem if she must, but the word manipulative just doesn't suit her. If we're going to call Caroline manipulative for planning an elopment behind her uncle's back, then we should also call Demelza manipulative for scheming to get Verity and Blamey back together behind everyone's backs! Even if both characters are capable of manipulation, that doesn't make it their primary characteristic by which they should be described first and foremost!

 

If they don't get Dwight and Caroline's relationship right I will be very cross. Bad enough that they've already robbed Dwight of his entire character trajectory by ageing him up as an old war buddy of Ross. I shouldn't let my expectations get too high - after all, outside of Ross and Demelza (themselves highly idealised) almost every other character in season one was altered, some of them almost beyond all recognition. But I did have hopes they'd do better with Caroline...

Edited September 11, 2015 by Llywela

[Nidratime]

All I've got to say is, they better not make her as manipulative as Keren was ... who I found to be almost "evil" in her machinations in this adaptation as opposed to the book or the 1970's series.

[Llywela]

All I've got to say is, they better not make her as manipulative as Keren was ... who I found to be almost "evil" in her machinations in this adaptation as opposed to the book or the 1970's series.

Exactly! The mishandling of Keren's story (don't get me started!) leaves me with no confidence. Season one removed almost every shred of nuance and development from almost every storyline that wasn't Ross/Demelza-centric. I really want to hope that season two will do better, be more balanced...

 

Also, Hugh Skinner strikes me as very young to be Unwin Trevaunance, who is meant to be a lot older than Caroline - that's part of the reason she's so struck by Dwight, who is so young and handsome and vigorous in comparison with stuffy, middle-aged Unwin, who is all manner of a poor match for such a lively young girl, asides from being so respectable.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Llywela

[Nampara]

I think "manipulative" is just a TV producer's way of saying, "Watch out, viewers -- you don't know if she is going to be a good character or a bad character!"

[Llywela]

I think "manipulative" is just a TV producer's way of saying, "Watch out, viewers -- you don't know if she is going to be a good character or a bad character!"

Yeah, but why even go there? Why introduce the character with such ambiguity? The two male characters are given very neutral descriptions, but for the woman we get this very loaded description which bears little or no resemblance to the character in the source material. So either the production team has a very different take on the character than I have, or the PR team are choosing to use this ambiguous, slightly negative description of the woman only, unrelated to her actual character, to try to titillate viewers - and frankly, either way, I am wary, because I've not forgotten or forgiven how they handled Keren Daniel.

 

I've had a look at Hugh Skinner's bio - he's 30 years old and blond, which means I'm going to get him mixed up with all the other bland, pretty blond men on the show. Also - Unwin Trevaunance is both a relatively minor character in the books, and is meant to be 40 years old and a crushing bore, so I'm a bit perplexed as to why they've cast a pretty young man in the role. It certainly means we won't get the physical contrast between stuffy middle-aged Unwin and handsome young Dwight, which is how the whole thing starts in the books: Caroline being courted by a rather boring but socially desirable man who is twice her age, going along with it for want of anything better to do, and then meeting this good-looking young doctor who is socially less suitable but excites her both physically and mentally in a way Unwin never could.

 

Well, only time will tell how they choose to play it. It'll be good to see John Nettles back on my screen, at least.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Llywela

[Llywela]

The Mirror has more pictures from filming on the beach - here.

 

It's hard to make out much, from these pictures, but it looks as if Ross is rescuing a pregnant Demelza. That will presumably be their version of Jeremy's dramatic arrival - and another departure from the source material, in which the heavily pregnant Demelza gets into trouble while out fishing by herself, but also manages to save herself. I get the impression from these pictures that Demelza saving herself is being cast aside in favour of Ross the all-conquering hero having to rescue her. They’d probably argue that it’s more dramatic this way, but I disagree. It simply allows Ross to be the big hero while removing the focus of the action from Demelza. There’s something slightly insidious about that - and this coming from an adaptation that already downgraded a woman’s murder into an accident that she brought on herself, just so that the men wouldn’t look so bad. Hmm. We'll see.

[Nampara]

The Mirror has more pictures from filming on the beach - here.

 

It's hard to make out much, from these pictures, but it looks as if ...

 

I'm not fond of the story development that apparently is coming, because it will enhance Ross's heroism at the expense of Demelza's. Jeremy's birth is one of Demelza's bravest, most self-sufficient hours. She doesn't need to made into a damsel in distress instead. Perhaps the scene will be staged so that Demelza does the bulk of the work by rowing herself back to shore (in the book, that's the most critical time for her), whereupon Ross pulls her out of the boat and carries her to Nampara. But that raises another potential problem -- and I realize that it's unfair to critique a scene that hasn't even been finalized yet, let alone shown to the audience! -- namely, accounting for Ross's presence at all. Because he absolutely would not have acquiesced in Demelza's starting the fishing trip on her own, it appears that Ross will need to show up by accident and spy Demelza in her struggles. Possible deus ex machina there.

[Llywela]

I'm not fond of the story development that apparently is coming, because it will enhance Ross's heroism at the expense of Demelza's. Jeremy's birth is one of Demelza's bravest, most self-sufficient hours. She doesn't need to made into a damsel in distress instead. Perhaps the scene will be staged so that Demelza does the bulk of the work by rowing herself back to shore (in the book, that's the most critical time for her), whereupon Ross pulls her out of the boat and carries her to Nampara. But that raises another potential problem -- and I realize that it's unfair to critique a scene that hasn't even been finalized yet, let alone shown to the audience! -- namely, accounting for Ross's presence at all. Because he absolutely would not have acquiesced in Demelza's starting the fishing trip on her own, it appears that Ross will need to show up by accident and spy Demelza in her struggles. Possible deus ex machina there.

Exactly! Of course, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out on-screen - these pictures aren't much to go on. But that is how it looks. In the book, Ross is out of town and doesn't get back until Jeremy is already born, with Dwight there despairing of both mother and child (who quickly pull round after the first scare). It is Demelza who saves herself when she goes into labour out in the boat all alone. I'd hate to see that struggle taken away from her just so Ross can play hero. The audience already knows he's the hero. Other characters should be allowed their shining moments as well, it won't detract from his! I think you're right that they'll probably have him arrive early and either be passing just in time to see Demelza in trouble, or reach the house, find her missing and go looking for her.

[photo fox]

I'm going to go ahead and convert this into a Speculation WITH Spoilers topic, so no need to use tags going forward.

 

Book information is fine in here; I'd just ask that we try to keep this from becoming an exact detailed rundown of what happens in the books, if that makes sense.  If anyone objects to that, please PM me and I'll take it into consideration.

 

Thanks, all!

[Winnief]

 

 

Have to say I'm worried about reports that they're keeping the Elizabeth/Ross/Demelza love triangle going.  It would be better if they scrapped the whole thing ESPECIALLY Valentine Warlaggan's conception.  They're in a real bind; if they keep it like it was in the books and have Ross force himself on Elizabeth, we'd all have to HATE Ross even more than the Warleggans.  And even a *consensual* liaison is gonna be a huge problem here since viewers love Demelza so much and will be FURIOUS at Ross for betraying her.  I have a nasty suspicion that the producers will try to make *Elizabeth* the instigator/seductress and thus paint her the villain of the piece...which just isn't fair. 

​But without Valentine Warlaggen the producers might fear they'd be missing a crucial component to the ongoing Warlaggen/Poldark feud in the decades to come.  O

 

Oddly enough, (and I may be in the minority here,) but one dynamic I AM looking forward to is more George/Elizabeth since I thought George's status as a genuinely devoted husband and later father to their daughter added more dimension to the character. Plus I feel the actors have chemistry despite the height difference-certainly more sparks than I think Elizabeth had with either Francis or Ross!  And of course having George openly state his  'intentions' to Elizabeth at this stage may be foreshadowing a change in how Francis meets his untimely end.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Winnief

[Llywela]

This adaptation markets itself as being faithful to the books - although it in fact makes as many changes as the last version, just different ones, some more subtle than others. They aren't going to change the Valentine story - too much of the ongoing plot relies on it. They may, however, fudge the circumstances of his conception, since this is also an adaptation with a very deep vested interest in making its brooding romantic hero look good in all circumstances. I mean, they already changed Keren's murder into an accident she caused herself, just so that Ross wouldn't be seen to be helping a murderer, rather than attempt to address the true depth and complexity of that particular sub-plot. No, I think the Ross-Elizabeth liaison will stay, as will Valentine, but the circumstances will probably be shifted slightly to make it consensual angry sex rather than force, or something. And you're right, Elizabeth probably will be thrown under the bus to achieve it - just as Keren was thrown under the bus to preserve Ross's romantic hero status in season one.

 

I doubt they'll change Francis's death - there's no reason to make any change there. I agree with you that George becomes more interesting once he's married to Elizabeth - largely because that's when he becomes a POV character. Elizabeth is certainly at her most interesting when she's married to him, although for me, George is at his most interesting in his second marriage to Harriet.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Llywela

[NumberCruncher]

At least from the Ross/Elizabeth sex perspective, if the series doesn't portray it as Ross forcing himself upon Elizabeth then, as has already been discussed, that actually isn't a deviation from WG's work because he, as the author, insists it wasn't rape and had issue with the 70s series portraying it as such.

Edited March 29, 2016 by NumberCruncher

[Llywela]

At least from the Ross/Elizabeth sex perspective, if the series doesn't portray it as Ross forcing himself upon Elizabeth then, as has already been discussed, that actually isn't a deviation from WG's work because he, as the author, insists it wasn't rape and had issue with the 70s series portraying it as such.

It's such an emotive topic! And ambiguous. Certainly, book!Ross never thinks of it as rape, even to himself, but he does admit that he 'took Elizabeth by force', which by modern standards amounts to the same thing. What we're shown on the page is Ross forcing Elizabeth while she cries out for him to stop - again, by modern  standards that would be defined as rape, whether intended as such by the author or not. The action then cuts to the morning after, and we're told that they've spent the whole night together. Elizabeth seems to have gone along with the sex after her initial protests - but we are only ever told this from Ross's POV, and he has a vested interest in regarding the liaison in the best possible light, for the sake of his self-image, which is important to him. Elizabeth mostly can't bring herself to even think about that night thereafter, so we aren't really given her perspective in any detail - but we are both told and shown that she never forgives Ross for it. Ross thinks she's angry with him because he took her and then abandoned her - but he would think that, wouldn't he? So it really isn't a clear-cut issue - which gives the new adaptation a fair amount of leeway in how they choose to present the situation. I think they'll want to preserve Ross's hero image by making it more clear-cut and obviously consensual - but they might surprise me. The night together has to happen in some shape or form - too much other plot is reliant on it.

[Winnief]

Well Ross didn't consider it rape and neither did Graham but here's how it goes down...

 

He tells her he'll leave if she tells him she loves George.  She does and instead of leaving he takes her by the shoulders (roughly) and insists that she's lying.  She tries to free herself, 'don't Ross, you're hurting me."  There's this long argument...he kisses her without permission, 'she turned her face away but could not get far enough round to avoid him.'

​Other quotes,

"her eyes were lit with anger. He'd never seen her like it before and he found pleasure in it.'  "Began to kiss her with an intense passion which anger had given extra relish.''  "She smacked his face so he pioneered her arm."  "Don't!  I'll scream!  Oh god, Ross please..."  "He took no further notice of the words she spoke, he lifted her in his arms and carried her to his bed." 

 

 

Which...dear god.  If they do *that* there's no way the audience could ever forgive Ross, but it is part of the tragedy of Elizabeth's death that her options were so curtailed by the various abuses of men in her life.  Problem is that when Winston Graham first started writing this series popular culture had a very different idea of what constituted 'rape,' than we do now. 

 

But even with a consensual sex scene, people will have a problem with it, because Demelza has such a strong fan base. 

[NumberCruncher]

Problem is that when Winston Graham first started writing this series popular culture had a very different idea of what constituted 'rape,' than we do now. 

 

But even with a consensual sex scene, people will have a problem with it, because Demelza has such a strong fan base.

I get that (i.e. seeing things through the eyes of society then vs. now) and I agree with your assessment. My point was that if the show decides to follow the author's original intent to not make it seem like rape, then I don't really see that as being a deviation from the story in order to make Ross look sympathetic because just as you said, people are going to hate him regardless because they sympathize with Demelza so much.

[Llywela]

I get that (i.e. seeing things through the eyes of society then vs. now) and I agree with your assessment. My point was that if the show decides to follow the author's original intent to not make it seem like rape, then I don't really see that as being a deviation from the story in order to make Ross look sympathetic because just as you said, people are going to hate him regardless because they sympathize with Demelza so much.

Well, that in itself isn't such a bad thing - one of the intriguing things about book!Ross is that he isn't a plaster saint, he's a deeply flawed man who makes many mistakes, although his intentions are usually (not always) honourable. This adaptation has white-washed him considerably, glossing over his flaws and villainising other characters so that Ross will look better by comparison - stripping away a lot of the depth and nuance from the story in the process. Allowing Ross to do something wrong will give a bit of needed depth and complexity back to his character. And there will undoubtedly be plenty of build-up - we'll see the pressure he's under, building to breaking point. The Ross-Demelza relationship has been shown as a picture-perfect romance so far, but one of the joys of the relationship in the book is that it isn't static - they don't achieve happiness and then stay there. The relationship changes and grows all the time - and they go through periods where the stress they are under drives them apart, which is where they are at the time Ross goes to Elizabeth. I suppose only time will tell how much of that complexity makes it onto the screen.

[Winnief]

 

 

What I would HOPE for is that even though its unlikely we'll get a rape scene, (and probably a good thing too!) that we *do* see some more of Ross's dark side which was so evident in the books.  Especially since Aidan is so clearly up to the task, (he was chillingly brilliant in "And Then There Were None," which I adored.)  In fact, the glimpses of darkness we've seen so far in Ross-his anger, his potentially manipulative side, the self-righteousness, etc. etc.  often seem to be more from Aidan's performance than from the writing.  Like he understands the character better than the producers do and unlike them he's not 'softening' a damn thing.

 

I also hope Elizabeth's plight is expanded on...her increasing loneliness and desperation in the wake of Francis's death, and even in Season 1, you can see given her position why she'd come to depend on George...and not just financially. 

[Llywela]

Agreed. My other main hope is that they do justice to Dwight and Caroline - they've done such a lousy job of Dwight's story so far, and those two are so central to the next few books. It worries me that Hugh Skinner has been cast as Unwin Trevaunance - he's far too young for the character, and spoiler pics I've seen of him in role show that he hasn't been aged up at all (he's just turned 31 - in the book, Unwin is around 40 when we first meet him, with Caroline just 18). The whole point of that character is that although on paper he's a good match for Caroline, he's also twice her age and dull - there needs to be a really big contrast between him and Dwight, who in the book is much closer to Caroline's own age, young and handsome so that he excites her physically, while also challenging her mentally and emotionally in a way that Unwin never could. The show has already aged Dwight up several years by making him a war veteran and peer of Ross (he should be a good 4-5 years younger than Ross and fresh from the Georgian equivalent of med school, inexperienced and naive) - by bringing Unwin down in age by a full decade, the physical contrast between the two characters is much reduced, while show!Dwight has so far been pretty bland, so they'll have a job drawing out the different personalities as much as is needed. And that worries me because Dwight and Caroline are such favourites of mine in the books!

[CTrent29]

At least from the Ross/Elizabeth sex perspective, if the series doesn't portray it as Ross forcing himself upon Elizabeth then, as has already been discussed, that actually isn't a deviation from WG's work because he, as the author, insists it wasn't rape and had issue with the 70s series portraying it as such.

 

 

WG had verified Ross' actions as rape in "The Four Swans".  When Elizabeth and Ross had encountered each other in that novel, she nearly tore him a new one over his actions in "Warleggan".  What is going on here?  Some are complaining over the possibility of Ross rescuing Demelza during her near disastrous fishing trip, yet they want to pretend that Ross didn't rape Elizabeth or hope that Debbie Horsfield will make major changes regarding Valentine's conception.

[Llywela]

I'm not hoping it will be changed. I'm anticipating that it will be changed, as this adaptation has already displayed a vested interest in keeping Ross on the side of the angels without any shades of grey - witness Keren's murder being altered to become an accident she brought on herself, seemingly just so that Ross wouldn't be seen to be helping a murderer. That being the case, I find it unlikely that this adaptation will be willing to portray him as a rapist. Personally, I think it's quite clear in the text, just as Keren's murder is quite clear in the text, but I can also see where the justification for the change creeps in, the grey areas of perspective in the text that will likely be drawn on to alter the sequence of events for the show (which, as mentioned, has form in that regard). But it's all speculation at this stage.

[CTrent29]

Although the series whitewashed Keren's fate to clean up Ross' heroic image, it failed to do the same regarding Ross' actions during the Warleggan ball.  Even though Ross had exposed Matthew Sanson as a cheat (which also happened in the novel), the series did not hesitate reveal Ross' drunkeness and boorish behavior during this sequence.  On the other hand, the 1975 series DID.  The 1975 series also whitewashed Ross in the worst way possible in its adaptation of "Warleggan".

[skyways]

I think the viewing audience can more readily accept their brooding hero as an occasional ass and drunk but NOT a rapist or defender of murderer or someone who somehow 'hates' women. I don't really expect any nuances from the upcoming season. So far the producers have shown where their interests lie - with the 'look' of things rather than the 'depth' of things.

[CTrent29]

The readers of Graham's novels dealt with it.  If Horsfield decides to remain somewhat faithful to "Warleggan", then I guess the viewing audiences will have to deal with Ross' actions, as well. 

 

Quote

 So far the producers have shown where their interests lie - with the 'look' of things rather than the 'depth' of things.

How do you know?  Have the scripts for the upcoming season been released?

Edited August 2, 2016 by CTrent29

[Llywela]

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/poldark/news/a803499/poldark-series-2-cuts-controversial-rape-scene-from-the-original-novels/

I think we all knew this was going to happen - there was no way this series was going to go through with the scene as written by Graham, and apparently they aren't allowing any ambiguity at all. "Ross goes to talk," says Turner. That doesn't sound remotely like the towering fury in which Ross goes to Elizabeth in the book, but we'll have to wait and see how it plays out on-screen.

I'm a bit dubious because I've also seen clips from the American trailer which look suspiciously like Ross rescuing Demelza from the sea - and if that turns out to be Jeremy's birth, which Ross shouldn't be anywhere near, I will be cross. Demelza rescues herself in the book. Again, we'll have to wait and see.

On 02/08/2016 at 3:11 AM, CTrent29 said:

How do you know?  Have the scripts for the upcoming season been released?

Skyways said 'so far', therefore their judgement is based on what we saw with our own eyes in season one: very beautiful aesthetic, but not much depth.

[skyways]

Quote

turns out to be Jeremy's birth, which Ross shouldn't be anywhere near, I will be cross. Demelza rescues herself in the book.

I was puzzled about that scene myself. I could have sworn she rescued herself -thanks for clarifying. Then that's Jeremy's birth.

About the article, well what else did we expect?? It will play out to not to make Ross look that bad. Mind you I am not one of those that calls it a rape but more an aggressive co-joining! lol.

Quote

Skyways said 'so far', therefore their judgement is based on what we saw with our own eyes in season one: very beautiful aesthetic, but not much depth.

Yes exactly. Thanks.

[CTrent29]

Quote

Skyways said 'so far', therefore their judgement is based on what we saw with our own eyes in season one: very beautiful aesthetic, but not much depth.

 

Frankly, the 1975 series isn't any better.  I'm watching both series simultaneously.  I read somewhere else that the actual rape would not been seen on screen . . . as it was handled in 1975.  But if Horsfield really plans to transform the rape scene into consensual sex, then I'm through with this series.  In doing so, she's ruining Elizabeth's character for the sake of keeping Ross heroic in the viewers' eyes.  How cowardly.

Edited August 5, 2016 by CTrent29

[Pogojoco]

While I am glad Ross won't be a rapist (which, by the way, has less to do with keeping Ross 'heroic' than keeping him appealing sex symbol for the people of the English speaking world. He can be an anti-hero, he can be a bad boy but making him a rapist in this version is a bridge too far.) 

I'm still disappointed that the sex is happening at all because Elizabeth is a drip in this show. I know it's in the book, but ugh. Ross' continued infatuation with her when he married the far more interesting woman just makes him kind of a boob. There was a poll the BBC ran on Twitter at the end of the first season "Demelza or Elizabeth" and it was overwhelmingly pro-Demelza. So Ross betraying Demelza, though with consensual sex, is going to be a hit on that character. It's not going to be seen as heroic.

[CTrent29]

Quote

I'm still disappointed that the sex is happening at all because Elizabeth is a drip in this show. I know it's in the book, but ugh. Ross' continued infatuation with her when he married the far more interesting woman just makes him kind of a boob. There was a poll the BBC ran on Twitter at the end of the first season "Demelza or Elizabeth" and it was overwhelmingly pro-Demelza. So Ross betraying Demelza, though with consensual sex, is going to be a hit on that character. It's not going to be seen as heroic.

 

 

Reading this makes me even more disgusted with Debbie Horsfield's decision.  I knew this would happen.  The moment I learned that she had decided to turn Ross' rape into an act of consensual sex between him and Elizabeth,  I knew fans would be slut shaming the latter.  The fans will be "disappointed" in Ross, but they'll forgive him.  But they'll be branding Elizabeth a whore until the end of this series.  It's soooo typical of this sexist society.  The woman is always to blame.  Even in the eyes of other women.  Winston Graham - a male writer - had the balls to show that even the "heroic" Ross was capable of a monstrous act, but Debbie Horsfield apparently isn't, because of her fear of upsetting the fanboys and fangirls, who want Ross and Demelza to be some damn ideal couple.  Already that woman has undermined Graham's message about rape and sexism . . . all in the name of pleasing fans who want this story to be transfered into some romance novel.

 

By the way, even if other people do, I don't give a damn about Ross Poldark being a British literary sex symbol

[magdalene]

The funny thing is when I was watching the original series as a teenager in the Eighties (which was years after its first run I guess) I was watching mostly for the women characters - Demelza, who I adored, she was my heroine, Caroline, who I liked a lot.  Heck, I never even hated Elizabeth, I pitied her and felt bad for her.

The male characters, I just think they are weaker than the female ones.  I thought Ross was a self-righteous moron obsessed with honor who didn't realize a good thing when he had it. And his pining for Elizabeth was bizarre to me because they were clearly all wrong for each other.

With the new series of course they have cast this hottie as Ross and he has legions of female fans - and that will of course color the way the character is portrayed and perceived. 

[LJones41]

Even the old series made changes to preserve Ross' heroic image.  Robin Ellis was considered quite the "hottie" back in the 1970s.

[Llywela]

1 hour ago, LJones41 said:

Even the old series made changes to preserve Ross' heroic image.  Robin Ellis was considered quite the "hottie" back in the 1970s.

It's true. I think the main difference is that the '75 adaptation played Ross as something of an action hero, whereas this adaptation presents him more as a romantic hero. It's a subtle distinction, though. And the '75 adaptation wasn't quite as Ross-centric in its overall narrative structure as this one is (although he is, of course, the central protagonist in any version of the story). I'm finding season two a bit less intensely Ross-centric than season one was, though, and that slight broadening of scope has come as a relief - allows the story to breathe a bit more.

[magdalene]

Boy, it breaks my heart watching Francis knowing his death is coming.  The actor is really good.  I realize Francis has to die for Elizabeth to marry George - but it's hard.

I can't remember whether I disliked Robin Ellis' version as much at this point.  Ross coming on to the vulnerable Elizabeth is douchy - and poor Demelza.

[Llywela]

5 hours ago, magdalene said:

Boy, it breaks my heart watching Francis knowing his death is coming.  The actor is really good.  I realize Francis has to die for Elizabeth to marry George - but it's hard.

I know. :( Francis's death is a game-changing moment for the story, sends the Plot spinning off in all kinds of new directions - and for a man who wasn't terribly successful in life, he casts a tremendously long shadow in death, in the books at least - but damn, it hurts.

[Arwen Evenstar]

On 10/3/2016 at 11:55 PM, Llywela said:

I know. :( Francis's death is a game-changing moment for the story, sends the Plot spinning off in all kinds of new directions - and for a man who wasn't terribly successful in life, he casts a tremendously long shadow in death, in the books at least - but damn, it hurts.

I agree.  For most of Season 1, I found Francis contemptible.  He behaved like a sadist towards Elizabeth.  After he had his awakening, he became the husband Elizabeth had always wanted him to be. They were happy at last.  Then he dies, as  originally written, and I find myself with the Kleenex.