Behind The Crown: Production, Design, and More

[formerlyfreedom]

A spot to discuss things that don't necessarily have to do with with the actual story of the show; the beautiful design, the long-term plan for the show, and more.

[Brn2bwild]

Bringing this over from another thread:

One thing I worry about in having a decade per season with an ever-changing cast is that the show could become more of an overview than a true drama.  Dramatic energy could be diminished by the need to cover this or that historic moment.  I would be perfectly satisfied if the 60-year plan were scrapped and the series instead covered the first 20-30 years of her reign and used the same cast.

[jumper sage]

Loved the first season.  I am a huge history buff and King George VI is one of my favorite of the European royals.

Things I liked:

• Inclusion of Queen Mother and her antics including sabotage - historically accurate
• Inclusion of the antics of Prince Phillip - historically accurate.  You can google his crazy statements and see them for yourself.
• Costumes, set designs and filming.
• I think they are accurately depicting most of the "characters".

Thing I didn't like:

The actor playing King George VI - His whole body is so off of that of the real person it enrages me.  I would rather the actor playing Edward/David play Bertie/George.  He at least has the lean, gaunt look of the King.  They couldn't find an actor that more closely looks like him?  As a serious history buff I found it off putting.

I will enjoy the 60 years.

[roamyn]

On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 1:43 PM, jumper sage said:

 

The actor playing King George VI - His whole body is so off of that of the real person it enrages me.  I would rather the actor playing Edward/David play Bertie/George.  He at least has the lean, gaunt look of the King.  They couldn't find an actor that more closely looks like him?  As a serious history buff I found it off putting.

I did at first, too.  But Jared Harris does an amazing job of getting GVI's humbleness, shyness, and quiet strength.  I can overlook the imagery for great, historical acting.

QETQM, on the other hand, I did NOT like.  There was little said abt her very big role in getting the engagement of PM & PT called off.  She also looks too simpering to me.

[Brn2bwild]

6 hours ago, roamyn said:

I did at first, too.  But Jared Harris does an amazing job of getting GVI's humbleness, shyness, and quiet strength.  I can overlook the imagery for great, historical acting.

QETQM, on the other hand, I did NOT like.  There was little said abt her very big role in getting the engagement of PM & PT called off.  She also looks too simpering to me.

Jared Harris's lack of physical resemblance to George VI (whom I find to be quite handsome in his own way) bothers me less than Colin Firth's.  Firth is handsome, but his face looks absolutely nothing like the real George VI.  At least Harris is somewhat angular like the real King was.

And I agree that the Queen Mother's actress doesn't seem like the real one at all.  Too bad Helena Bonham Carter wasn't available.

That makes me wonder: if they replace Elizabeth and Philip, will they in turn have to replace all of the secondary actors, from the Queen Mother to Martin to Tommy Lascelles?  It would seem weird to have a new Elizabeth, but the same actor playing Tommy.

[roamyn]

5 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

 

And I agree that the Queen Mother's actress doesn't seem like the real one at all.  Too bad Helena Bonham Carter wasn't available.

Ooh, that's a good idea if they can pull it off, for the middle two decades.

Then again, she likes her quircky characters, which QETQM, is most definitely not. 

[jumper sage]

8 hours ago, roamyn said:

QETQM

Now that is a mouthful!  Can't believe I got it.

I agree the actor playing KGVI does capture his persona.

[ProudMary]

10 hours ago, roamyn said:

Ooh, that's a good idea if they can pull it off, for the middle two decades.

Then again, she likes her quircky characters, which QETQM, is most definitely not. 

HBC has already played--and was Oscar nominated for--the role of QEtQM in "The King's Speech."  Whether she'd want to do it again is the question.

 

[Nire]

On 11/23/2016 at 11:23 PM, Brn2bwild said:

Bringing this over from another thread:

One thing I worry about in having a decade per season with an ever-changing cast is that the show could become more of an overview than a true drama.  Dramatic energy could be diminished by the need to cover this or that historic moment.  I would be perfectly satisfied if the 60-year plan were scrapped and the series instead covered the first 20-30 years of her reign and used the same cast.

I have similar concerns.  Especially as the cast grows from Royal births and marriages.  1992 could probably be an entire season itself!  I love the idea of going through to modern day but feel like 60 episodes won't be enough to do it justice.  Especially with flashbacks and political events as well.  

Edited November 28, 2016 by Nire

[staveDarsky]

It occurred to me that they might end it at Charles' second marriage, or even the death of the Queen Mother. The Queen and the Duke stopped doing the frequent travelling and it would be respectful not to go into these recent years of Phillip's failing health.

[Leni81]

What a faux pas not to include many other important members of the Royal family back in the 40s and 50s such as Princess Marina of Kent, her turbulent relationship with the bisexual Duke of Kent... her children, Princess Alexandra, the Queen's closest cousin. Princess Mary (Princess Royal) sister of Bertie and the Duke of Windsor...Limiting the family in the series just to Queen Mother and Queen Mary, and some others is a real mistake. 

[Guest]

I guess it depends on your interests and expectations.  I would not have wanted it to be some documentary type show on the entire royal clan of that era.  I liked that it heavily featured Churchill and I think that would've had to go to accommodate more royals.  

[dubbel zout]

The show is about the Crown, not the Crown and its extended relatives. For better or worse, the focus is on Elizabeth and her immediate family. 

[Minivanessa]

52 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

The show is about the Crown, not the Crown and its extended relatives. For better or worse, the focus is on Elizabeth and her immediate family. 

I agree. I believe the only reason we've seen so much of the Duke of Windsor in the show, is that he once wore the Crown. 

[doodlebug]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 2:49 AM, Leni81 said:

What a faux pas not to include many other important members of the Royal family back in the 40s and 50s such as Princess Marina of Kent, her turbulent relationship with the bisexual Duke of Kent... her children, Princess Alexandra, the Queen's closest cousin. Princess Mary (Princess Royal) sister of Bertie and the Duke of Windsor...Limiting the family in the series just to Queen Mother and Queen Mary, and some others is a real mistake. 

While I've enjoyed this series immensely, there would have to be 40 episodes a season to tell the many stories out there about the peripheral royals.  As it is, there is more than enough story using just the principals they've shown onscreen.  I'd be fine if someone wanted to develop another series to tell some of those stories, I'd probably watch it, but there just isn't room enough in this one.

[Milburn Stone]

On 1/13/2017 at 10:05 AM, Jeeves said:

I agree. I believe the only reason we've seen so much of the Duke of Windsor in the show, is that he once wore the Crown. 

I agree with this, and I'd point out that while the show is not titled The Royal Family, it is also not titled Elizabeth or The Queen. (I get that The Queen was taken, but they could have called it something Queen-related. They didn't.) It's called The Crown because it's really not about Elizabeth, except insofar as she wore it. It's about everyone who wore the crown 1936-present. But really, it's about the sacred trust of British monarchy (for which the crown is a symbol) more than it's about any monarch. Or so it seems to me after watching three episodes.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Roseanna]

On ‎20‎.‎1‎.‎2017 at 0:52 AM, Milburn Stone said:

I agree with this, and I'd point out that while the show is not titled The Royal Family, it is also not titled Elizabeth or The Queen. (I get that The Queen was taken, but they could have called it something Queen-related. They didn't.) It's called The Crown because it's really not about Elizabeth, except insofar as she wore it. It's about everyone who wore the crown 1936-present. But really, it's about the sacred trust of British monarchy (for which the crown is a symbol) more than it's about any monarch. Or so it seems to me after watching three episodes.

Fine points.

Still, the series is about Elizabeth for if the Sovereign happened be a man, he wouldn't have Elizabeth's dilemmas with his spouse, at least of he had chosen somebody like the future Queen Mother (there were still such women in the late 40ies). And  had Elizabeth died, Princess Margaret would probably have been a more charismatic Sovereign but also a much less dutiful.

In addition, one of the main themes in the series is the relationship of the Crown and the Government, i.e. that of the Queen and the current Prime Minister.

[Tyro49]

I have just started watching The Crown, after finishing this season's Victoria. I know both series are filmed by different companies, but as they are both set (mostly) at Buckingham Palace I do wonder if they are perhaps sharing the sets, just with different furniture. It does seem a bit wasteful to build two sets of the same place for shows being filmed at around the same time.  Does anyone know anything about this?

[atlantaloves]

I've got a problem with the jewels that Elizabeth wears, they are NOT REAL. Couldn't  they just rent some real diamonds, I'm sorry, but this hurts my jewelry background. But but but, love the series....fabulous. 

[AZChristian]

14 hours ago, atlantaloves said:

I've got a problem with the jewels that Elizabeth wears, they are NOT REAL. Couldn't  they just rent some real diamonds, I'm sorry, but this hurts my jewelry background. But but but, love the series....fabulous. 

Funny true story.

When we visited the Tower of London several years ago, we opted to take the tour which is led by one of the Tower Guards (a "Beefeater").  When the official tour ended, he pointed us all to the White Tower, which is where the crown jewels are on display.  To see them, you ride a little "moving walkway" past the jewels; it keeps the crowds moving, and everyone gets an equal view.  Our Beefeater, with a twinkle in his eye, said "The last thing you'll see is the crown that Queen Elizabeth wore at her coronation.  When you get there, ask the guard to open the case and let you try it on.  Everyone does it."  And then he winked at us.

It was so ornate that it almost looked fake.  But it was the real deal.

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Funny true story.

When we visited the Tower of London several years ago, we opted to take the tour which is led by one of the Tower Guards (a "Beefeater").  When the official tour ended, he pointed us all to the White Tower, which is where the crown jewels are on display.  To see them, you ride a little "moving walkway" past the jewels; it keeps the crowds moving, and everyone gets an equal view.  Our Beefeater, with a twinkle in his eye, said "The last thing you'll see is the crown that Queen Elizabeth wore at her coronation.  When you get there, ask the guard to open the case and let you try it on.  Everyone does it."  And then he winked at us.

It was so ornate that it almost looked fake.  But it was the real deal.

Yep, the fact that heavy lead shields drop down over the entire display if anyone so much as touches the glass surrounding the jewels is a pretty big deterrent.  And the state crown, complete with a diamond the size of a baseball, doesn't look like it could possibly be real.

[enoughcats]

Costuming the Crown is a multipart very close up look at the clothes created for this series.

Tom and Lorenzo have done a masterful job of visiting the current exhibit of the clothes (at Winterthur) and taken close up photos and then paired them with the photos from the show.

Winterthur's  information of the exhibit (running through next year) is here

[Phebemarie]

There have been quite a few stories showcasing the costumes worn by Emma Corrin this season.  Does anyone else think some of the costumes were made deliberately too large for the actress, almost like she was a child playing dress-up?  I think she does a great job vocally capturing Diana's voice and cadence, but she seems so child-like.  

https://wwwmarieclaire.com/culture/g34645668/princess-diana-vs-the-crown-emma-corrin/?slide=9.