PinkRibbons March 31, 2017 Share March 31, 2017 NOTE: Reign airs on Thursdays in Canada, meaning that the episodes are very often viewed a day before they have aired in the US. Therefore please be aware that this thread will almost definitely have spoilers for those who wish to wait until Friday night to view the new episode. Quote A tragedy occurs, pushing Mary and Darnley apart as their wedding looms. Meanwhile, Mary is forced to enlist help from Catherine; and a traitor to Spain petitions Elizabeth to support an expedition to the New World. Link to comment
PinkRibbons April 7, 2017 Author Share April 7, 2017 I'm very sleepy so I'll have to confine my thoughts to short bursts: CATHERINE AND MARY ARE BACK TOGETHER I AM SO HAPPY I CAN'T EVEN. Cry me a river, Darnley. You're a fuck-up who looks for any reason to blame your fuck-uppedness on others. Keira died because he didn't ship her off as quickly as she came (and frankly I LOVED Mary just bitching out and saying get rid of her. Seriously, she's the queen. She could have had Keira killed outright like Catherine would do. This was merciful by regular Royal Standards) Oh boo hoo he was off buying Mary some jewelry to buy her love and, wait for it, agree to be partners. I don't hate Bothwell but I'm not a great fan as of yet. I feel like they pushed too hard on that couple to be all cute and coupley. It needs a little more of a slow burn. I thought that was an elegant way to bring in Rizzo -- I like that they aren't just dropping all the supernatural for all it bugged in a lot of storylines. They committed to it and they're keeping it and I appreciate that. And I like the way this new prophecy comes out. Not death and doom but a way more complicated choice with different rewards and different downfalls. I can also see how this will help Catherine talk Mary into marrying Darnley since she was the one who was the first, truest believer in these powers. I can't wait to see her threaten Darnley though. I hope she slips Mary a vial of something just in case. (Of course had Catherine been involved in getting rid of Darnley herself it probably wouldn't have been so poorly done, but I assume by then she'll need to be back in France dealing with the Kings.) So could someone just start testing every bit of religious paraphernalia that comes into contact with Charles for poison? They didn't explain how Protestantism staves off the crazy. That poison they used on Henri could still be lurking about. And speaking of Henries, when did Little Henri become old enough to be fighting in any wars? Luc remains The Best. 2 Link to comment
ulkis April 8, 2017 Share April 8, 2017 Is this the first time we're seeing Bothwell? I approve, heh. Link to comment
TaurusRose April 8, 2017 Share April 8, 2017 (edited) I love all mentions of Francis. I wanted to punch Darnley in the throat for talking shit about Catherine's golden child, not to mention Francis would have kicked his ass. I liked the Bash mention. That surprised me since I was never a Bash fan. Darnley might be trash, but I didn't mind his anger towards Mary at all. She hasn't done one thing right in ages. Go ahead and embrace the hate, Darnley. Didn't miss Greer at all. The cutie at Elizabeth's court looks familiar, but I can't place him. I'm still not feeling or liking Bothwell. I agree that they're pushing Mary/Bothwell too hard and too fast. Pacing has always been an issue for this show. I liked Rizzio's appearance, I had pretty much given up on him. I guess Claude is going to fall in love with her husband, he does seem like a good guy, and Charles is still off the reservation. I'm mildly interested in seeing what Catherine is going to get up to in Scotland even if the real CdM never set foot there, hopefully she'll bitch slap Darnley retroactively for the Francis remarks. Edited April 8, 2017 by taurusrose 1 Link to comment
dreamcatcher April 8, 2017 Share April 8, 2017 I loved all the little references to Francis! Hopefully he will be mentioned in the next episode as well because Mary seems to be over his death even though he was the love of her life. It's interesting because she told him she would never love again but she tried too hard with Darnley as well so it's not like she really was only looking for the best "ally" to marry. I don't like what they're doing with Bothwell either. First of all it doesn't even make sense. Mary would never be allowed to be alone with a man. That kind of thing would destroy her reputation AND would make her lose her throne. And I hate that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in Scotland is so disrespectful to their damn Queen. Calling her Mary like they're best buddies, talking back, refusing to do what their Queen told them to do.... They're subjects, not citizens and it's a huge difference that Reign writers apparently don't understand but it bugs me so much. At least with Elizabeth they're getting it (somewhat) right because people definitely disrespected her as a woman sovereign, but we can see how she fights back AND puts them in their places when they're taking it too far. Btw, it's such a pity that Reign couldn't get picked up for Netflix for example. These years they're trying to cover in 16 episodes would provide them with amazing storylines. I really liked seeing Elizabeth becoming the famous, poweful Queen we're still talking about today. I'm so glad Catherine is reunited with Mary, even though that was completely random. And Keira's death was hillarious. I don't even see how it was Mary's fault and how Darnley could blame her. Again, as a Queen she has every right to throw whomever she wants out of her country, especially her husband's misstress. But yeah getting killed by a horse while James was arguing with her Lady was hillariously random. I liked Luc in this episode. Poor guy is only trying to be a good husband. 1 Link to comment
NorthstarATL April 10, 2017 Share April 10, 2017 On 4/8/2017 at 7:42 AM, dreamcatcher said: 'm so glad Catherine is reunited with Mary, even though that was completely random. And Keira's death was hillarious. LOL! It was like the modern trope of someone getting hot by a bus as they walk into the street! I felt badly for laughing. I love that they occasionally allow a royal or noble an entourage, but our key players always wander about alone, unacccompanied. LOLed at Catherine walking in on Mary at the end without announcement as if she'd just popped by from across the street! And Mary gets "kidnapped" once again! I am going to assume from now on that Spoiler when Elizabeth DOES lock Mary up, it will be for her own good! 1 Link to comment
wonderchica05 April 11, 2017 Share April 11, 2017 When Mary realized Bothwell was tricking her I thought, oh crap, we're going with the kidnapping theory and jumping right to it, huh? We all know this Mary's dumbass doesn't need to be kidnapped! Link to comment
Andromeda April 11, 2017 Share April 11, 2017 On 4/8/2017 at 4:42 AM, dreamcatcher said: I don't like what they're doing with Bothwell either. First of all it doesn't even make sense. Mary would never be allowed to be alone with a man. That kind of thing would destroy her reputation AND would make her lose her throne. And I hate that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in Scotland is so disrespectful to their damn Queen. Calling her Mary like they're best buddies, talking back, refusing to do what their Queen told them to do.... They're subjects, not citizens and it's a huge difference that Reign writers apparently don't understand but it bugs me so much. At least with Elizabeth they're getting it (somewhat) right because people definitely disrespected her as a woman sovereign, but we can see how she fights back AND puts them in their places when they're taking it too far. Btw, it's such a pity that Reign couldn't get picked up for Netflix for example. These years they're trying to cover in 16 episodes would provide them with amazing storylines. I really liked seeing Elizabeth becoming the famous, poweful Queen we're still talking about today. I just watched the 1971 movie "Mary, Queen of Scots," and i'm frustrated the show is ending just when the plot should be starting to get going. So much fodder for excellent TV. On the one hand they're rushing things, and on the other they're dragging things out too long (what's taking her so long to marry Darnley?). Weird pacing problems. The movie had an excellent plot that would have been fun -- Queen Elizabeth plots for Mary to go for idiot Darnley and not her boyfriend Dudley, despite her "plans," and Mary takes the bait. ITA on the lack of respect for a queen. It's ridiculous. She would never be alone, much less with a man, by herself, on a river. She'd be accused of being a whore or a tart or the man would be accused of trying to seduce or kidnap her. But I've had to deal with that since this show began. I'll never forget one instance where Mary and Francis enter a party/gathering, and no one stands or bows or anything, and instead Mary says "There's a seat over there," as if every person in the room wouldn't be jumping out of their seats to give the King and Queen the best seats in the room (which would probably be on a dais and reserved just for them). But, you know, 16th-century European courts and teen dances, it's all the same... 1 Link to comment
dreamcatcher April 11, 2017 Share April 11, 2017 5 hours ago, Andromeda said: I just watched the 1971 movie "Mary, Queen of Scots," and i'm frustrated the show is ending just when the plot should be starting to get going. So much fodder for excellent TV. On the one hand they're rushing things, and on the other they're dragging things out too long (what's taking her so long to marry Darnley?). Weird pacing problems. The movie had an excellent plot that would have been fun -- Queen Elizabeth plots for Mary to go for idiot Darnley and not her boyfriend Dudley, despite her "plans," and Mary takes the bait. ITA on the lack of respect for a queen. It's ridiculous. She would never be alone, much less with a man, by herself, on a river. She'd be accused of being a whore or a tart or the man would be accused of trying to seduce or kidnap her. But I've had to deal with that since this show began. I'll never forget one instance where Mary and Francis enter a party/gathering, and no one stands or bows or anything, and instead Mary says "There's a seat over there," as if every person in the room wouldn't be jumping out of their seats to give the King and Queen the best seats in the room (which would probably be on a dais and reserved just for them). But, you know, 16th-century European courts and teen dances, it's all the same... They do have a pacing problem! It took her half the season to even marry Darnley and they still have to go through her pregnancy and everything. And in general, they stretched her life in France for three years and they want to show the rest of her life in one (reduced) season? I mean I get that they wanted to keep Francis as long as possible (and I do miss him), but he died in the beginning of season 3 so they had plenty of time to move her to Scotland and start telling that story. This bugs me SO much. I love historical dramas because of the history (duh!) and the allure of royal life. I don't care if they add stuff and whether the show is completely accurate or not, but at least their depiction of royalty should be on point. I like The Tudors for example even though it wasn't 100% accurate because I loved how they portrayed the life at court. Maybe it would easier for me to overlook this if they didn't make Mary completely powerless. But a random lord refusing her call to court, lying to her, putting her life in danger, essentially kidnapping her... All that would be considered treason and Mary seems fine with it. 3 Link to comment
Andromeda April 11, 2017 Share April 11, 2017 (edited) I forgot something else that bugs me to no end. It's the episode title!! It's not "UNCHARTERED waters." That would mean no one chartered (rented) a boat on those waters. It's "UNCHARTED waters," which means the waters haven't been mapped (charted), and they're facing the unknown. Nautical maps are called charts. https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/uncharted+waters.html I take this back if it's a play on words and there was discussion of a charter that I missed. Edited April 11, 2017 by Andromeda Link to comment
JewellHill May 7, 2017 Share May 7, 2017 Hi! Nice to see this forum! I wanted to share this short article on Bothwell with you all. I do believe that he has been a much maligned hero - written about by the very people who imprisoned and killed him. There's an old saying that whoever wins the battle gets to write the history. I'd say there's no better example than Bothwell. True, they are having to move rather fast on it, but I sure hope they treat him as the great dude he actually was - not a rapist and creep, but a brave, good person who gave his all for Mary and Scotland. This is a magazine article about it: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/dec/26/mary-queen-scots-earl-bothwell Link to comment
NutMeg May 8, 2017 Share May 8, 2017 19 hours ago, JewellHill said: Hi! Nice to see this forum! I wanted to share this short article on Bothwell with you all. I do believe that he has been a much maligned hero - written about by the very people who imprisoned and killed him. There's an old saying that whoever wins the battle gets to write the history. I'd say there's no better example than Bothwell. True, they are having to move rather fast on it, but I sure hope they treat him as the great dude he actually was - not a rapist and creep, but a brave, good person who gave his all for Mary and Scotland. This is a magazine article about it: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/dec/26/mary-queen-scots-earl-bothwell It's vey interesting, could be the one aspect where Reign has it right and we don't know it. But I do agree that with history being often written by the people who ended up being the ones getting the upper hand, there is probably a lot we "know" that is not how things happened. Thanks a bunch for the article. Link to comment
dreamcatcher May 8, 2017 Share May 8, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, NutMeg said: 20 hours ago, JewellHill said: Hi! Nice to see this forum! I wanted to share this short article on Bothwell with you all. I do believe that he has been a much maligned hero - written about by the very people who imprisoned and killed him. There's an old saying that whoever wins the battle gets to write the history. I'd say there's no better example than Bothwell. True, they are having to move rather fast on it, but I sure hope they treat him as the great dude he actually was - not a rapist and creep, but a brave, good person who gave his all for Mary and Scotland. This is a magazine article about it: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/dec/26/mary-queen-scots-earl-bothwell The thing is, whether Mary really wanted this marriage or not is contested. And the fact that Bothwell fled when things got rough is enough to convince me that he wasn't as heroic. Plus, their marriage is precisely why Mary lost her crown and her life.Maybe Mary wasn't the brightest (which doesn't seem to be historically accurate and most of her troubles as Queen stem from the fact that she was brought up in France and she had no knowledge of the scottish court or any real allies), but why would a 'hero' think that marrying her right after he was accused of killing her husband and King AND in a controversial manner would be a smart move? Maybe it's true that he was trying to find supporters for Mary, but I really don't get why they would ever think that this marriage and so soon after her husband's death would be a good idea. 52 minutes ago, NutMeg said: It's vey interesting, could be the one aspect where Reign has it right and we don't know it. But I do agree that with history being often written by the people who ended up being the ones getting the upper hand, there is probably a lot we "know" that is not how things happened. Thanks a bunch for the article. That reminds me of my favorite Catherine quote: "history is written by survivors and i'm surely that". Edited May 8, 2017 by dreamcatcher 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts