Is it time to end Downton Abbey?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,113
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I think when you reach the stage where actors departing for pastures new forces you to drastically change the path of the show it's time to call it a day.

What do other's think?

Is it time for Downton Abbey to end? 129 votes

Yes
49% 64 votes
No
50% 65 votes
«1

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Daryl Dark wrote: »
    I think when you reach the stage where actors departing for pastures new forces you to drastically change the path of the show it's time to call it a day.

    What do other's think?

    an outstanding NO!!!!!!!! its the best thing on tv ever......
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 350
    Forum Member
    The show has an ensemble cast rather than specific leads so it can easily continue regardless of cast changes. The house itself is the most important character, not the people within it. As a result, the story hasn't 'drastically' changed, they're simply telling a slightly different one to the one they would have if those cast members hadn't left.

    I do think that the show should end in the next two years, though. They've already spanned 9 years over the course of three series and the characters haven't aged! It will get to the point where it just looks silly.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,113
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the deaths of characters are pretty drastic changes - and they have been forced on the writers. But on another note at least we'll get fresh blood appearing no doubt
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,505
    Forum Member
    ..........Yes
  • SallyforthSallyforth Posts: 7,404
    Forum Member
    I thought they were going to leave it after the last series anyway.
  • vauxhall1964vauxhall1964 Posts: 10,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i think one last series and a Christmas special would be a good way to bow out... The action can't extend post WW2 as the younger cast members won't have aged since the Roaring Twenties!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 803
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think so, yes. As much as I love the programme, I think it should go out on a high and while it's still popular.
  • harrypalmerharrypalmer Posts: 1,722
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They ballsed it up a bit by rocketing from 1912 to the 1920s in two series. Julian Fellowes was clearly too eager to get into the WWI stories.

    Nevertheless I voted no. If they could manage it it would be good to see what would happen in the Wall St crash of 1929.
  • Walter NeffWalter Neff Posts: 9,148
    Forum Member
    Daryl Dark wrote: »
    I think when you reach the stage where actors departing for pastures new forces you to drastically change the path of the show it's time to call it a day.

    What do other's think?

    No of course not, it is one of the best series shown by ITV in the past few years. The departure of one of the blandest actors in the show can only improve it. There are so many great characters in the show, and I look forward to seeing what happens to the widowed Lady Mary and Tom Branson.
  • Swanandduck2Swanandduck2 Posts: 5,502
    Forum Member
    I think it still has some life left in it. Edith's character has really developed since the first series and I think they should focus more on her now. I think the Matthew/Mary storyline had run its course and they had become very boring so I don't think his departure will leave a huge gap. I also don't think Sybil's character was going anywhere. I agree, though, that they should go out while they're ahead so I really think the next series , or at the very limit the one after that, should close the stories off. It would be nice if they could end on the eve of WWll but that would mean Mary, Edith, Anna etc would all be around their mid forties and Robert and Cora would be hitting seventy, which wouldn't really work.
  • dsimillerdsimiller Posts: 1,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes,time to go.Too many characters being killed off.Too much heartache.We can watch Eastenders if we want despair.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,568
    Forum Member
    The third series just got huge ratings in the US – 7.9 million viewers – so I think it's safe to say the show will keep going a while longer. Personally, I gave up after series one, and heard it got even more ridiculous after that!
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    They just need a better writer.
  • Hugh JboobsHugh Jboobs Posts: 15,316
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i think one last series and a Christmas special would be a good way to bow out... The action can't extend post WW2 as the younger cast members won't have aged since the Roaring Twenties!

    Good point. But with modern make-up (etc) techniques, wouldn't they be able to "age" the characters in question so that the series could continue?
  • moondewmoondew Posts: 565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't see why they have to go any further forward in time, the show could just stay in the 20s, then the actors wouldn't need to be aged up. I think there should definitely be more series, I'd really miss Downton if it came to an end. :cry:
  • TouristaTourista Posts: 14,338
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I am not a fan, but still voted no, as I know many Downton fans and they love the show. Why kill off a huge hit show that still has a way to go before it becomes boring?.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No of course not, it is one of the best series shown by ITV in the past few years. The departure of one of the blandest actors in the show can only improve it. There are so many great characters in the show, and I look forward to seeing what happens to the widowed Lady Mary and Tom Branson.

    Exactly my point....Matthew dying is no loss and although I loved Sybil and her dying was shocking...it leaves Tom Branson to come to the forefront of the show now....

    I love that fact that there are no lead characters...but I love Thomas and Tom Branson the most!!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dsimiller wrote: »
    Yes,time to go.Too many characters being killed off.Too much heartache.We can watch Eastenders if we want despair.

    Please do not compare DA to the crap the is EE!!! DA is funny, heartwarming and well written...better than any soap!!!
  • Dawn SunDawn Sun Posts: 1,287
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They ballsed it up a bit by rocketing from 1912 to the 1920s in two series. Julian Fellowes was clearly too eager to get into the WWI stories.

    Nevertheless I voted no. If they could manage it it would be good to see what would happen in the Wall St crash of 1929.

    I agree with you here. I think the original idea was three series. However, it wasn't until after the second was made that they decided to extend it (as far as I'm aware, that could be wrong). It would explain the rush in series 2, but sadly the quality nosedived and hasn't got back to that of series 1.

    What I really liked, and which seems to have been forgotten about, was aspects like Daisy not liking the new fangled electricity and Ethel believing you had to clean out sockets because of the 'ethers' left behind. Little things like that were part of its charm.
  • bookaddictbookaddict Posts: 2,806
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No. I don't like Matthew, so am interested to see where the show goes without him.
  • Walter NeffWalter Neff Posts: 9,148
    Forum Member
    jk1978 wrote: »

    I love that fact that there are no lead characters...but I love Thomas and Tom Branson the most!!

    Mine too, along with Phyllis Logan as Mrs Hughes.

    The touching scene between her and Tom Branson in the Christmas Special when he broke down, had me in tears. :cry:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 249
    Forum Member
    No. Just for the costumes, if nothing else! (But I love the storylines too - I want to see Thomas develop a relationship)
  • gboygboy Posts: 4,989
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think there's a bit of life left in the old dog yet.

    But I wouldn't want them to get too silly and head into the 1930s (unless there's a complete change in cast).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,509
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Considering the opening episode of Season 3 in the US was viewed by double the amount of viewers as season 2 there's little chance of it ending any time soon

    Series 4 could be very interesting
  • woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I first watched Series 2 after rave reviews, and found it an enjoyable bit of hokum - soapy, but entertaining. I then watched Series 1, which was better, but still very soapy. I watched the last Series as it aired and found the entire thing unbelievably tedious (save Sybil's death) - it seemed to have lost its charm and just rumbled along like a pregnant elephant. Even Maggie Smith didn't have anything interesting enough to say or do, and Matthew and Mary bored me to tears. Fellowes is not a great writer (as evidenced by 'Titanic') but he was good enough with the Edwardian soapery. Unfortunately it had a shelf life. I hate the comparison (as it's so played out) but the reason this show doesn't work for me in the way that the original Upstairs Downstairs did is that, while it achieves the 'ensemble' effect, it just hasn't got serious enough. Updown was very much like DA in its first couple of series (all Edwardian soap opera) but with Series 3 it became serious drama as it began to focus on some dark themes (peaking with the War and elevating James to anti-hero status). DA just hasn't bothered to add any real gravitas or deliver anything serious - everything is too cosy and fluffy (even with the multiple convenient deaths). I think it was summed up by the cringe-inducing jolly old cricket game with freeze frame at the end of the last Series: dire.
Sign In or Register to comment.