I wonder if the first episode of the original Upstairs Downstairs
was totally gripping from the first moments ... as some expected of this ?
No it wasn't !
Then look what happened.
There were far too many expectations for this new mini series.
Give it time...... or rather two more episodes !
I don't think I'll be watching the rest, unless there's nothing else on at the time maybe. And I really wanted to like it too - I've been watching some of the old series on Saturdays (yesterday or ITV3, can't remember) and enjoyed it much more, although I haven't seen the parts with Rose in yet.
As I remember, Rose appeared in pretty much every episode, bar a handful. How could you miss her?
It wasn't as good as I'd hoped. Maybe we have already been spoiled by the brilliant Downton. Sorry to mention the D word again but...how can you not??
The characters here aren't compelling enough methinks. Not enough to it in general. And who cares about the 'historical' elements?? Good drama should always come before any though about accuracy.
I will watch the other 2 episodes and maybe my mind will be changed....
Yup. That about sums it up. Of course, we're merely talking about a personal opinion. But it's all mine and I'm sticking to it.
No need to get defensive, but I'm just wondering what about the first episode of U/D you thought was more intelligent or thoughtful than Downton Abbey?
I agree completely. Most of the music added nothing to the atmosphere and simply made parts of the dialogue difficult to decipher.
As I remember, Rose appeared in pretty much every episode, bar a handful. How could you miss her?
No idea what era of it I've seen, but it has (forgive the mixture of actors and characters) - Hannah Gordon, Georgina, Christopher Beeny and his screen wife, Mrs Bridges, Mr Hudson and Ruby, and Gareth Hunt has just left. Don't recall seeing Rose, but may not have been paying enough attention - it was a Saturday morning after all!
I am curious about how you differentiate a soap and a drama?
Apart from continuing storylines how do you define Soap and Drama?
For me, a drama is more likely to have a better standard of writing, classier performances with less chance of cliche, stereotype and contrived plotlines.
I... it was okay, but something just didn't work for me - I tried not to think of Downton Abbey, but I did think it (Downton) did a far better first episode.
...
Gosh, I always thought the first episode was the best, and I thought it was a far better first episode than Upstairs Downstairs' - it much better set up the characters, especially that of the downstairs staff - where from the off-set you already cared about Bates, etc etc, where-as in U/D, I kind of... couldn't feel drawn to any of the downstairs staff. And I found the girl playing Ivy very hammy and un-charming.
DA did not have a great opening episode - it too was cluttered with endless exposition about 'the entail' (:yawn:) and many characters we never saw so could never care about. It also suffered from what this episode suffered from: trying to do too much with too many characters. There was no sense of what the main story was in this episode and it therefore lacked narrative focus.
However, I have to disagree about the downstairs characters in DA. To me, they were very thinly drawn and lacked depth - in the opening episode and all the way through the series. All the attention was paid to the 'upstairs' characters, with the result that the servants were very crudely drawn - and, in that respect, I would say that DA was definitely more soapy.
Thanks primarily to better writing (and fewer characters below stairs), the UD pilot trumped DA - from where I was sitting at least. It would have done better, however, to have put a few of them further in the background, rather than trying to give every single character some kind of story ...
I wonder if the first episode of the original Upstairs Downstairs
was totally gripping from the first moments ... as some expected of this ?
Yes, it was! ITV expected it to be a flop and it sat on their shelves for a year, finally being transmitted in a late evening slot. To their surprise, it was a huge hit - and rightly so.
So far, I'm disappointed. The original UD was my all-time favourite drama series, partly because the episodes were like studio plays, with no background music whatsoever, and the characters were well developed.
I hate the modern technique of 'film effect' complete with hollow boxy sound, plus the totally unnecessary background music which often obscures the dialogue. (It was these modern techniques that brought about the end of 'The Bill'.)
Also, if the setting of the series is just six years after the original, why do the interiors (prior to redecoration) look as if they have been untouched for a hundred years. Frankly, most of the rooms, particularly the servants' hall, are unrecognisable from the original series. The main hall is the only part that bears some resemblance to the original, but it is much bigger.
No need to get defensive, but I'm just wondering what about the first episode of U/D you thought was more intelligent or thoughtful than Downton Abbey?
See above.
And I'm not feeling remotely defensive. We're all expressing personal opinions. Doesn't mean we're right. Including me.
I was a big fan of Upstairs Downstairs when it was first shown in the 1970's. Recently watched some of it again when it was repeated on one of the Freeview channels and loved it as much as I had done years ago.
I liked this tonight. I thought it was really good and I am looking forward to tomorrow night's episode.
agree with many posts here,wanted to like ti but couldn't quite. Music very intrusive and IMO Harry potterish. Eileen atkins (love her normally) overacting. te maid rubbish, the sister annoying.
The only one I cared about at the end was the bird, i was afraid it would be forgotten about when the boy got taken away:o
I think (even though for me the first ep of DA was too long) that DA was set apart by the quality of the actors, you immediately engaged with their characters, even if the plot was sometimes a bit silly and the historical acuracy hit and miss at times because they were played so well and yes, comparsons are odious but this lot just didnt cut it
Got to say though, the them music "took me right back" to TOS(oh god just realised it'slike star trek TOS and TNG);)
BTW what was that line of Agnes's at the start "I (think the bulb must have been broken " or something? sounded very odd to me and my dad who at 80 is old enough to remember how people actually did speak in the old days
For me, a drama is more likely to have a better standard of writing, classier performances with less chance of cliche, stereotype and contrived plotlines.
That's all very well, but of course it's down to personal opinion what is cliched, stereotypical or contrived. Going by tonight's episode of UD, I don't think it would fall outside that definition of soap. Plenty of sterotypes there and what plotline there was was pretty much contrived IMO.
But it was still interesting enough for me to want to see the next episode.
DA did not have a great opening episode - it too was cluttered with endless exposition about 'the entail' (:yawn:) and many characters we never saw so could never care about.
I don't think it was any more cluttered with exposition than this U/D was, and what there was, it was certainly less muddled in how it was conveyed. And... what characters that we never saw? I think DA did a better job of introducing and establishing more characters in its episode 1 than this did - I felt much more of an emotional pull towards DA's characters than these.
It also suffered from what this episode suffered from: trying to do too much with too many characters. There was no sense of what the main story was in this episode and it therefore lacked narrative focus.
But, the two main story arcs were set up and were the focus of the episode - Mary not inheriting and having to put up with suitors, and Bates struggling downstairs.
However, I have to disagree about the downstairs characters in DA. To me, they were very thinly drawn and lacked depth - in the opening episode and all the way through the series. All the attention was paid to the 'upstairs' characters, with the result that the servants were very crudely drawn - and, in that respect, I would say that DA was definitely more soapy.
Really!? I loved DA, but I took a good few episodes to care about any of the upstairs characters (aside from Mary) because they were quite blandly drawn for a while, whilst the downstairs characters were far more interesting and emotionally captivating. I felt throughout DA the emotional heart of the show was very clearly placed with Bates - with, aside from Mary (and Matthew, to a lesser extent), the upstairs characters (like the Earl) were more like props.
And I really disagree that U/D had better writing, it wasn't terrible, but it was just a bit.... 'meh'.
DA did not have a great opening episode - it too was cluttered with endless exposition about 'the entail' (:yawn:) and many characters we never saw so could never care about. It also suffered from what this episode suffered from: trying to do too much with too many characters. There was no sense of what the main story was in this episode and it therefore lacked narrative focus.
However, I have to disagree about the downstairs characters in DA. To me, they were very thinly drawn and lacked depth - in the opening episode and all the way through the series. All the attention was paid to the 'upstairs' characters, with the result that the servants were very crudely drawn - and, in that respect, I would say that DA was definitely more soapy.
Thanks primarily to better writing (and fewer characters below stairs), the UD pilot trumped DA - from where I was sitting at least. It would have done better, however, to have put a few of them further in the background, rather than trying to give every single character some kind of story ...
For me, a drama is more likely to have a better standard of writing, classier performances with less chance of cliche, stereotype and contrived plotlines.
Yes... but, I sincerely fail to see where U/D had that over DA. I don't think either are anything to sniff at, but I disagree that U/D was classier or more dramatically interestingly written.
I don't think it was any more cluttered with exposition than this U/D was, and what there was, it was certainly less muddled in how it was conveyed. And... what characters that we never saw? I think DA did a better job of introducing and establishing more characters in its episode 1 than this did - I felt much more of an emotional pull towards DA's characters than these.
But, the two main story arcs were set up and were the focus of the episode - Mary not inheriting and having to put up with suitors, and Bates struggling downstairs.
Really!? I loved DA, but I took a good few episodes to care about any of the upstairs characters (aside from Mary) because they were quite blandly drawn for a while, whilst the downstairs characters were far more interesting and emotionally captivating. I felt throughout DA the emotional heart of the show was very clearly placed with Bates - with, aside from Mary (and Matthew, to a lesser extent), the upstairs characters (like the Earl) were more like props.
And I really disagree that U/D had better writing, it wasn't terrible, but it was just a bit.... 'meh'.
Characters we never saw would the family who died on the titanic, i guess
No idea what era of it I've seen, but it has (forgive the mixture of actors and characters) - Hannah Gordon, Georgina, Christopher Beeny and his screen wife, Mrs Bridges, Mr Hudson and Ruby, and Gareth Hunt has just left. Don't recall seeing Rose, but may not have been paying enough attention - it was a Saturday morning after all!
It was the final series - set in the 1920s. Rose was Lady Bellamy's lady's maid by this time. She was in most of the series, but not every episode.
Haven't made up my mind about this new series of UD. It was OK so far, but it lacked the energy of the orginal series.
Yes... but, I sincerely fail to see where U/D had that over DA. I don't think either are anything to sniff at, but I disagree that U/D was classier or more dramatically interestingly written.
Comments
Stick with it tomorrow
Superb production values however - it looked stunning.
I am curious about how you differentiate a soap and a drama?
Apart from continuing storylines how do you define Soap and Drama?
No it wasn't !
Then look what happened.
There were far too many expectations for this new mini series.
Give it time...... or rather two more episodes !
Strange & rather sad to see Rose so old.
I agree completely. Most of the music added nothing to the atmosphere and simply made parts of the dialogue difficult to decipher.
As I remember, Rose appeared in pretty much every episode, bar a handful. How could you miss her?
Yup. That about sums it up. Of course, we're merely talking about a personal opinion. But it's all mine and I'm sticking to it.
The characters here aren't compelling enough methinks. Not enough to it in general. And who cares about the 'historical' elements?? Good drama should always come before any though about accuracy.
I will watch the other 2 episodes and maybe my mind will be changed....
For me, a drama is more likely to have a better standard of writing, classier performances with less chance of cliche, stereotype and contrived plotlines.
DA did not have a great opening episode - it too was cluttered with endless exposition about 'the entail' (:yawn:) and many characters we never saw so could never care about. It also suffered from what this episode suffered from: trying to do too much with too many characters. There was no sense of what the main story was in this episode and it therefore lacked narrative focus.
However, I have to disagree about the downstairs characters in DA. To me, they were very thinly drawn and lacked depth - in the opening episode and all the way through the series. All the attention was paid to the 'upstairs' characters, with the result that the servants were very crudely drawn - and, in that respect, I would say that DA was definitely more soapy.
Thanks primarily to better writing (and fewer characters below stairs), the UD pilot trumped DA - from where I was sitting at least. It would have done better, however, to have put a few of them further in the background, rather than trying to give every single character some kind of story ...
Yes, it was! ITV expected it to be a flop and it sat on their shelves for a year, finally being transmitted in a late evening slot. To their surprise, it was a huge hit - and rightly so.
So far, I'm disappointed. The original UD was my all-time favourite drama series, partly because the episodes were like studio plays, with no background music whatsoever, and the characters were well developed.
I hate the modern technique of 'film effect' complete with hollow boxy sound, plus the totally unnecessary background music which often obscures the dialogue. (It was these modern techniques that brought about the end of 'The Bill'.)
Also, if the setting of the series is just six years after the original, why do the interiors (prior to redecoration) look as if they have been untouched for a hundred years. Frankly, most of the rooms, particularly the servants' hall, are unrecognisable from the original series. The main hall is the only part that bears some resemblance to the original, but it is much bigger.
See above.
And I'm not feeling remotely defensive. We're all expressing personal opinions. Doesn't mean we're right. Including me.
I liked this tonight. I thought it was really good and I am looking forward to tomorrow night's episode.
The only one I cared about at the end was the bird, i was afraid it would be forgotten about when the boy got taken away:o
I think (even though for me the first ep of DA was too long) that DA was set apart by the quality of the actors, you immediately engaged with their characters, even if the plot was sometimes a bit silly and the historical acuracy hit and miss at times because they were played so well and yes, comparsons are odious but this lot just didnt cut it
Got to say though, the them music "took me right back" to TOS(oh god just realised it'slike star trek TOS and TNG);)
BTW what was that line of Agnes's at the start "I (think the bulb must have been broken " or something? sounded very odd to me and my dad who at 80 is old enough to remember how people actually did speak in the old days
But it was still interesting enough for me to want to see the next episode.
Really!? I loved DA, but I took a good few episodes to care about any of the upstairs characters (aside from Mary) because they were quite blandly drawn for a while, whilst the downstairs characters were far more interesting and emotionally captivating. I felt throughout DA the emotional heart of the show was very clearly placed with Bates - with, aside from Mary (and Matthew, to a lesser extent), the upstairs characters (like the Earl) were more like props.
And I really disagree that U/D had better writing, it wasn't terrible, but it was just a bit.... 'meh'.
Great post, 100% agree
Characters we never saw would the family who died on the titanic, i guess
It was the final series - set in the 1920s. Rose was Lady Bellamy's lady's maid by this time. She was in most of the series, but not every episode.
Haven't made up my mind about this new series of UD. It was OK so far, but it lacked the energy of the orginal series.
And why didn' t they bring back Ruby???!!
She was the real star of the original series
Then we must simply agree to disagree.
You beat me by a year, nice to see another "oldie" in here.
I loved it, can never get enough period drama.
Eileen Atkins stole it for me, I loved her entrance carrying the urn, "Now where shall I put your father?"