I do not think that Keeley Hawes will be proud of her work in this series. I wonder if it is the way that her part was written, rather than the acting, that has produced such a one-dimensional character.
To be honest I think it's the writing. She has been portrayed as vacuous, self-serving and spoilt. We can see that she obviously loves her husband but there seems to be very little else to work with. I think it's a horrible character but I don't hold it against Keeley.
The second episode was utterly brillient, it reminded me of the old series. I much prefer this to Downton Abbey, that is very Howards End. This on the otherhand, like the original, was about the politics of the time and the human stories that it impacted.
The sister is very Lady Georgina. I love it. They also toned down on the music somewhat in the second episode.
I don't think it's anything like Downton and I feel that is a very lazy comparision. It's like saying all historical dramas set in a certain era with servants is like Downton. Thats just pure laziness on behalf of the critic.
To be honest I think it's the writing. She has been portrayed as vacuous, self-serving and spoilt. We can see that she obviously loves her husband but there seems to be very little else to work with. I think it's a horrible character but I don't hold it against Keeley.
Yes exactly. The character is meant to be nieve, young and not fully aware of the circles and role she now has.
The second episode was utterly brillient, it reminded me of the old series. I much prefer this to Downton Abbey, that is very Howards End. This on the otherhand, like the original, was about the politics of the time and the human stories that it impacted.
The sister is very Lady Georgina. I love it. They also toned down on the music somewhat in the second episode.
I don't think it's anything like Downton and I feel that is a very lazy comparision. It's like saying all historical dramas set in a certain era with servants is like Downton. Thats just pure laziness on behalf of the critic.
Personally, I think the critics are right, they aren't making lazy comparisons and it's not "like saying anything."
Why do we always get a few "it's feast or famine" options suggested when some don't agree with others?
The characters in Downton in my opinion were better drawn. UD also seems to be rather rushed.
I couldn't get into Downton when I first watched it. I finally watched all episodes back to back when we were snowed in at the start of December. I was interested in the early episodes and hooked only after episode 3.
In the same way, I am interested in UD but I'm not yet hooked. It's a pity that it is only 3 episodes because I think it needs more to properly engage us in the characters. The BBC should have the courage to renew the series ( didn't someone say that was 90% likely anyway) and then show S1 again.
It also needs some new casting - a lot of the actors seem very same-ish and it makes it hard to distinguish the characters whereas all of the Downton characters are distinctive in their own
way. There doesn't seem to be much warmth to the Upstairs Downstairs characters at the moment and there are too many anachronistic moments.
It's a pity the storyline is predicated on the husband, Hallam, inheriting 165 because he seems
to be the one that is hardest to like and Ed Stoppard seems very wooden.
You cannot compare an iconic programme like the original UD with a remake. I am not keen on the remake, too much like Downton Abbey and not nearly as well done. Same plots, same characters.
This was planned before Downton so you could say they copied UD. I loved it and I am a big fan of the original series. Have only seen one episode so far, but thought it ws brilliantly done. The only niggle I have is that Rose is too old.
As I mentioned earlier, even the BBC doesn't think it was up to much, as it's scheduled over three consecutive nights.
If they thought it could hold on to the slot given the first episode, you'd have seen the others on successive Sundays.
They are just testing the water.
These initial episodes are only back to back, in order to test audience reaction.
If positive, a full series would be on a weekly basis.
They are just testing the water.
These initial episodes are only back to back, in order to test audience reaction.
If positive, a full series would be on a weekly basis.
I understood scheduling on consecutive nights was 'event tv' and kept for the very best of programmes.
I thought the second episode was much, much better - and they seemed to have toned down the music a bit - but I still find it hard to warm to any of the characters. I couldn't say I had a favourite. None of them have really made much of an impact on me, which was how I felt about the upstairs characters in Downton for the first few episodes (apart from Mary, Matthew and Violet), so perhaps they just need more time to develop... but I have to say I find it hard to remember what anyone downstairs looks like, let alone whether I like them or not.
I just can't get into any of the characters, which is a shame, so far, because characters are what make a show for me. But maybe episode 3 will solidify that - although sadly then that's the end of its run! In fact, the only one I did warm to was the Jewish woman, and she died!
But, on a lighter note, I much preferred the second episode. And it looks so, so beautiful. I love the colouring and lighting they use, like the blue'ish tones with the orange-y light that lit the scene with Percy and Spargo (?) in the car after they'd listened to the speech.
Yes exactly. The character is meant to be nieve, young and not fully aware of the circles and role she now has.
The trouble seems to be that there has not been enough in the script for Keeley Hawes to work with.
Are we supposed to be on her side in her battle with Eileen Atkins? If so why give Eileen Atkins all the best lines? Keeley Hawes has had nothing to do by the script except be not very good at appointing a staff; look weak and ineffectual with her husband and mother in law, and with regards to having fascists and jews together in the house, uncaring; and yet despite the script being unfavourable Keeley Hawes plays her as if she were the heroine of the piece and has nothing in the script to work with.
The trouble seems to be that there has not been enough in the script for Keeley Hawes to work with.
Are we supposed to be on her side in her battle with Eileen Atkins? If so why give Eileen Atkins all the best lines? Keeley Hawes has had nothing to do by the script except be not very good at appointing a staff; look weak and ineffectual with her husband and mother in law, and with regards to having fascists and jews together in the house, uncaring; and yet despite the script being unfavourable Keeley Hawes plays her as if she were the heroine of the piece and has nothing in the script to work with.
No I dont think we are supposed to be on her side. Eileen Atkins is brillient and the character not nasty, just experienced. Keeley's character feels undermined but not yet to the point we feel sorry for her.
Anyway if its anything like old UD Keeley will get TB soon and snuff it.
The only interesting character was killed off, not only did she have an interesting back story but she helped to explain what was happening at the time. Her interaction with the Sikh gentleman (can`t remember his name) also promised much. Compared to the sister`s and the chauffeur`s relationship which is boring in the extreme and adds little to the impact of Mosley at the time.
Agnes is awful, and apart from knowing that she seems to be a different class from her husband there`s no information about her except that she grew up in Wales. So how did they meet.
Eileen Atkins may be a wonderful actress but her character isn`t a patch on Maggie Smith`s In DA and really because Agnes shows little interest in life around her nor in her husband`s career I am rooting for her mother-in-law.
One of the things I loved about DA was the relationships between the characters, compare the two marriages, the one in DA so warm and close and In UD already so apart.
You need to care about them characters to love a programme, so far I couldn`t give a damn.
This was planned before Downton so you could say they copied UD. I loved it and I am a big fan of the original series. Have only seen one episode so far, but thought it ws brilliantly done. The only niggle I have is that Rose is too old.
I think Rose is now looking the age she was supposed to at the end of Upstairs Downstairs. She worked for the Bellamys for over 40 years and the show spanned 30 years.
They didnt bother to age the actors, which was actually brillient. They didnt need to. You saw them mature in terms of their behaviour which made them seem older.
The only thing they did do was give James some grey sideburns.
The only interesting character was killed off, not only did she have an interesting back story but she helped to explain what was happening at the time. Her interaction with the Sikh gentleman (can`t remember his name) also promised much. Compared to the sister`s and the chauffeur`s relationship which is boring in the extreme and adds little to the impact of Mosley at the time.
Agnes is awful, and apart from knowing that she seems to be a different class from her husband there`s no information about her except that she grew up in Wales. So how did they meet.
Eileen Atkins may be a wonderful actress but her character isn`t a patch on Maggie Smith`s In DA and really because Agnes shows little interest in life around her nor in her husband`s career I am rooting for her mother-in-law.
One of the things I loved about DA was the relationships between the characters, compare the two marriages, the one in DA so warm and close and In UD already so apart.
You need to care about them characters to love a programme, so far I couldn`t give a damn.
Yes she was a good character but then the original series did the same thing. An interesting character hung herself very early on. I think it's brillient.
Again I dont see the point of comparing it to Downton, perhaps compare it to old UD. But it seems odd that Downton is now the benchmark for UD. It was the original historical drama.
I wasn't expressing an opinion.:) What I meant was this was how the TV schedulers/ commissioners viewed consecutive programming. It doesn't exclude other good programmes.
So scheduling UD in this way wasn't a means of burning it off but showcasing it.
Whether or not you think it was the right approach is a matter of opinion and personally I think it may have been a mistake.
I wasn't expressing an opinion.:) What I meant was this was how the TV schedulers/ commissioners viewed consecutive programming. It doesn't exclude other good programmes.
So scheduling UD in this way wasn't a means of burning it off but showcasing it.
Whether or not you think it was the right approach is a matter of opinion and personally I think it may have been a mistake.
The BBC rarely make "mistakes" they say so.
They've scheduled other series over consecutive days, none of which are memorable. I'd guess they'd decided this wouldn't be either.
Doesn't mean that a lot of people won't like it. But maybe in their opinion, not enough.
Could someone clarify a couple of things for me regarding Rose?
Firstly the character - I may have missed the part where this was explained, but has Rose given up the agency to work in the house full time as (what?) or does she still have the agency and is in the house in an advisory role, in which case she is spending an awful lot of time there.
Secondly the actress - if I've got it right this is set in 1936. The old series apparently ended in the early 1920s so Rose is now about 15 years older. The tv series ended about 1977, so the actress is now about 33 years older - is the actress therefore playing a character nearly 20 years younger than she is?
I am not familiar with Rose in the original series, so I just find her character in this a bit odd.
Well I'm loving it. Jean Marsh and Eileen Atkins are just superb. Agree on previous posts about KH's character, although I have come to realise recently that she isn't the best of actresses, so I think it's a bit of both where I'm concerned. The acting with the eyebrows thing really does my head in
Anyway, the show itself is beautifully shot and dressed, and contrary to other opinions, I don't find the music intrusive; I think it works wonderfully.
I wish this didn't have to turn into a sort of war between Downton and Upstairs though. I love both, but I imagine most would say Downtown is better, but tbh, we've seen a lot more of Downton, and know the characters far better than those in Upstairs. I think both are shaping up to be brilliant. The more decent costume drama on television the better I say.
Most likely they'll be a press release as soon as this finishes announcing a full series, I can't see how something obviously so carefully crafted would be just a 3 parter.
Could someone clarify a couple of things for me regarding Rose?
Secondly the actress - if I've got it right this is set in 1936. The old series apparently ended in the early 1920s so Rose is now about 15 years older. The tv series ended about 1977, so the actress is now about 33 years older - is the actress therefore playing a character nearly 20 years younger than she is?
I am not familiar with Rose in the original series, so I just find her character in this a bit odd.
The first episode of UD was set in 1903 when Rose was head upstairs housemaid. Jean Marsh was aged 37 when the series opened, but may have been playing Rose as rather younger, perhaps 30. The last episode of UD was set in 1930 so Rose would be 27 years older than in the original episode, so around 57, (although they did not do much to make her look that age and the actress was then around 41). Rose being 57 in 1930 would be about right for 40 years service with the Bellamy family. By 1936 Rose would then be around 63, which is a bit younger than Jean Marsh's current 76.
The first episode of UD was set in 1903 when Rose was head upstairs housemaid. Jean Marsh was aged 37 when the series opened, but may have been playing Rose as rather younger, perhaps 30. The last episode of UD was set in 1930 so Rose would be 27 years older than in the original episode, so around 57, (although they did not do much to make her look that age and the actress was then around 41). Rose being 57 in 1930 would be about right for 40 years service with the Bellamy family. By 1936 Rose would then be around 63, which is a bit younger than Jean Marsh's current 76.
Thanks for that - hadn't realised there was only a supposed 6 year gap from the old series to the new - I knew it said the house had been empty for about that time, but I assumed someone else had been there after the Bellamys.
Comments
To be honest I think it's the writing. She has been portrayed as vacuous, self-serving and spoilt. We can see that she obviously loves her husband but there seems to be very little else to work with. I think it's a horrible character but I don't hold it against Keeley.
The sister is very Lady Georgina. I love it. They also toned down on the music somewhat in the second episode.
I don't think it's anything like Downton and I feel that is a very lazy comparision. It's like saying all historical dramas set in a certain era with servants is like Downton. Thats just pure laziness on behalf of the critic.
Yes exactly. The character is meant to be nieve, young and not fully aware of the circles and role she now has.
Personally, I think the critics are right, they aren't making lazy comparisons and it's not "like saying anything."
Why do we always get a few "it's feast or famine" options suggested when some don't agree with others?
The characters in Downton in my opinion were better drawn. UD also seems to be rather rushed.
But each to their own.
For Upstairs, Downstairs?
Overnights so far are:
Episode 1: 7.54 Million
&
Episode 2: 6.66m Million.
We of course don't know the BARB's this early.
In the same way, I am interested in UD but I'm not yet hooked. It's a pity that it is only 3 episodes because I think it needs more to properly engage us in the characters. The BBC should have the courage to renew the series ( didn't someone say that was 90% likely anyway) and then show S1 again.
It also needs some new casting - a lot of the actors seem very same-ish and it makes it hard to distinguish the characters whereas all of the Downton characters are distinctive in their own
way. There doesn't seem to be much warmth to the Upstairs Downstairs characters at the moment and there are too many anachronistic moments.
It's a pity the storyline is predicated on the husband, Hallam, inheriting 165 because he seems
to be the one that is hardest to like and Ed Stoppard seems very wooden.
This was planned before Downton so you could say they copied UD. I loved it and I am a big fan of the original series. Have only seen one episode so far, but thought it ws brilliantly done. The only niggle I have is that Rose is too old.
The BBC are less reliant on overnights but strong on iplayer views and, especially, the Audience Appreciation rating. Anyone know the latter?
They are just testing the water.
These initial episodes are only back to back, in order to test audience reaction.
If positive, a full series would be on a weekly basis.
I understood scheduling on consecutive nights was 'event tv' and kept for the very best of programmes.
I just can't get into any of the characters, which is a shame, so far, because characters are what make a show for me. But maybe episode 3 will solidify that - although sadly then that's the end of its run! In fact, the only one I did warm to was the Jewish woman, and she died!
But, on a lighter note, I much preferred the second episode. And it looks so, so beautiful. I love the colouring and lighting they use, like the blue'ish tones with the orange-y light that lit the scene with Percy and Spargo (?) in the car after they'd listened to the speech.
Those are excellent ratings even allowing for it being Christmas : in no way are those figures a flop.
The trouble seems to be that there has not been enough in the script for Keeley Hawes to work with.
Are we supposed to be on her side in her battle with Eileen Atkins? If so why give Eileen Atkins all the best lines? Keeley Hawes has had nothing to do by the script except be not very good at appointing a staff; look weak and ineffectual with her husband and mother in law, and with regards to having fascists and jews together in the house, uncaring; and yet despite the script being unfavourable Keeley Hawes plays her as if she were the heroine of the piece and has nothing in the script to work with.
No I dont think we are supposed to be on her side. Eileen Atkins is brillient and the character not nasty, just experienced. Keeley's character feels undermined but not yet to the point we feel sorry for her.
Anyway if its anything like old UD Keeley will get TB soon and snuff it.
Each to their own opinions.
The original UD was 'event tv'.
An award winning programme !
Agnes is awful, and apart from knowing that she seems to be a different class from her husband there`s no information about her except that she grew up in Wales. So how did they meet.
Eileen Atkins may be a wonderful actress but her character isn`t a patch on Maggie Smith`s In DA and really because Agnes shows little interest in life around her nor in her husband`s career I am rooting for her mother-in-law.
One of the things I loved about DA was the relationships between the characters, compare the two marriages, the one in DA so warm and close and In UD already so apart.
You need to care about them characters to love a programme, so far I couldn`t give a damn.
I think Rose is now looking the age she was supposed to at the end of Upstairs Downstairs. She worked for the Bellamys for over 40 years and the show spanned 30 years.
They didnt bother to age the actors, which was actually brillient. They didnt need to. You saw them mature in terms of their behaviour which made them seem older.
The only thing they did do was give James some grey sideburns.
Yes she was a good character but then the original series did the same thing. An interesting character hung herself very early on. I think it's brillient.
Again I dont see the point of comparing it to Downton, perhaps compare it to old UD. But it seems odd that Downton is now the benchmark for UD. It was the original historical drama.
I wasn't expressing an opinion.:) What I meant was this was how the TV schedulers/ commissioners viewed consecutive programming. It doesn't exclude other good programmes.
So scheduling UD in this way wasn't a means of burning it off but showcasing it.
Whether or not you think it was the right approach is a matter of opinion and personally I think it may have been a mistake.
They've scheduled other series over consecutive days, none of which are memorable. I'd guess they'd decided this wouldn't be either.
Doesn't mean that a lot of people won't like it. But maybe in their opinion, not enough.
Firstly the character - I may have missed the part where this was explained, but has Rose given up the agency to work in the house full time as (what?) or does she still have the agency and is in the house in an advisory role, in which case she is spending an awful lot of time there.
Secondly the actress - if I've got it right this is set in 1936. The old series apparently ended in the early 1920s so Rose is now about 15 years older. The tv series ended about 1977, so the actress is now about 33 years older - is the actress therefore playing a character nearly 20 years younger than she is?
I am not familiar with Rose in the original series, so I just find her character in this a bit odd.
Anyway, the show itself is beautifully shot and dressed, and contrary to other opinions, I don't find the music intrusive; I think it works wonderfully.
I wish this didn't have to turn into a sort of war between Downton and Upstairs though. I love both, but I imagine most would say Downtown is better, but tbh, we've seen a lot more of Downton, and know the characters far better than those in Upstairs. I think both are shaping up to be brilliant. The more decent costume drama on television the better I say.
Most likely they'll be a press release as soon as this finishes announcing a full series, I can't see how something obviously so carefully crafted would be just a 3 parter.
The first episode of UD was set in 1903 when Rose was head upstairs housemaid. Jean Marsh was aged 37 when the series opened, but may have been playing Rose as rather younger, perhaps 30. The last episode of UD was set in 1930 so Rose would be 27 years older than in the original episode, so around 57, (although they did not do much to make her look that age and the actress was then around 41). Rose being 57 in 1930 would be about right for 40 years service with the Bellamy family. By 1936 Rose would then be around 63, which is a bit younger than Jean Marsh's current 76.