The actors in this series (imo) have been extremely well cast.
Pritchard the butler, is exceptionally likeable. I've seen him recently in something else, but can't remember where.
Adrian Scarborough has been in lots of things: Cranford, Miranda, Gavin & Stacey, The Bill, Midsomer etc
The actors in this series (imo) have been extremely well cast.
Pritchard the butler, is exceptionally likeable. I've seen him recently in something else, but can't remember where.
I wonder if Persee's character was loosely based on Unity Mitford.
It's funny - I find it really hard to like Adrian Scarborough (who plays Pritchard). I loved the character of Hudson, the original butler, but AS always seems to be a rather waspish, bitchy type of person.
He did well in the birth scene though!
As for Persie - I think Clare Foy is the most wonderful actress (her performance in Little Dorrit) but I can't see anything redeeming in her character in UD. There's usually something nice in people but she just comes across as a 'baddie' with no light or shade!!
Really enjoyed it. But do feel that it was a bit rushed.
Like Downton it really showed HD TV at it's best.
As regards to a series don't forget UD is a co-production with the US PBS network and I would think that they will be putting up at least half of the production costs. The US networks normally like a longer series so I think 13 episodes could be possible depending of course how the first 3 episodes do when they are shown in the US
PBS also co-produces Downton Abbey and it will be interesting to see how that goes down in the US when it debuts there on January 9th..
I agree. Does anyone know if the scripts were originally written for 90 minutes and then cut back to 60?
It appears that originally it was said to be 2x90min eps , so whether they cut them and made 3x60min eps or just changed their minds who knows. I would imagine that there was a lot more material that was cut to fit the screentime available.
It's funny - I find it really hard to like Adrian Scarborough (who plays Pritchard). I loved the character of Hudson, the original butler, but AS always seems to be a rather waspish, bitchy type of person.
He did well in the birth scene though!
As for Persie - I think Clare Foy is the most wonderful actress (her performance in Little Dorrit) but I can't see anything redeeming in her character in UD. There's usually something nice in people but she just comes across as a 'baddie' with no light or shade!!
Maybe it's because he has a 'pedantic' way about him but I think this suits his role as a butler.
He's also got a kind heart, by letting the boy in, feeding him and getting his job back for him. Hudson was far stricter and would never dream of asking his employer for a favour.:eek:
Yes, I agree about Persie(sp). Most of the characters have shown their good and bad sides except for her.
If the series goes ahead, which I hope it does, she may return as the prodigal sister.
"Fast paced" is OK for James Bond films but for a "society drama" of the thirties?
According to the press,these episodes were seen as pilot episodes to test the water.They may have packed loads in in an attempt to hook the viewers quickly.If and when the new series starts,I imagine the pace will slow down considerably : I would have liked to have seen Persie and Spargo's dalliance with facism paced out over a good few episodes,rather than the way they rushed through it.
I never missed an episode of this back in the seventies and have all episodes on DVD, but I find it all a bit hard to swallow.
The final scene in the original when Rose turned and shed real tears as she had one last look back an 165 Eaton Place, in 1930 only to return in 1936 later looking 40 years older. The stairs leading down to the kitchen outside are on the wrong side and the pillars are ribbed whereas the original pillars were smooth.
I never missed an episode of this back in the seventies and have all episodes on DVD, but I find it all a bit hard to swallow.
The final scene in the original when Rose turned and shed real tears as she had one last look back an 165 Eaton Place, in 1930 only to return in 1936 later looking 40 years older. The stairs leading down to the kitchen outside are on the wrong side and the pillars are ribbed whereas the original pillars were smooth.
Oh well nothings perfect I suppose.
I mentioned in a post on the previous page that the house looks very different, they are now using a property in Clarendon Street Leamington Spa instead of the actual exterior of proeprties Eaton Place in London as they did with the original, which is why the balcony in the original is a brick and plaster structure and in this version is wrought iron.
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I don't have time to read 15+ pages.
This series was set in 1936 which was actually only 6 years after the previous series ended. I have read in reviews of this programme that Rose returns to Eton Place after 25 years. The actress may look like 25 years has passed but I remember the story about the General Strike of 1929 and Georgina being married in the last episode set in June 1930.
Also, I would have expected the BBC to do more research on the first UD and kept some continuity. The servants steps were at the left hand side of the door, not the right as shown in this series. The kitchen had undergone a revamp as had the fireplaces and layout of most of the rooms. Remember, when we first saw the house covered in cobwebs, it had not been lived in since the Bellamy days (6 years earlier, not 25). therefore the fireplaces and layout should have been the same. The interior is studio sets so they could have paid more attention to the original detail. The only thing that was the same was the entrance hall floor tiles. Even the stairway was slightly different. Also, Rose left with the Bellamys to be ladies maid and general housekeeper in their smaller house in the country.
Yes, I know they probably would not have had access to the same property 30+ years on but they could have had less obvious errors. There are a lot of people out there who are die hard UD fans and would only have watched this as it was linked to the original.
Overall I was dissappointed with the new series with the only tenuous link being Rose. It may as well have been a completely different drama.
Also hated the music that accompanied every scene, I found it very intrusive.
Hi,
On balance I must say that I preferred Downton Abbey to Upstairs, Downstairs, however I may have been influenced by watching the first two parts on the HD channel. Both these parts in HD were accompanied by a narrator explaining the action as if it was intended for visually impaired viewers and I found this uneccesary and obtrusive. When watching part 3, realising that the narrative wasn't there, I flicked back to the HD channel and realised it was exclusively on the HD presentation. Did anyone else find the narration annoying as possibly I would have enjoyed the presentation more, had I not watched most of it in HD!.
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I don't have time to read 15+ pages.
This series was set in 1936 which was actually only 6 years after the previous series ended. I have read in reviews of this programme that Rose returns to Eton Place after 25 years. The actress may look like 25 years has passed but I remember the story about the General Strike of 1929 and Georgina being married in the last episode set in June 1930.
Also, I would have expected the BBC to do more research on the first UD and kept some continuity. The servants steps were at the left hand side of the door, not the right as shown in this series. The kitchen had undergone a revamp as had the fireplaces and layout of most of the rooms. Remember, when we first saw the house covered in cobwebs, it had not been lived in since the Bellamy days (6 years earlier, not 25). therefore the fireplaces and layout should have been the same. The only thing that was the same was the entrance hall floor tiles. Even the stairway was slightly different. Also, Rose left with the Bellamys to be ladies maid and general housekeeper in their smaller house in the country.
Yes, I know they probably would not have had access to the same property 30+ years on but they could have had less obvious errors. There are a lot of people out there who are die hard UD fans and would only have watched this as it was linked to the original.
Overall I was dissappointed with the new series with the only tenuous link being Rose. It may as well have been a completely different drama.
Also hated the music that accompanied every scene, I found it very intrusive.
The show is being made by BBC Wales, all part of the percentage of programmes made out of London thingy (give it a few years and everyone will complain about the amount made by BBc Wales ) . The interior is all sets so I dont see why they couldnt have kept it more like the original in layout , also I dont see why they couldnt have used Eaton Place for exterior shots for continuity as opposed to Leamington Spa , unless it was for costs .
Incredibly interesting thread which I have read through with rapt interest. There have been many great, informative posts
As a huge childhood fan of the original U/D I was looking forward to this new version and, for me, it didn't disappoint. I expected it to be different but retain it's original essence which (IMO) it did perfectly. Yes it was a little bit rushed and we could have had longer to get to know characters but I find that with a lot of programmes nowadays - made for the PS/XBOX/instant messaging/instant gratification generation! The music was somewhat overpowering at times so maybe with the new series they could tone that down a bit? Some of it was unnecessary and a bit intrusive.
Jean Marsh was essential of course to tie the two very different era U/D together and she did the job with aplomb. Rose remained the person who she'd always been which was a relief. Eileen Atkins was superb (as you'd expect) but I also enjoyed Keeley Hawes performance, I find her very 'watchable' and a little bit underrated as a whole. My favourite downstairs character is Pritchard the Butler, a very different man from Hudson and I'm glad they went down this route and not a Hudson carbon copy. In fact I don't think there was any member of the cast who disappointed but please bear in my I am quite easily pleased
There are obviously going to be the comparisons with Downton Abbey (which I also love) but the two can co-exist quite happily together and for me as a viewer who loves costume dramas it's WIN-WIN!
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I don't have time to read 15+ pages.
This series was set in 1936 which was actually only 6 years after the previous series ended. I have read in reviews of this programme that Rose returns to Eton Place after 25 years. The actress may look like 25 years has passed but I remember the story about the General Strike of 1929 and Georgina being married in the last episode set in June 1930.
Also, I would have expected the BBC to do more research on the first UD and kept some continuity. The servants steps were at the left hand side of the door, not the right as shown in this series. The kitchen had undergone a revamp as had the fireplaces and layout of most of the rooms. Remember, when we first saw the house covered in cobwebs, it had not been lived in since the Bellamy days (6 years earlier, not 25). therefore the fireplaces and layout should have been the same. The interior is studio sets so they could have paid more attention to the original detail. The only thing that was the same was the entrance hall floor tiles. Even the stairway was slightly different. Also, Rose left with the Bellamys to be ladies maid and general housekeeper in their smaller house in the country.
Yes, I know they probably would not have had access to the same property 30+ years on but they could have had less obvious errors. There are a lot of people out there who are die hard UD fans and would only have watched this as it was linked to the original.
Overall I was dissappointed with the new series with the only tenuous link being Rose. It may as well have been a completely different drama.
Also hated the music that accompanied every scene, I found it very intrusive.
Given the time that has elapsed,I imagine the new version is being pitched at a younger audience,though there are still plenty of people who remember it first time around.Bearing that in mind,they're probably not going to be overly concerned with continuity errors : just trying to keep the general flavour and ambience of the original series will suffice.
I am a die-hard UD fan of the old series. I watched them when I was a child/teenager & have watched them again on Sky as repeats, all the way through recently - twice!
I have studied Drama & Costume/Make-up to graduate level so I'm a real stickler for realism & getting history/period right.
Yes there were a few niggles; as there were in DA & the new Poirots/Marples but I am willing to suspend my disbelief for an hour or two for some gorgeous acting, beautiful people, lovely period pieces/costumes & at last some good drama.
So many of us complain about the take-over of reality TV & Z-leb shows on the box & there is such a dearth of good writing/drama that I am happy to maybe put up with little annoyances just to have something intelligent & historical, as well as entertaining on a cold winter night.
My knowledge on the fascist movement & how the Nazi's came to power in the 30's was very rusty to say the least (I have tended to be fascinated with the Regency & Victorian/Edwardian eras) & this really intrigued me to look things up & ask my parents about things, so it's been eye-opening in educational ways too.
Please don't be too keen to write these sort of programmes off, or all we'll get is XF type shows, which have their place I concede but not 24/7!
Given the time that has elapsed,I imagine the new version is being pitched at a younger audience,though there are still plenty of people who remember it first time around.Bearing that in mind,they're probably not going to be overly concerned with continuity errors : just trying to keep the general flavour and ambience of the original series will suffice.
The biggest problem i had with the continuity was Rose. The series was set only 6 years later but she had aged by about 30 years and had done an awful lot in those 6 years!
PS - I love costume dramas and HATE "reality" rubbish!
I think George is a bit boring now though and King Charles might have been a change, as we haven't had one for a while. I wonder if William will stick with his name.
I think Charles is out - the first one was beheaded and the second ran away from Cromwell. Edward VIII probably put paid to any more Edwards. William will probably get the nod, although it might annoy the Catholics. And he will be William V, which will annoy us Scots.
I really enjoyed it and thought it got better with each episode - although it wasn't as good as Downton Abbey.
The only thing I didn't like was Rose's accent (and the cook too for that matter) - anyone would think they'd taken acting lessons from Dick Van Dyke! :eek::p
Its astonishing just how deep the comparison thing goes, it as though the world and his granny is expected to be one side or the other.
Please please lets have these shows on in different seasons.Its bad enough now even though Downton finished ages ago-think what it will be like if they are on in the same week.
I thought Keeley Hawes was great in it - as was the man playing her husband. Their acting was spot on and I started to find them likeable and cared about their lives and what happened to them. I actually thought she was going to lose the baby when she collapsed in the bathroom! :eek:
I think Charles is out - the first one was beheaded and the second ran away from Cromwell. Edward VIII probably put paid to any more Edwards. William will probably get the nod, although it might annoy the Catholics. And he will be William V, which will annoy us Scots.
He will probably be George but it just seems a bit bizarre to me. The other two named Charles were around about 400 years ago, and so I don't really see a problem now. Also, the name change will seem very strange because he will always be known as Charles for most people. With regards to William, I never thought of that and that might be more of a sore point.
I thought Keeley Hawes was great in it - as was the man playing her husband. Their acting was spot on and I started to find them likeable and cared about their lives and what happened to them. I actually thought she was going to lose the baby when she collapsed in the bathroom! :eek:
I liked her in this too. I also liked how they both didn't seem to have the usual perfect marriage and naturally bickered about a few things.
Comments
Adrian Scarborough has been in lots of things: Cranford, Miranda, Gavin & Stacey, The Bill, Midsomer etc
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0769083/
He did well in the birth scene though!
As for Persie - I think Clare Foy is the most wonderful actress (her performance in Little Dorrit) but I can't see anything redeeming in her character in UD. There's usually something nice in people but she just comes across as a 'baddie' with no light or shade!!
Like Downton it really showed HD TV at it's best.
As regards to a series don't forget UD is a co-production with the US PBS network and I would think that they will be putting up at least half of the production costs. The US networks normally like a longer series so I think 13 episodes could be possible depending of course how the first 3 episodes do when they are shown in the US
PBS also co-produces Downton Abbey and it will be interesting to see how that goes down in the US when it debuts there on January 9th..
I'll say!
"Fast paced" is OK for James Bond films but for a "society drama" of the thirties?
I agree. Does anyone know if the scripts were originally written for 90 minutes and then cut back to 60?
It appears that originally it was said to be 2x90min eps , so whether they cut them and made 3x60min eps or just changed their minds who knows. I would imagine that there was a lot more material that was cut to fit the screentime available.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/10_october/10/upstairs.shtml
Upstairs Downstairs will be relaunched as two x 90-minutes in 2010
Maybe it's because he has a 'pedantic' way about him but I think this suits his role as a butler.
He's also got a kind heart, by letting the boy in, feeding him and getting his job back for him. Hudson was far stricter and would never dream of asking his employer for a favour.:eek:
Yes, I agree about Persie(sp). Most of the characters have shown their good and bad sides except for her.
If the series goes ahead, which I hope it does, she may return as the prodigal sister.
According to the press,these episodes were seen as pilot episodes to test the water.They may have packed loads in in an attempt to hook the viewers quickly.If and when the new series starts,I imagine the pace will slow down considerably : I would have liked to have seen Persie and Spargo's dalliance with facism paced out over a good few episodes,rather than the way they rushed through it.
The final scene in the original when Rose turned and shed real tears as she had one last look back an 165 Eaton Place, in 1930 only to return in 1936 later looking 40 years older. The stairs leading down to the kitchen outside are on the wrong side and the pillars are ribbed whereas the original pillars were smooth.
Oh well nothings perfect I suppose.
Sorry, I missed your post.
Yes, it was Gavin & Stacey!! ....it was definitely a comedy. I only watched one episode and I think it was the final. lol
Thank you for the link.:)
I mentioned in a post on the previous page that the house looks very different, they are now using a property in Clarendon Street Leamington Spa instead of the actual exterior of proeprties Eaton Place in London as they did with the original, which is why the balcony in the original is a brick and plaster structure and in this version is wrought iron.
This series was set in 1936 which was actually only 6 years after the previous series ended. I have read in reviews of this programme that Rose returns to Eton Place after 25 years. The actress may look like 25 years has passed but I remember the story about the General Strike of 1929 and Georgina being married in the last episode set in June 1930.
Also, I would have expected the BBC to do more research on the first UD and kept some continuity. The servants steps were at the left hand side of the door, not the right as shown in this series. The kitchen had undergone a revamp as had the fireplaces and layout of most of the rooms. Remember, when we first saw the house covered in cobwebs, it had not been lived in since the Bellamy days (6 years earlier, not 25). therefore the fireplaces and layout should have been the same. The interior is studio sets so they could have paid more attention to the original detail. The only thing that was the same was the entrance hall floor tiles. Even the stairway was slightly different. Also, Rose left with the Bellamys to be ladies maid and general housekeeper in their smaller house in the country.
Yes, I know they probably would not have had access to the same property 30+ years on but they could have had less obvious errors. There are a lot of people out there who are die hard UD fans and would only have watched this as it was linked to the original.
Overall I was dissappointed with the new series with the only tenuous link being Rose. It may as well have been a completely different drama.
Also hated the music that accompanied every scene, I found it very intrusive.
On balance I must say that I preferred Downton Abbey to Upstairs, Downstairs, however I may have been influenced by watching the first two parts on the HD channel. Both these parts in HD were accompanied by a narrator explaining the action as if it was intended for visually impaired viewers and I found this uneccesary and obtrusive. When watching part 3, realising that the narrative wasn't there, I flicked back to the HD channel and realised it was exclusively on the HD presentation. Did anyone else find the narration annoying as possibly I would have enjoyed the presentation more, had I not watched most of it in HD!.
Ian
The show is being made by BBC Wales, all part of the percentage of programmes made out of London thingy (give it a few years and everyone will complain about the amount made by BBc Wales ) . The interior is all sets so I dont see why they couldnt have kept it more like the original in layout , also I dont see why they couldnt have used Eaton Place for exterior shots for continuity as opposed to Leamington Spa , unless it was for costs .
As it is a different production company, maybe they didn't have access to the original sets.
As a huge childhood fan of the original U/D I was looking forward to this new version and, for me, it didn't disappoint. I expected it to be different but retain it's original essence which (IMO) it did perfectly. Yes it was a little bit rushed and we could have had longer to get to know characters but I find that with a lot of programmes nowadays - made for the PS/XBOX/instant messaging/instant gratification generation! The music was somewhat overpowering at times so maybe with the new series they could tone that down a bit? Some of it was unnecessary and a bit intrusive.
Jean Marsh was essential of course to tie the two very different era U/D together and she did the job with aplomb. Rose remained the person who she'd always been which was a relief. Eileen Atkins was superb (as you'd expect) but I also enjoyed Keeley Hawes performance, I find her very 'watchable' and a little bit underrated as a whole. My favourite downstairs character is Pritchard the Butler, a very different man from Hudson and I'm glad they went down this route and not a Hudson carbon copy. In fact I don't think there was any member of the cast who disappointed but please bear in my I am quite easily pleased
There are obviously going to be the comparisons with Downton Abbey (which I also love) but the two can co-exist quite happily together and for me as a viewer who loves costume dramas it's WIN-WIN!
Given the time that has elapsed,I imagine the new version is being pitched at a younger audience,though there are still plenty of people who remember it first time around.Bearing that in mind,they're probably not going to be overly concerned with continuity errors : just trying to keep the general flavour and ambience of the original series will suffice.
I have studied Drama & Costume/Make-up to graduate level so I'm a real stickler for realism & getting history/period right.
Yes there were a few niggles; as there were in DA & the new Poirots/Marples but I am willing to suspend my disbelief for an hour or two for some gorgeous acting, beautiful people, lovely period pieces/costumes & at last some good drama.
So many of us complain about the take-over of reality TV & Z-leb shows on the box & there is such a dearth of good writing/drama that I am happy to maybe put up with little annoyances just to have something intelligent & historical, as well as entertaining on a cold winter night.
My knowledge on the fascist movement & how the Nazi's came to power in the 30's was very rusty to say the least (I have tended to be fascinated with the Regency & Victorian/Edwardian eras) & this really intrigued me to look things up & ask my parents about things, so it's been eye-opening in educational ways too.
Please don't be too keen to write these sort of programmes off, or all we'll get is XF type shows, which have their place I concede but not 24/7!
The biggest problem i had with the continuity was Rose. The series was set only 6 years later but she had aged by about 30 years and had done an awful lot in those 6 years!
PS - I love costume dramas and HATE "reality" rubbish!
I think Charles is out - the first one was beheaded and the second ran away from Cromwell. Edward VIII probably put paid to any more Edwards. William will probably get the nod, although it might annoy the Catholics. And he will be William V, which will annoy us Scots.
The only thing I didn't like was Rose's accent (and the cook too for that matter) - anyone would think they'd taken acting lessons from Dick Van Dyke! :eek::p
Please please lets have these shows on in different seasons.Its bad enough now even though Downton finished ages ago-think what it will be like if they are on in the same week.
I liked her in this too. I also liked how they both didn't seem to have the usual perfect marriage and naturally bickered about a few things.