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
That is correct - she was ladies maid to Virginia Bellamy (Hannah Gordon) and originally went to work for her when Eaton Place was sold to pay off James Bellamy(Simon Williams) debts. Ruby (Jenny Tomasin) had gone with Hudson(Gordon Jackson) and Mrs Bridges(Angela Baddely)to help them run a guesthouse- she would have inherited the guesthouse. If you look at some of the characters- there are likenesses to previous characters. Ivy resembles Ruby (barring the fingernails and hair lol), Agnes's sister is very close to Georgina (Lesley Anne Down) - basically thoughtless until she is forced to grow up late in the original series. Agnes is a mix of Hazel (Meg Wynn Owen) and Elizabeth(Nicola Pagett)
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!
Rose appeared in 54 of the 68 episodes and the 14 missed were scattered throughout the run, not a continuous period of absence.
I just dipped in to this and was amazed at the music, far too intrusive. Scenes that properly would contain no music had the full-on orchestra going at it and too loud as well.
I didn't watch as I didn't want the memory of the original harmed and I doubted it would be anything other than a just ok drama anyway.
I love costume drama and really liked tonight's BBC offering overall, apart from a few reservations about certain characters.
I suppose that comparisons with 'Downton Abbey' are inevitable, which is sad because DA had the advantage of being set in a country house in a much more opulent age where, possibly because of the scarcity of labour-saving devices, a very large body of servants were necessary to maintain the house, grounds and social life of their employers.
In DA, we actually only got to 'know' the elite of the servant body (apart from Daisy the kitchen maid) - in the opening episode there were maids etc., milling around at their work who were never seen again and presumably frequented the lower servants' hall for meals and social interaction.
Because of the very small population of servants in the newest version of 'Upstairs, Downstairs', it was essential that viewers related to and bonded with them almost instantly, and I'm afraid, with the exception of Jean Marsh herself to a certain degree, Anne Reid as 'Cook' and the young footman, Johnnie, I just didn't.
For me, the butler wasn't quite imposing enough - unlike Hudson and Carson - the kitchen maid (Ivy?) was just annoying, I honestly can't remember whether there was a housemaid or not, and the lack of a lady's maid and valet diminished Sir Hallam and Lady Agnes' prestige.
Even so, first episodes, which have to be focused on scene-setting can often be misleading - I wasn't quite sure that I liked DA on the strength of the first episode - I liked the downstairs staff and the glorious Dowager Countess, but I wasn't at all sure about Ladies Mary and Cora - both of whom I ended up adoring as much as I enjoyed the whole series.
Dame Eileen Atkins' character has great possibilities - once one moves away from wanting a repeat performance of Lady Violet Crawley - they're both strong characters, but where Dame Maggie was waspish and breathtakingly outspoken, Dame Eileen is equally strong-minded and used to getting her own charmingly-eccentric way. And I loved her monkey and her Sikh secretary.
I was pleasantly surprised by Keeley Hawes who was much better than I expected her to be - and I'm already intrigued by the hints at the politics of the war to come and how they affected 'Society'.
I'm also wondering if we might catch a glimpse of Edward VIII with Mrs. Simpson - and perhaps even the Duke and Duchess of York!
I think what I'm trying to say is that, despite a few slight misgivings, I'm hooked enough to make sure I don't miss any of the remaining episodes and looking forward to seeing how things develop!
I just dipped in to this and was amazed at the music, far too intrusive. Scenes that properly would contain no music had the full-on orchestra going at it and too loud as well.
It was far too loud. The absence of background music in the original was part of what made it seem so realistic.
According to the official 'Upstairs Downstairs' website, the exterior shots of 165 Eaton Place were filmed near Birmingham and not at Eaton Place at all! Why?
I thought it was wonderful, Lady Holland stole the show with her one-liners, It was interesting that the house was sold to Lord Holland but never used. Did love how Rose got Lady Agnes fish and chips in secret, was it really that bad for someone of her position to be eating that food?
Although the series is only set six years after the original, it would have been interesting to see what the house was like in 1965 , I imagine it would have been turned into flats.
Not usually into period drama, but I've just given this a watch on iPlayer, and found myself quite enjoying it - in a gentle, unchallenging sort of way. A solid mixture of well-played characters, a few charming stories, clever interaction with historical events and immaculate production values. There's clearly been little expense or effort spared in the filming and I think it shows in the end product. I didn't expect to find myself intrigued by it at all, but I think I'll be back tomorrow now.
I thought it was wonderful, Lady Holland stole the show with her one-liners, It was interesting that the house was sold to Lord Holland but never used. Did love how Rose got Lady Agnes fish and chips in secret, was it really that bad for someone of her position to be eating that food?
Definitely : fish and chips would be seen as food for the working classes and something no self respecting toff would be caught dead eating.It would be like seeing the Queen eating a Big Mac and washing it down with a can of lager
Definitely : fish and chips would be seen as food for the working classes and something no self respecting toff would be caught dead eating.It would be like seeing the Queen eating a Big Mac and washing it down with a can of lager
That is an image I'd like to see But I imagine modern aristocrats and royalty would eat that sort of food now.
That is correct - she was ladies maid to Virginia Bellamy (Hannah Gordon) and originally went to work for her when Eaton Place was sold to pay off James Bellamy(Simon Williams) debts. Ruby (Jenny Tomasin) had gone with Hudson(Gordon Jackson) and Mrs Bridges(Angela Baddely)to help them run a guesthouse- she would have inherited the guesthouse. If you look at some of the characters- there are likenesses to previous characters. Ivy resembles Ruby (barring the fingernails and hair lol), Agnes's sister is very close to Georgina (Lesley Anne Down) - basically thoughtless until she is forced to grow up late in the original series. Agnes is a mix of Hazel (Meg Wynn Owen) and Elizabeth(Nicola Pagett)
It's a pity the BBC had to use the original title, because now amateur reviewers will tear it to pieces for not being identical to its 35 year-old predecessor, for not resembling every other similar period drama, for minor social inaccuracies (or just ones part-time social historians have made up), and for "bad scripts", since everyone is an accomplished script editor, set-designer, director and casting agent.
If it hadn't been resurrected the same whiners would have been lamenting the fact that no-one had brought it back.
Better to just remain silent and watch it all first - only three episodes.
According to the official 'Upstairs Downstairs' website, the exterior shots of 165 Eaton Place were filmed near Birmingham and not at Eaton Place at all! Why?
I haven't watched Downton Abbey yet (have the DVD) so am not prejudiced in that way. Thought the new owners compared unfavourably with the Bellemy's. Of the servants Rose, the cook and the butler were good. Pity the producers felt they had to introduce a 'Sarah' character from the start. All the Mrs Simpson stuff was a bit suspect I thought, including the very contrived scene at the party over the tray of drinks. The sets were good.
It's a pity the BBC had to use the original title, because now amateur reviewers will tear it to pieces for not being identical to its 35 year-old predecessor, for not resembling every other similar period drama, for minor social inaccuracies (or just ones part-time social historians have made up), and for "bad scripts", since everyone is an accomplished script editor, set-designer, director and casting agent.
If it hadn't been resurrected the same whiners would have been lamenting the fact that no-one had brought it back.
Better to just remain silent and watch it all first - only three episodes.
This is a curious set of arguments - surely everyone on here is an amateur reviewer, that is the point of these forums? My criticisms were based on viewing this production as a stand alone - I have never seen the original version, despite being old enough.
The people of Leamington Spa will not appreciate being called Birmingham! (It actually has a Coventry postcode). I thought this probgramme was super and I loved the Lady Holland character! But there is no way that Ruby was a flighty tart like the new maid. If anything she was played as a slightly dim character.
I caught the original Updown on its repeats on Channel 4 in the early 80s. I was 9 and adored it. I have them all on DVD.
For those of us who loved the original, I suspect we loved the fact that so much of the episode was centred around Rose. I thought Jean Marsh was cracking. And I can see myself enjoying Anne Reid and Adrian Scarborough before long. Upstairs sets seem well recreated but downstairs looked very different.
I wasn't sure about Keeley Hawes but loved everything about Eileen Atkins and her retinue.
This opener didn't grab me quite as much as I had hoped it would but I did enjoy it. I agree with other posters in that while I loved Downton eventually, the first episode was very clunky. Downton ripped off a lot of the original Updown - for example the Titanic connection. The next series of Downton will be about WWII just as the whole of Updown's fourth series.
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.
The characters we never saw in DA were indeed those who died on the Titanic: they had a huge impact on the plot in the opening episode, on-screen characters spent ages talking about them - yet we never saw them ... a very strange story-telling choice.
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.
I can only disagree. Mary was by far the most interesting character in DA because she was complex. In the opening episodes, there was very little sympathetic in her behaviour - yet we actually grew to symathise with her predicament. For me, easily the best aspect of DA.
But the emotional heart of the series was her relationship with Matthew - again, emotionally complex and well-written. The Bates/Anna dynamic was stilted and predictable by comparison, consisting of little more than him repeatedly rebuffing her then finally warming to her.
Much, much worse was the crude and predictable characterisation of the 'evil' characters Sarah and Thomas - standing around dressed in black (cliche alert!), smoking (cliche alert!), plotting to bring Bates down, yet without any rationale to their alliance, nor any sign that they were particularly good at their jobs. I think I'm correct in saying that Mary's story was actually linked to something that happened to Julian Fellowes' wife - and that, I suspect, is why he lavished so much attention on it.
And I really disagree that U/D had better writing, it wasn't terrible, but it was just a bit.... 'meh'.
I agree that the U/D writing was not as good as it should have been, and especially with other posters about the pace of the opening half-hour. But opinion of DA is inevitably tainted by the fact that we have seen the whole series, as opposed to just the first episode. Let's see how they compare on Wednesday. And bear in mind also just how many elements DA stole from the original U/D ... :rolleyes:;)
Comments
That is correct - she was ladies maid to Virginia Bellamy (Hannah Gordon) and originally went to work for her when Eaton Place was sold to pay off James Bellamy(Simon Williams) debts. Ruby (Jenny Tomasin) had gone with Hudson(Gordon Jackson) and Mrs Bridges(Angela Baddely)to help them run a guesthouse- she would have inherited the guesthouse. If you look at some of the characters- there are likenesses to previous characters. Ivy resembles Ruby (barring the fingernails and hair lol), Agnes's sister is very close to Georgina (Lesley Anne Down) - basically thoughtless until she is forced to grow up late in the original series. Agnes is a mix of Hazel (Meg Wynn Owen) and Elizabeth(Nicola Pagett)
I'm also not exactly a spring chicken and I found the pace fine.
With these type of period dramas I'm always feasting my eyes on the decor and clothing so maybe that helps the time fly past?
I'm sure media students, writers, producers, commissioning, broadcasting etc all ponder that question every now and then.
As far as I'm concerned it aint a soap unless someone says it's on twice a week for the rest of my life.
Rose appeared in 54 of the 68 episodes and the 14 missed were scattered throughout the run, not a continuous period of absence.
I didn't watch as I didn't want the memory of the original harmed and I doubted it would be anything other than a just ok drama anyway.
I suppose that comparisons with 'Downton Abbey' are inevitable, which is sad because DA had the advantage of being set in a country house in a much more opulent age where, possibly because of the scarcity of labour-saving devices, a very large body of servants were necessary to maintain the house, grounds and social life of their employers.
In DA, we actually only got to 'know' the elite of the servant body (apart from Daisy the kitchen maid) - in the opening episode there were maids etc., milling around at their work who were never seen again and presumably frequented the lower servants' hall for meals and social interaction.
Because of the very small population of servants in the newest version of 'Upstairs, Downstairs', it was essential that viewers related to and bonded with them almost instantly, and I'm afraid, with the exception of Jean Marsh herself to a certain degree, Anne Reid as 'Cook' and the young footman, Johnnie, I just didn't.
For me, the butler wasn't quite imposing enough - unlike Hudson and Carson - the kitchen maid (Ivy?) was just annoying, I honestly can't remember whether there was a housemaid or not, and the lack of a lady's maid and valet diminished Sir Hallam and Lady Agnes' prestige.
Even so, first episodes, which have to be focused on scene-setting can often be misleading - I wasn't quite sure that I liked DA on the strength of the first episode - I liked the downstairs staff and the glorious Dowager Countess, but I wasn't at all sure about Ladies Mary and Cora - both of whom I ended up adoring as much as I enjoyed the whole series.
Dame Eileen Atkins' character has great possibilities - once one moves away from wanting a repeat performance of Lady Violet Crawley - they're both strong characters, but where Dame Maggie was waspish and breathtakingly outspoken, Dame Eileen is equally strong-minded and used to getting her own charmingly-eccentric way. And I loved her monkey and her Sikh secretary.
I was pleasantly surprised by Keeley Hawes who was much better than I expected her to be - and I'm already intrigued by the hints at the politics of the war to come and how they affected 'Society'.
I'm also wondering if we might catch a glimpse of Edward VIII with Mrs. Simpson - and perhaps even the Duke and Duchess of York!
I think what I'm trying to say is that, despite a few slight misgivings, I'm hooked enough to make sure I don't miss any of the remaining episodes and looking forward to seeing how things develop!
I thought it was terrible...servants' stories the worst and the loud 'background' music was OTT.
The BBC has made a dogs dinner of the new Upstairs Downstairs.
The only good bit was that the character of Rose was the way she was in the first series, but older, of course.
It was far too loud. The absence of background music in the original was part of what made it seem so realistic.
No wonder it didn't look quite right.
Although the series is only set six years after the original, it would have been interesting to see what the house was like in 1965 , I imagine it would have been turned into flats.
Loved the new series last night; have just bought the original complete boxed set too ...superb:D
Definitely : fish and chips would be seen as food for the working classes and something no self respecting toff would be caught dead eating.It would be like seeing the Queen eating a Big Mac and washing it down with a can of lager
That is an image I'd like to see
Not a lot of people know that.
Her behaviour reminded me very much of Sarah.
If it hadn't been resurrected the same whiners would have been lamenting the fact that no-one had brought it back.
Better to just remain silent and watch it all first - only three episodes.
If Leamington Spa is near Birmingham.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/coventry/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_8995000/8995336.stm
This is a curious set of arguments - surely everyone on here is an amateur reviewer, that is the point of these forums? My criticisms were based on viewing this production as a stand alone - I have never seen the original version, despite being old enough.
The people of Leamington Spa will not appreciate being called Birmingham! (It actually has a Coventry postcode). I thought this probgramme was super and I loved the Lady Holland character! But there is no way that Ruby was a flighty tart like the new maid. If anything she was played as a slightly dim character.
For those of us who loved the original, I suspect we loved the fact that so much of the episode was centred around Rose. I thought Jean Marsh was cracking. And I can see myself enjoying Anne Reid and Adrian Scarborough before long. Upstairs sets seem well recreated but downstairs looked very different.
I wasn't sure about Keeley Hawes but loved everything about Eileen Atkins and her retinue.
This opener didn't grab me quite as much as I had hoped it would but I did enjoy it. I agree with other posters in that while I loved Downton eventually, the first episode was very clunky. Downton ripped off a lot of the original Updown - for example the Titanic connection. The next series of Downton will be about WWII just as the whole of Updown's fourth series.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the maid turned out to be Thomas and Sarah's daughter
The characters we never saw in DA were indeed those who died on the Titanic: they had a huge impact on the plot in the opening episode, on-screen characters spent ages talking about them - yet we never saw them ... a very strange story-telling choice.
I can only disagree. Mary was by far the most interesting character in DA because she was complex. In the opening episodes, there was very little sympathetic in her behaviour - yet we actually grew to symathise with her predicament. For me, easily the best aspect of DA.
But the emotional heart of the series was her relationship with Matthew - again, emotionally complex and well-written. The Bates/Anna dynamic was stilted and predictable by comparison, consisting of little more than him repeatedly rebuffing her then finally warming to her.
Much, much worse was the crude and predictable characterisation of the 'evil' characters Sarah and Thomas - standing around dressed in black (cliche alert!), smoking (cliche alert!), plotting to bring Bates down, yet without any rationale to their alliance, nor any sign that they were particularly good at their jobs. I think I'm correct in saying that Mary's story was actually linked to something that happened to Julian Fellowes' wife - and that, I suspect, is why he lavished so much attention on it.
I agree that the U/D writing was not as good as it should have been, and especially with other posters about the pace of the opening half-hour. But opinion of DA is inevitably tainted by the fact that we have seen the whole series, as opposed to just the first episode. Let's see how they compare on Wednesday. And bear in mind also just how many elements DA stole from the original U/D ... :rolleyes:;)