Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Crown - Netflix  (Read 48003 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Margaret

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1430

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4106





Ignore
« Reply #210 on: November 16, 2020, 10:59:29 PM »

At the moment my main feeling about the season is disappointment, and I'm questioning whether there was any value in making the show at all.  What was it intended to achieve?  'The Queen' worked because it dealt in detail with a particular set of known events which occurred over a few days, and though we can never be sure what was said between the royals in private in that time, there is nothing much depicted there that was really surprising.  But this show covers decades and just addresses certain things that happened in that time, and in some cases not very well, IMO.  The parts I most enjoyed were the external events that touched on the lives of the royals and seeing what was happening in the life of the royal family in historical context.  But much has been left out, and so much of what has been shown is fiction.  The show is neither fish nor fowl.  I did enjoy certain parts of it, but I cannot be sure that the events that pleased me actually occurred, or occurred in the way they were shown.   Overall I think the BRF has been depicted as a bunch of dysfunctional, arrogant yet very average people who have iced water flowing through their brains and who all need to spend a lot of time in therapy.  This accords with what I have long thought about the BRF anyway, so no surprises there.

And I might be the one person on earth who does not think Emma Corrin was a great choice for Diana.  I felt sorry for the character but also very frustrated with her.  On reflection, that might have been intentional, and actually might be an indication the choice was a success, because I felt that way about the real Diana, too.  I am looking forward to seeing how Elizabeth Debicki handles the role.  
Logged
Duchess of Verona

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1029

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3364





Ignore
« Reply #211 on: November 16, 2020, 11:42:55 PM »

I have watched the first two episodes. I must say, I think Emma Corrinís portrayal of Diana is one of the best Iíve seen. She manages to capture her mannerisms etc without descending into caricature, which is no mean feat. I am quite excited for the rest of the season.
I thought so too. And she has that same bloom of  cheek color naturally that Diana had https://www.google.com/se...1280#imgrc=b4Uhi_LCudIEHM. I didn't think she was great casting when they first announced it, but she's as good at Diana as Claire Foy was at QEII.
Logged
periwinkle

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1118

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3750





Ignore
« Reply #212 on: November 16, 2020, 11:59:17 PM »

We watched the first episode only trying to space it out like Halloween candy which mean this will go on for only three more nights probably lol. I think Emma captures Diana's mannerisms but without her charisma. That is the extra character in any story of Diana it was almost outside of her and she was alternatively oblivious to it and engaged with it if that makes sense. The Charles character needs to start moving from moping privileged guy in Season 3 to a charming man. Some of Charles's charm came with maturity and some of it was already there by the time he met Diana. I saw an analysis of their engagement interview that said they were already not on the same page with each other in terms of their feelings. I disagree I think they were more in sync going to give this the right effort and quite smitten with each other but they just had very different personalities and Charles's coldness was to me just the royal instinct to not be too mushy or sentimental. I mean we are talking about an era when Diana needed to be a virgin for goodness sake.

I read somewhere that the producers or writers intentionally didn't add some of those momentous things like the strapless dress and the dancing with Travolta because the genius of the show is that they edit and focus on just a few things. In other words it is tv at the end of the day and they are selling a product.
Logged
Margaret

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1430

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4106





Ignore
« Reply #213 on: November 17, 2020, 01:11:44 AM »

I just realised that Season 4 ends at Christmas 1989.  Though we cannot know what happened on that occasion with the rest of the family, we do know how Diana felt because the Squidgygate transcript records a conversation she had with James Gilbey on New Year's Eve 1989.  It makes an interesting read after watching the end of the season.  Smiley

ETA, Periwinkle, I fully agree about Emma's portrayal of Diana's mannerisms without the charisma.  That charisma was an essential element: an elusive and ethereal quality that elevated her appeal way above the combined effect of her physical qualities.
Logged
ralf103

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1124

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2502





Ignore
« Reply #214 on: November 17, 2020, 01:14:21 AM »

The problem IMO is that they try and cram so much into so little, which to me is the opposite of season 3 where there was so much IMO relatively boring political stuff covered in the same time as Charles meeting Di, them marrying and being happy, having two children, drifting apart, having affairs, the War of the Wales all in less than 10 episodes (the story line isn't mentioned in some episodes). No wonder they miss out Anne's family almost completely bar the odd mention of them having troubles, don't show more than a glance of Fergie. IMO they should have spaced these storylines out over the two series and then could have included more e.g. Anne's kidnap attempt, the birth of the Queen's first grandchild etc.

What gets me is how they airbrush out most of the Queen's children and their issues (bar almost obligatory mentions to make it clear they haven't forgotten they exist) but can include Margaret in detail.

I want to love it, I'm just not there...yet/ever
Logged
Lady Willoughby

Warned
Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1471

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4301


Circa Regna Tonat




Ignore
« Reply #215 on: November 17, 2020, 01:24:35 AM »

At the moment my main feeling about the season is disappointment, and I'm questioning whether there was any value in making the show at all.  What was it intended to achieve?  'The Queen' worked because it dealt in detail with a particular set of known events which occurred over a few days, and though we can never be sure what was said between the royals in private in that time, there is nothing much depicted there that was really surprising.  But this show covers decades and just addresses certain things that happened in that time, and in some cases not very well, IMO.  The parts I most enjoyed were the external events that touched on the lives of the royals and seeing what was happening in the life of the royal family in historical context.  But much has been left out, and so much of what has been shown is fiction.  The show is neither fish nor fowl.  I did enjoy certain parts of it, but I cannot be sure that the events that pleased me actually occurred, or occurred in the way they were shown.   Overall I think the BRF has been depicted as a bunch of dysfunctional, arrogant yet very average people who have iced water flowing through their brains and who all need to spend a lot of time in therapy.  This accords with what I have long thought about the BRF anyway, so no surprises there.

And I might be the one person on earth who does not think Emma Corrin was a great choice for Diana.  I felt sorry for the character but also very frustrated with her.  On reflection, that might have been intentional, and actually might be an indication the choice was a success, because I felt that way about the real Diana, too.  I am looking forward to seeing how Elizabeth Debicki handles the role.  

Iím looking forward to seeing what ED brings acting wise to the role, she physically looks like the perfect age progression of Diana in this series, from what Iíve seen.
Logged

Snow Queen

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1394

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 6557





Ignore
« Reply #216 on: November 17, 2020, 04:50:49 AM »

Iím in the middle of episode 4 now and itís not too bad. I expected it to be better from the reviews but I will stick it out. I think Emma does a good job as Diana but I loathe the actor who portrays Charles. I am more familiar with the older version of Charles and he doesnít seem like the slouchy glum sourpuss thatís on the screen. Itís superficial but I canít stand the actors slouching and his expressions. He makes Charles very unlikeable which maybe he was back then? I really wish they hadnít glossed over Anne so much. I wanted to see more of her life story played out but I guess thatís not the big draw.
Logged
Molly2101

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 547

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2837





Ignore
« Reply #217 on: November 17, 2020, 07:19:36 AM »

The problem IMO is that they try and cram so much into so little, which to me is the opposite of season 3 where there was so much IMO relatively boring political stuff covered in the same time as Charles meeting Di, them marrying and being happy, having two children, drifting apart, having affairs, the War of the Wales all in less than 10 episodes (the story line isn't mentioned in some episodes). No wonder they miss out Anne's family almost completely bar the odd mention of them having troubles, don't show more than a glance of Fergie. IMO they should have spaced these storylines out over the two series and then could have included more e.g. Anne's kidnap attempt, the birth of the Queen's first grandchild etc.

What gets me is how they airbrush out most of the Queen's children and their issues (bar almost obligatory mentions to make it clear they haven't forgotten they exist) but can include Margaret in detail.

I want to love it, I'm just not there...yet/ever

I agree - they gloss over so many other story lines to focus on the ones about Charles. Anne is such a complex person yet they didnít even mention her wedding in the last season and I had even forgotten Fergie was in Season 4 as she is shown all of 3 times. I imagine Fergie will get mentioned more next time due to Season 5 featuring 1992 aka the year of the marriage break ups. Itís likely what will happen to Sophie - she and Edward might get a mention next season but itíll be more focused on the Walesí divorce, the infamous panorama interview and then her death. Other important moments in the 90ís (and  Iím including Anneís second wedding in this) probably wonít get a mention.

I havenít hated this season as itís still an interesting watch regardless of how factual or non factual it is. At the end of the day itís a tv show - itís not a biography of the Queen. They have the artistic license to add extra drama.
Logged

"All my heart is yours, sir: it belongs to you; and with you it would remain, were fate to exile the rest of me from your presence forever." Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte.
emtishell

Large Member
******

Reputation: 488

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1584





Ignore
« Reply #218 on: November 17, 2020, 11:48:59 AM »

My two biggest gripes;

As others have said, why recreate the whole wedding dress for such a fleeting glance? Plus they made out she spent the night before the wedding all alone, but she didnít, she watched the fireworks with her sisters.

Also, I remember every moment of that Australian tour, it was my PEAK Diana obsession! She did not look so miserable when she arrived! It was also bright and sunny when they arrived in Alice Springs, and William wasnít grumpy. She also wore the fuchia pink ensemble in Perth (where I saw her), not in Brisbane. Again, why bother recreating outfits if you donít get the setting right?

Oh, one more - the dancing was cringeworthy! Diana was a much better dancer than that!
Logged
PollyAnna

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 16

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 16





Ignore
« Reply #219 on: November 17, 2020, 03:23:31 PM »

Having finished the latest season I agree with the posters here regarding the series.  But one of the most troubling parts for me was when the Prime Minister went to Balmoral. I truly hope that guests were not treated in such a callous and condescending manner. I was truly appalled to think anyone would treat guests in their home so rudely.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1212

Offline Offline

Posts: 4591





Ignore
« Reply #220 on: November 17, 2020, 03:34:13 PM »

Granted this is the DailyFail but theyíve done an interesting article.

https://www.dailymail.co....ersion-royal-history.html
Logged
katymc2

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 44

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 109





Ignore
« Reply #221 on: November 17, 2020, 03:53:36 PM »

Granted this is the DailyFail but theyíve done an interesting article.

https://www.dailymail.co....ersion-royal-history.html

And another one https://www.dailymail.co....-blasts-scenes-Crown.html

I started watching last night and not hooked yet. In some ways, its all fairly recent so is still fresh in the memory. The only problem is that lots of people will probably take it as gospel and not research whether its true or not. Whilst it might artistic licence, I wonder how it affects peopleís opinions of the Royal Family.
Logged
Margaret

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1430

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4106





Ignore
« Reply #222 on: November 18, 2020, 02:07:54 AM »

I am more and more unsettled about 'The Crown'.  It is dredging up unhappy memories for a lot of people who are still alive and I think that in many ways the show is just plain cruel.  On the one hand it tries to portray the real characters so well that viewers think they are watching the truth, yet it plainly contains a lot of pure fiction, and a new generation of people too young to remember the 80s will believe what they are seeing, and I don't think that is fair.  Not to Charles, not to William and Harry, not to Camilla, and not to the Queen or Philip.  Those whose lives are depicted in the show have some major faults and made some big mistakes and errors of judgment, but is it fair to remind the world about those things now and make their transgressions see even more egregious than they actually were?  Need they suffer for the rest of their lives over what they did 25 years ago? What happened in respect of Charles & Diana's engagement and marriage happened for a multitude of reasons, many specific to the particular time in which the events unfolded, and in all likelihood would not have happened - at least not in the same way - now.  It's one thing to be a republican and not care for the royals, but another thing to be cruel, which I think the show is being. That's how I feel today, anyway.  My views about it seem to be changing from day to day though.
Logged
Aubiette

Large Member
******

Reputation: 410

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1539





Ignore
« Reply #223 on: November 18, 2020, 02:19:27 AM »

Iím through episode 5 now and Iíll go against the grain and say I cannot tolerate the Thatcher stuff. So cringey and frankly I donít care about her and all of that. I also donít see why we had to waste an entire episode on the intruder. I wanted this to be solely focused on the family and instead weíre  skipping weddings, births, courtships, etc in favor of intruders, Thatcher (cringeeeee),  stags, etc. Disappointing so far.
Logged
Gemsheal

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 393

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 952


Classic stink eye




Ignore
« Reply #224 on: November 18, 2020, 04:47:55 AM »

Iím through episode 5 now and Iíll go against the grain and say I cannot tolerate the Thatcher stuff. So cringey and frankly I donít care about her and all of that. I also donít see why we had to waste an entire episode on the intruder. I wanted this to be solely focused on the family and instead weíre  skipping weddings, births, courtships, etc in favor of intruders, Thatcher (cringeeeee),  stags, etc. Disappointing so far.

Oh dear and I am loving Gillian Anderson as Thatcher and I thought the episode with Michael Fagin was one of the best of the season (along with the one about Margaret/hidden Bowes Lyons cousins). 

The show is such complete hash in terms of truth and history but the acting by all the principals has been really good this season.

I can't remember who complained about Charles' whinging but I think that's actually more accurate than not - when he was unhappy, everybody knew it (in his circle).  He wrote a number of letters that have crept into the public arena which give credence to all the complaining he does in the series. 

One thing I don't understand is why the producers chose to portray Diana giving Charles a video of her singing, with a full orchestra, for their anniversary, when I believe in real life she gave him a video of her dancing?  Which would have been truthful and touching.  But in that ep she says:  "I can only express my feelings by performing" (or words to that effect).  None of that made sense to me.  It would have been FAR more effective for them to show C. reacting to D.'s gift awkwardly (not necessarily callously, as they have him do) if it was portrayed as simply, a gift from her heart, which he can't accept because by that time he's back with Camilla.  Sometimes the truth is more effective (and believable) than the fictions they come up with!
Logged

"... luscious woodbine,
With sweet musk roses and with eglantine:
There sleeps Titania sometime of the night,
Lull'd in these flowers with dances and delight."
 
Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: