19,774 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 20, 2022 17:57:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Oct 21, 2022 16:24:09 GMT
After a bit of push-back and the arts reporter on the BBC insisting that everyone knew it was a drama and therefore fabricated, it seems Netflix have added a disclaimer to the description of the new trailer, saying it's fictional. I enjoyed the first couple of series, but the closer it got to modern day, and events I could just about remember, the less I enjoyed it. I've always been a bit uncomfortable with dramatised events of real and identifiable people from near recent history, and my discomfort levels were increasing to the point I couldn't enjoy it. I follow a lot of international people on twitter, and it was obvious a lot of them were reacting as if they absolutely believed events happened exactly as played out on screen and were getting angry about it. I know that's not the fault of the writers, and people really ought to be smart enough to realise that some stuff has to be invented, and yet it seems they aren't. I rather suspect Netflix quite enjoyed the controversy and see the debate about accuracy as good promotion. Not least because many of the people who already believe it was true now think that those challenging the accuracy are part of an establishment stitch up.  |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 22, 2022 12:50:04 GMT
I rather enjoyed the historian's letter to The Times saying, well of course The Crown has to be made-up, they won’t let us access the archives for anything relating to Queen Elizabeth and the ape once of Wales! Exempt from all the normal FOI laws.
If The Palace won’t let historians find out what actually happened, then dramatists have free reign to make up whatever they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Oct 22, 2022 13:03:55 GMT
I rather enjoyed the historian's letter to The Times saying, well of course The Crown has to be made-up, they won’t let us access the archives for anything relating to Queen Elizabeth and the ape once of Wales! Exempt from all the normal FOI laws. If The Palace won’t let historians find out what actually happened, then dramatists have free reign to make up whatever they want. Perhaps so, a simple disclaimer at the start of each episode would clear this whole matter up. Tell whatever story you like, just make it clear it is the fiction it is. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 22, 2022 14:56:59 GMT
I rather enjoyed the historian's letter to The Times saying, well of course The Crown has to be made-up, they won’t let us access the archives for anything relating to Queen Elizabeth and the ape once of Wales! Exempt from all the normal FOI laws. If The Palace won’t let historians find out what actually happened, then dramatists have free reign to make up whatever they want. Perhaps so, a simple disclaimer at the start of each episode would clear this whole matter up. Tell whatever story you like, just make it clear it is the fiction it is. Do people really know it is not fiction? Wow. I'm late to the Crown party but I do like it very much. Great British acting talent being used at it's finest. Is Judy Dench going to be on board if the warning was said at the start anyway? You just take it for what it is don't you? A good piece of drama |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Oct 22, 2022 15:03:07 GMT
Perhaps so, a simple disclaimer at the start of each episode would clear this whole matter up. Tell whatever story you like, just make it clear it is the fiction it is. Do people really know it is not fiction? Wow. I'm late to the Crown party but I do like it very much. Great British acting talent being used at it's finest. Is Judy Dench going to be on board if the warning was said at the start anyway? You just take it for what it is don't you? A good piece of drama An awful lot of people think it is based on real events, yes. This is the problem many, including myself, have. Wholly invented very dramatic and serious scenes which never took place. Just say it’s fiction at the start, and job’s a goodun. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 22, 2022 16:09:49 GMT
Well, it *is* based on real events. But it’s also made up. That’s what a ‘dramatisation’ is.
It’s not like Charles *didn’t* have an affair with Camilla!
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Oct 22, 2022 16:15:00 GMT
Well, it *is* based on real events. But it’s also made up. That’s what a ‘dramatisation’ is. It’s not like Charles *didn’t* have an affair with Camilla! And yet whole, very serious, scenes are made up completely. It’s a fun show but it’s like gleaning all your news from The Onion. |
|
5,156 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 22, 2022 16:46:02 GMT
I don't glean all my news from The Onion. Most of it is gleaned from The Rochdale Herald, which spells words properly. 🙂
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Oct 22, 2022 16:54:07 GMT
I don't glean all my news from The Onion. Most of it is gleaned from The Rochdale Herald, which spells words properly. 🙂 You’ve lost me there, junior. |
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Oct 22, 2022 17:04:00 GMT
"The Great" gets around the fiction/history issue by adding "a sometimes true story" below the title in the opening credits.
|
|
19,774 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 22, 2022 17:45:55 GMT
I suspect it’s broadly closer to the truth than it is fictional. Remember Andrew Morton’s book was dismissed as speculation until it was proved to be based on interviews with Diana herself. The people making these shows aren’t stupid, don’t want to be ridiculed and will have access to (be paying for) the absolute best of the insider information. Yes, we can dismiss details of specific conversations that were never heard by anyone else (like private interactions between QE2 and Thatcher) but they have to create these to move the story on. I’m happy to believe the general direction of the story though.
In the official trailer the actor playing Diana has her stance/body language down to a T. First class wigs too!
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 22, 2022 18:05:11 GMT
That’s Elizabeth Debicki. She was in The Red Barn at The National Back in 2017.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 22, 2022 18:11:34 GMT
"The Great" gets around the fiction/history issue by adding "a sometimes true story" below the title in the opening credits. Oh, The Great is much more fictional, especially in S2. Peter was killed just 8 days after the coup. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Oct 23, 2022 17:54:09 GMT
Oh I got Anne and Margaret mixed up. Ignore moi.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Nov 9, 2022 12:05:12 GMT
Knock out start to the new series, great to have it back.
Johnny Lee Miller is very good. Of few words spoken but a face of a thousand words
|
|
1,484 posts
|
Post by theatrefan62 on Nov 9, 2022 12:41:45 GMT
Four episodes in and i have the opposite opinion to be honest. Weakest season so far. It's quite disjointed, slow, but yet rushed. The fall out of episode 2 doesnt seem to have materialised which seems odd as characters just appear to accept what happened. Yet again it's all on Charles and Diana, when fergie and Andrew were also a big story at the time but they are again minor characters with whole plots just explained in one conversation.
The new cast are mostly excellent however, particularly Imelda as Queen Elizabeth. Although the queen mother yet again isn't right and princess Anne doesn't quite have the forceful presence of the last two seasons.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Nov 9, 2022 13:32:13 GMT
Four episodes in and i have the opposite opinion to be honest. Weakest season so far. It's quite disjointed, slow, but yet rushed. The fall out of episode 2 doesnt seem to have materialised which seems odd as characters just appear to accept what happened. Yet again it's all on Charles and Diana, when fergie and Andrew were also a big story at the time but they are again minor characters with whole plots just explained in one conversation. The new cast are mostly excellent however, particularly Imelda as Queen Elizabeth. Although the queen mother yet again isn't right and princess Anne doesn't quite have the forceful presence of the last two seasons. Oooh can't wait for episode two. Yeah I thought the same about Anne and the Queen mum. As well as Johnny Lee Miller and Imelda Staunton's performances I enjoyed Elizabeth Dubicki's princess Di |
|
8,152 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Nov 9, 2022 16:40:59 GMT
Just started the new series. Although Imelda Staunton doesn't really look like The Queen she really does sound like her. If you close your eyes you would think it was her.
|
|
1,484 posts
|
Post by theatrefan62 on Nov 9, 2022 17:39:08 GMT
Just started the new series. Although Imelda Staunton doesn't really look like The Queen she really does sound like her. If you close your eyes you would think it was her. Interesting as I thought she really does look like her at times, especially certain looks and mannerisms. Possibly more so than the previous two actresses |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 9, 2022 17:46:17 GMT
I haven’t started watching yet but of course I will binge it. The thing about truth in historical drama was dealt with by Shakespeare who set the rules. I dare say not all of the contemporary audience knew who the antagonists in the History plays were or whether Henry IV spoke to his son as portrayed but o boy is it dramatic. And of course Richard III will never recover, car park notwithstanding, from the portrayal Shakespeare has embedded in us. And Shakespeare knew which side his bread was buttered on, that being the change. Now, we are not concerned with what our Monarchy thinks because they have no power. The writers are concerned about ratings, the demographics of the audience and money. ( Willie was concerned about money too but not maybe US advertising contracts ) If tv as a medium survives, then The Crown will be what many, many people know is the truth about the British Royal Family for the rest of time. We have to accept that. If tv survives then there will be documentaries correcting the views and portrayals in the series. May our grandchildren enjoy them. For now, people can squeal as much as they like, it is what it is.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 9, 2022 22:44:25 GMT
The reviews I’ve read so far suggest that it’s rather sympathetic to The Royals overall - although you can never can tell how much the political leanings of the reviewers are influencing their perspective on that.
As we know from Shakespeare (and I think James Graham’s work is a more recent example), really great writing and really great acting can make a character appealing even when they are doing objectively bad things.
That tends to rub off on the real person.
|
|
|
|
Post by sukhavati on Nov 10, 2022 8:25:24 GMT
I just finished binging the whole thing. I agree that Imelda Staunton has HM's voice down cold. Elizabeth Dubiki had Diana's Sloan Ranger drawl, along with her mannerisms down to a tee. Being long and lanky, there were times it was hard to tell it wasn't the real Princess - kind of uncanny. I know the red tops were screaming bloody murder claiming that telly Charles was plotting to make the Queen abdicate. Didn't come off like that to me. It was more sympathetic to Charles, Camilla, and William than I expected. The scene where young William had to show Granny how to use the remote for the new satellite service was so familiar and so funny. To be honest, I was watching for Timothy Dalton. Sad he was only in a single episode - I've been following his career since the early 80s. His scenes with Leslie Manville were lovely. I will also admit to fast forwarding through most of the Diana/Bashir stuff since I obviously lived through those years and anyone who was around for the original Panarama interview saw endless replays of segments on the news in those days. Bored of it now. I think they easily could have kept Tobias Menzies and Olivia Coleman for this series, because Staunton and Jonathan Pryce both looked at least ten to 15 years older than the royals were meant to be, IMO. I felt as if Pryce made a good elderly Philip, but Philip was not quite in his dotage in the 90s. I enjoyed seeing flashbacks with actors from the first couple of series, but I feel as if the writing isn't as good as it was originally. I also find myself mentally differentiating between my memories of what really happened and the show version. Am I the only one wondering why Michael Sheen wasn't called - I'm so used to him being Blair in the Morgan-verse.
|
|
1,484 posts
|
Post by theatrefan62 on Nov 10, 2022 14:26:42 GMT
I've binged it and overall pretty disappointing. For a time with so much good stuff to draw on its just boring and flat.
I did like that they gave the prince's trust some attention, as Charles has done some good and isn't just a villain. Also pleased to see some focus on William and how difficult he had it at that time. Recently you'd think they only had one sin
Also it may as be renamed 'the crown- Charles and diana', no Andrew and fergie, no Anne (except briefly mentioned in conversations)
Cast strong on the whole but it's the writing that let it down for me. It's fallen far from the highs of seasons 1 and 2.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 10, 2022 16:57:02 GMT
I just finished binging the whole thing. I agree that Imelda Staunton has HM's voice down cold. Elizabeth Dubiki had Diana's Sloan Ranger drawl, along with her mannerisms down to a tee. Being long and lanky, there were times it was hard to tell it wasn't the real Princess - kind of uncanny. I know the red tops were screaming bloody murder claiming that telly Charles was plotting to make the Queen abdicate. Didn't come off like that to me. It was more sympathetic to Charles, Camilla, and William than I expected. The scene where young William had to show Granny how to use the remote for the new satellite service was so familiar and so funny. To be honest, I was watching for Timothy Dalton. Sad he was only in a single episode - I've been following his career since the early 80s. His scenes with Leslie Manville were lovely. I will also admit to fast forwarding through most of the Diana/Bashir stuff since I obviously lived through those years and anyone who was around for the original Panarama interview saw endless replays of segments on the news in those days. Bored of it now. I think they easily could have kept Tobias Menzies and Olivia Coleman for this series, because Staunton and Jonathan Pryce both looked at least ten to 15 years older than the royals were meant to be, IMO. I felt as if Pryce made a good elderly Philip, but Philip was not quite in his dotage in the 90s. I enjoyed seeing flashbacks with actors from the first couple of series, but I feel as if the writing isn't as good as it was originally. I also find myself mentally differentiating between my memories of what really happened and the show version. Am I the only one wondering why Michael Sheen wasn't called - I'm so used to him being Blair in the Morgan-verse. Haven’t watched yet but this is interesting. Having seen the original , as it were, debacle as it happened I wonder if a drama would be more effective for me if it were the off stage situations a la Stoppard’s R&D Are Dead and some of James Graham etc. |
|
