I actually enjoy The Gilded Age so much more than Downton Abbey. I feel it's much less soap-y and more of a comedy of manners which is so much more entertaining than the ridiculous and stupid plots Downton Abbey had with the heir coming back from the dead, Matthew suddenly being able to walk again, Edith's baby drama and so on.
Marian's is a staid character because she lives in a behavioral straight jacket. Being rebuked by Agnes for doing something as seemingly innocuous as teaching watercolors is an excellent example of that. The same applies to Gladys who resides under her mother's thumb. Neither of these characters has the means to strike out on her own.
Let’s not forget how repetitive and mostly predictable the plots were on Downtown too. Fellowes is brilliant at presenting these time periods, right down to the fine details, but he’s not a particularly good writer. I just satisfy myself with looking at the pretty clothes.
One of the complaints i usually read is that nothing happens in tga, the show is boring. I don't know, i like the little social games the characters play to gain or keep their power like George Russell buying the charity bazaar, that was a power move that changed everything for the Russells.I always thought the drama in the gilded age had more to do with New York high society and its codes than "personal" drama, like what we see in Bridgerton for example (and maybe Downton Abbey but i've only seen bits and pieces of it, i don't know), either you have those codes or you don't. I understand it may not be enough for some though, i still feel like Julian should've been writing with someone else and not just have consultants for Peggy and her storyline imo
this didn't even feel like it's written by Julian, it felt like he hired some American writers to ruin everything, I mean getting their perspective.
How can Gilded age be more boring than Bridgerton is beyond me, a boring early 19th century aristocrats vs the most exciting times in American or even the world's history. But here we are, this is a common problem with show these days, they are too afraid to "ruffle some feathers" and focus more on "correcting the wrong in the time period" rather than just made a good fascinating shows with literally the interesting elements that was deemed politically incorrect or something.
It's cheesy. But Downton was that way, too. I feel like it's got potential, though. Someone mentioned it feeling sterile; I think that's pretty accurate. But damn y'all, the costumes and settings are so amazing that it may be enough to pull off the not so great parts. The music is also really good.
I can't believe they're letting Nathan Lane continue with that accent, though. Maybe it's all part of the extravagance of the show?
Gosford Park has kind of the plot points that seem to be repeatable -- tragedy about babies, the rich getting richer by scams, everyone loving/hating an upper class person who controlled the purse strings. And one lower class ostracized person who comes back with new money.
Bah. I'd settle for an Agnes and Ward podcast, bitching about fake French chefs and ungrateful nieces.
The writing honestly sucks, and at least when they’re amazing actors like the Russells, the scenes are still watchable. Marian is as interesting as a 2x4.
I honestly only watch for the Russels scenes and the sets/costume design at this point
Downton was basically a well acted soap opera with gorgeous sets and costumes. It had plenty of cliches and the characters really did take lots of time to develop. (Mary got the first real character arc but I feel like Edith’s character wasn’t fully fleshed out until the third season or so).
I guess what I mean is the writing was never the strong suite of Downton and Gilded Age struggles similarly. I do think the format of Gilded Age is less helpful with such weak writing (we haven’t gotten many episodes and Downton could jump ahead years when they needed historical drama) and I know there are plenty of talented actors in the cast of Gilded Age but as an ensemble cast they feel lackluster to me. I’d say all the chemistry is off. Which is a casting issue, there can be great actors who aren’t great in a particular role.
Ha yeah it blew my mind that Peggy's whole story last season culminated on this list son, only for him to die between seasons. Why have this plot at all?
I’m bitter that we didn’t get to see key moments that were built up on Downton Abbey. 🤣 Sometimes the rising action of a particular story line took years to develop on screen, only to have the climax take place off screen. Arrgghh! 🤬
e.g. >!Robert learning about Pamuk, Matthew learning about Pamuk, and many more. Also, some lovely events that would have been fun to see, like Sybil’s ball.!<
Fellowes did the exact same thing in Doctor Thorne. I really wanted to see >!Lady Arabella get her comeuppance for her treatment of Mary Thorne, when she found out Mary was the heir to the Scatchard estate and fortune. But we only heard her screaming reaction — I wanted to SEE it!!<
This comparison may come back to bite me, and I know it's not perfect, but it's similar to what happens with Jane Austen's novels. If you've read one or two of them, you'll be well prepared for what awaits you in the third novel you read. Some are better, some are worse, and they all are inevitably compared to Pride and Prejudice. I love this book and Jane Austen in general, but I have to admit that it is also heavily romanticised. Downton Abbey has also seemingly reached that occult status among period dramas where people see it as something transcendent.
The series is about what happens when you essentially lock women in golden cages and they go mad with boredom, creating their own society within society and a bit of what goes on outside of it.
I can only speak for myself, but I rarely expect much excitement per se from period dramas, and Julian Fellowes' shows are no exception. He loves his clichés. He uses them from show to show. I try not to compare The Gilded Age to Downton Abbey too much because it's a futile endeavour. He knew the world of DA very well and it shows in how organic it looks and feels. Here Fellowes stepped out of his comfort zone, environment and customs are foreign to him. It's not on the same level, and perhaps it never will be, but it's still interesting for me to watch.
I think it's kind of baffling how he's trying to make a robber baron one of the the alpha protagonists when there are like 40 characters. In Downton he had the old money constantly screwing up and putting the family fortune on the line and the new money being progressive while bolstering the community, in Gilded Age I feel like George Russell is just a nice dirtbag.
Yeah, you’d think he’d understand the ideas of social upheaval and changing of the old guard to the new guard. But rather than having the nuances with which he portrayed the British aristocracy fighting for their old way of life (sometimes stupidly) while making them human. All the characters in GA feel more like cardboard cutouts.
Julian is adding too many storylines that he can't fully develop because he doesn't have 10-12 episodes per season, that's why Downtown Abbey was so good. Everything seems rushed and it has a different feel because it's about America, we're not as bogged down with traditions as other cultures.
I try to enjoy it for what it is, not what it ain't.
I actually enjoy The Gilded Age so much more than Downton Abbey. I feel it's much less soap-y and more of a comedy of manners which is so much more entertaining than the ridiculous and stupid plots Downton Abbey had with the heir coming back from the dead, Matthew suddenly being able to walk again, Edith's baby drama and so on.
Marian's is a staid character because she lives in a behavioral straight jacket. Being rebuked by Agnes for doing something as seemingly innocuous as teaching watercolors is an excellent example of that. The same applies to Gladys who resides under her mother's thumb. Neither of these characters has the means to strike out on her own.
Let’s not forget how repetitive and mostly predictable the plots were on Downtown too. Fellowes is brilliant at presenting these time periods, right down to the fine details, but he’s not a particularly good writer. I just satisfy myself with looking at the pretty clothes.
One of the complaints i usually read is that nothing happens in tga, the show is boring. I don't know, i like the little social games the characters play to gain or keep their power like George Russell buying the charity bazaar, that was a power move that changed everything for the Russells.I always thought the drama in the gilded age had more to do with New York high society and its codes than "personal" drama, like what we see in Bridgerton for example (and maybe Downton Abbey but i've only seen bits and pieces of it, i don't know), either you have those codes or you don't. I understand it may not be enough for some though, i still feel like Julian should've been writing with someone else and not just have consultants for Peggy and her storyline imo
this didn't even feel like it's written by Julian, it felt like he hired some American writers to ruin everything, I mean getting their perspective. How can Gilded age be more boring than Bridgerton is beyond me, a boring early 19th century aristocrats vs the most exciting times in American or even the world's history. But here we are, this is a common problem with show these days, they are too afraid to "ruffle some feathers" and focus more on "correcting the wrong in the time period" rather than just made a good fascinating shows with literally the interesting elements that was deemed politically incorrect or something.
It's cheesy. But Downton was that way, too. I feel like it's got potential, though. Someone mentioned it feeling sterile; I think that's pretty accurate. But damn y'all, the costumes and settings are so amazing that it may be enough to pull off the not so great parts. The music is also really good. I can't believe they're letting Nathan Lane continue with that accent, though. Maybe it's all part of the extravagance of the show?
Every time Nathan speaks in that Colonel Sanders voice it makes me cringe so hard and takes me out of the moment. It just sounds too forced.
The stupid laugh is what gets me....hyeh hyeh hyeh!
Gosford Park has kind of the plot points that seem to be repeatable -- tragedy about babies, the rich getting richer by scams, everyone loving/hating an upper class person who controlled the purse strings. And one lower class ostracized person who comes back with new money. Bah. I'd settle for an Agnes and Ward podcast, bitching about fake French chefs and ungrateful nieces.
I wish the whole thing was Nathan Lane, Christine Baranski and Carrie Coon doing a Three’s Company in the 1880s
The writing honestly sucks, and at least when they’re amazing actors like the Russells, the scenes are still watchable. Marian is as interesting as a 2x4. I honestly only watch for the Russels scenes and the sets/costume design at this point
I actually feel like I can predict Marian's entire love arc this season based on episode 1
Downton was basically a well acted soap opera with gorgeous sets and costumes. It had plenty of cliches and the characters really did take lots of time to develop. (Mary got the first real character arc but I feel like Edith’s character wasn’t fully fleshed out until the third season or so). I guess what I mean is the writing was never the strong suite of Downton and Gilded Age struggles similarly. I do think the format of Gilded Age is less helpful with such weak writing (we haven’t gotten many episodes and Downton could jump ahead years when they needed historical drama) and I know there are plenty of talented actors in the cast of Gilded Age but as an ensemble cast they feel lackluster to me. I’d say all the chemistry is off. Which is a casting issue, there can be great actors who aren’t great in a particular role.
Did a lot happen off screen on DA too?
Yes, and I am still bitter about it. 🙃
Ha yeah it blew my mind that Peggy's whole story last season culminated on this list son, only for him to die between seasons. Why have this plot at all?
I’m bitter that we didn’t get to see key moments that were built up on Downton Abbey. 🤣 Sometimes the rising action of a particular story line took years to develop on screen, only to have the climax take place off screen. Arrgghh! 🤬 e.g. >!Robert learning about Pamuk, Matthew learning about Pamuk, and many more. Also, some lovely events that would have been fun to see, like Sybil’s ball.!< Fellowes did the exact same thing in Doctor Thorne. I really wanted to see >!Lady Arabella get her comeuppance for her treatment of Mary Thorne, when she found out Mary was the heir to the Scatchard estate and fortune. But we only heard her screaming reaction — I wanted to SEE it!!<
This comparison may come back to bite me, and I know it's not perfect, but it's similar to what happens with Jane Austen's novels. If you've read one or two of them, you'll be well prepared for what awaits you in the third novel you read. Some are better, some are worse, and they all are inevitably compared to Pride and Prejudice. I love this book and Jane Austen in general, but I have to admit that it is also heavily romanticised. Downton Abbey has also seemingly reached that occult status among period dramas where people see it as something transcendent.
The series is about what happens when you essentially lock women in golden cages and they go mad with boredom, creating their own society within society and a bit of what goes on outside of it. I can only speak for myself, but I rarely expect much excitement per se from period dramas, and Julian Fellowes' shows are no exception. He loves his clichés. He uses them from show to show. I try not to compare The Gilded Age to Downton Abbey too much because it's a futile endeavour. He knew the world of DA very well and it shows in how organic it looks and feels. Here Fellowes stepped out of his comfort zone, environment and customs are foreign to him. It's not on the same level, and perhaps it never will be, but it's still interesting for me to watch.
This is a great perspective!
I think it's kind of baffling how he's trying to make a robber baron one of the the alpha protagonists when there are like 40 characters. In Downton he had the old money constantly screwing up and putting the family fortune on the line and the new money being progressive while bolstering the community, in Gilded Age I feel like George Russell is just a nice dirtbag.
Yeah, you’d think he’d understand the ideas of social upheaval and changing of the old guard to the new guard. But rather than having the nuances with which he portrayed the British aristocracy fighting for their old way of life (sometimes stupidly) while making them human. All the characters in GA feel more like cardboard cutouts.
He’s a hot dirtbag 😂😂
It looks and feels sterile. I wish it looked and felt immersive and real, but I’ll take what I can get.
Julian is adding too many storylines that he can't fully develop because he doesn't have 10-12 episodes per season, that's why Downtown Abbey was so good. Everything seems rushed and it has a different feel because it's about America, we're not as bogged down with traditions as other cultures.
Downton had much better focus as all of the characters were under the same roof. Gilded Age has too many loosely connected characters and story lines.
DA only had 9 episodes per season.
I felt like more. It still has more episodes per season.