Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The Crown- Netflix (**Spoilers**)

12357…15

Comments

  • #122
    Heraldoffreeent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭Heraldoffreeent


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Watched the whole season today...... There is no way Charles can ever become King of England after watching it.
    Charles character has not matured if anything it has gotten progressively worse.
    I have always had my doubts about should Charles ever sit on the Throne and should we simply just skip to William.
    Josh O Connor, the actor portrays Charles is brilliant, he is surly he slouches the shoulders and dips the head. There is no sense of responsibility or commitment.

    Gillian Anderson is amazing as Thatcher.

    So When are we due Season 5?



    'We'?


  • #123
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users Posts: 60,279 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Watched the whole season today...... There is no way Charles can ever become King of England after watching it.
    Charles character has not matured if anything it has gotten progressively worse.
    I have always had my doubts about should Charles ever sit on the Throne and should we simply just skip to William.
    Josh O Connor, the actor portrays Charles is brilliant, he is surly he slouches the shoulders and dips the head. There is no sense of responsibility or commitment.

    Gillian Anderson is amazing as Thatcher.

    So When are we due Season 5?


    More than likely sometime in early 2022 filming for season 5 is due to begin in June 2021.


  • #124
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,969 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    nuttyboy79 wrote: »
    Watch out for the mouse in season 4 episode 3 just at the start when they show the Queen Mother ����

    I thought to myself that I saw a mouse cross the floor. Am I wrong in saying that the next shot morphed the mouse into a fly on a mantle piece?

    "We" (my house) have four Episodes left ,so I have skipped through any post here that might give a spoiler/hint of a spoiler(in my mind/fear). Maybe no poster here did any such thing!

    But ,the mouse on the floor / fly on the mantle ......Well, that is not a spoiler ,or a plot line.

    I just found it funny.

    It also seems that there is a kink between both shots.

    I wonder did some of the production staff run for the hills,at the sight of a mouse!?


  • #125
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Gillian Anderson is amazing as Thatcher.
    I'm just up to episode three.

    I think it's really giving a human picture of how it works out. There's no hatchet job on Thatcher, which would be so easy and so popular.

    But I find the way it's shaping with the relationship to the Queen is intriguing. There's no one-sidedness in the story. Here's your loveable old monarch, liking nothing better than getting up to her ankles in mud in Balmoral. And Thatcher, the grocer's daughter who has had to work for everything she's got in life, meeting these folk for the first time and noticing that they're a bunch of toss heads.

    And that contrast between Thatcher just not getting the Balmoral thing at all, but Lady Di taking to it like a duck to water. This is really looking good. Great cast, great script. I think it's actually going to flavour how people look back on the period. I lived through it, and I'm starting to appreciate it in a different way.


  • #126
    neris
    Registered Users Posts: 20,036 ✭✭✭✭neris


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Watched the whole season today...... There is no way Charles can ever become King of England after watching it.
    Charles character has not matured if anything it has gotten progressively worse.
    I have always had my doubts about should Charles ever sit on the Throne and should we simply just skip to William.
    Josh O Connor, the actor portrays Charles is brilliant, he is surly he slouches the shoulders and dips the head. There is no sense of responsibility or commitment.

    Gillian Anderson is amazing as Thatcher.

    So When are we due Season 5?

    You do realise this is a drama not wholly based on facts and accuracy and a bit of artistic license & fiction is used with the characters and that chap in the crown isnt actually charles and he will never be king


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    neris wrote: »
    You do realise this is a drama not wholly based on facts and accuracy and a bit of artistic license & fiction is used with the characters and that chap in the crown isnt actually charles and he will never be king

    I do, I also realise they gloss over other more sinister things more lightly like there is no mention of Saville. There is no mention of the attempt on Margaret Thatchers life and what the Falklands was really about, it wasnt over a few hundred British citizens and sheep. I never believed Charles is as he is portrayed in the media as a happy prince in waiting, I believe his very bitter and twisted personality.


  • #128
    liamtech
    Registered Users Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭liamtech


    A very disappointing season, for a number of reasons
    • General Historical events of the time period completely ignored, cut short, edited out; Huge time jumps occur in this season. The jump from Thatcher in her prime, to being ousted from power - my jaw dropped when i realized they were gonna have her leave office this season. Where was the Berlin Wall? Gorbachev? The Reagan Era? US and International reaction to the Falklands?
    • Specifically, the Troubles - i saw one review describe it as 'Now thats what i call the troubles;Greatest Hits' - which would be accurate were it not for the point that it completely ignored the 'greatest hit of all'- the impact the troubles had on Thatchers premiership - the international backlash against her over the hunger strikes - the fact the IRA, i dunno, tried to BLOW HER UP? - these were not cut down, underplayed, or scaled back, they were OMITTED COMPLETELY. In fact the, perhaps, TEN MINUTES we got concerning the north was only as a result of Mountbatten dying - had he been only injured they probably would have cut that too (shows up with a walking stick, what happened dickie? Dont ask. Ok... etc)
    • The 'Saint Diana' attitude of the season was just boring, and brought back vivid memories of the pageantry surrounding her death. Yes it was tragic, there ye go shes dead, condolences, MTFO. I also feel it was written in a contrived manner to make it all the fault of Charles, the royal family - and leaving Di and her side entirely blameless. Say what you will about her being young etc, but I will never believe she was that Naive. because she wasnt - period

    Defenders will rightly say that the show is about the royal family and its dynasty- but having watched this for years, i dont buy it. This show is about Britain, its monarchy, politics, and culture, evolving through the second half of the 20th century. or at least IT WAS

    IMHO the weakest season so far by a country mile. Season 2 was best, season 1 a close second, with 3 following and 4 at the bottom

    All my opinion and id be interested in hearing what others say

    Sic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants



  • #129
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Watched the first two yesterday. Gillian Anderson is spookily accurate as MT. I sometimes find myself forgetting it’s not the real thing.


  • #130
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Watched the first two yesterday. Gillian Anderson is spookily accurate as MT. I sometimes find myself forgetting it’s not the real thing.


  • #131
    eviltimeban
    Registered Users Posts: 5,087 ✭✭✭eviltimeban


    Am on S4E2, The Balmoral Test. I did skip two seasons and go straight here and am enjoying it hugely.

    As stated, Anderson is stealing the show. The only thing niggling is the real Thatcher's voice wasn't quite so creaky at that age (look up footage of her arriving at number 10 in 1979) but it's a minor quibble. She owns the character.

    Quite funny too! "You didn't bring any outdoor shoes" "...that's right?" :)


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Hqrry113
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭Hqrry113


    expectationlost wrote: »
    for a republican (in the English anti-monarchist sesnse) is this series worth watching?

    I strongly doubt it, even apart from the Irish/English thing the show is just about a bunch of posh snobs born into royalty.

    Season 4 episode 1 is worth watching though, "14 dead but not forgotten we got 18 and mountbatten"


  • #133
    D'Agger
    Registered Users Posts: 13,385 ✭✭✭✭D'Agger


    Amazing portrayals by Anderson, Corrin & O'Connor (once again).

    I get the points about the troubles being somewhat glossed over, and I was waiting for the attempt on Thatchers life to come up, they could've gone with that route rather than the storyline regarding her son doing the rally and going missing for example, however the line is that the stories have to wrap around to the Crown in some way - the moon landing was used to ultimately tell a story about Phillip in season 3, for example, they left out the Kennedy assassination, yet his visit to the palace made the cut - it does seem as though all the main plot lines do need to wrap around to the crown and whilst they could've brought up the hunger strikes and attempt to blow up Thatcher, I think the only place it could have been brought up was the Queens meetings with the PM and we'd be here giving out that they merely mentioned the troubles in passing or didn't give it enough gravitas - ultimately that's too large a topic to try and cover in one episode when they've tried to cover a decade in ten but that's just my take on it.

    All in all, I think the season was good, not great with some excellent performances.

    *Shoutout to the stag being carried in over the back of one horse, then having its head mounted on the wall by about 8 men - how big was the bloody horse!


  • #134
    cml387
    Registered Users Posts: 8,363 ✭✭✭cml387


    Only seen two episodes so far.

    I loved the Thatchers in Balmoral. If anyone read the "Dear Bill" stories in Private Eye you were aware of what was coming. You actually felt a bit sorry for them, dropped into this grotesque circus with the parlour games and the hearty outdoors.

    Funnily enough although Emma Corrin doesn't look that much like the young Diana she seems to channel her in some way that looks right.


  • #135
    eviltimeban
    Registered Users Posts: 5,087 ✭✭✭eviltimeban


    cml387 wrote: »
    Funnily enough although Emma Corrin doesn't look that much like the young Diana she seems to channel her in some way that looks right.

    You reckon? I thought she was identical. The hair, the smile, the eyes; the way she'd tilt her head down and look up...


  • #136
    Relikk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭Relikk


    Her mannerisms are very good, but she doesn't look much like Diana which doesn't really matter as there are a few other notable characters that don't look like their real life counterparts, as it will be in every film or television show. She looks like a mix of Samantha Morton and Melissa Benoist.


  • #137
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,107 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    Relikk wrote: »
    Her mannerisms are very good, but she doesn't look much like Diana which doesn't really matter as there are a few other notable characters that don't look like their real life counterparts, as it will be in every film or television show. She looks like a mix of Samantha Morton and Melissa Benoist.

    She does the 'looking up at you from tilted down head' well, but so does my dog.

    I enjoyed the series as a whole. Highlight for me was the Thatchers in Balmoral.


  • #138
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,437 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Right so on episode four which from the description says the queen try’s to get to know her four kids. I’ll watch it in a while but presumably we see he who shan’t he named ?

    Anyway the three episodes I’ve watched I’ve liked and Emma corrin as Diana and Gillian Anderson as Margaret thatcher are the stand outs, although at times it sounds like thatcher was smoking 40 a day. I know thatcher had a distinctive voice and way of speaking but this seems at times over the top. But that could be me. Also, I had a look at the episode titles and I see one is named fagan which is a famous name due to an incident that happened at the palace so I’ll be interested to see how they deal with that.


  • #139
    eviltimeban
    Registered Users Posts: 5,087 ✭✭✭eviltimeban


    Relikk wrote: »
    Her mannerisms are very good, but she doesn't look much like Diana which doesn't really matter as there are a few other notable characters that don't look like their real life counterparts, as it will be in every film or television show. She looks like a mix of Samantha Morton and Melissa Benoist.

    Crazy talk. You mustn't remember what Diana looked like. :) Especially in the early years. There's certain shots where you'd swear it was really her.


  • #140
    NSAman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,386 ✭✭✭NSAman


    I know it is dramatic license, but Charles if that was even remotely like his real character will not be king.

    Camilla is given the beauty (cough) make-over. She doesn't look as ugly in this as she does in real life..;)

    Diana is obviously playing to the crowd. It's a little over dramatic.

    The Queen is played amazingly by Olivia. Sometimes you feel sorry for her, other times you just want to hate here.

    Finished the whole season last night.

    Margaret is wonderful. Maggie Thatcher is played brilliantly. Andrew is a moron in real life and the same in this.

    Makes you wonder why.... why anyone would subject themselves to be part of this obviously dysfunctional family.


  • #141
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    NSAman wrote: »
    I know it is dramatic license, but Charles if that was even remotely like his real character will not be king.

    Charles should have ascended to the Throne about 20 years ago to allow the Queen to abdicate and focus on personal projects. Charles was never fit to lead, due to character flaws. I always said Andrew would have been a better choice. They ALL have skeletons in the closet, its just Andrews seem to be less offending compared to the others in family. Think they would have been better off jumping straight to William from here.

    We have all seen the same scenarios in either business or farms when someone holds on too long or someone else refuses to accept the responsibility of leadership.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    theoneeyedman
    Registered Users Posts: 6,331 ✭✭✭theoneeyedman


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Charles should have ascended to the Throne about 20 years ago to allow the Queen to abdicate and focus on personal projects. Charles was never fit to lead, due to character flaws. I always said Andrew would have been a better choice. They ALL have skeletons in the closet, its just Andrews seem to be less offending compared to the others in family. Think they would have been better off jumping straight to William from here.

    We have all seen the same scenarios in either business or farms when someone holds on too long or someone else refuses to accept the responsibility of leadership.


    It says something about the family if Randy Andy and his propensity his alleged (*ahem*) keenness for young girls seen as a better choice than Charlie!

    Haven't seen season 4,buy I thought Olivia Coleman was poor in season 3, it was simply Olivia Coleman with a tiara, rather than her playing QEII, the lady in the first 3 seasons was much better IMHO. I quite like Coleman, but she was poor in Season 3 of this.


  • #143
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    theoneeyedman wrote: »
    It says something about the family if Randy Andy and his propensity his alleged (*ahem*) keenness for young girls seen as a better choice than Charlie!

    As bad as what Randy Andy did ..... Charles wrote a character letter for Saville to the police to ask them not to pursue inquiries, into or around Saville or associated activities. That speaks volumes more to me than a few dodgy nights on the town with Epstein. That is perverting the course of justice which is far worse than the original crime, which encourages the perpetrator to offend again.


  • #144
    Lady Spangles
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭Lady Spangles


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Watched the whole season today...... There is no way Charles can ever become King of England after watching it.


    I really don't think the UK should assess Charles' suitability to be King on the basis of a hugely fictionalised TV show, tbh. Don't get me wrong, I love the show and it's beautifully made. But that doesn't cancel out how fictional it is.


    Anyway, my thoughts on season four...

    It was another good one, IMO! The production values are always sky-high on this show and four was no exception. Brilliant acting and engaging storylines. Emma Corrin was brilliant as Diana. She had that "head-down-eyes-up" stance down to a tee, as well as capturing something of her fragility. I was really glad to see Erin Doherty given a lot more screen time as Anne and, on top of that, given a much greater range to play with. It wasn't just snarky one-liners this time, but she got to show another side to her character.

    Gillian Anderson was a stand-out for me, though. She had the voice, mannerisms and steely-awfulness of Thatcher down perfectly. But I do wish they had shown much more of the political chicanery that went on behind the scenes when Thatcher was ousted. I was a kid when it happened and people in my city (Liverpool) were practically dancing through the streets in celebration. But I was just a little bit too young to fully appreciate what was happening.

    Anyway, great series.


  • #145
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    Lady Spangles wrote: »
    I really don't think the UK should assess Charles' suitability to be King on the basis of a hugely fictionalised TV show, tbh. Don't get me wrong, I love the show and it's beautifully made. But that doesn't cancel out how fictional it is.

    I meant it as it was stuff we were all thinking anyways. Imagine a King who entered a marriage half hearted or couldnt fend off a Donkey walloper!!! That man isnt fit to be king, let alone shine the boot of aforementioned Donkey walloper.


  • #146
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    NSAman wrote: »
    I know it is dramatic license, but Charles if that was even remotely like his real character will not be king.

    Did you notice that with Charles and the actor who plays Charles? Charles is a Coronel in Paras but he never learned to carry his shoulders. He is always slumped and the head is dipping. That is not a king, have you ever seen a soldier who didnt know how to stand up straight and carry himself?


  • #147
    NSAman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,386 ✭✭✭NSAman


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Did you notice that with Charles and the actor who plays Charles? Charles is a Coronel in Paras but he never learned to carry his shoulders. He is always slumped and the head is dipping. That is not a king, have you ever seen a soldier who didnt know how to stand up straight and carry himself?

    It IS made for TV drama..:)


  • #148
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    NSAman wrote: »
    It IS made for TV drama..:)

    No, look at Charles in real life, he is always slumped with the hands in the pockets.


  • #149
    Lady Spangles
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭Lady Spangles


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Charles should have ascended to the Throne about 20 years ago to allow the Queen to abdicate and focus on personal projects. Charles was never fit to lead, due to character flaws.

    The choice to abdicate is the Queen's and the Queen's alone. And, from what I understand, she would never even consider it. Duty has been drilled into her from the moment she first drew breath and only intensified 100 fold after that other abdication that happened (a whole other reason why the word abdication probably makes her blood run cold).

    I always said Andrew would have been a better choice. They ALL have skeletons in the closet, its just Andrews seem to be less offending compared to the others in family.

    Sex trafficking and paedophilia not that bad round your neck of the woods, then?


  • #150
    cml387
    Registered Users Posts: 8,363 ✭✭✭cml387


    Charles is an honorary CIC of the Paras.Ceremonial really.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Relikk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭Relikk


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Did you notice that with Charles and the actor who plays Charles? Charles is a Coronel in Paras but he never learned to carry his shoulders. He is always slumped and the head is dipping. That is not a king, have you ever seen a soldier who didnt know how to stand up straight and carry himself?

    It would have mattered 400 years ago, but certainly not now. The British monarch is a figurehead and no valorous deeds are a requirement to become King or Queen, just blood and lines of succession.


Advertisement