The Crown Season 3 & 4 [Spoilers]

[DMC]

Looks like the old thread's been archived, sorry if I/google missed an open one.  So about 4 and a half hours til this pops on Netflix.  My current (nocturnal-ish) sleeping schedule means I probably could binge the whole thing.  But, there's a Niners game at 4 EST tomorrow, which means I'd be up til at least around 7-8 tomorrow evening.  Hm...decisions, decisions.  Bet demographically I'm one of the very few trying to choose between binging the crown and watching my favorite American football team.  Would like to see the crosstabs on that.

[Heartofice]

I’m wondering what season of the crown will have Prince Andrews ‘Pizza Express’ episode in it

[Mladen]

FINISHED EPISODE 1

And now let's all bow to the Queen, Olivia Colman. As we all know, Claire Foy was impressive as the Queen, giving one of the best performances of the decade. So, naturally, there was a fear that two-by-two-seasons gig will work. And now, after watching Olivia Colman, one has to be thoroughly amazed by her ability to make the role utterly hers. It is a perfect transition and boy, did I love her in this episode.

Spoiler

The episodic nature of this... episode, just like last year with the episode on Marburg's files of Edward IV's Nazi history are true masterpieces of the series. It just shows the microcosm of one situation and allows it to resonate through entire season. This was not happy ending for Elizabeth and I am sure it really portrayed what she is made of, played wonderfully by Colman. 

 

[Zorral]

It's kind of hilarious, but so very USian -- this anticipation and approval of a series centered upon such a useless person because she's royalty.  This country's always been this way.  For me it's particularly hilarious that I too am a participant in royalty binging.  Because I did it with the previous seasons and I'll do it with this new one too, as soon as I can get to it!     Which will be soon coz, babee, it's cold outside!

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Risto said:

FINISHED EPISODE 1

And now let's all bow to the Queen, Olivia Colman.

I got through five episodes before I decided to get a few hours of sleep.  The last two (so 4th and 5th) were definitely my favorites, so looking forward to the second half.  And yes, Colman is awesome.  Also - holy GoT alumns Batman!  Ya got Edmure as Philip, sure, but also the great Charles Dance as Dickie and even "Yohn" Royce shows up as Cecil King!  Also, great introduction to Princess Anne - looks like a very fun character to follow in the coming seasons.  Finally, for LOST fans, LBJ is played by..INMAN!

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

It's kind of hilarious, but so very USian -- this anticipation and approval of a series centered upon such a useless person because she's royalty.

I dunno, I could give two shits about these characters' real life counterparts.  I like the show because it's great at characterization (and most importantly giving that time to breathe), has the historical backdrop which I love, and of course has top-notch production value.  ETA:  Oh, and of course the wonderful casting and performances.

[Zorral]

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

I got through five episodes before I decided to get a few hours of sleep.  The last two (so 4th and 5th) were definitely my favorites, so looking forward to the second half.  And yes, Colman is awesome.  Also - holy GoT alumns Batman!  Ya got Edmure as Philip, sure, but also the great Charles Dance as Dickie and even "Yohn" Royce shows up as Cecil King!  Also, great introduction to Princess Anne - looks like a very fun character to follow in the coming seasons.  Finally, for LOST fans, LBJ is played by..INMAN!

I dunno, I could give two shits about these characters' real life counterparts.  I like the show because it's great at characterization (and most importantly giving that time to breathe), has the historical backdrop which I love, and of course has top-notch production value.  ETA:  Oh, and of course the wonderful casting and performances.

And Royalty!  English Royalty!  And Nobles!  And PALACES!  Jewels! Musem quality furniture, paintings, carpets, china! Upon which royal amounts of millions were spent for the production values!  And ROYALTY!  

Be honest -- if these were slum-dwelling nonentitys instead of palace dwelling royal nonentities -- would you still be lovin' on it so very much, even with the same cast? Would Royal Amounts of Millions have been spent on the production values for this, even with the same cast?

[Mladen]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

It's kind of hilarious, but so very USian -- this anticipation and approval of a series centered upon such a useless person because she's royalty.  This country's always been this way.  For me it's particularly hilarious that I too am a participant in royalty binging.  Because I did it with the previous seasons and I'll do it with this new one too, as soon as I can get to it!     Which will be soon coz, babee, it's cold outside!

I blame HBO and Disney+. I would prefer binging The Mandalorian and His Dark Materials but...

It's so seductive... It still has to reach the level of Downton escapism, but it is nearly there. And we are rather serious about this... In the last Downton Abbey episode, Dowager countess said that English are made English... "some say because of history, some say because of tradition. I blame weather"

It is Britishness and we are all for it. Needless to say, I squeak on the possibility Mary Berry and Duchess of Cambridge will bake together for Christmas. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

Be honest -- if these were slum-dwelling nonentitys instead of palace dwelling royal nonentities -- would you still be lovin' on it so very much, even with the same cast?

Eh, that's a tough comparison.  Part of the appeal is indeed that, like I said, I like the historical backdrop - and particularly political drama in a historical backdrop is going to really appeal to me, for obvious reasons.  That's a big part of why I'm posting on this board.  Now, The Crown is not really political drama..more politically-adjacent drama, but it's close enough.  And that's especially the case this season with Harold Wilson - he's getting much more focus than Eden and Macmillan ever did as characters through the first 5 episodes I watched.  

Anyway, the comparison is faulty because there's never gonna be a show based on some random family that somehow Forrest Gump-ed its way into main historical events - which is essentially the outline of this show over six seasons.  As for being "nonentitys," well, I'd say I loved Justified, and Boyd Crowder is one of my top favorite TV characters over the past decade, but I would never want to meet that guy in real life.  Plus, currently rewatching Always Sunny, which is a faulty comparison itself because it's a comedy, but yeah I got no problem looking at things from the other perspective.  Not trying to be overly defensive, just honestly think the reason I like the show is much more because it's a good show rather than caring at all about the royals.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Not trying to be overly defensive, just honestly think the reason I like the show is much more because it's a good show rather than caring at all about the royals.

Of course!  Still, it's royals.  Who don't come off very well and indeed, quite not clever, as ER thinking Wilson is a spy for the Russians, which is something, and really they don't have the kind of political power that is implied, not at all.  

As well, thinking nonentities / poor and powerless not having any effect when it comes to significant historical events, I really disagree.  One example that dramatizes this is Mike Leigh's splendid Peterloo. 

The Aberfan episode is really well done, cleverly done.  And in the end, ER has gone there exactly 4 times in the 50 years since it took place.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Who don't come off very well and indeed, quite not clever, as ER thinking Wilson is a spy for the Russians, which is something, and really they don't have the kind of political power that is implied, not at all.  

Definitely.  Notice I didn't put plot/storyline in my list of strengths for the show.  Because most of the main threads revolve around Elizabeth and/or the entire family being ignorant snobs, then at the end finally realizing, whoops, sorry we were being ignorant snobs.  That's certainly nice in it's..authenticity, but isn't particularly compelling.  The show shines with the characterization, and also when they do things like episode 4:

Spoiler

Telling the story of Alice, Princess Andrew of Greece in a way that is entirely touching, if also entirely ahistorical in the fact there's absolutely no evidence Philip had such a conflict with his mother so as to refuse her lodging at Buckingham.  Plus that interview Anne manufactured never happened.

 

20 minutes ago, Zorral said:

As well, thinking nonentities / poor and powerless not having any effect when it comes to significant historical events, I really disagree.

I didn't say that.  I said it's virtually impossible to follow one family over 60 years and have them at least tangentially involved with so many historical events.  Unless it's the royal family.  Maybe the Kennedys and Bushs from an American perspective.

[Mladen]

So, 5 episodes in...

It is more episodic than previous seasons and it allows different people to have "their own" episodes. Tobias Menzies remains the King of unlikable roles, although his Phillip is much closer to my imagination than Smith's (still think that Paul Bettany would kill the role, but nonetheless). HBC as Margaret is such a treat and it seems like we have forgotten how amazing HBC is in non-whacky roles.

Some observations, spoilers S03E01-S03E05 

Spoiler

1. I find Queen more detached than in previous seasons. Whether it is intentional or not, I have no idea... But, it is a bit weird. The entire Aberfan situation reminds me of the plot of the Helen Mirren's The Queen (written too by Peter Morgan). In "The Queen", Elizabeth's reluctance to join the mourning is understandable and in the final moments, she makes her point - she has grandsons to take care of. Here, they had "I am broken emotionally" angle, which I didn't buy it. Especially, since everyone believed that she acted splendidly. I see there is a controversy over faking the tear and honestly, I understand it. Queen, in all her editions, was never emotionless. I am not sure what the intention here was so...

2. As an avid Downton Abbey fan, I found amazingly interesting that the same person - Martin Charteris is played by the two love interests of Ladt Edith Crawley. In the first two season, the same actor who played Bertie Pelham in Downton played Martin. And now, the actor who played Michael Gregson, plays Charteris in senior years.

3. Was Queen really galavanting across the world in weeks when the pound got devalued? I mean, really?

4. Wonderful Margaret-centric episode. Have no idea how much of that is true, but I loved the talk Phillip had with Elizabeth at the end. And Margaret seeing Queen and understanding it will never happen (sharing of the duties) was very powerful.  

 

[Jaxom 1974]

I wondered a little about the timelines and the two year thing with the actors, especially starting season 3 in 1964 with a 38 year old Elizabeth. I wondered about Coleman in the role, thinking she wad actually older than she is.  I was actually floored when I realized she's the same age as me.  So I'm going to continuity watching with that info helping my observations. 

Really liked the first episode. 

[HexMachina]

Watched the first two episodes, HBH and Olivia Colman are superb in this, i could happily watch them all day. Particularly impressed with Bonham-Carter. Yes, she has had her share of great showings in the past, but then she had that long spell of Burton-or-Bust where she was, well, forgettable at best and given some terrible parts. Yet i feel she completely disappears into the role of Margaret and makes me give a bit of a damn about her as a person/character (within the context of the show, still don’t give two hairy hoots about the Royals outside of this show, unless they have acted in some heinous manner and deserve scorn, dislike and ridicule).

Onwards and upwards. I am so glad we get two seasons of this cast!

[DMC]

So I watched all but the season finale by the end of last night/early morning.  Now I'm pretty depressed I only got one left!

6 hours ago, Risto said:

Tobias Menzies remains the King of unlikable roles, although his Phillip is much closer to my imagination than Smith's (still think that Paul Bettany would kill the role, but nonetheless). HBC as Margaret is such a treat and it seems like we have forgotten how amazing HBC is in non-whacky roles.

I think Menzies comes off much more likeable than Smith, but I'm not sure if that's due to how the character is being written.  I mean, the overarching storyline of season 2 was them being on the verge of divorce (if they could), and that was in large part to due Show Philip's major douchebaggery.  They've toned that down considerably this season, which reflects the characters maturing.  Also enthusiastically agree with you and Helena that it is very refreshing to see HBC in a great role as it seems she's spent the past twenty years in weird Burton roles/Bellatrix Lestrange.

6 hours ago, Risto said:

Some observations, spoilers S03E01-S03E05 

Spoiler

1.  I agree she seems distinctly more detached, but that kind of makes sense in the evolution of the character, no?  One would expect anyone to become increasingly detached the longer they serve in such an isolating position - plus they do a good job covering how aging also plays a role in this in the first episode (love the title of the ep - "Olding" - btw).  I really liked her explanation to Wilson at the end of the Aberfan episode - that she couldn't even summon a tear when first giving birth.  It's a symptom of her underlying ethos that her role is to do nothing, or in other words, not react.

3.  LOL

4.  Yeah that speech by Philip was a great summation for the obligatory "let's revisit the sisters' dynamic" episode per season.

 

[Jaxom 1974]

Clancy Brown as LBJ? Come on.  That was great. I want to believe there wasn't any embellishment of that state dinner with Margaret and LBJ. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

I want to believe there wasn't any embellishment of that state dinner with Margaret and LBJ. 

Ha yeah me too.  Obviously I have no idea, but I will say LBJ was well known for carrying on conversations while taking a piss, as depicted in the ep.  Famously once did so while talking to a female reporter.

[Mladen]

6 hours ago, DMC said:

So I watched all but the season finale by the end of last night/early morning.  Now I'm pretty depressed I only got one left!

Me too... It is 8 am here so I am thinking of finishing the season before going to work.

6 hours ago, DMC said:

I think Menzies comes off much more likeable than Smith, but I'm not sure if that's due to how the character is being written.  I mean, the overarching storyline of season 2 was them being on the verge of divorce (if they could), and that was in large part to due Show Philip's major douchebaggery.  They've toned that down considerably this season, which reflects the characters maturing.

Yeah, I agree. Although Phillip, by default, is not likeable character, Menzies brought something Smith didn't which really is how I always looked at Phillip - as someone who has Queen's back. There is an Emmy-worthy material for Menzies in that "Moonlanding" episode.

And time to speak about Anne, Dickie and Charles...

Spoiler

1. Boy, do I feel bad for Charles. I feel as if there is something in how they portrayed him that hits close to home, but I mean he seems like a genuinely good person and he is faced with cold rejection any way he turns. The "investiture" episode was nicely done, but when Elizabeth told him that no one wants to hear what he thinks - both cruel and honest and in many ways necessary to be told, the pain is so obvious. It does make a point how the system works for people such as Elizabeth who can emotionally detach from everything. Revoking that Mary of Teck speech from Season 1 simply puts into perspective what they are all expected to do. And, as much as they want to live, "The Crown must always win".

2. Anne is hilarious in facing the family. She knows them, despises them and is being totally honest about it. A true daughter of her parents. Unapologetically informing them of her liaison with Andrew Parker Bowles was rather nice. I like how  she has Charles' back and how she supports him. In a very cold season, it represents one of the rare warm moments. But, she is intelligent and she knows what is good and what isn't for Charles. And given that I have no idea how they'll end, I do hope that Charles is wrong about watching her as part of the establishment. 

3. And Dickie... Tywin Lannister his children needed. I adore how he was very systematic in explaining how the coup would work in UK and the differences between African countries and UK. But, as some data shows, here were taken some liberties with Dickie's role, as well as Elizabeth's travel. It was, it seems, 4-day-tour, not 4 weeks. 

 

[Zorral]

Hilarious soap opera -- not much history and what there is usually gets a lens distortion, as the Royals don't make history or negotiate it even, except with the boundaries of their own utterly messy, dysfunctional, not very bright, parasitical lives and family. Whew.  Of course I've only watched 3 episodes so far.  Aberfan kinda made my gorge rise, as They used to say. I guess now it's reflux? 

 

[DMC]

11 hours ago, Risto said:

Although Phillip, by default, is not likeable character, Menzies brought something Smith didn't which really is how I always looked at Phillip - as someone who has Queen's back. There is an Emmy-worthy material for Menzies in that "Moonlanding" episode.

Certainly not likeable overall - it's all relative!  And I 100% agree that Menzies is much closer to my conception of Philip than Smith.  Smith was a little too much frat boy.  Somebody like that doesn't get to marry the heir apparent.

11 hours ago, Risto said:

And time to speak about Anne, Dickie and Charles...

Spoiler

1.  Yeah they did a great job making Charles sympathetic.  He really went through the ringer there for a couple episodes.  And I loved Elizabeth telling him that.  It harkens back to Mike Parker's discussion with Philip in Season 2 about having more kids - Elizabeth doesn't really allow herself to view Charles as her child in any normal sense of the term, which is understandable, but also clearly a big reason why he's so damn fucked up.

2.  Anne is by far the MVP of the season, at least on a rate basis.  Almost every scene she's in her contribution is gold, and the scene where the queens/Dickie and Philip call her into the principals office is her shining moment - and one of the best scenes of the season.  "Sorry mommy."  Really would have liked to see at least some of her relationship with Elizabeth (although it was nice they showed Philip is particularly a fan), hopefully we'll get more of that next season.

3.  Sucks Dickie's about to get blown up, Dance is such a great addition.

 

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

not much history and what there is usually gets a lens distortion

Yeah IMO this season they've distorted history far (far) more than they did in the first two.  And particularly contrived things to manufacture drama.  I don't really care, but it definitely was noticeable on a number of counts.

[Mladen]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Hilarious soap opera -- not much history and what there is usually gets a lens distortion, as the Royals don't make history or negotiate it even, except with the boundaries of their own utterly messy, dysfunctional, not very bright, parasitical lives and family. Whew.  Of course I've only watched 3 episodes so far.  Aberfan kinda made my gorge rise, as They used to say. I guess now it's reflux? 

 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah IMO this season they've distorted history far (far) more than they did in the first two.  And particularly contrived things to manufacture drama.  I don't really care, but it definitely was noticeable on a number of counts.

Oh, yeah... It seems that Aberfan episode raised quite a lot of eyebrows and some people are rather angry at the show's portrayal of the events. 

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Certainly not likeable overall - it's all relative!  And I 100% agree that Menzies is much closer to my conception of Philip than Smith.  Smith was a little too much frat boy.  Somebody like that doesn't get to marry the heir apparent.

There's a lot of humanity in the "Moonlanding" episode. And I think this entire season proves him far more devout father than Elizabeth. So, I think that worked a lot into humanizing him.

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Hilarious soap opera -- not much history and what there is usually gets a lens distortion, as the Royals don't make history or negotiate it even, except with the boundaries of their own utterly messy, dysfunctional, not very bright, parasitical lives and family. Whew.  Of course I've only watched 3 episodes so far.  Aberfan kinda made my gorge rise, as They used to say. I guess now it's reflux? 

 

Do you watch and listen to the intro? I  do it every time  That way, my brain is prepared for revelation of some mystical forces in Buckingham Palace that would teach me about the noblest and most adored family in the world.

History and truth be damned!!!