How M/M via DS Non-Ironically Ruined My Life Meme: Not Long for This World
"We must never take us for granted."
[Downton Abbey S3 Spoilers Ahead]
Day 14 - When did you begin to suspect that Matthew was going to die?
So we are going a bit morbid for (a belated) Valentine's Day. (And knowing how the creator of this meme loves irony, I suspect it is not coincidence!) But for a character who got down on one knee in the snow to pop the question (even if ( Read more... )
[Downton Abbey S3 Spoilers Ahead]
Day 14 - When did you begin to suspect that Matthew was going to die?
So we are going a bit morbid for (a belated) Valentine's Day. (And knowing how the creator of this meme loves irony, I suspect it is not coincidence!) But for a character who got down on one knee in the snow to pop the question (even if ( Read more... )
It did occur to me this question was going to happen on Valentine's Day, and if I was an ~experienced meme writer, I'd have put it on a less depressing day. Oops. ;p
I just was never one to believe that Dan Stevens could leave the show permanently and Matthew not die.
And your reasons were basically the ones JF gave, verbatim. I continue to marvel at how well you anticipated him. :(
That last part -- "will they become Lord and Lady Grantham" -- sent a wave of panic through me. Here is a perfect example of why semantics matter. Why would Stevens use the word "become?" As in, will they turn into, will they ever be?
I still cannot get over how you predicted that from his phrasing...but there really is a tremendous difference between "be" and "become." Seriously, can I get you to buy my lottery tickets? Too bad they don't pick winners based on ungrateful actors ditching their jobs.
I wonder now if we all -- on some level -- knew.
I didn't. I swear on a stack of Bibles, I had no clue. I thought I had become (LOL) more cynical over the years, but apparently when it comes to my OTP, I'm just incredibly gullible. But I think it's because where you're paranoid, I'm overly analytical. And analyzing it as much as I did, it didn't make sense. And it still doesn't.
Which I'm sure we'll get into more at some point -- especially given that we now know JF's vision for how he wanted Matthew killed off (per today's NYT)... ;)
Reply
I continue to marvel at how well you anticipated him.
I don't know if I anticipated him so much as I just thought about what felt organic to the show and what I would do if I were writing (though you KNOW I'm NOT saying I would have killed Matthew in a ditch on Xmas night ...). I just couldn't envision Matthew "going away" -- constantly referred to but never to be seen again. (Hee! Now I'm getting all kinds of John Forsythe feels. Like Matthew could be Charlie and Mary, Edith and Rose could be the Angels. ... Ok, sorry for the silliness. End of reversion to pre-K.) For that to work, he would have had to agree to appear at least once or twice in S4 and at least twice in S5 probably also.
But I think it's because where you're paranoid, I'm overly analytical.
Yes, I think that's it. We're both analytical really, but you have a benevolent view towards reason: you're like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant. I'm more of a skeptic or realist, like Hume or Hobbes (at least when it comes to this). And based on reason, you're absolutely correct: it makes no sense.
we now know JF's vision for how he wanted Matthew killed off (per today's NYT).
OMG, I've so been wanting to discuss but I didn't want to inundate you with PMs. For now, I'll just say that, sadly, we didn't get our three questions directly answered ... but the info we did get about the mystery of Matthew coming back in 4x01 almost made up for it so I can't complain too loudly.
Reply
We're both analytical really, but you have a benevolent view towards reason: you're like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant. I'm more of a skeptic or realist, like Hume or Hobbes
Awww. We're mirror "analytical thinkers" too. OMG, and if I have a Matthew mindset, you have a Mary one...sigh. :(
It's funny -- I've tried for years to be less "gullible" and trusting and just be more cynical. But I feel like people are just basically good. So, when I turn on someone (like DS), it's a big deal. And I have turned on him. Because basically good people don't trash their co-stars and show that made them who they are on their way out.
Re: the NYT...I loved that interview. :D It's funny that JF wanted to end S3 on a high note and kill Matthew in S4. You remember that's what I wanted (well, if it was a cliffhanger). I wanted the year to let go and say goodbye. I could've finished PTR if that had happened. I could've written dark smut!
But no...DS was an ass. So it couldn't happen. :/
(Can I just say I find it baffling how few people understand how JF had probably half the show written when they started filming? EMG said that much of S4 was Mary in mourning. This is February, when DA started filming. So, she's read "much of S4." There's no reason to believe S3 wasn't the exact same way! So if JF had up through 3x05 written, and he finds out about DS...what the heck was he supposed to do?!
It's why I maintain JBF gave him a hint she was leaving before S3. Her departure was just SO much better written. :( )
Reply
Actually I didn't get back until Tuesday, and then I caught some bug (probably on the plane) so I owe you some comments on your recent posts.
Because basically good people don't trash their co-stars and show that made them who they are on their way out.
No, they don't. Hell, forget good people. Smart people don't trash their costars and burn their bridges. That's what's so funny: he's trading (in part) on this "intellectual" pedigree of his, but he sure isn't very savvy about certain things. (JF, however, who's also a Cambridge alumnus, does get it -- he obviously has much better social skills which are needed to really get ahead in the biz or any profession, really.) Either that, or DS really is so arrogant to think the rules of etiquette and so forth just don't apply to him.
I could've finished PTR if that had happened.
Speaking of which, you still owe me a PM about how it would have ended. :-)
I could've written dark smut!
Oh, so what, you think you're off the hook now? Pfft. You've obviously forgotten what a merciless nag I can be. I'll have to rectify that. ;-)
EMG said that much of S4 was Mary in mourning.
How do you reconcile the two time frames we've been given? EM says 1923, JF says "6 mos later." Perhaps the show starts 6 mos later but then moves ahead to 1923? Though EM also says the show moves slowly in S4. IDK.
Frankly, and I know you may disagree, if they're going to introduce a love interest, I would rather see a canon time jump of 2-3 years -- even if it means we don't see most of Mary's grieving. To see her start to come out of it 2-3 years later lets me know that she DID grieve ... and then if a love interest is introduced I don't have as much of a problem with that. But to have her move on after 12 or 18 mos -- and by "move on" I mean become involved with someone new -- I really can't abide, regardless of how much grief we see or how intense it is in the first part of S4. That's kind of my line in the sand I guess. I know I'm not going to get what I want but I feel strongly about it (heh, see, you're not the only one bargaining).
So if JF had up through 3x05 written, and he finds out about DS...what the heck was he supposed to do?!
Exactly. It really WASN'T much notice. Half a season? That's why the last half of S3 for M/M especially was so "off." People are ignorant because they're relative newcomers to DA and/or the DS departure saga.
It's why I maintain JBF gave him a hint she was leaving before S3.
Oh, more than a hint. Looking at the way not just S3 but the latter half of S2 was written, I think she announced at the beginning of S2 that S3 was it for her (and probably wanted him to write her out ASAP, whenever that might be -- i.e. didn't want to film ALL of S3). So if I'm right, she gave him literally double the notice that DS did.
We know from AL's comments (they all had the scripts through 3x05) that by February of last year, Sybil's death was written. So DS must have waited until the very last possible moment before letting JF know. And given DS' importance to the narrative, if he cared AT ALL, he would have given MORE notice than an actor with a supporting role OR he would have agreed to do part of S4 in order to have JF write a good exit for him (even if he still would have been killed off).
With JBF, my theory is that if she hadn't left, there would have been no S/T marriage. Think about their SL in S2. The first half -- up to 2x05 -- is Sybil saying "no, I don't like you that way." (Well in 2x04 there was that one convo where Branson made a big deal about her use of the word "us.") But then in 2x06, her attitude towards him changed.
Still, it didn't feel rushed, though it did feel implausible that she would MARRY him. But I didn't have a problem with it except that I hated how her character was whitewashed when she returned to Downton in S3. But we're talking about a supporting character and more allowances can be made I think.
When you think about it, if DS had just followed JBF's lead in ALL aspects of how to exit a show, he would have been much better off. :/
Reply
Either that, or DS really is so arrogant to think the rules of etiquette and so forth just don't apply to him.
I think that's possible. Back in the day when I used to like DS, I used to think he thought his looks held him back -- that it's why he did audiobooks, because then nobody could see how he looked, and thus he could be taken seriously. But I feel like he's taken that to an extreme. If he thinks because of his looks and "charm," he can say anything and people won't really take him seriously (or they'll REALLY know what he means).
The problem is even if there's some ginormous picture of him next to the words, it's not the same effect. He can't trade on those superficial things in a print interview. And if he thought his words wouldn't have an impact...he needs to look at JF's carefully chosen words. ;)
Frankly, and I know you may disagree, if they're going to introduce a love interest, I would rather see a canon time jump of 2-3 years
I just feel like we need to see Mary grieving -- as you said, she's proxy for our grief -- and 2-3 years later, she's completely out of mourning and we're deprived of that opportunity. I just think, story-wise, it's so important. The viewers lost Matthew as much as Mary did, in a way -- we need to be allowed to see her grieving.
Looking at the way not just S3 but the latter half of S2 was written, I think she announced at the beginning of S2 that S3 was it for her
That...is freaking BRILLIANT. And it makes SO much sense, I can't EVEN. Because you're right -- 2x06 is where it all changes, and if they had the scripts through 2x05 last year early (just like they had the scripts through 3x05) it gives JF a chance to course correct. That's why S/B was so laughable from 2x06 on AND why they were MIA during the CS. JF was preparing us, laying the groundwork. They teased a "big death" (ONE big death) really early last year (and certainly never TWO).
When you think about it, if DS had just followed JBF's lead in ALL aspects of how to exit a show, he would have been much better off. :/
THIS. ...Basically. :/
Reply
Leave a comment