Arguments for and against a Downton Abbey next-generation sequel

When Downton Abbey the series ended, I spent a post arguing for and against the idea of a Downton film (or movie). So it is only fitting that now the final Downton film has aired, I should do something similar, and look at why it could be a good idea – or not – to follow up with a new TV series, this time focusing on the next generation of Downton inhabitants and their friends and relations. Well, whether it is fitting or not, I'm going to do it, and that despite the fact that there is to my knowledge not a hint of a rumour that Fellowes or anyone else has any such project in mind.

For: I can't be the only one who's thought about it? The original Downton characters have made their farewell to the audience, in a very decided manner, in Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale. The trailer stated "It's time to say goodbye", almost as a plea to the fans: "Please, don't force Julian to write any more of these". Another movie would be such an obvious cash grab I don't think even we tolerant Downton fans would stand for it. Enough is enough.

But... what if we jumped forward in time, ten or fifteen years or so, and instead caught up with the Downton children as young adults? We have the bones of a new central cast of characters there: George, Sybil, Caroline, Marigold, Tom Branson's new kid (I forget the name)... These often invisible children haven't been given much personality of their own, so they'd be almost like new characters, but still tied to the "Downtonverse". The settings would still be the castle, the Dower House, the village etc., places we've grown to know and love.

I'm generally tired of World War Two dramas, but I dare say we can't miss out on the nervous tension surrounding the question: will George, the heir, make it back from the war alive? There's even room to explore a new version of the Obscure Heir plot which started off the original series. Some long-lost cousin could be revealed to be the heir should George die, and this time it might not be a good egg like Matthew but a very unsavoury character. Moreover, Downton Abbey surely lends itself to being a centre for evacuated children, or something else war-related, with juicy Foyle's War-esque plot lines as a result.

On the other hand, from the Thirties to the Forties isn't that much of a time jump, which could become a problem if you constantly have to check in on old characters and don't give the new ones the space they need. A bigger time jump to the Fifties could give Fellowes or other writers the opportunity to clear the field by stating that at least some of the old guard has passed away. And we could still have the vague threat of an unsuitable heir apparent after George (who, of course, makes it through the war). Here, the vibe would be more Agatha Christie (without the murders!) than Foyle's War.

One original character who would still be very much alive – and bickering, though with less vitriol than in their young days, with her sister – is Lady Mary who, as foreshadowed in the original series, will take the place of the Dowager Countess. Now that's a decent pitch for a period drama, surely? 

Against: The personality-less depiction of the Downton kids means that we aren't exactly on the edge of our seats waiting to see what happens to them. The biggest argument against a next-gen. sequel though, in my book, is the trickiness of the genre itself. One might think that a next generation sequel risks doing less damage to the original than a sequel taking place directly after another story ends. After all, we would mainly be following new characters and storylines. However, a sequel has to address what happens to the original characters, and as a next-gen. sequel takes place so much later than the original story, whatever is said about the original characters' lives is pretty much set in stone. There's no way of walking back from it later on.

To take an example in a completely different genre: recently, Netflix in Sweden finally aired the animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender, which I hadn't seen before but with which, apparently, a whole generation of Nickelodeon viewers have grown up. I surprised myself with how much I got into it and, after chomping through all three seasons pretty swiftly, couldn't wait to check out the next-generation-and-then-some sequel The Legend of Korra (bizarrely showing on another streaming service). 

New avatar, new characters taking centre stage, the original protagonists either aged purveyors of wisdom on the sidelines or dead: so far, so good. But when the middle-aged children of Aang, the now deceased titular character of the original series, get in a fight we're suddenly told that Aang favourised the son who'd inherited his air-bending gift over the others. This sounds very unlike the fun-loving, warm-hearted character we got to know in Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Aang never gets the chance to set the record straight or make it up with his kids. Because, by this time, he's already dead.

This detail didn't ruin The Legend of Korra for me, but it saddened me a bit, and the Star Wars sequels had similar problems with their original golden trio. Imagine how miffed we would be if we found out, twenty years on, that Molesley never hit the big time with his film scripts or Andy and Daisy ended up fighting every other day. Even if their life would then take a better turn, much time would have been wasted, and there would be no way the already past decades could improve. 

On the other hand, if nothing at all happens to the original Downton crew for twenty years, it gives the impression that they've been in a sort of stasis waiting for a new story to come along. This isn't very  satisfying either, narratively speaking.

At the end of the day, I'm still in favour of a next-generation Downton Abbey TV series. But I acknowledge that it would not be easy to get it right.                      

Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale is strictly for the fans (and that's OK)

It's been an intense week, and I was tempted to give blogging a miss. But I can't very well do that, as it's Downton time!

Yes, last weekend, I in company with two other avid Downton fans had the greatest time at the cinema watching Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale. We weren't alone, either: the cinema was more packed than I've seen it in a long while, and the audience was in a positive mood. The scene where Mrs Patmore declared to Daisy that she was "the daughter I never had" was especially popular, drawing an "aaah" from some audience members. There were snivels and giggles at appropriate moments. All in all, if you're a Downton enthusiast, it's very hard not to enjoy this last hurrah. If you're not, you'd most likely be bored to tears.

I had first planned to follow up on my predictions in my usual manner, but there is little point as absolutely none of them came true. Well, they addressed the Henry question, explaining his no-show with divorce rather than death, but that's about it. 

Mary's old beaux appearing? No such luck. Edith's Marigold secret playing a role? Nope – I'm not sure we even got to see Marigold. Peter Coyle making an appearance? Not even close (though that surely would have been better than the Molesley storyline we got). The Bateses' future? Not much drama there: they both decamped to the Dower House with Lord and Lady Grantham, but the thought that they could quit the servant life never even occurred to them. The butler question? Not a question, it seems: what with Andy staying on at Downton as butler and Daisy as cook, I'm wondering who's actually taking care of Mr Mason's farm. Thomas plotting? Chance would be a fine thing.

I don't think I've ever been as consistently wrong in my predictions before, but in my defence, it's not as if there was much going on instead of my suggested plot lines. The Grand Finale wasn't big on plot, and what little conflict there was had to come from external sources (a quite foxy American swindler, and the absent Henry who by this time counts as an external source). Instead, the film's aim was clearly to give the fans a last opportunity to hang out with (as Disney DVD sequel trailers used to put it) "all your favourite characters". 

This aim was fulfilled. We could leave Downton Abbey with the comfortable feeling that everything will be all right, and everyone gets on quite well really, even Mary and Edith. No need to think too hard about what the outbreak of World War Two (still years away at the end of the film) will mean for young George.

But is the film any good, I hear you wonder? Is it as good as the series? Is it the best of the films, or the worst? I did ponder these questions while watching it, but found them unexpectedly hard to answer. I think I have to say, The Grand Finale is not as good as the series, and probably sits in the middle script- and plot-wise when it comes to the films: better than the Upstairs, Downstairs rip-off that is the first movie but less snappy and pacy than the second. However, of all the proposed endings of Downton Abbey that we've been offered, this is by far the most satisfying, and that is quite a feat. For that reason, I suspect The Grand Finale will have a special place in fans' hearts for the years to come, and the question of how good it is as a film will be considered less important. Only, if you've never watched Downton, for pity's sake don't start with this.

Of course I'm thrilled for Thomas, even though he's so de-fanged at this point everyone seems to have forgotten he was once a villain. His end vignette, complete with the Hollywood sign in the background framing his still harmonious romance with the glamorous Guy Dexter, is all an often sorely tried Thomas apologist could wish for (though he had more chemistry with the nefarious Duke in the very first episode, but never mind). All's well that ends well for my Tommy, even if his entertainingly bitchy lines are a thing of the past.                     

The Gilded Age season three: prediction follow-up

Rejoice, costume-drama lovers – we made The Gilded Age happen! At the start, there wasn't as much buzz about the series as one would have thought, seeing that it's created by Julian "Downton" Fellowes. But now it seems to have gathered momentum and a sizeable fanbase, and I'm guessing it's in no small part thanks to a pacy and strong third season.

By now, it's become clearer what the series is, and what it isn't. It won't deliver exactly the same kind of drama as Downton did (I'll go more into that in a bit), but for what it is – a fun romp with the occasional scene that goes a little deeper, set in a glamorous time and with largely likeable characters – it's very good, and I suspect the best costume drama we will get in quite some time.

On to the follow-up to my predictions for this season. I'll try not to be too insanely spoilery, but I do want to gloat as I got more things right than I usually do in my prediction posts.

Gladys will marry the Duke – but not divorce yet YES All right, this one wasn't a hard one to call (though I also guessed what the trailer's divorce talk was really about, and that I am smug about). It was pretty clear from the trailer and on-set footage that there was going to be a wedding, and Gladys was the obvious pick for the bride part. Less predictably, her union with the fortune-hunting Duke hasn't turned out too terribly this far. The Duke of Buckingham aka Hector seems quite a nice chap, if a little prone to be pushed around by the women in his life. Then again, he's not the only man in The Gilded Age to be hen-pecked.

I really liked this turn of events. Not only because it was unexpected, but because it shows that Fellowes and his co-writer Sonja Warfield (who seems to be a strong addition to the team, judging by the episodes she's credited as co-writing) haven't set out to copy out well-known real-life dramas from the Gilded Age and simply foist them on their fictional characters. The Russells may be inspired by the Vanderbilts, but that doesn't mean Gladys is destined to be unhappy with her Duke, as little as it means that her parents are destined to divorce. It's nice to know that there isn't a historical cheat sheet which will give away what'll happen in the series – it makes it far more interesting.       

Agnes and Bertha will both try to stop Larrian (maybe even together) NO, BUT... Agnes and Bertha were shown to be in agreement once this season, but only about a fairly minor plot point. As far as Larrian is concerned, there's as little communication between the two matriarchs as ever. We did get to see, though, that Agnes was not thrilled about the prospect of welcoming Larry as her nephew-in-law, and was eager to encourage any doubts on Marian's side.

Was there ever as wet a blanket as Marian, I wonder? Her paramour isn't exactly the most exciting character either, though he does at least prove to be a capable business man. It is a shame that the central romance  of the series doesn't generate more heat, but there it is. Many great stories have had somewhat underwhelming hero-heroine romances. At least the concept of romance isn't spurned, and for this one should be grateful. Only, shockingly, I find myself missing bitchy Lady Mary. 

Peggy's new love interest's parents (probably the dad) will make trouble YES, BUT... I was right, except it was the prospective mother-in-law who had objections to Peggy, not Dr Kirkland's dad, who was all in favour of the match, though not very forcefully. The Kirkland men continue the Gilded Age trend of being rather too easily manipulated by their womenfolk.  

As for Peggy, she is a little too perfect, but she does have more bounce and more chemistry with her chosen man than Marian does. And the whole idea of including a "black elite" plot line in the series is genius. It's interesting in itself to learn more about the affluent black upper-middle class in late 19th-century New York, and it saves the series from going down the "colour-blind casting" route, of which I'm not a fan (I will save you the rant for now, but I'm not just thinking of the phenomenon from my pale-face perspective, honest). Peggy could do with a relatable flaw or two, but her part of the story is still engaging.    

The butler alliance will be sealed by events (I hope) NOT REALLY, NO I mean, Church and Bannister are friendly enough to each other now. But they're not united in any cause, and though the Van Rhijns/Brookes and Russells are starting to interact a little more, their servants hardly mix at all this season.

Here's where one of the big differences to Downton comes in. It has become clear by now that The Gilded Age isn't really an "upstairs-downstairs" drama. In the original Upstairs, Downstairs, the plot lines were fairly evenly distributed between the Bellamys and the servants, though with a slight advantage for the servants – even events upstairs were largely viewed from their point of view. In Downton Abbey, there was still an even distribution of plot lines, and a slightly mellower approach to servant-master relationships which angered many an armchair socialist (though it's not as if the Bellamys were bad employers, or the Crawleys unfailingly good ones). 

In The Gilded Age, on the other hand, the focus is squarely on the upstairs families. The servants are nice and all, and get more screen time than in, say, The Forsyte Saga, but they don't get many juicy plot lines or for that matter much character development. They're pretty much stuck the way they were in season one. I think Fellowes may have had more plans for the servant side of things at the start, but gave up when all the different characters and plots became too much to juggle.        

Oscar will try to make money YES It's not all plain sailing for doe-eyed Oscar, but at least he's a surprisingly dab hand at business. The plan he has lined up for next season could prove to be interesting.

In the any other business category, one can note that this was yet another strong season for Aunt Ada (though I could have done without the temperance plot), but not the strongest for my favourite George Russell. He did eventually stand up to Bertha, but only after it could have done any good for Gladys or anyone else. His continuing coldness towards Bertha just seems mulish at this point. Plus his sacking of Clay was completely uncalled-for, even if Clay turned out to be a worm later on. J. P. Morgan was quite fun, though.      

Predictions for season three of The Gilded Age (with very little to go on)

Right. I said I would do The Gilded Age predictions, didn't I? With season three coming next week, it's high time. 

The season trailer didn't exactly wow me, but I must confess there are some clues in it regarding what's to come (unlike in the trailer for the upcoming Downton movie, which is just an elegant nothing – not that I'm bitter). The trick will be to avoid all-to-obvious predictions. I mean, of course Larrian (I'm guessing that's what the Larry + Marian ship is called) will get well under way, and of course there will be friction between Aunt Agnes and Aunt Ada, who has the money now. That much is given. But what else could possibly happen?

Gladys will marry the Duke – but not divorce yet The marriage is a pretty safe bet; we see glimpses of a marriage in the trailer, and there's no way Larry and Marian will get that far in just one season. So it has to be Gladys, and unless her dad finally takes a stand against his wife and objects at the last minute, this means she's stuck with the Duke of Buckingham. Gladys's situation being based on that of Consuelo Vanderbilt, who eventually divorced the Duke of Marlborough, one could assume that Gladys is the woman whose divorce is talked about in hushed tones in the trailer. Generally, though, plot lines in The Gilded Age don't move that fast. Surely, her marriage has to be milked for juicy drama before it is discarded.

Who is divorcing, then? Blessed if I know. Mrs Fane, whose main function in the series seems to be to introduce Marian to a wider society than she'd encounter if Aunt Agnes had her way, is bringing the news. Could she be the one?

Agnes and Bertha will both try to stop Larrian (maybe even together) Fellowes has reportedly realised that it would be a good idea to bring his queen bees together in one scene. From the quote I heard, though, it didn't sound as if they'd be actually interacting much, but one can always hope. As I've said before, these characters are something of a disappointment to me – Agnes doesn't really hit the Dowager Countess spot she's supposed to, and Bertha is pretty much unbearable at this point. Some reluctant plotting over a common cause would do them a world of good drama-wise.

That Agnes will be opposed to the Larry-Marian romance is self-evident. Bertha's view is harder to guess, as she's keen to be allied to "old money" (or lack of money), and the Van Rhijns are the US counterpart to nobility. However, they're also (with the exception of Ada) skint. Bertha may well want something better for Larry, and she's been known to meddle in his love life before.

Peggy's new love interest's parents (probably the dad) will make trouble Peggy's shown looking blissful with a new man, a Dr Kirkland, who seems very respectable. But it can't all be peaches and cream, surely? Is there some significance to the fact that we already know who will be playing Kirkland's father? My guess is that Kirkland Sr., and/or possibly his wife, will object to Peggy for some reason, most likely her troubled past. 

Peggy may also have to face more virulent forms of racism than she has before in New York (not from the Kirklands, though, who are also black affluent middle-class). Any other showrunner would have included a swiwel-eyed racist bogey-man in Peggy's storyline by now, and I admire Fellowes for resisting the low-hanging fruit. But c'mon, nearly encountering a Southern lynch mob can't be it. Peggy needs dragons to slay.

The butler alliance will be sealed by events (I hope) Mercifully, butlers Bannister and Church buried the hatchet in the previous season. Now, they need a storyline which will bring them together, and unlike Agnes and Bertha's potential alliance their partnership should be for a good cause. Maybe they will join forces to help Jack the footman? I thought I spotted him looking well-dressed and giddy in the trailer. Most likely, someone will try to rip him off in order to get their hands on his invention, and he will need trusty servant back-up. 

Not that I've worked out why Church would get involved, but hey. I want the butlers to get on so badly I almost ship them.

Oscar will try to make money Oscar will feel keenly that he's let his mother down, and he'll try to make up for it in some way, possibly by trying to get back some of the money he lost. I'd rather have a romance plot involving Oscar, to be honest, or another marriage-as-window-dressing scheme. Let's face it, though: he'll never meet anyone better than John Adams, the most understanding ex-boyfriend ever.

Things to look forward to (or at least check out) in 2025

In many ways, cultural-consumption-wise, 2025 promises to be the same procedure as last year. That is, there will be continuations of series and franchises I enjoy, but I've yet to see something new slated for 2025 where I think "wow, I've got to watch this". As for books, I'm as likely to make a discovery in my own bookshelves as among the latest book arrivals (though I wouldn't mind a new Sarah Waters novel, for instance). 

YouTube nerds often talk about their "latest obsession". It's been a while since I've had a new obsession, and I'm not a hundred per cent sure I want one. If I find one – whether in the world of TV, film or books – it will probably be by chance rather than through purposeful searching. The items on this list, however, I will at least check out and probably enjoy.

Downton Abbey 3:  No need to go into detail: I've already blogged about the upcoming Downton film at some length. Am I surprised that Downton is coming back a third time at the cinema? Yep. Would I rather have seen a new story as compelling as Downton, which already has a satisfying ending, unfold? Maybe. Am I complaining? No, siree, as long as they don't mess up Thomas's love life. According to IMDB, Dominic West is returning as Guy Dexter, so it looks hopeful.

The Gilded Age season three: As far as I know, The Gilded Age will return next year, though I've yet to see a trailer for it. When it's out, it will be time for me to make the usual hit-and-miss predictions. As of now, I've no idea where this series might be heading, other than that a romance between Marian and Larry is definitely on the cards. Let's hope that they both acquire a little more personality in the process. Also, I want more servant plotlines.

Andor OK. So. I know that Andor is good. I'm grateful to it for adding a little cred to the Star Wars brand at a time when fans are disgruntled with it and apt to blame Disney for absolutely everything (though Disney seldom gets any credit when something Star Wars-related that the fans do like is released). And of course I'll watch it and admire the deft dialogue and storytelling, as well as the complex characters. 

To be frank, though, I'm not exactly excited for it. I find the premise that it's all right for the rebels to behave like swine if it's for the greater good of toppling the Evil Empire hard to swallow. Meanwhile, we have Skeleton Crew, which is much more light-hearted fare but which I confess is more my cup of tea (so far) than the somewhat disturbing politics of Andor. The galaxy far, far away is not yet on its last legs – I hope.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps and Thunderbolts* (yes, the asterisk is part of the title): Talking about struggling franchises, Marvel has had some tough years, but found favour with its fanbase this year with Deadpool and Wolverine. After an epic amount of homework – the X-men films and the previous two Deadpool films – I also watched it and really liked it. What's more, I've heard novices that have not done any homework to speak of praise it, which is, as Palps would say, a surprise to be sure but a welcome one. I may yet blog about how the film got away with a multiverse story where other films have failed (the answer is, basically: nothing clever, just two very charismatic leads).

What about this year, then? The upcoming TV projects seem all right, but not wildly thrilling. I had some hopes for the animated Spider-Man series, but judging from the trailer it seems awfully down with the kids (or rather teenagers). On the film front, Thunderbolts* seems promising, as the Thunderbolts team contains some interesting and/or funny antiheroes from previous films. But Fantastic Four is the studio's biggest swing, as it will introduce us comic-book ignoramuses to a new quartet of heroes in a completely new setting.

Now, of course I know that in the comic world, the Fantastic Four have been around since the year dot. There have been other film adaptations of their adventures as well, so they're not new from that perspective. But they're new in the MCU, and aren't tied to the previous complicated web of MCU stories. We are, in a sense, entering a new Enchanted Forest (I'm not one to forgo a Once Upon A Time reference). let's just hope it is enchanted. The casting is great: I'm particularly pleased to see that Joseph Quinn will be joining the MCU team. Others know him from Stranger Things (which I haven't seen); I know him as the actor who made the viewer sympathise with Arthur Havisham and Catherine the Great's useless son.

The Night Manager seasons two and three: I was somewhat sarcastic about the original The Night Manager series and, predictably enough, I think Tom Hiddleston would be better employed playing brainy, possibly redeemable villains rather than a strong, silent bore like Jonathan Pine. All the same, I'm curious. Where can the story possibly go after the first season? We didn't actually see Richard Roper get killed: will he escape his captors and return, out for blood? Will there be justice for Corky?

Possible plot lines for the third Downton film (some more possible than others)

There's to be another Downton film/movie? What is this, the new Terminator franchise? Julian Fellowes has already written a convincing ending to the saga of the Crawley family and its servants – three times. Downton Abbey could have ended after the TV series finale, or the first film, or the second film. I'm not sure how Fellowes was persuaded to return to the world of Downton once more, but I bet the producers are happy.

And of course, as an avid fan, I'm not exactly complaining either; I'm always up for another spot of Downton. However, with so many plot lines already tied up in tidy bows, it will be a challenge for Fellowes to find new ways of bringing the story forward (ideally without ruining the happy endings already engineered in previous Downton content). But not impossible. Here are some storylines I wouldn't mind seeing in a new Downton movie.

Mary's marriage and old beaux: Mary's love life keeps being affected by out-of-universe events. When Dan Stevens opted out, Fellowes had to kill off Matthew Crawley, the love of her life. Now, her second marriage to Henry Talbot is endangered because of the commitments of much-sought-after Matthew Goode, who plays him. Goode's other acting projects meant that he was entirely absent from Downton movie number two, which meant that in-universe, the once loving couple appeared to be estranged (and Henry racing again? Why?). It was the one major disappointment with the second film, and now Fellowes has a chance to fix it.

How, though? Supposing Goode can't or won't appear in this film either, what then? We simply can't have another film with Mary sighing over an absent husband. If Henry Talbot isn't present, he must be got rid of – either through divorce or death.

While it would be rotten luck for poor Mary to lose two husbands to violent death, it would be less messy plot-wise than divorce. Whatever grim alternative Fellowes chooses, I hope the third film is set some years after the event, so that Mary is free to form a new attachment – or rediscover an old one. Surely this is the ideal opportunity to make Lady Mary and Charles Blake (do they have a ship name? Chary? Pig Rescuers?) happen?

Of course, the least harrowing thing for Mary would be if her second marriage did not have to end. If Goode can be coaxed back into the fold, the plot could instead be about him and Mary finding their way back to happiness. I wouldn't mind if an old beau of Mary's – Blake or, why not, Sir Richard Carlisle – gave Talbot a good talking to and pointed out just how much he has to lose by neglecting his wife.

Edith's Marigold secret: Fellowes has been wary of connecting the film plots to the series plots too much in the previous films, but maybe this time he'll consider us die-hard fans. The fact that Marigold is Edith's natural daughter and not just adopted is a secret just waiting to be discovered by a nosy journalist or some other credible threat. A lot of drama could be elicited by the family's and servants' combined efforts to shut the snoop up. I wouldn't mind seeing Edith showing some of her sister's steel and face the challenge bravely instead of just whining.

Peter Coyle's belated appearance: Remember Peter Coyle, Miss Baxter's old flame who persuaded her to steal for him? What if we could finally get to meet this fatal charmer? He would reappear in Miss Baxter's life, filling Molesley with self-doubt by being handsome and charismatic. Once the cad is ousted, however, Molesley will learn that Miss Baxter was never once tempted to return to Coyle and thinks Molesley is worth a hundred of him. That would be moving to see, though I doubt Molesley would be allowed to be caught up in a dramatic storyline rather than a comic one; Kevin Doyle is too good a comedian for Fellowes not to utilise him for high jinks.

The Bateses' future: Yes, you may well wonder: I'm actually, voluntarily, asking for another plot focusing on Mr and Mrs Bates. Even I have been a little embarrassed by the way the admittedly annoying Bates has been shoved into the background in the two films. Perhaps it's time for the couple to face a more grounded problem than various murder charges? 

Back in series two of Downton Abbey, Bates wanted to open a small hotel together with Anna, and she seemed all in favour of the idea. The way things turned out, though, they're still pretty much stuck at Downton. What if Bates finally wanted to move on, but Anna felt guilty for "abandoning" Mary? Mary could resolve the matter in the end by insisting that Anna go and live her own life, but it would make for some drama.

The Butler question: Look, Andy can't possibly become the household's new butler and handle Mr Mason's old farm. Being a farmer, even with an energetic spouse, is decidedly not a part-time job. The Crawleys need to find a new butler, and fast. This could be the "comic relief" part of the film, maybe involving Denker and Spratt (though I'm not sure how I would explain why Denker is still around). And if Mr Carson finally gets to do something right or say something wise in the course of this story unfolding, then so much the better.

Thomas plotting (for the greater good): Shock confession: I wouldn't have minded if Thomas were not in the film. He got his happy ending in Downton Abbey: A New Era, and I really don't want Fellowes to mess it up. But Robert James-Collier is slated to return, so here's how you could use him: Thomas is visiting his old servant friends (kind of) and gets involved in one of the ongoing storylines, such as Peter Coyle's return or the Marigold conundrum. The servants persuade him to help by doing what he (arguably) does best: scheming. Once Coyle or the Marigold snooper has been foiled, partly by Thomas's plans, he can go back to Guy Dexter (I don't think they'll be able to bag Dominic West for another Downton performance, so Guy will have to wait off-screen). That would work, right?

In all probability, none of these possible plots will make an appearance in the third film, except perhaps the fixing of Mary's marital problems. I haven't even found a way to incorporate Uncle Harold (who we know will return) into any of the storylines. But a girl can dream.         

Things to (cautiously) look forward to in 2024

I admit, there are few announcements of 2024 projects in the cultural consumption line that I'm unequivocally excited about. Somehow, I don't think we'll get any great adaptations of Victorian classics this year, and a new Downton doesn't seem to be on the cards either – though there is some hope for original costume dramas on a smaller scale. It seems to be a relatively meagre year for geekdom as well. There's only one Marvel movie slated for 2024 (Deadpool 3 – as I've not watched the previous two Deadpool movies I'm not that invested), and what's worse from my perspective, their planned Disney+ shows don't seem that interesting. They may be fun to watch, or they may not.

Star Wars doesn't appear to be bringing its A game to 2024 either (more on this below). Still, seeing as I've subscribed to eleventy-one streaming services I'm in no position to complain. I feel like a fashionista looking into her enormous wardrobe, wailing "I don't have a thing to wear". Maybe 2024 will be the year when I properly explore the content already available on my services and uncover some gems. Or I may be lazy and simply comfort-rewatch a lot of Downton and Once Upon A Time.

Anyway, I've managed to find a few things that I'll definitely watch and hopefully enjoy:

Doctor Who series fourteen/season one As I've ranted about in my review of the 2023 specials, how much I enjoy RTD's second era as Doctor Who showrunner is entirely dependent on how successfully he steers clear of politics. I've heard a worrying quote from Millie Gibson, who plays Ruby, saying that the forthcoming season will have "controversial" elements and is "what we need". The last thing I need is "controversial" Doctor Who if it takes the form of a showrunner, whose political judgement I don't trust, feeding me his opinions like cod-liver oil. But this might not be what Gibson meant at all. She and Ncuti Gatwa made a great duo in the Christmas special, and there are so many intriguing mysteries set up for this and coming seasons. The one who waits? The Toymaker's legions (I bet that piano-themed villain is one)? The Master's return? Mrs Flood's identity? Oh come on – this has got to be good, hasn't it?

Inside Out 2 Shock confession: I still haven't seen Disney's Wish. It wasn't in Swedish cinemas until the beginning of December, and I was travelling, then I had a cold, and then it was Christmas. By the new year, Wish had moved to the matinee slots, which are of little use to me. So I'll stream it in February or whenever it hits Disney+. Judging by the scathing reviews, it seems that in spite of Magnifico it's not one of the all-time Disney greats.

But at least it will give me some sort of Disney Animation fix this year; otherwise, they are offering nothing. I'm not counting a Mufasa prequel with dead-eyed CGI lions.

However, there is Pixar's Inside Out 2, which could be fun. I loved the original – it's one of my favourite Pixar films, perhaps even the favourite one (in hot contest with Ratatouille). I am a little concerned, though. The film will be tackling Riley's puberty, but among the new emotions introduced in trailers there's no mention of Desire or (which would admittedly be more child-friendly) Love. And in that case, haven't the film's creators kind of missed the point of puberty?

Belgravia: The Next Chapter I had to dive deeply in order to find this one (all right, a Google search on "period dramas 2024"), but apparently there is a sequel of sorts to Belgravia slated to appear in 2024. I say "of sorts" as we're fast-forwarding to the 1870s and a new generation of protagonists, but I'm all for it. The first series of Belgravia, an adaptation by Julian Fellowes of his own novel, was entertaining, if not in the Downton class. But I've stopped expecting the new Downton by now. Just give me a good, solid period drama without TV execs tying themselves in knots over the inequalities of history and I'll be happy.

Moonflower Murders As with Belgravia, my best bet for getting to watch this may actually be Swedish Television, not my aforementioned streaming services (buying the DVD is also an option, of course). It was Swedish Television that picked up the adaptation of Magpie Murders, to which Moonflower Murders is a kind of sequel. These crime novels by the ever-reliable Anthony Horowitz were both great reads, but I think I actually enjoyed the TV adaptation of Magpie Murders more than the book. Lesley Manville is older than I imagined Susan to be, but she has lots of style, and I loved her interactions with the fictional detective Atticus Pünd, played by the mellow-voiced Tim McMullan. In general, there were more connections between the murder Susan was looking into and the story-within-the-story than it was possible to convey in the novel, with actors playing both persons in a murdered detective writer's life and characters in his whodunnit. I'm hoping for more in the same vein.

The Bad Batch season three: Yep, I'm looking forward more to the third season of an animated Star Wars show than to either of the live action series that will (probably) be airing this year. This isn't too much of a slight as I enjoy animation a great deal, and the series has been surprisingly strong so far, considering the loveable clone protagonists are not overly complex characters (I perk up no end whenever the villainous Crosshair shows up). But it's still a bit of a slight. Of course I'll watch Skeleton Crew and The Acolyte, but... kids lost in space (admittedly with Jude Law), really? As for The Acolyte, the quote "This isn't about good or bad, it's about power and who's allowed to use it" doesn't sound very promising (see the first item on the list). Though it has to be said, I'm always there for trashing the Jedi.

Half-way through The Gilded Age season two: many Chekhovian guns not fired

When it comes to TV, I'm in a funny situation from a blog perspective. It's not that there aren't a lot of shows on that I'm interested in; it's just that we're in the middle of them, and I'd prefer to finish them before giving an opinion. The jury's still out on both The Crown season six and the Doctor Who specials (of which only one has aired so far) for different reasons. I'm still not sure what I think of The Crown, and am hoping the six remaining episodes will help me make up my mind. As for Doctor Who, if I review "The Star Beast" now, I risk overemphasising my complaints and forgetting about the good stuff, which includes the wonder of being able to watch the show on telly, at the same time as the UK. I'm hoping the remaining two specials will blow me away and make me more thankful.

So a mid-season report of The Gilded Age it is. Not that I'm certain of what my final verdict will be here either. I can only say so far, so good; however, it's still not a patch on Downton.

This is starting to be a problem, as it's the second season, and we should be past the awkwardness of the show setting out its stall. I think the second season of Downton was my favourite one, in spite of it being set during World War I (I'm not too fond of the World Wars as period-drama settings). So why is The Gilded Age, in spite of being entertaining and the best costume drama we've had in a while, not able to hit the same heights?

From a plot perspective, the show is suffering somewhat from late-Downtonitis. Remember how, in the later series of Downton, some storylines were spun out way too long because they constituted certain characters' "arc" for that particular series? The Green murder investigation comes to mind, as does Thomas (uncharacteristically, in my view) trying to medicate himself straight. (That last one didn't take the whole series, but it felt like it.) There's quite a lot of that sort of plotting in The Gilded Age. Mrs Russell is getting involved in the New York "opera wars". Mr Russell is facing strikes and disgruntled workers. Marian is being mildly courted by an eligible widower. And this, it seems, is what they will be doing all season.

These storylines are left simmering, with a desultory mention here and there, without ever really coming to the boil. I can better face the romances moving slowly than, say, the opera plot, which isn't very thrilling to begin with. But I'd prefer a faster pace all round, where the same character could be involved in more than one major occurrence per season. Just look at how comparatively action-packed Downton series two, episode two was. Both Edith and Thomas loved and lost during the episode, and that was far from all that was going on. Afterwards, Fellowes found new things for them to do. No need to dwell on love interests that aren't going to lead anywhere.

A reason for the drawn-out plot threads is, I suspect, that the show has too many characters to juggle. We have the Brook/Van Rhijn household, the Russell household, and Peggy and her parents. It's a lot, especially as both the Russells and Agnes Van Rhijn keep an impressive number of servants. The result is that many of the characters are still pretty sketchy, and I have a problem even remembering their names. You can see that it would be quite a challenge to furnish them with more than one seasonal story arc per head.

Another problem is that two of the characters that get the most screen time – Bertha Russell and Agnes Van Rhijn – are so hard to feel anything for. I still don't understand what's behind Bertha's social ambitions, and I would much rather get some real insight into Agnes's psyche than hear any more of her Dowager Countess-isms. Last season she was at least a good employer to Peggy, but this season she's just stuffy and awful, apparently without reason. We need some introspective scenes with these ladies fast, or we'll never know why their sister and husband respectively bother with them.

Having said that, other characters and plot lines are more of a success. George Russell is still a cynical delight. Ada Brook is lovely, and I found her autumnal love affair so engaging I basically spent one episode holding my breath fearing that Agnes would spoil it. I'm intrigued to see what happens with disgraced businessman-turned-valet Watson, and how Peggy will disentangle herself from her budding romance with a married man. I can watch Oscar fortune-hunting unsuspecting (or maybe not) heiresses all day. And while the servants of both households haven't had a lot of juicy drama coming their way so far, I do like them and hope that better things will be waiting just around the corner.

I also sort of admire Fellowes's disregard for the "Chekhov's gun" principle, which – sorry, Chekhov – I find to be an overrated piece of storytelling advice. How predictable wouldn't stories be if a gun introduced in act one were always to be fired in act three? Fellowes doesn't scruple to introduce a lot of false trails, as he did in Downton. Oscar's ex-lover simply gave up wooing Gladys Russell out of spite. Peggy's child died, so she won't be hunting for him the whole season. Her visit to the South might, after the foreshadowing of her worried mother's warnings, end up with her witnessing the lynching of one of the bright young people she has optimistically interviewed. Or it might not. Julian Fellowes keeps us on our toes and makes life difficult for people like me who enjoy making predictions.

The latest episode, where Fellowes actually lets a momentous change take place for one of the main characters mid-season, leaves me to hope that the drama will soon pick up the pace. Meanwhile, it is still an enjoyable stroll.

Filling a Downton-shaped hole: Sanditon series three

Yep, I'm late with my blogging, which should really have taken place last week. My excuses are pre-vacation stress and a complete lack of inspiration. But now the vacation has started, and I have a given subject after having watched the whole series three of Sanditon.

Admittedly, there's not much scope for in-depth analysis (which suits me fine, to be honest), as this remained an enjoyable soufflé of a show throughout. The main difference to series one and two was that this time around, we got a satisfying ending. Series three was the final one, and its creators knew it, so they tied everything up in a pretty bow, something critics hate but viewers like myself love. Much as I've tried to see the point of "dynamic" endings that are more like "real life", few things beat a conclusion to a story which clearly signals that everything will be all right.

And that's not the only thing this show succeeded with. I have an impression, too, that it was popular. In (admittedly anglophile) Sweden it was aired on our main channel in a prime-time Saturday slot, and a common line in conversations with other costume-drama lovers became "you've seen Sanditon, of course". Yanks seemed to have loved it as well. Also, the fact that the show was saved from cancellation and then got two more series demonstrates that it must have done something right.

So, what is its appeal? After all, there is plenty to criticise. It's unashamedly shallow, making Downton Abbey look like Dostoyevsky in comparison, and the characters' mind-set feels more modern than Regency. Charlotte's proto-feminism and "follow your heart" rhetoric, and the respectful way it's received by her swains as priceless pearls of wisdom, strain credibility. Marriages of convenience were very much a way of life, and Georgiana's mother, for instance, would not have any reason to be shocked to learn that her daughter wasn't head over ears in love with her fiancé. Arthur Parker refuses to live in a ménage à trois with Georgiana and said fiancé because he would rather "live alone than live a lie". Well, those are exactly his options. If a gay man in Regency England wanted to get any at all, he had to "live a lie". And a Duke was expected to marry and produce heirs, whatever his inclinations. While I could buy why Arthur was upset that his Harry chose to become engaged to Georgiana of all people, I did wonder what exactly he thought would happen.

But for all the clichés, not to mention the unnecessarily drawn-out romance of Charlotte herself and its idiotic misunderstandings, Sanditon was never dull. The acting was consistently good; the actors played every scene, however melodramatic, perfectly straight. The characters were likeable. While much of the story was predictable, there were a couple of surprises and nice details: the unenlightened judge who nevertheless sees himself obliged to judge Georgiana's case fairly; some nuance added to the rakish Sir Edward's character which kept you guessing whether he was serious about Augusta or not; the vicar's realisation that he disapproves of his sister's autumnal romance with Dr Fuchs, not because Fuchs is too sciency but because he (the vicar) doesn't want to live alone; Harry's mother being perfectly aware of and unfazed by his preferences, but anxious that he should escape the gallows (and preferably secure the family's future by doing so) – these were plot points you couldn't necessarily see coming, and were welcome because of it. 

I should also mention that Arthur's rejection of the ménage à trois plan (which sounded pretty good to me, if Georgiana hadn't had a better suitor waiting in the wings) was given some credibility by his fondness for both Harry and Georgiana. He wasn't just thinking of himself; he was convinced that two people he loved would be unhappy together and didn't want to witness it. Arthur's and Georgiana's friendship was a sweet detail throughout the series, which I thought added to their respective character.

Also, while highlighting the good points of series three, Colbourne's lawyer brother turned out to be hot (and better at shaving than his bro), so there's that.

So, to circle back: why does Sanditon work? One important factor, I believe, is that we've missed series like this. That's why I mention Downton in the headline, though Downton in my opinion is a superior show. The point I'm trying to make is that long-running period dramas that focus heavily on relationships, with a sizeable cast and room for plenty of twists and turns and parallel plots, have a large and faithful fanbase which TV producers should perhaps be more mindful of. There's a reason why Downton, Upstairs Downstairs and, in its day, The Forsyte Saga became such big hits. This is why I hope The Gilded Age will eventually become a bigger thing and fill the void. And maybe ITV should give Beecham House another chance?

A perfectly decent sign-off: Downton Abbey: A New Era

So, I was going to blog last week, but had my energy sapped by a week-long heatwave. All right, maybe not just the heatwave. Curiously, I've found it hard to find the motivation to tackle the subject I've lined up, although it's a juicy one: the second, and surely final, Downton film.

Perhaps the subject is a little too juicy. I actually enjoyed Downton Abbey: A New Era more than the first film, but I haven't been looking forward to summarising my thoughts on how the stories for the whole numerous cast of main characters in Downton ended. Therefore, I will dial down the ambition level somewhat, though this is in all probability the last Downton drama we will ever get (unless there's a spin-off set in the future, featuring the Crawley kids as grown-ups and Lady Mary as the new stern matriarch). I'll try concentrating on two aspects: why I prefer this film to the first even though it's essentially lightweight, and why neither of the films lives up to the Downton Abbey series at its best.

I always enjoy rewatching the first Downton Abbey film, but every time I do I get annoyed at the daft "servants insisting on serving the King and Queen and defending Downton's honour" plot. For reasons I explained in my film review, I simply can't buy this. Moreover, we spend an inordinate amount of time on the royal visit, and side-plots connected to it. I didn't think a royal Downton visit was that clever an idea to begin with: it felt like one of the less inspired plot thefts from Upstairs Downstairs (where it was more believable that the then King would pop by). I'm sure the story about Princess Mary and her unhappy marriage is interesting in itself, and I wouldn't have minded seeing more about it in films and TV series about the royal family at the time (The King's Speech, say). But why do we spend time on her in a Downton film, which is already overcrowded with protagonists – the characters we've actually been following for six series? Fellowes did try to connect the King and Queen's visit with what was going on in the lives of Downton residents up- and downstairs, but the conceit felt forced, and if you strip away all the pomp and circumstance, the visit wasn't a very significant event for the main characters of Downton the series.

Downton Abbey: A New Era has a similar problem, in that the two main plotlines – a film crew wants to make a film at Downton Abbey, and the Dowager Countess inherits a French villa from an old beau we've never heard mentioned before – aren't stories that have grown organically, so to speak, from the plots and conflicts we've seen in the series. Like the royal visit, they seem to be there to provide glamorous set pieces around which the characters' personal dramas can unfold. Here, though, I think Fellowes does a better job of integrating the glamorous set-piece plots and the domestic Downton plots. There is at least a little at stake for the main characters. The Earl of Grantham is faced with the possibility that maybe he's not the rightful Earl at all. The film plot may seem only an airy soufflé, but the film crew does threaten to unsettle Lady Mary's family life even as it provides happy endings for other members (and ex-members) of the household. 

Yes, there are new characters unconnected to the series present this time around as well, but their interactions with the Downton crowd made it intriguing to follow their dramas. The friendliness of the French nobleman who is convinced that the Earl is his half-brother adds a layer of complication to the situation the Earl finds himself in. The troubles of the female film star whose common accent may bar her from work on the new "talkies" highlight Anna's diplomacy and Daisy's more no-nonsense approach, and which strategy works best in this particular instance. Overall, Daisy has a much more flattering role than in the last film, and for the first time, as we see a glimpse of their married life, I started to believe in her and Andy as a couple. You could argue that in the first film, Princess Mary's rocky marriage provided an opportunity for another Downton character – Tom Branson – to shine, but it had already been established in other side-plots what a good egg he is. He didn't need more to do in the royal set-up.

Downton Abbey: A New Era is by no means perfect. The plotting is sloppy in places, and there are inconsistencies. What happened to Carson's trembling hands (which we didn't see much of in the previous film either)? He retired for a reason, remember. Where did Molesley learn to lip-read? How can Andy be part of a long-term plan to ensure there's a butler at Downton when he's set to take over Mr Mason's tenant farm? Wasn't Henry Talbot done with car racing, and how is him attending races helpful for his and Branson's business? To be fair, an effort is made to provide an "in-universe" explanation for the absence of Lady Mary's husband (Matthew Goode was busy filming elsewhere) and milk it for dramatic effect. Even so, and although Mary insists that marriage is "a novel, not a short story", which leaves us hopeful she and Henry will get through their rough patch, it feels a little sad to leave her story in a less satisfying place than it was in the previous film. Especially, it provides those of us who still ship Mary and Charles Blake with plenty to shake our heads over.

In the end, though, the writing and characterisation is still recognisably Downtonesque, and the Dowager Countess's send-off is given its proper weight, with many touching moments between her and her nearest and dearest. I love the friendship between the Dowager and the former Mrs Crawley, now Lady Merton, and here it comes into play again. The film ends with an event – or strictly two – which have a real impact on life at Downton, and hint at what the future will look like.

I think the reason why the films don't reach the heights of the Downton Abbey TV series in its prime is partly that they are films. Downton Abbey was conceived as an ensemble piece with plenty of time to flesh out the story arcs of each of its main characters during hours of television. It's impossible to give all of the protagonists the same attention in a film, and so some characters slide into the background. 

You could argue that the Downton specials did a better job of juggling its cast than the films, but they were part of the TV series context in another way. Stories that had been built up through a whole series of episodes – such as Mary's romance with Matthew and her ill-fated engagement to Sir Richard Carlisle – could get their pay-off in a special. Downton Abbey: A New Era more or less dispenses with the pretence that anyone who hasn't seen the TV series would be interested to watch it: that makes as much sense as if someone who hadn't previously seen a Marvel film would watch Avengers: Endgame. Nevertheless, by having external forces largely unconnected to Downton – the King and Queen, an amorous nobleman, a film crew – drive the plots, the films are more self-contained than the series specials were. I think it's a pity. I would rather have seen stories linked to unresolved plot lines in the TV series – like, say, someone threatening to make Marigold's real parentage known to the world – even if that would mean that newcomers wouldn't have a clue what was going on.

Oh, and the answer to the important question "Is Thomas getting any?" is yes. Thomas love interests are like buses – you wait for ages for one to arrive, and then two turn up at once, or at least in consecutive films. I would have been happy with Ellis from the previous film proving to be Thomas's endgame, but I'm not complaining; at least this way one of my Downton predictions partly comes true. Plus, Dominic West!

Predictions for The Gilded Age season two

Should I, to paraphrase the movie Mean Girls, stop trying to make The Gilded Age happen? Perhaps because it's airing on HBO and isn't as immediately accessible to a British or American viewership as Downton Abbey, there doesn't appear to be an awful lot of hype about it. Instead, costume-drama viewers seem a lot more interested in Netflix's Bridgerton. But I'm just back from my first trip to London in three years (well, OK, I travelled back last Sunday – but I'm still tired!) and going for the path of least resistance. I don't have much to say about Bridgerton anyway. It's frothy, escapist, not very action-packed, the ideal viewing if you have a cold, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Regency England (something the series, to its credit, acknowledged briefly in a parallel-universe-explaining scene in season one). The higher Regency society was no melting pot, and the Queen did not literally select the "diamond of the season" as if the season were some beauty pageant. This is pure fantasy, and should be enjoyed as such.

Back, then, to The Gilded Age. To be fair, in terms of action, there's not much more going on here than in Bridgerton. Only towards the end did it pick up the pace – and then, just as all the pieces had been moved into a promising pattern, the season was over (after nine episodes, not ten as I first thought it would be). The Gilded Age suffered from the same problem as late Downton series in that some storylines were dragged out just so the characters involved could have a "season arc". For instance, no-one really believed that Marian Brook's romance with Mr Raikes would come to anything, so that plot line could easily have been shortened, even if it meant having to give Marian something else to do for the rest of the season. For all that, I really liked this series – yes, more than Bridgerton – and now the preliminary introductions to the characters are over and done with there are many interesting ways it could go. In order to follow my old Downton tradition, I think I'll try some predictions, hopefully without spoiling too much of season one for those who have not yet seen it.

Mrs Chamberlain's son makes an appearance Romance seems likely to bloom between Marian and Larry Russell, but will it really be all plain sailing from here? This pairing is so obvious it could easily become boring if there are no other romantic options for these young leads. Marian has made friends with Mrs Chamberlain, a rich and kind woman who is nevertheless shunned by polite society because of her scandalous past. She has a son ("adopted", though he is in fact her biological son) whom we have yet to meet. It would lead to some intriguing developments if he were to take an interest in Marian. What would her aunts say? Aunt Agnes would be shocked, but she has a more pragmatic side, and in terms of wealth young Mr Chamberlain would be a catch for the penniless Marian. Marian herself would be favourably disposed towards the son of a friend. By not being an obvious "Mr Wrong", he could give Larry a run for his money.

Mr Russell does Marian a good turn The admirable George Russell is the kind of man who always pays his debts. Marian unwittingly helped him unearth a scheme to besmirch his good name, and now he owes her one. There's no guarantee he will help her with good grace. Russell is a great character, my favourite by far, but the viewer is still supposed to be a little wary of his ruthless streak. I can see Agnes Van Rhijn being reluctantly grateful to him for helping her niece out of some scrape, and him acknowledging her grudging thanks in a stiff "well, we're even now" way.

An English Lord for Gladys? It's pretty clear that the socially ambitious Bertha Russell is in part modelled on Alva Vanderbilt, which would make her daughter Gladys a parallel to Consuelo Vanderbilt. Consuelo married the Duke of Marlborough, a match fiercely promoted by her mother, but was famously unhappy in her marriage (and let everybody know it). We've already seen that Bertha did not consider a perfectly respectable young banker grand enough for Gladys. Maybe a titled Englishman is what she's looking for as a son-in-law. I don't think the dates match, regrettably, but otherwise one could imagine Bertha trying to secure a young Earl of Grantham for her daughter before he's snatched up by Cora instead. Anyway, I expect some members of the English aristocracy to make an appearance.

Bertha Russell and Agnes van Rhijn team up It may be too soon to expect this in season two, but consider this my standing prediction for future seasons as well. Sooner or later, it will happen. They are both hard-headed women, and will in time find some common cause (possibly involving the happiness of Marian and Larry). Bertha told Mrs Astor that she could prove a useful friend, but I can't really see these two women becoming really chummy – Mrs Astor is more likely to see the point of Bertha's husband (whom she has already conceded to be "a force to be reckoned with"). But Agnes and Bertha do have things in common, and if the situation is dire enough they could be brought to see it. As Agnes has been a bit of a disappointment this far, I think the character would benefit from moving out of her comfort zone.

We learn more about Peggy's ex I'm ashamed to say I can't remember what happened to Peggy's husband. Did he die? Or did her father bully him into accepting a divorce, and in that case, on what possible grounds? In any case, Mr Scott's behaviour over Peggy's marriage is baffling, to say the least. It's one thing if he thought she married beneath her, but she did marry – and yet he handled the whole situation as if she was living in sin. It's rare for a character in a Fellowes drama to behave completely irrationally and in a "stock character" (Stern Father) manner. Does Mr Scott know something about Peggy's hubby that we don't?

Battle of the butlers I suppose the rivalry between Church and Bannister, where the former apparently shopped the latter to his employer when he was earning a little on the side (though should we, and more importantly Bannister, really take Miss Turner's word for this?), will play out somehow. Not that I really want it to. I like them both. Can't they just be pals? 

First impressions of The Gilded Age

In another timeline, where I never discovered Once Upon A Time and didn't lean as hard into my geeky side, I would probably be in love with George Russell by now. He's easily the most compelling character in the Julian Fellowes-scripted The Gilded Age which is now streaming on HBO Max (only one episode per week, annoyingly). From what I've heard, the first season will be ten episodes long, and there's a second season on the way. Which is good news, because this series is – promising.

"Promising" was my first reaction to the pilot episode. I loved episode two, was less taken with the strained plotting in episode three, but then got properly into it all again in episode four. My main criticism is that, maybe, the series should have moved beyond "promising" by now. True, Mr Russell is great. His main function in the story may be that he's the ruthless railway tycoon and representative of "new money", but he's more than just a hard-nosed businessman. With the exception of being implausibly hard on some hapless aldermen in episode three, when it would have served his own interests better to be more lenient sooner, he's sensible and shows good judgment. He objects to his wife treating their grown daughter Gladys as a child, and rightly suspects the high-born Oscar Van Rhijn of pursuing Gladys only because of her fortune. He isn't too touchy as far as his own social status is concerned; when a member of the old New York society confesses in an embarrassed way that his peers "can be snobbish", Russell replies stoically "perhaps they're right to be". His warfare with the old New Yorkers has more to do with them snubbing his wife Bertha than him, plus with their ill-advised attempt to get the better of him in a business deal. Last but not least, he's been an exemplary husband so far, supporting Bertha's social ambitions and rejecting the advances of her scheming lady's maid ("the flaw in your argument is that I love my wife").

But what of the other characters? The antithesis of Mr Russell, set up to be the equivalent of the Dowager Countess in Downton Abbey, is the heroine Marian Brook's aunt Agnes Van Rhijn, who is unfailingly caustic about the "new money" crowd, not least the Russells. But that is mostly her function so far – to be the snobbish dragon whose cynicism nevertheless proves to be well-founded at times. "My Aunt Ada is kind but not clever, my Aunt Agnes is clever but not kind" Marian sums up in the trailer (we haven't seen her say it during the show yet), and that's about it. In fact, Aunt Ada is proving to be the more complex of the aunts this far, as she isn't quite as clueless as her niece and sister think. Bertha Russell has a little more going for her – I like that she is just as unfailingly supportive of her husband as he is of her – but mostly she too is defined by one characteristic, her social ambition. Other characters, like most of the downstairs staff in the Russell and Van Rhijn households, hardly have a personality at all so far. However, Simon "Bridey" Jones plays the Van Rhijns' butler Bannister with enjoyable gravitas, and Kristine Nielsen's Mrs Bauer skips over the first irascible stage of costume-drama cooks and goes directly for the motherliness of Mrs Patmore in later Downton series. There are things to build on here.

One would do well to remember that Downton too took its time to get going in the characterisation department. There, many of the characters had sharp edges who had to be partly filed off in later series. In series one, Mary and Edith were at each other's throats in potentially life-wrecking ways, Mrs Patmore bullied Daisy, Thomas was mean to William for no reason that even I can see (though I get why he didn't care for the needling Mr Bates) and straight up stole, not only wine bottles from the cellar but money out of Mr Carson's pocketbook (this detail I still have difficulty believing). The only one who stayed as sharp in later series as when she was first introduced was Miss O'Brien, and even she was given some softening traits with time. When I reread my thoughts on the first series, I can see that I was well entertained but not completely blown away (though rewatching series one has made me more fond of it).

The Gilded Age's problem, if it has one, is the opposite. Too many of the characters at this stage are just a little too nice. This can definitely be said about Marian, a girl of "good" family who's left penniless by her irresponsible father on his death and is forced to seek a home with her estranged aunts. Marian is unfailingly optimistic and thinks the best of everyone. In some cases, she's probably in for a disappointment, but in others she is surely the one in the right and not her Aunt Agnes. It is a little perverse of me, after having complained that Mary in Downton was too bitchy, to now claim that The Gilded Age's heroine is too much of a goody-two-shoes. Even so, there's a blandness to the character which I hope will be righted in time. What's more, Marian's friend Peggy Scott, a self-sufficient young woman with writerly aspirations who helped her out on her train journey to New York, is also a good girl, so any sharp-tongued bitchiness has to come from the older generation. The latest episode introduced some well-needed tension in the relationship between the girls. Peggy is black and faces all kinds of drawbacks because of it, something Marian seems partly unaware of. At the same time, Marian has made some condescending assumptions about Peggy's circumstances which place her in a very awkward position and ruffle Peggy's feathers. I've no doubt the girls will make up, and I want them to, but the little spat between them did this part of the story some good.

But what is the story? This is another potential problem for the series. Downton had many different storylines going on, but there was a basic throughline. At first, it could be seen as "the heir's tale" – we were to see how the middle-class Matthew Crawley would adapt to being Downton's heir, and how the castle's family would adapt to him. When Dan Stevens bailed, the focus had to shift more to the survival of the estate itself, but you could argue that this was part of the main story all along. The series is called Downton Abbey after all. Up until now, though, we haven't had a clear, main plotline in The Gilded Age. Whose story is it telling? Is it about the "old money" Van Rhijns/Brooks and the "new money" Russells and their relationship to each other? But the two families haven't interacted a lot so far, because of Agnes keeping her distance. Marian and Larry Russell, who I assume will be her proper love interest (Aunt Agnes is probably right about the unsuitability of Mr Raikes) have only met two or three times. In the series synopsis, there's talk of Marian being tasked with "infiltrating" the Russells. The sooner they can start that plot unfolding, the better.

What to look forward to in 2022

A new year has dawned, and it's time for a traditional list of some kind. Looking back at my wish list for 2021, it did come true, partly. There was no new Dickens adaptation, and it was a meagre year for costume dramas overall, but Disney animation released two very solid films which I enjoyed much more than I expected, Raya and the Last Dragon and Encanto. On the minus side, they both still followed the new Disney formula, which meant no memorable villains and no romance (to speak of). Chibnall bowed out as show runner for Doctor Who and will be replaced with Russell T Davies, no less (I plan to blog about what to expect from him, and what not to expect, at a later date). I haven't had an opportunity to check out series thirteen, though – more of that below. There was some new Star Wars content, if not as much as I'd hoped; when they announced a squillion new TV series, I didn't realise they meant to release them during years to come, not all at once. I had a good time with the animated series The Bad Batch (though, sorry, no way that Fennec Shand could take out Cad Bane, my favourite bounty hunter), the anime shorts Star Wars: Visions were cute, and The Book of Boba Fett has started out very promisingly.

For 2022, enough interesting projects have been greenlighted for me to fill a list of things which will actually happen (unless postponed by a pi variant of covid or similar) and which I look forward to:

Doctor Who series thirteen (and maybe a couple of specials) As a subscriber to HBO Max, I thought I would have a chance to stream the new series as it aired, or maybe with a couple of days' delay. No such luck. If information gleaned from web searches is anything to go by, HBO Max streams its acquired series approximately six months after they have first been shown in their original channels. So the fastest way for a non-British citizen to get hold of new Who content legally is still through good, old-fashioned DVDs. The good news is, series 13 will be released on DVD as early as the end of January. I can wait that long. Surely.

Though I am worried about the new series, and the possibility that Chibnall could cement his ill-conceived idea of the Timeless Child to the extent that it can no longer be retconned by later show runners, I am still excited about it. Though series twelve was bogged down by the Timeless Child reveal and those awful environmental episodes, I still thought it was a step forward compared to series eleven, so I'm curious to see what Chibnall comes up with next – especially as there will be a clear, continuous story arc this time. Also, I'm looking forward to seeing more of Sacha Dhawan's Master.

The Gilded Age Yes, believe it or not, it's actually happening! This new series written by Downton Abbey's Julian Fellowes has been in the works for ages. I already had it on my list of things to look forward to in 2019, and it had been a long time coming then. But now it's finally ready to be aired (on HBO Max – I knew I had it for a reason) on 24 January, and trailers have been released. The drama takes place in late 19th-century New York, and it seems it will display a surprising amount of snobbishness among the rich families in the Land of the Free. I have mixed feelings about being introduced to yet another Dowager Countess Surrogate Character in the shape of the heroine's Aunt Agnes, but I like the shameless tycoon already.

Downton Abbey: A New Era I still remember, from when I was a teenager, a TV column where the cheeky columnist admitted to being sick and tired of dramas inspired by Ingmar Bergman's parents and childhood experiences. "What next, Ingmar's Parents Buy a Horse?" he wondered sarcastically (the "X buys a horse" template being a classic when it comes to naming sequels of Swedish children's books). It has to be said that the setup for the second Downton Abbey film has a hint of The Crawley Family Buy a Horse about it or, following another classic template, The Crawley Family Go on Vacation. The Dowager Countess, who's still alive (how on earth did they persuade Maggie Smith to return?), has inherited a villa in France, presumably from another of her old admirers, and now the family is set to visit it. At some part of the proceedings we will see Tom Branson and his new flame Lucy get married and be introduced to a glamorous female who looks like a movie star and is probably (I'm calling it now) the main antagonist of the film.

I may go more into detail about my expectations and predictions for the film in future (the release date is in March), but for now, I can say that it looks like another slice of simple Downton, much like the first film. It doesn't seem likely that old plot lines from the series will be explored further, and any threat to the peace of mind of the Downton crew, upstairs and downstairs, will be external. I would have liked more complex drama and exploration of the Downton characters we're already invested in, but Downton is Downton and I'll take what I can get gratefully. As long as Fellowes doesn't split up Thomas and his clandestine love interest Ellis, I'll be happy. Oh, and can Molesley and Miss Baxter kiss, at least? Please?

Around the World in 80 Days I haven't read the novel by Jules Verne and I know the plot primarily from an Illustrated Classic magazine (also, a friend of mine had an illustrated version of the actual novel, and I can remember us poring over the pictures when we were kids). In other words, I shouldn't be too fussed over the latest TV adaptation's accuracy compared to the novel, especially as I remember having a blast with the extremely free TV adaptation from 1989 starring Pierce Brosnan as Phileas Fogg. There are some things about the trailer and information gleaned from a British review that give me pause, though. I don't mind them ethnic-switching Passepartout – I don't think it will be too much of a stretch to imagine that Fogg's servant with the cosmopolitan-sounding name (literally meaning "a key which fits all doors") descends from, say, one of the French colonies – but I don't see why they need to add a female journalist into the mix. There's already a female protagonist in the story – Princess Aouda, Fogg's love interest – who joins the guys later. So why do we need this journalist chick? As a female viewer, I feel patronised: I can enjoy the zany adventures of two men fine, even without Aouda, and certainly without an Insert Strong Woman Here character. Though seeing as the journalist is nicknamed Fix, the name of the detective who chased Fogg in the original, maybe she will be revealed to be an antagonist at some point? That would make things more interesting.

I'm also afraid that the TV series will be tiresomely po-faced about 19th-century politics and not half as much fun as the Brosnan version. So why am I still looking forward to it being aired on Swedish TV, or one of my many streaming services? The answer: David Tennant plays Phileas Fogg. With his mixture of thinking-woman's-crumpet attractiveness and comic ability he feels ideal for the part. And I'm not going to look a gift costume drama in the mouth... too much.

Geeky TV shows on Disney + One great advantage of my long Marvel prep in order to be able to watch Loki is that I'm now fairly well-wersed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and I find, much to my surprise, that I tend to enjoy MCU products, whether they are movies or TV series. It's not Once Upon A Time or Doctor Who, but I think I can say that the MCU has made it to the "bronze tier" of pop culture I enjoy, where it sits along with (possibly a bit below) Star Wars content. This means Disney + will be sure to cater to my geeky needs all the year round. When the Star Wars franchise doesn't deliver, the MCU surely will. Only this December, Hawkeye (MCU) was followed seamlessly by The Book of Boba Fett (Star Wars), and so I hope it will continue. However, now I'm watching the geeky series in real time, instead of binging on them retroactively, I will probably experience drought periods where I don't especially fancy what's being offered. Not everything from the MCU is solid gold, and I may have to wait for the second season of Loki until next year.  

Why Belgravia lacks the secret Downton ingredient

I've not been very lucky with my reading lately - there have been a couple of rereads and nothing very blogworthy. I did manage to finish Alix E. Harrow's The Ten Thousand Doors of January but I didn't care for it, and I don't feel that inclined to launch into a potentially contentious rant explaining why. (My favourite character was Mr Locke. He turns out to be the villain. And believe you me, that is not a spoiler.)

It seems, then, that I will have to stick to the TV series theme for a bit. Luckily, my streaming services have obliged me by providing decent material. I acquired a new service (free the first year: after that an absolute bargain) mainly so I could finally watch Belgravia, adapted by Julian Fellowes from his novel. Now, I actually read Belgravia when it first came out. It was published in instalments electronically and could be accessed by a mobile app, so it was the first (and probably the last) novel I read on my phone. The electronic reading experience wasn't great: I found it hard to make my mobile understand when I wanted to turn the page, and the screen went into idle mode every few minutes. This may have coloured my perception of the book, but I remember not being very impressed with it. Never mind not measuring up to Downton: the main problem was that it wasn't nearly as good as other novels by Fellowes, Past Imperfect especially. It felt a bit flat and full of forced exposition about 19th-century London, which could then be linked to more information about the history being explored. I'm afraid watching the adaptation doesn't do much to dispel these impressions, though it's considerably more enjoyable to get acquainted with Belgravia this way as opposed to per app.

The background of the story goes as follows. In 1815, before the battle of Waterloo, Sophia Trenchard and Edmund Bellasis, son of the Earl of Brockenhurst, get together in Brussels. They marry in secret (Sophia is the daughter of the English army's supplier and therefore as common as they come). Before Edmund rides off to battle, Sophia sees the parson who married them get up on the horse next to him, also dressed as an officer. She therefore concludes that she was tricked into a fake marriage and that an army pal of Edmund's helped him out with getting her into bed. Edmund dies in the battle and Sophia discovers that she is pregnant.

Fast-forward twenty-five years or so. Sophia's father James Trenchard has made good and is now a wealthy property developer, though the aristocracy and gentry still look down on him, much to his distress. Mrs Anne Trenchard meets Lady Brockenhurst, Edmund's mother, at a tea party. After having thought it through she goes against her husband's wishes and informs Lady Brockenhurst that she has a grandchild. Sophia died in childbirth, and her son has been raised by a respectable couple without knowing anything about his background. He is now a promising young manufacturer called Charles Pope.

It's a good set-up for plotting and counter-plotting, if you can swallow the premise that no-one even thought of looking into Edmund's pal's credentials during all this time. What with Edmund being such a decent chap, is it likely that he would treat his lady love so shamefully? Yet not even Sophia questions it, only Edmund's own mother when she eventually hears the story (and she assumes that Sophia was a hussy and that no marriage, sham or otherwise, took place). Even as a supposed bastard, though, Charles Pope puts a lot of noses out of joint as both Lady Brockenhurst and the Trenchards make much of him. The Brockenhurst heir, John Bellasis (the villain), and Trenchard's son Oliver both have good reason to ask themselves why this young sprig of a wool merchant is favoured above them. 

So, what's missing, then? The reviewer in The Daily Telegraph complained that the series and character lacked the Downton warmth, and I think she's on to something. It's worth remembering that Downton Abbey's characterisation wasn't very subtle to begin with, and the characters only acquired depth as the story went on. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that the two families involved in Belgravia's intrigues elicit so little sympathy. One major drawback for me was that I couldn't warm to Anne Trenchard. She is clearly supposed to be the Voice of Reason, yet in one of the first scenes (set in 1815), she complains about her husband having obtained invitations to a high-class ball where she feels they will be out of place. It is true that the Trenchards are out of their depth at such a gathering, but whingeing about it and wincing every time her husband makes a faux pax isn't going to improve matters. Tamsin Greig does what she can with the part, but the fact remains that Anne lacks the kind, forbearing nature of, say, Mrs Hughes in Downton. The scenes where Greig's Mrs Trenchard faces off Harriet Walter's Lady Brockenhurst may be the best in the series - they have a good dynamic - but there is zero chemistry between Mr and Mrs Trenchard. When their marriage hits the rocks, one feels that there was not much marriage left to ruin. Compare these marital scenes with the ones between Lord and Lady Grantham in Downton, and the aforementioned lack of warmth is apparent.

Belgravia is still very much worth the watch, and bears the Fellowes hallmark all right. The characters get down to business in a refreshingly down-to-earth manner without much flim-flammery. When John Bellasis's mother - married to an inveterate gambler - discovers that her son has robbed her of her little hoard of silver which she kept for an emergency, she doesn't go to pieces, merely sits down on the bed and resignedly hopes that he'll make good use of the money. When apparent calamity hits them, Fellowes characters face facts and make the best of things. Fellowes is also very good on English snobbery, as someone who - I imagine - hasn't been above serving up a few put-downs of his own in his day. When English snobbery is being satirised by an outsider, it's often overdone, and they miss the hurtful sharpness of it. A snobbish English put-down is as often as not dressed up as a pleasant remark, so that the snubbers can then tell themselves "Oh, I'm sure X didn't get that anyway". But if you do get it, you feel insulted twice over, as you have apparently been dismissed as stupid as well as vulgar.

If you catch it and are a fan of early Downton, you'll have a good time with this series. For my part, I'm still looking out for The Gilded Age, but with less and less hope that it will contain a satisfying villain.

The English Game - a half-hidden Fellowes-scripted half-gem

These are odd times we live in. On Monday, I had a cough and a slight ache in my lungs, which has resulted in me spending the whole week - barring a walk or two - in my flat, avoiding social contacts and watching TV. So, not that different to my usual routine, then, but with less work.

This means I can't complain about lack of blogging material. Putting aside the Maleficent sequel (bonkers) and the Pierce Brosnan Bond films (I do think he's my favourite Bond) for now, let's have a look at a recent Julian Fellowes-penned series. No, not Belgravia, sadly - though I read the book back when it was still an app, so I'm not too impatient - but The English Game.

I don't know if it's just my Netflix feed, but they don't seem to be promoting this series very hard, do they? My Swedish daily, which let me down when it came to Onward, made good by pointing out that this was on, otherwise I might have missed it. Perhaps it's because I mostly watch nerdy series and rom-coms on Netflix. Or else the algorithm thought, much as I myself did: "nah, this villain-ogling female knows zilch about football and cares less, it's probably not for her".

And to be sure, I wasn't too thrilled to hear Fellowes would be writing a miniseries (does it qualify as that? Six episodes?) about the beginnings of football when he should be spending his time finally finishing The Gilded Age. I have to say, though, I enjoyed this series more than I expected. Fellowes has had two co-writers, and they've all done a good job. However, although I'm guessing the writers have given themselves a great deal of poetic licence, reality does seem to come in the way of a good story once or twice.

The series takes place in 1879 England and focuses on two football virtuosos - Arthur Kinnaird, well-to-do captain of the aptly named team the Old Etonians, and Fergus Suter "the shooter", who along with his mate Jimmy Love has perfected the strategy of passing the ball in a neat fashion rather than charging with it from one part of the playing field to the other. Suter and Love have been hired by Walsh, a Northern mill owner, in order to boost his football team of mill hands, Darwen FC. Problem is, it's against the rules to pay football players, so if the gentlemen amateurs who rule the FA Cup committee want to make trouble, they can.

The first episode had me gripped - and, yes, even I was rooting for the mill workers. The series looked as if it was going to be a mix between North and South (Gaskell version, not Orry, George and the crazy villains) and The Four Minute Mile, with a bit of Chariots of Fire thrown in. I thought the story would be about the Old Etonians and Darwen FC competing for the cup - perhaps throughout a couple of years - while Kinnaird and Suter, at first hostile, come to respect each other more with time. And yes, the last bit happened. But halfway through the series, Suter abandons Darwen for Blackburn, another Northern working-class team that pays more. Yes, he needs to help his mother and sister who are brutalised by his father, so it's understandable, but this wasn't the drama I wanted to watch. What do I care about Blackburn, its envious captain and its somewhat wimpy owner Mr Cartwright, who isn't half as endearingly folksy as Walsh? I was invested in Darwen, hang it! I didn't want to see Suter's former team mates glowering at him for a whole episode or two. That's just painful to watch. Give me some thrilling matches!

But there, they can't tamper with history so much that the wrong teams meet up in the final, so we have to swallow that the Darwen folk come round and cheer on Blackburn anyway, because at least it's a Northern team and would be a victory for the workers etc. Hmmm. Not sure I buy it, but if it stops those glowering-at-Suter scenes, OK. At least the Darwen-Blackburn tensions, leading to a riot in a "friendship" game, set up the final argument, where the FA committee threatens to ban Blackburn from playing owing to unsportsmanlike behaviour and general rule-breaking.

One of the strengths of this series is that it takes the concerns of the Old Guard seriously. They're not just a bunch of over-privileged snobs seeking to oust honest working men (who are often better players, too) from "their" game. Arthur's friends are genuinely afraid of the consequences of allowing professional players. This is better explained than in The Four Minute Mile or Chariots of Fire, where as a viewer you just thought the obsession with "gentlemanliness" and amateurism barmy. If players are allowed to be paid, Arthur's pals argue, it would be possible for rich team owners to cherry-pick the best talent, leaving other teams with less money at a loss. Moreover, it would generate bad feeling leading to the kind of violence among fans witnessed at the Darwen-Blackburn game. It's hard to deny that much of what these gents feared has come to pass. Suter and co. have the better arguments and are clearly the future of football, but you do see where the toffs are coming from.

A girl in Class sneeringly referred to Downton Abbey as "white people being nice to each other". I sternly dismissed that remark - I mean, has she met Miss O'Brien? - but Fellowes at his best can set up scenarios where you understand both parties of a quarrel, and they can end up understanding each other too by listening to each other. There's also a refreshing feeling of getting right down to it when discussing some important issue, not hedging around for the sake of drama. Martha, Suter's girlfriend who was made pregnant by Cartwright a few years previously (they were in love, apparently, not just screwing around) is paid a visit by Mrs Cartwright (childless), who has just learned the truth. "She looks just like him", she says, gazing at Martha's daughter. "Like who?" Martha tries, but a look from Mrs Cartwright is enough for her to drop the pretence: "Yes, she does". It's not an easy path, and it doesn't happen right away, but the two women do end up "being nice to each other" in the end - and I, for one, am all for it.      

Of villains in the Thomas mould there are none. I don't recall there being any particularly tasty villain in Belgravia either - the baddie was of the caddish persuasion, and I'm not too fond of those - so here's hoping The Gilded Age delivers. When it finally comes.