Y’know, I would’ve accepted this rather than having Matthew die. I understand if Stevens didn’t renew the contract, then they had to do something … but so much of the entire premise of the series is that this (shudder) working professional suddenly finds himself the next in line to inherit this huge estate and the aristocractic lifestyle that comes with it. He’s the bridge between the two societies. The role of Matthew is integral to the story. (Unlike Game of Thrones, where the story is the story, and it’s not so jarring when they kill off another “main character”. IMHO.)
The entire series has to change. Then again, perhaps it already was …
[QUOTE=brownMouse]
{snip} …so much of the entire premise of the series is that this (shudder) working professional suddenly finds himself the next in line to inherit this huge estate and the aristocractic lifestyle that comes with it. He’s the bridge between the two societies. The role of Matthew is integral to the story. {snip}
[/QUOTE]
I agree. I wish they had re-cast the rôle.
It’s still possible. Fellowes could comatize Matthew and then bring him back to conciousness with a new actor. That is, unless PBS cut something from the end which would prove that impossible to do. IDK…
Maybe the fans could start an online campaign to bring Matthew back, played by someone else. Whom should they cast? Matthew MacFayden (if he bleached his hair)?
LOL! We posted pretty much at the same time. I only had the link because I was looking for some explanation as to why the dog hadn’t aged. Because yeah, I think about stuff like that, too. If the dog was say, 2 yrs old in the first season (1912) she would be 10 or so now. Not that old, but certainly getting up there for a lab.
What did I miss here. He was driving home from the hospital and they showed him in a state of carefree bliss. They went out of their way to make it look like a celebratory drive.
If they need to kill off any more characters bring back Shirley MacLaine and …
PBS didn’t cut anything from the episode. This series, in fact, we’ve seen some short bits that weren’t shown in the UK. (Besides, I doubt PBS cuts anything; the original production company usually prepares an alternate version.)
Series 4 has begun shooting; it will begin 6 months after The Tragedy. Matthew is dead & the scripts have been written–some of them, at least. Substituting an actor is soapish–but Downton is a posh soap. In the old days, a season ran once & then re-ran in the summer; no tapes, DVD’s or online streaming. Now a few clicks can bring any episode to the screen; perhaps they thought recasting would be too confusing.
Personally, I don’t think recasting would have been a bad idea. But the way Matthew died made me think that Fellowes kept begging DS to stay. Past the end of series 3 and into the Christmas episode–nope, he still wanted to leave. So there was nothing to do but tack on a quick accident…
I know anyone can watch any episodes of DA any time, but with the long break until the next season, recasting could have been a real possibility. Start up again far enough into the future with a new actor, it wouldn’t be so jarring, and people could get into the story after an initial flurry of “OMG, that’s the new guy? He looks the same/looks totally different”. With Matthew’s death, this is probably the beginning of the end of DA, both the show itself and the storyline. They will eventually have to sell the house in the 30’s and they wouldn’t take it up into WWII.
Yes, I would definitely have recast the role. It would be a little disorienting for the first few minutes, but if it was a good actor he would’ve made the role his own very quickly. As it is, Matthew’s death was rushed and just seems like a cheap stunt.
Personally I’m glad the character is gone with the actor that protrays them. To me it’s a little homage to the great work that particular actor did on the series. And as such they’re irreplaceable. I guess I’m just not as upset about Mathew as I was about Sybil. I found the Jessica Brown Findlay character just so of her age, and so likable. I really think there could have been an exciting modern development between Sybil and Branson, and I would have loved to see the “social” sacrifices they would have made for their love, rather than her death.
Mathew, let’s face it was a bit of a sap in the episodes lamenting about his inheritance, so I’m not as in love with Mary and Mathew characters as I wanted to be with Sybil and Branson.
I’m sure they’d get complaints either way, but I’m just having a tough time picturing the storyline without him. Maybe the plan is to move on to something else entirely next season though. The marriage was now happy,and the succession resolved, so end story line - Next!!!
The habit of looking for the long-term foreshadowing is so ingrained, I’m having trouble adjusting to the obvious fact that it just doesn’t happen in this show. Arcs are short and straight-forward and mainly tragic. There’s a good attempt to include the important historical and societal pressures of the time, and there’s lots of pretty costumes. I need to stop looking for the careful crafting of generational arcs that the BBC has done so well in the past.
I think the basic premise is "Rich folks have their troubles too. "
What could they have cut? Matthew’s death was so shoehorned in that if anything was cut it was more fluff about the family cooing over the baby.
This thread is too long to page through but viewers DID notice that the death was completely off-scene for all the other cast and could be snipped back out without changing a word anywhere else? Even Mary’s final speech would still be touching/amusing without what was likely unintended poignancy. I’d guess that 30 seconds or so of inconsequential final happy-into-the-sunset-until-next-time shots hit the editing floor to make room for the Matthew material.
I was amused that he was driving a very early ancestor of my own summer car. I need to be careful driving it should my wife unexpectedly gift us with a seventh bairn…
Not necessarily. Not everyone went bankrupt during the Great Depression, and plenty of families have managed to hold onto their estates up to the present day. Like the Carnarvon family of Highslere Castle. The Crawleys could easily be operating Downton Abbey as a hotel or tourist attraction (or filiming location) in 2013. Don’t get me wrong; they’d go through some very hard times, and probally have to move during WWII (it’d be really ironic if this time it was taken over completely by the Americans).
AFAIK the only time PBS cuts anything is to comply with US broadcast standards, which isn’t usually a problem. Fellowes said as much with re Matthew’s dead. Since he didn’t want to make the Xmas special about Matthew’s death his only options were to either tack it on at the end, or kill him offscreen between series.
Downton wasn’t expected to be this popular or last this long. Two seasons and a Christmas special qualifies a British show (especially a period piece) as a sucess. The actors only signed 3 year contracts, some less than that. I’m getting tired of all the Matthew/Mary storylines (especially since they resolved the will they or won’t they tension).
Anyone else think that if Stevens had renewed his contract the baby would’ve either been a girl, stillborn, or Mary woudn’t have been pregnant at all? Now that they’ve married infertility would be the most logical plot to focus on next. I kinda wanted Matthew to be the one with the problem because of all the plot possiblities that would open up.
The whole Thomas following Jimmy storyline seemed wrong to me. It’s been 8 months, at the very least, since the incident, and we’re supposed to believe, in all that time, Thomas is still pining for a bit of action with Jimmy? That, after being given a promotion to under-butler and having suffered the fall out from his first attempt, he would actually try on again with Jimmy? I don’t buy it.
I can buy that’s what the writers want us to think, but I don’t believe the character would be so sentimental or stupid after all that time. If the fair had happened only a month or so later, maybe, but even then, I don’t think so. He nearly went to prison last time, I don’t see him trying again with someone who was ready to report him to the police the first time.
If Fellowes should decide that Matthew is “not dead yet”, I think Doctor Who’s Arthur Darvill (Rory) would be a good replacement. Though I seriously doubt that will happen and this will be the English Channel Shark Jumper.
[QUOTE=Rhiannon8404]
The whole Thomas following Jimmy storyline seemed wrong to me. It’s been 8 months, at the very least, since the incident, and we’re supposed to believe, in all that time, Thomas is still pining for a bit of action with Jimmy? That, after being given a promotion to under-butler and having suffered the fall out from his first attempt, he would actually try on again with Jimmy? I don’t buy it.
I can buy that’s what the writers want us to think, but I don’t believe the character would be so sentimental or stupid after all that time. If the fair had happened only a month or so later, maybe, but even then, I don’t think so. He nearly went to prison last time, I don’t see him trying again with someone who was ready to report him to the police the first time.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Just watched it again to be sure. When James is surprised that Thomas was following him he asks why. Thomas sheepishly says “you know the reason”.
[/QUOTE]
On the question of why Thomas followed Jimmy, there’s two levels of why. The immediate level is that a drunk guy who pissed off a lot of people and is waving around a huge wad of cash is “cruisin’ for a bruisin’” and is going to need some help soon. The deeper why – why the usually-selfish Thomas cares about the immediate “why” enough to act with some risk to himself – prompts the sheepish “you know the reason.” In short, I don’t think he followed Jimmy in forlorn hope of a snog under the bridge.
I agree that Thomas followed Jimmy to protect him. He also just wants to be where Jimmy is, not because he thinks anything will happen, but just to be close to him.
