Is anyone watching Lord Fellowes’s latest show? This era in US history is really fascinating and while it’s not a Downton Abbey prequel per se it’s cool to see the kind of environment Cora would’ve grown up in. I can easily see Mrs. Russell forcing her daughter across the Atlantic to marry into the British aristocracy. The van Rhijn/Booth house is giving Upstairs/Downstairs vibes. And I had my suspicions about Oscar the moment he entered the scene. 
yeah ive always said the most interesting period in us/UK history was the gilded age and there’s the historical fact that one such us heiress/titled marriage produced one of the greatest world leaders since 1900
I’ve only watched the first episode.
- Some great casting/performances (Baranski)
- Some (to me) poor casting/performances (specifically, Mrs. Russell)
- Great costumes
- Very heavy-handed in so many places; I get that they’re trying to show “hey, this is what this character is about” in the first episode, but: A) it comes across transparently and clumsily, and B) it’s actually better to have nuanced multi-dimensional characters that we learn about over time, rather than hitting us over the head with cardboard cutouts.
There is a lot of potential here, and worth watching, but personally I don’t know if I can get past the nouveau-riche actor portrayal.
I watched the first episode and will probably watch the rest, but the critics were not kind to the show. Their impression, from the several reviews I read, was that it doesn’t work well, particularly compared to Downton Abbey. Most of the principal characters are fictional, but some on the edges are real people, like the hostess at the party in Newport. And Mrs Astor was mentioned but not shown.
I’ve watched both episodes, and so far I’m entertained enough. I plan to keep watching.
I agree, it isn’t great TV but entertaining,
I’ll definitely stick up for the acting of Mrs. Russell (Carrie Coon). I think where it falls short is that it’s just so darn straightforward. These people are this way. These other people are this way. But I think the acting is as good as could be hoped, given the (so-far) very one-dimensional characters.
I’m curious if the old-money-vs-new-money rivalry in real life was anywhere near as bitter and out-in-the-open as is shown. It just seems bonkers-pointless-over-the-top. Like, there’s a difference between “hey, those people keep subtly snubbing us in various hard-to-define ways” and “those people literally forbid their young people from even being seen with us in public”.
I’m curious about this too. I could understand if it was set in the UK, with our ingrained class system and 1000 year old titled aristocracy, but in The Gilded Age, the old money isn’t much older than the new money, yet they treat the new money like Untouchables.
Was it clear to anyone else what the financial maneuver was that Russell pulled off this most recent episode? So the alderman short sold his stock and then passed a law to damage his company’s actual value, so the stock should fall. OK. Then he bought up a ton of the stock to prop up the price. OK. I can see how that would bankrupt the alderman. But… seems like he’s still also going to lose a ton of money, if the law doesn’t change. I feel like a step was missing.
The show is definitely watchable, but there’s really not much substance to it, so far.
I think he told his wife that he’d lose a lot of money challenging them and that they might lose everything. I think the idea is he has deeper pockets so he can outlast them.
I’ve been watching and I really like it! I watch and enjoy another period show called Murdoch Mysteries (takes place in Toronto at the turn of the century) and I think the acting and some of the writing is really dreadful on that, so compared to that this is top-notch entertainment.
I didn’t watch Downton Abbey but I decided to watch this just on a whim. I’ve been growing weary in the past few years of “watching rich people do rich people stuff” entertainment so I went in with trepidation. But I am glad to see we have the character of Miranda Brooks walking around saying out loud how absurd all of these rich people are.
And now with this last episode, with all the rich guys begging and pleading, and the one guy getting on his knees, we didn’t even need Miranda narrating the absurdity. I actually felt bad that dude killed himself…partly because suicide is the worst but also we don’t get to see him suffer.
Sure, which will bankrupt them all. And… then what? That won’t undo their actions and make his station legal again. What would have made sense would be them agreeing (in writing? some way to make it binding) to re-legalize the station. In return he stops buying stock for a while, the stock price tumbles some, they escape from their short positions without going fully bankrupt, then the station is legal again, the stock price goes up, and he gets what he wants. As it is… based on the parameters the show describes, he’s still going to go bankrupt, just a while after they all went bankrupt.
Yes, the aldermen bought their stock on margin, so when the price went up they made a ton. But then they shorted the stock. Shorts have a time period attached to them. So Russell bought the stock to keep the price up so when the short contract came up, they’d lose all the money they put in.
Russell figured out that once they made bank on shorting the stock, they’d buy it at the rock bottom price and basically control the company.
So even if/when the stock price drops again, the aldermen are in no position to buy up the stock and leave him out of the control.
I am very disappointed. Downton Abbey, it ain’t. If it weren’t for Carrie Coon (who can do no wrong) I’d be out already.
That’s pretty much what all the reviews I read prior to the show airing said; it’s not nearly as good as Downton Abbey. And, IMHO, Downton Abbey itself was flawed.
Huh, I actually quite like it. I find the rivalry between New and Old Money to be more interesting than Downton so far. And I, and my friend group, had written off the critics as being completely wrong about the show.
I guess YMMV.
My wife likes it. I find it formulaic and therefore predictable.
I find that this show is very pro-woman and I actually like all of the characters. No one is completely loathsome, not even Aunt Agnes. She is very good to Miss Scott and they also show her having compassion for Ada.
I find it just un-predictable enough. Reactions to Miss Scott are mixed, as opposed universal scorn. Some people like the Russells, some hate them. Sometimes the Russells get a win, sometimes not. The hired help don’t have predictable personalities. The older woman was sympathetic to the younger one instead of telling her to buck up.
I watched Mr. Selfridge when it was on and I thought that was pretty predictable. This show seems more even-keeled, more subtle, more well-rounded characters.
I’m finding it very fidgety to sit through all the microanachronisms. Most consistently among the costumes. Much of the fabric is made with techniques not much in use at that time. There is a lot of asymmetry, which would have been seen as avant garde, if not outright outrageous. And most of that is weighted toward the left, suggesting that everyone uses the same dressmaker.
Miss Scott’s wardrobe makes little sense. The fashion of never wearing the same ensemble twice was a privilege of the .01%, but since I started noticing in episode 2, Miss Scott has worn at least 4 completely unique outfits. (Imagine the trunks from Pennsylvania!) And these are the superstructured styles of the day which required at least one servant to help dress the wearer.
In another scene, I saw a white satin printed with 3D motifs of gold metal work, a là Versace, and at least one jacquard with midCentury modern designs.
And Mr. Russell used the metaphor “to throw a curve ball” in 1882. The curve ball was invented in 1881. Then he prefaced his use of “face the music” by calling it a “modern phrase,” when its origins trace back at least 50 years prior. The script feels like a random jumble of idioms with no attempt made to verify their usage.
These things don’t affect the story. But they affect my own respect for the storytellers, specifically as an indication of their respect for the audience. They suggest a vaguely insulting level of apathy that colors the whole project for me. If I, with my limited knowledge, know these examples are incorrect, how am i supposed to suspend my disbelief for the rest of it?
Which is interesting because I hadn’t realized any of this in the slightest. FWIW, Downton had quite a few anachronisms as well - which seems to indicate that Fellowes just doesn’t care terribly much about doing the research on every term.