A new Generation at 165 Eaton Place.
Discuss.
Very good. If my math is right Rose is finally looking her age. The original series took place over 25 years (1905-1930), but nobody ever aged (except for James’s grey streak). Assuming she was in her late 20s/early 30s when the show started she should be in her early to mid sixties. Jean Marsh is 75, but her character has spent her entire life in domestic service (& it’s not like she’d be spending her money on cosmetics). I did think it was a little odd she had such a hard time finding servants (especially lower servants like maids or footmen) when the UK was in the middle of the Great Depression. :dubious: A good cook or butler I can understand. I’m glad the BBC has ordered another series. I’m really interested in what’s to become of Lady Persie if & when she gets back from Germany. Just how closely are they modeling her on Unity Mitford? 
A saw about 20 minutes of this before I turned it off. I’m thinking I’d enjoy it more if I watched the original version first.
What do others think?
Yeah, it probably made little sense without the original version – at least, the first 20 minutes or so. There was quite a bit of nostalgia – the ruins of the house, Rose’s reactions, the key that says “Mr Hudson”, etc etc. After they get some staff hired and the subplots start up, it was more clearly its own show. I think you probably turned it off just before the show really started.
One confusion I had: I thought Rose had her own employment agency (it was called Buck’s), so why would she go back to working as servant/housekeeper?
The bit about them expecting the king for their party was particularly fun, since it was a nice little vignette as well as stirring up the nostalgia for the wonderful episode in the original series.
We enjoyed it, although the Ms was sulking a bit about the original being the ultimate. The cast looks like it will work well, although the actors portraying the home’s new owners are pretty whitebread and forgettable at this point. The strongest character is the old mum, of course.
Two reasons. First, I didn’t get the impression that Buck’s was doing all that well or that was attracting the sort of talent Rose wanted. Second, there’s the pure sentiment of going back to a place she loved and which was in many ways a home to her, and going back as the Person in Charge.
Worth mentioning (although it’s widely known) that Jean Marsh and Eileen Atkins were the creators of the original series, althoug Atkins was unable to be in it due to other commitments. Nice to see that she’s made it into this one.
I was soooo emotionally involved with the original series that I was afraid to watch this one until I came to this BB to get a reading. 
I DVR’d it.
When is it set- in the 1930’s? So I guess we’re going to go through WWII? Are there any characters from the original series in it at all? The original post in this thread said a “new generation,” so does that mean this is still the Bellamy family?
My first-then-husband and I used to watch the show on Sunday afternoons in the mid-'70’s with a gin & tonic (perfect accompaniment) and an artichoke (never got his recipe- it was fabulous). Then we divorced… I had a couple of live-ins, married again at 40, and my second husband passed away 10 years ago. LOTTA water’s gone over and under the dam since the Bellamy household broke up… [/reverie]
Different family, same address.
It was OK. A little too self-absorbed, but I OK. The MIL and her Sikh secretary remind me a little of Deana Troy’s mother (Loxanna?) and Mr. Hong (sp?) on STNG.
Egads. I just now watched the first few minutes. Just hearing the theme music again PROPELLED me back in time. I’m gonna have to watch this in bits and pieces. Glad it’s back though. It was one of the best things ever to be shown on TV.
ETA:
What does that mean? A show that is “too self-absorbed”?
Maybe I meant “self-conscious”. It seemed like it was winking at its former self much of the time Rose was in a scene.
Okay. Thanks for clarifying. I get that.
Anyone else wondering if Sir Hallam and the Duke of Kent are bit more than friends? IRL the Duke of Kent was bisexual (with men & women of all social classes). Maybe the fact that they’re upper class Englishmen is interfering with my gaydar, but I’m picking up a lot of HoYay whever they have a scene together. At the very least HRH looks like he’s constantly longing for him.
It’s started in early 1936 with the death of King George V. I think there are only three or four episodes filmed, so I don’t expect will get up to WWII, but we might get the abdication.
Hmmm… do you think we’ll get the speech therapist?
Watching Downton Abbey a few weeks ago had me longing for another look at Upstairs, Downstairs. This new series looks very promising, but I wish PBS would rerun the original. It’s been so long since I saw it that it would be like a new show (I am over sixty, and I sometimes forget things even though I love them).
I have been a fan of Eileen Atkins (Lady Holland, Sir Hallam’s mother) since 1961, when she played Joan of Arc in a wonderful television series called An Age of Kings. She was also marvelous in a TV movie version of The Lady’s Not for Burning (which is not about Joan of Arc).
This series has 3 episodes and ends at Christmas, 1936. The BBC’s ordered another sereis; this time with 6 episodes. Hopefully they’ll slow done the timeskips and that’ll cover 1937. I think they’re intent is for this to be a full revival of UD (like with Dr Who) and not a one off special event (like the To the Manor Born Xmas special). If that’s the case it’s best if they take it one year at a time since WWII would be a logical conclusion for the series. At the very least we should get a series or two of preway decadence before everything changes dramtically.
I watched it, although I haven’t seen the original (although it’s on my Netflix queue). I did some reading in advance, so I caught a few of the references, like to the silver teapot. I liked it enough, partly because I find the idea of such a household fascinating and a bit foreign.
The bit with spilling the drinks on Ribbentrop reminded me of a similar thing done to an undesired guest in the film Gosford Park.
I watched it last night and after what this poster said, I was longing for references to the original series. Alas, I only saw the teapot and the key with Hudson’s name on it. And yeah, they mentioned the Bellamys. Of course, not focusing on the past also kept me from crying, so that was a good thing.
Looking forward to the next episode(s). They covered a lot of ground in this one. Nice mix of personalities, and not too predictable. Loved Maud.
It’s been a while since the original. What actually happened to the Bellamys that caused the house to be abandoned?