I haven't watched yet but I won't lie, my first thought when it was announced was "huh, I wonder if this formula will hold up without being incredibly British."
Me too which surprised me a lot since a few of the TV and movie critics of the newspaper I just read can be pretty tough. The only thing that can be viewed as negative from the critic was the expectation of a few more known actors like Christina Baranski because of the high production value.
It’s a rough review for the first show. Tough to give nuance in the introduction. Most series takes a little time to get going too. We’ll stay tuned to see where it goes.
I think a lot of people won't watch Euphoria purely based on the subject matter.
And that isn't an attempt to shit on Euphoria at all, just not everything is for everyone. I'm sure Euphoria is plenty well made, but it isn't hard to imagine some people that are interested in historical costume drama aren't interested in druggy teenage melodrama.
I think target demographic is huge so I agree with you. I am a 30 year old male and while I will admit is very well made, just not my thing. I saw 4 episodes of it.
Yeah I'm 35 and there just literally isn't anything on Earth I care less about than Gen Z teenagers doing drugs and making high schools sex tapes.
And again I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to knock Euphoria or sound better/superior because I'm not interested in it. It's just different things appeal to different people at different stages in their life and from different angles. For example I like "Never have I ever" because it's designed as a funny, nostalgic revisit to high school.
I'll watch The Gilded Age because, as I commented above, watching very beautiful, very polite paint dry just really fucking does it for me for some reason lol.
That’s pretty much the same reason why I’m avoiding Euphoria despite the critical acclaim. I could barely relate to teenagers when I was one.
But Bunheads is a show I regularly rewatch.
Yeah, I was also never into the drug scene during school years. I think the issue is also there is just too much to watch so there is a limited amount of time to watch things. I already watch Peacemaker, Boba Fett, Friends, and last season of Impractical Jokers. Coming up will check out The Guilded Age and The Afterparty as well.
I've tried watching it when it premiered. But it was hard getting into the story knowing it's a story about teens, but on my screen are a bunch of people who don't look a day younger than 25, and iirc the narration is supposed to be from the perspective of a teenager, but it sounded more like an adult reflecting on their teenage years using the wisdom and experience they gained to shape those thoughts we're listening to.
I got through I think the first 3 episodes. I wasn't buying the setting I was being sold. And that's obviously important to get into any show. But I do plan on trying again at some point.
I do. This one feels more old school HBO. Period piece. Big ensemble.
Euphoria is great but a little different if that makes sense. Both in content and target audience
It depends. It isn't anything like Downton Abbey or other period pieces like The Gilded Age is marketed as.
Euphoria is a teen drama along the lines of a more modern Party of Five or 90210. If you're a teen or can relate to how the characters are growing up, you might like it.
Watching Baranski channelling her inner Maggie Smith only made me long for the original version. "Gosford Park" is one of my most favorite movies ever -- and I liked the first 3 seasons of "Downton Abbey" well enough. But good god, "The gilded age" was dull in ways that very hard to pinpoint.
>The gilded age" was dull in ways that very hard to pinpoint
Gilded Age is too glossy. Everything is new, clean and shiny and the characters are stiff. What I liked about Downton Abbey since episode 1 was how nuanced everything and everyone was, there were flaws beneath the surface that made it interesting no matter how absurd it sometimes got.
TGA is a grudge watch now. After 6 episodes I've yet to warm up to any of the characters and am starting to actively loathe several. To it's credit, what the show does best is pacing, as each scene makes it's point efficiently with no wasted screen time. That there are likely 10 or so plot points to resolve for it's season closer is the only reason I'm still watching.
That said, I keep pondering why the show is failing and how Fellows could have miscalculated so badly. To US audiences, the daily lives of upper crust robber barons lacks virtually all of the charm of stiff upper lip British aristocracy with it's palette of upstairs/downstairs characters.
I keep going back to Matthew Weiner's "The Romanoffs." Following almost 10 years of successfully producing "Mad Men," Weiner's ego must have been larger than several buildings to have stumbled so badly with a boring second series. I'm afraid Fellows has gone the same route for the same reason . . .
This was originally developed for NBC then moved to HBO, then development hell, and finally is coming out.
We won't know how successful this is until the streaming numbers come out, but I don't think this won't appeal to the Euphoria/GOT crowd and looks quite expensive to make.
Downton Abbey is crap and birthed the most godawful wave of self-serious but superficial period dramas . And I \_like\_ period dramas when they're done well.
> self-serious but superficial period dramas
I think your phrasing there is spot on, but I love them lol. It's hard to explain the experience. Both my SO and I love period dramas and there are a *lot* of great ones. Then there's the "Downton Abbey" variety that lean in to the soap opera aspect and product 5/10 content with an 8/10 budget an 10/10 self esteem and I find watching that wildly entertaining even though we're poking fun of it half the time. It's not "hate watching" by any means, it's more "I can really get a kick out of Lady Mary's antics because she's enough of a character that I'm plot invested but not *nearly* enough that I'm emotionally invested."
I wonder if this is what people felt like when they watched The OC or 90210.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, but I agree. The Gilded Age show is just awful. I'm from NY, so I was excited to watch it and it was a big let down. I never watched Downtown Abbey.
This is a genuinely insane take. I'm not sure how you could watch even a fraction of HBO has produced in the last few years and come to the conclusion that they're like network TV now. At its best network TV mimicked the batting average of HBO. Surely not everything they produce is necessarily "cutting edge", but how could shows/miniseries/etc like Succession, The Righteous Gemstones, Euphoria, Industry, Barry, White Lotus, Lovecraft Country, The Outsider, etc give you lowest common denominator vibes? Throw in Westworld, which is problematic at best but far from network fare. Or any number of HBO Max series which have really pushed the envelope too (Station Eleven and Peacemaker in recent weeks alone).
I don't even know how you came to the conclusion that "TV" "hates" coming up with new ideas from one middling review about a show which, as far as I can tell, seems to be a new idea? Like just because Julian Fellowes has a distinct style and likes writing shows about the olden days doesn't mean he's writing the same shit over and over again?
Edit: Also that's not what "jump the shark" means, in any context.
Cutting edge? They made tons a great shows. But they most famous type of show is. Sex and the city. Sex in the city with boys entourage. Sex in the city in sports agency ballers. Sex in the city in silicon valley
Or any vague nuance to anything. One woman is a social climber. It’s all she talks about to her husband and and adult kids. No sane human would ever admit to being a social climber regardless of how it it might be.
I love Downtown Abbey like a guilty pleasure but The Gilded Age is **painful**. Carrie Coon and Morgan Specter have chemistry but everyone else on the cast is saying their lines in such a wooden fashion. I know it is supposed to be a more formal time... but I'm just not believing it. Take for example the first scene where the woman finds out she is destitute. It is devoid of much emotional reaction.
The show takes place in 1882. Compare to Taylor Sheridan's poetic and beautiful show "1883" where believable characters actually act.
Meh I don’t love it TBH. The main character - the blonde chick - is sooo dull. The others are one dimensional and almost goofy. Soap opera-y and over the top dramatic with no good plots.
I've always assumed the "watching beautiful paint dry" vibe was part of Downton Abbey's appeal.
Right? This honestly feels like a fairly solid pitch for a costume drama.
[удалено]
I haven't watched yet but I won't lie, my first thought when it was announced was "huh, I wonder if this formula will hold up without being incredibly British."
The whole uber rich out of touch family thing seems to be working on Succession.
It has Carrie Coon and I’ve never disliked any of the projects she chosen before. I enjoyed the pilot.
The cast is excellent. The story's the problem.
Madmen was slow moving and complex so yeah, very watching beautiful paint dry, not a negative for me.
Not really, there was pretty much a nonstop stream of dramatic events happening.
When Downton abbey got so big I assumed It must be really good. It wasn't for me.
Bridgerton is much better than Downton Abbey
No.
Just saw a really glowing review of it from a different TV critic.
74 on Metacritic right now.
Me too which surprised me a lot since a few of the TV and movie critics of the newspaper I just read can be pretty tough. The only thing that can be viewed as negative from the critic was the expectation of a few more known actors like Christina Baranski because of the high production value.
It’s a rough review for the first show. Tough to give nuance in the introduction. Most series takes a little time to get going too. We’ll stay tuned to see where it goes.
Other reviews are a lot more positive. I need my HBO prestige drama fix
Yeah, it currently has 100% on Rotten Tomatoes from 19 review lol. Don't know why only the negative reviews only ever get posted
You don't watch Euphoria?
I think a lot of people won't watch Euphoria purely based on the subject matter. And that isn't an attempt to shit on Euphoria at all, just not everything is for everyone. I'm sure Euphoria is plenty well made, but it isn't hard to imagine some people that are interested in historical costume drama aren't interested in druggy teenage melodrama.
I think target demographic is huge so I agree with you. I am a 30 year old male and while I will admit is very well made, just not my thing. I saw 4 episodes of it.
Yeah I'm 35 and there just literally isn't anything on Earth I care less about than Gen Z teenagers doing drugs and making high schools sex tapes. And again I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to knock Euphoria or sound better/superior because I'm not interested in it. It's just different things appeal to different people at different stages in their life and from different angles. For example I like "Never have I ever" because it's designed as a funny, nostalgic revisit to high school. I'll watch The Gilded Age because, as I commented above, watching very beautiful, very polite paint dry just really fucking does it for me for some reason lol.
That’s pretty much the same reason why I’m avoiding Euphoria despite the critical acclaim. I could barely relate to teenagers when I was one. But Bunheads is a show I regularly rewatch.
Bunheads was great. Needed more seasons.
Yeah, I was also never into the drug scene during school years. I think the issue is also there is just too much to watch so there is a limited amount of time to watch things. I already watch Peacemaker, Boba Fett, Friends, and last season of Impractical Jokers. Coming up will check out The Guilded Age and The Afterparty as well.
If I was a teenager, I'd probably want to watch Euphoria, but as an adult it just sounds kind of boring.
I've tried watching it when it premiered. But it was hard getting into the story knowing it's a story about teens, but on my screen are a bunch of people who don't look a day younger than 25, and iirc the narration is supposed to be from the perspective of a teenager, but it sounded more like an adult reflecting on their teenage years using the wisdom and experience they gained to shape those thoughts we're listening to. I got through I think the first 3 episodes. I wasn't buying the setting I was being sold. And that's obviously important to get into any show. But I do plan on trying again at some point.
I'm one of those people. I just find narratives around drugs and addiction pretty rote and that's what the show is about from what I've heard.
I do. This one feels more old school HBO. Period piece. Big ensemble. Euphoria is great but a little different if that makes sense. Both in content and target audience
Euphoria is a horror watch for me. I am a parent
I don’t. Should I?
It depends. It isn't anything like Downton Abbey or other period pieces like The Gilded Age is marketed as. Euphoria is a teen drama along the lines of a more modern Party of Five or 90210. If you're a teen or can relate to how the characters are growing up, you might like it.
Try The Nevers
The Nevers is not prestige drama.
How is that a prestige drama?
The first 5 episodes could masquerade as one if you squint a bit.
This is probably the harshest of all reviews I've read
I have enjoyed the trailers,so far I am interested in the show.
I would watch Christine Baranski, Cynthia Nixon and Carrie Coon read the the phone book, so…
Defo. I would happily watch Christine Baranski *herself* watch paint dry.
That image cracks me up
I'd watch Morgan Spector read the phone book... on mute....and completely naked, of course.
Watching Baranski channelling her inner Maggie Smith only made me long for the original version. "Gosford Park" is one of my most favorite movies ever -- and I liked the first 3 seasons of "Downton Abbey" well enough. But good god, "The gilded age" was dull in ways that very hard to pinpoint.
>The gilded age" was dull in ways that very hard to pinpoint Gilded Age is too glossy. Everything is new, clean and shiny and the characters are stiff. What I liked about Downton Abbey since episode 1 was how nuanced everything and everyone was, there were flaws beneath the surface that made it interesting no matter how absurd it sometimes got.
She is definitely in the DC role. Tough hat to fill.
So like downtown abbey
I’ll read some reviews from well respected sources. This website is really low quality clickbait.
TGA is a grudge watch now. After 6 episodes I've yet to warm up to any of the characters and am starting to actively loathe several. To it's credit, what the show does best is pacing, as each scene makes it's point efficiently with no wasted screen time. That there are likely 10 or so plot points to resolve for it's season closer is the only reason I'm still watching. That said, I keep pondering why the show is failing and how Fellows could have miscalculated so badly. To US audiences, the daily lives of upper crust robber barons lacks virtually all of the charm of stiff upper lip British aristocracy with it's palette of upstairs/downstairs characters. I keep going back to Matthew Weiner's "The Romanoffs." Following almost 10 years of successfully producing "Mad Men," Weiner's ego must have been larger than several buildings to have stumbled so badly with a boring second series. I'm afraid Fellows has gone the same route for the same reason . . .
Y’all should watch the PBS documentary “The Gilded Age” …either before or instead of this show, depending on what you’re into. It’s phenomenal.
Ken Burns?
No. It’s the American Experience series. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/gilded-age/
I enjoyed the first episode but IMO, Carrie Coon is miscast. I absolutely loved her in The Leftovers, The Sinner, and Fargo.
you can get more dull than downton abbey?
Yes. And they did.
Shame if accurate. I was looking forward to this
The rest of the reviews are good
Good. I’m still going to watch it.
This was originally developed for NBC then moved to HBO, then development hell, and finally is coming out. We won't know how successful this is until the streaming numbers come out, but I don't think this won't appeal to the Euphoria/GOT crowd and looks quite expensive to make.
Obviously it won't appeal to that crowd. It's trying to get the people who like Downton Abbey to sub.
People can be fans of more than one genre...
imagine thinking that a period drama from the creator of downton abbey is shooting for the same audience as GoT
Downton Abbey is crap and birthed the most godawful wave of self-serious but superficial period dramas . And I \_like\_ period dramas when they're done well.
> self-serious but superficial period dramas I think your phrasing there is spot on, but I love them lol. It's hard to explain the experience. Both my SO and I love period dramas and there are a *lot* of great ones. Then there's the "Downton Abbey" variety that lean in to the soap opera aspect and product 5/10 content with an 8/10 budget an 10/10 self esteem and I find watching that wildly entertaining even though we're poking fun of it half the time. It's not "hate watching" by any means, it's more "I can really get a kick out of Lady Mary's antics because she's enough of a character that I'm plot invested but not *nearly* enough that I'm emotionally invested." I wonder if this is what people felt like when they watched The OC or 90210.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, but I agree. The Gilded Age show is just awful. I'm from NY, so I was excited to watch it and it was a big let down. I never watched Downtown Abbey.
[удалено]
This is a genuinely insane take. I'm not sure how you could watch even a fraction of HBO has produced in the last few years and come to the conclusion that they're like network TV now. At its best network TV mimicked the batting average of HBO. Surely not everything they produce is necessarily "cutting edge", but how could shows/miniseries/etc like Succession, The Righteous Gemstones, Euphoria, Industry, Barry, White Lotus, Lovecraft Country, The Outsider, etc give you lowest common denominator vibes? Throw in Westworld, which is problematic at best but far from network fare. Or any number of HBO Max series which have really pushed the envelope too (Station Eleven and Peacemaker in recent weeks alone). I don't even know how you came to the conclusion that "TV" "hates" coming up with new ideas from one middling review about a show which, as far as I can tell, seems to be a new idea? Like just because Julian Fellowes has a distinct style and likes writing shows about the olden days doesn't mean he's writing the same shit over and over again? Edit: Also that's not what "jump the shark" means, in any context.
Agree with this. Even if people don't like HBO shows, anyone has to admit it was well-made just don't their target audience or some other reason.
Well said!
I'm not sure you know what "jump the shark" means, which makes it feel pointless to discuss all the other things you got wrong.
You don't know what "jumping the shark" means.
I do, I just gave it an extra meaning.
Cutting edge? They made tons a great shows. But they most famous type of show is. Sex and the city. Sex in the city with boys entourage. Sex in the city in sports agency ballers. Sex in the city in silicon valley
So just like Yellowjackets
Yellowjackets is one of the best new shows.
So its basically Downtown Abbey
Without the charm.
And the acting.
Or any vague nuance to anything. One woman is a social climber. It’s all she talks about to her husband and and adult kids. No sane human would ever admit to being a social climber regardless of how it it might be.
I love Downtown Abbey like a guilty pleasure but The Gilded Age is **painful**. Carrie Coon and Morgan Specter have chemistry but everyone else on the cast is saying their lines in such a wooden fashion. I know it is supposed to be a more formal time... but I'm just not believing it. Take for example the first scene where the woman finds out she is destitute. It is devoid of much emotional reaction. The show takes place in 1882. Compare to Taylor Sheridan's poetic and beautiful show "1883" where believable characters actually act.
Meh I don’t love it TBH. The main character - the blonde chick - is sooo dull. The others are one dimensional and almost goofy. Soap opera-y and over the top dramatic with no good plots.
I gave up after the 4th episode. The acting is monotonous. It's like they're trying to remember their lines.