MovieChat Forums > Victoria (2017) Discussion > How can this be so completely horrible?

How can this be so completely horrible?

posted 7 years ago by modernart
27 replies | jump to latest

I am completely baffled at the BBC's making such a completely horrid, unsuccessful show like this. This is what I might expect from some cheap American Downton rip-off not the BBC. Jenna, bless her soul, is just not up to the role. She does not have the gravitas or grounding to pull it off. The various"downstairs" machinations are unbecoming and boring (staff stealing old candles and such to sell, planting rats to scare the Queen). That such things could go on with so many staff around and aware seems completely unrealistic and just added for shear sensationalism. There also seems little actual history included. Feels like a period soap opera and a bad one at that. The low budget is quite noticeable too. The music sounds to be stealing from both Downton and the Crown, so also unoriginal and boring. I would say this should and will be cancelled quickly but the current state of the world (Trump? Brexit?) seems completely upside down so who knows. If the Crown is steak au poivre (which it indeed is, completely fabulous) then Victoria is probably not fit to be feed the dog.

[–] Sumseth 7 years ago

I agree to some extent. I did expect more from this show. If only to learn about the life and struggles of Victoria before becoming "Europe's grandmother" (what I know about her is from her descendants' accounts). Much like I learnt about the reign of Isabel and Fernando while watching Isabel (I did learn even though I'd studied these figures at school.

But I found this show lacking substance, "weight" if you will. The amount of screentime the downstairs people get is exasperating. But leaving that aside, I did not find the approach to such a remarkable queen satisfactory. For instance, I thought the scenes that revolve around her are often extremely short - and unenventful. She may enter a room to wish her mother a good day, and that's it. While the cook or the lady in waiting may get much longer scenes. To what purpose? Who knows. What I know is that in the other queen-focused show that I can compare Victoria with, the protagonist carried the weight of the show; every important event affected her one way or another and by episode 5 one can appreciate quite a noticeable evolution of the character. I may have had wrong expectations with regard to Victoria.

[–] LadyMadChan 7 years ago

The tv show was made by ITV (the network that aired Downton Abbey) but the BBC. It also premiered before The Crown in August 2016, while the Crown premiered in November 2016. It's just better to accept the fact that Victoria is geared to a younger audience. The Crown is made for an older audience, is pure drama and awards show fare.

[–] raymondhng 7 years ago

I think you left out the word not somewhere up there.

[–] LoBo_77018 7 years ago

I like the show so far but I could do with much less downstairs storyline. I agree it seems to be following the downton formula.

[–] digitaldiva 7 years ago

I agree with you, LoBo, the downstairs sequences weakened the plotline, but I did enjoy other parts of the first episode.

[–] Wplains01 7 years ago

I would venture to say "completely horrible" is only your opinion. I think it's quite good and am enjoying it immensely.

I WILL NEVER GIVE UP! [fig

[–] greenegg 7 years ago

I suppose you care nothing about history, then. Enjoy away.

This frothy Harlequin romance nonsense offends those of us who have read extensively about the Victoria, her family and the period that bears her name. The writing seems appalling and childish, as are many of the performances.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops! 

[–] peter-501 7 years ago

One point to note is that ITV not the BBC made Victoria. I don't know if that answers the question or not.

[–] nyctc7 7 years ago

On another thread someone mentioned Edward the King http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072925/

Great performances all around with Annette Crosbie as Victoria. It starts when she is a year into her marriage with Albert (Robert Hardy). I really like it a lot. I like it better than "Victoria," but have only just started watching "Victoria" on PBS, so that's just an initial impression.

I like seeing the household drama but the scene where rats were stuffed behind the wall seemed a bit much. I very much also want to see the political dramas of the times.

[–] SrEditor 7 years ago

I took the rats scene(s) as theatrical license...a way to illustrate for the viewer a real problem, exaggerated or not. All the "downstairs" characters and plots are designed to expose to the viewer what went on behind the scenes of the palace nobility or to show us what then commoners may have had to deal with.

[–] greenegg 7 years ago

What utter rot! Vermin were not a problem in a palace, at least not in the official rooms; these things were invented by the moronic writer. Servants were there to keep the nobility and royalty free of such petty matters. None of those plots to drive Victoria mad existed. The Duke of Cumberland was not even in the UK at this time, let alone plotting against his niece. Likewise, Conroy was quicly sent packing after the Queen's accession.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops! 

[–] greenegg 7 years ago

Absolutely agree. I watched Edward the King when I was in my teens; years later, I purchased it. I still watch it several times a year. The leads, including Timothy West as the adult Bertie, turned in marvelous performances. That production took far fewer liberties with history. It bodes ill for an alleged bio series that the scriptwriter felt the need to liven up the narrative with things that never happened, including the appalling suggestion the young Queen was in love with Lord Melbourne, who was at the time corpulent and forty years her senior, not a handsome man in his late 40s (the miscast Rufus Sewell). I'm a Sewell fan, so it was hard to watch him trying to deliver much of the wretched nonsense the writer dumped upon him. There was absolutely no romantic link between Victoria and Melbourne. Those scenes made my skin crawl.

Showing all these scenes with servants, who were chiefly there to invisibly serve the royal family, borders upon the absurd. Conroy was sent packing far sooner than this current production implies, while the Duke of Cumberland left for Hanover, where he assumed that Kingdom's throne, shortly after his niece's accession. All these faux machinations obfuscate the true story of the young Queen, whose story should be intriguing enough without all this Mills and Boon crap.

I do not understand why the British cannot find the good writers they used to entrust with their period pieces. Everything now seems to sink to the lowest common denominator, aimed at adenoidal schoolgirls.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops! 

[–] Sumseth 7 years ago

Same here, I expected much more from a British production. In mean, by comparison the Spanish period drama Isabel was far more modest in terms of budget, yet the quality of the script and the narrative rhythm was a lot better - in my opinion, at least.

[–] homesweetaustin 7 years ago

Goodgod... This is so bad. So 'flat'. The dialog. The over-dramatic acting. Ugh. Won't be able to watch episode two.

[–] TiogaTimes 7 years ago

Its horrid.

Her face is expressionless and her voice is flat. So many scenes of her just staring out of windows until someone enters the room, as though she is never interrupted doing anything else.

Its just unwatchable.

I bought some powdered water but didn't know what to add to it.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I disagree.