# Downton Abbey S03E09 OAD 2/17/2013



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

...and there it was. I guess I'll spoiler-tag my comment about Matthew's accident



Spoiler



because some people might not know for sure that he's dead. The only spoiler I knew coming into this PBS season was that Dan Stevens had decided not to come back for season 4. And then with all the talk of "get your handkerchiefs ready" -- which was _impossible_ to avoid -- I knew Matthew would die here in the last episode. Kind of a bummer to watch the episode knowing that was coming, even though I didn't know how. Took some of the punch out of that ending.



Otherwise, I liked this episode and the season as a whole. It's kind of funny how free the show feels to leap forward in time. If they keep this up, the Dowager is going to be over 100! But it pays off, because they've done a good job of subtly advancing the world around the Crawleys. Automobiles, telephones, electricity all commonplace now, and even the dress has evolved. I've really enjoyed watching time march on, even if the characters haven't.

I wonder if we've seen the last of the fired maid.


----------



## malayphred (Jan 29, 2007)

cmontyburns said:


> ...and there it was. I guess I'll spoiler-tag my comment about Matthew's accident
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am devastated.


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

I've been trying very hard to avoid spoilers, but unfortunately someone inconsiderately posted a comment on a blog which i stumbled across, so I knew it was coming. But it was very well done, sad and bittersweet and ironic.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> ...and there it was. I guess I'll spoiler-tag my comment about Matthew's accident
> 
> * SPOILER *
> 
> ...


Universal code of being dead in movies, TV: not moving with eyes wide open, unblinking. I have no doubt he is dead.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

I finished the show a few weeks ago via iTunes, and had no idea about the ending. Totally took me by surprise. I didn't like that choice, particularly so close to Cybil's death, but after reading about the actor not wanting to return there really didn't seem to be another option.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Universal code of being dead in movies, TV: not moving with eyes wide open, unblinking. I have no doubt he is dead.


Hey, if Matthew can recover from paralysis, he can beat being dead.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Surprising to see 2 primary characters resign from the show in the same season. I wonder if there are issues working on this show.

Should be interesting to see how Robert deals with this loss, especially so close to his acknowledgment of Matthew's value, especially compared to Shrimpy's predicament.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> Hey, if Matthew can recover from paralysis, he can beat being dead.


True love.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Bryanmc said:


> I finished the show a few weeks ago via iTunes, and had no idea about the ending. Totally took me by surprise. I didn't like that choice, particularly so close to Cybil's death, but after reading about the actor not wanting to return there really didn't seem to be another option.


I also finished a few weeks ago (and have been DYING to talk about it!) and I also had no idea what was coming. I was a complete shocker for me.

Things finally seemed to have settled and everyone appeared to be so happy....then you see him driving down the road and at that moment you have a pretty good idea of what is getting ready to happen.  I also agree that the eyes open/blank stare closeup means he's as dead as a doornail.


----------



## QueenBee (Feb 26, 2002)

Not sure whether to spoilerize since we're talking about it, but just in case...


Spoiler



I saw it coming the minute they showed him driving down the road with a big smile on his face. I shouted, "NOOOOOOOO" at the TV.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

markp99 said:


> Surprising to see 2 primary characters resign from the show in the same season. I wonder if there are issues working on this show.


I don't think so - There is a very - what I consider odd - British actor trend to leave hit shows. I don't know if they all think they are going to become movie stars or what - but it seems like every other British series has actors jumping ship left and right if it lasts more than a couple of years. From Doctor Who to Misfits to Downton Abbey.



javabird said:


> I've been trying very hard to avoid spoilers, but unfortunately someone inconsiderately posted a comment on a blog which i stumbled across, so I knew it was coming. But it was very well done, sad and bittersweet and ironic.


This was also the one spoiler I couldn't avoid. 
Then I thought it might be wrong because of when it happens.
Apparently The New York Times wrote about it.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Did anyone catch Maggie Smith on 60 Minutes earlier in the evening? She mused about how old Lady Violet must be by about the timeframe where we are in the series.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

markp99 said:


> Surprising to see 2 primary characters resign from the show in the same season. I wonder if there are issues working on this show.


The producers have talked about this. In the US, actors sign to a 6- or 7-year deal when they join a series. In the UK, three years is standard and apparently it is not unusual for actors to seek new things after that first contract is up.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I wonder how high BBC actor salaries can go. In the US, if an actor in a hit show has a contract that is up, they can ask for and often receive a really big salary to continue with the show. But with the BBC, I guess there may not be as much headroom.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> Did anyone catch Maggie Smith on 60 Minutes earlier in the evening? She mused about how old Lady Violet must be by about the timeframe where we are in the series.


She was already married in the 1860s per conversation in the last episode and the show is now in the mid 1920s? She should be in her 80s?


----------



## Sadara (Sep 27, 2006)

I agree with the original poster. I had seen the news about the actor leaving the show and that they felt they needed to kill off the character. Knowing that ahead of time, totally took the sting out of seeing it happen. I still wasn't happy about it, but I didn't ball like a baby like I did when Sybil passed.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Sadara said:


> I agree with the original poster. I had seen the news about the actor leaving the show and that they felt they needed to kill off the character. Knowing that ahead of time, totally took the sting out of seeing it happen. I still wasn't happy about it, but I didn't ball like a baby like I did when Sybil passed.


That was probably more the way it was portrayed rather than the advance knowledge. Everyone standing around, not being able to do anything, watching her die was pretty emotional. A car accident off camera with nothing but a guy staring into space does not connect the same way.


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

TonyD79 said:


> She was already married in the 1860s per conversation in the last episode and the show is now in the mid 1920s? She should be in her 80s?


No I didn't see that, but luckily I Tivo'd it, thanks for the heads-up.


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

Maybe it would be a good idea for the OP to put "Spoilers" in the subject line, since this thread is already pretty much spoiled.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

It's an episode thread, spoilers about what aired in the episode are to be expected.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

I knew it was coming and still bawled. Probably more so, though, because I had a fairly new baby myself.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

pdhenry said:


> It's an episode thread, spoilers about what aired in the episode are to be expected.


What he said.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

pdhenry said:


> It's an episode thread, spoilers about what aired in the episode are to be expected.


Indeed. I used spoiler tags in part of my original post for a reason I explained inside the tags.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Two important character deaths and I knew about both of them in advance. Oh well, at least it takes the sting out. I think it will be a different show without this person's drive.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

I was so sad that turned out to be Matthew. I did not know he'd chosen to leave the show - and wondered why they'd write out such a significant character. Plus, he and Mary are my favorites. I only cried a bit last night, but am sure there'll be many more tears when we see the family respond to this horrific news. 

Complaining bits: I sure wish this had been a total surprise. So I could have really felt it as everyone else did upon their initial viewing. I didn't know it was Matthew, and felt like I was waiting for the bad news to drop. UGH! Guess I should have watched it weeks ago and not had to deal with all hints and nods toward what was coming. Completely ruined it! First Facebook post I saw yesterday morning was from someone saying, "even though I know who dies, I'm so sad about tonight." Seriously people! Why? Blargh!!


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

SoBelle0 said:


> I was so sad that turned out to be Matthew. I did not know he'd chosen to leave the show - and wondered why they'd write out such a significant character. Plus, he and Mary are my favorites. I only cried a bit last night, but am sure there'll be many more tears when we see the family respond to this horrific news.
> 
> Complaining bits: I sure wish this had been a total surprise. So I could have really felt it as everyone else did upon their initial viewing. I didn't know it was Matthew, and felt like I was waiting for the bad news to drop. UGH! Guess I should have watched it weeks ago and not had to deal with all hints and nods toward what was coming. Completely ruined it! *First Facebook post I saw yesterday morning was from someone saying, "even though I know who dies, I'm so sad about tonight." Seriously people! Why? Blargh!! *


After one FB friend could not stop posting spoilers about this show and others, I no longer see any posts from them.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> Indeed. I used spoiler tags in part of my original post for a reason I explained inside the tags.


Meh. I didn't think twice about it. He is dead. They don't do cliff hangers on Downton Abbey.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

markp99 said:


> Surprising to see 2 primary characters resign from the show in the same season. I wonder if there are issues working on this show.
> 
> Should be interesting to see how Robert deals with this loss, especially so close to his acknowledgment of Matthew's value, especially compared to Shrimpy's predicament.


It will be interesting to see what develops between Robert and Tom. Before this episode, we saw Matthew and Tom forming a friendship because of their age and common "in-law" status. Then we saw Tom and Robert starting to form a tenuous connection because Tom has more understanding of what it means to be connected to the land than Matthew did. Now Robert will never get to take Matthew under his wing, and while the new baby might grow up with Downton as home as previous generations have done, he won't be in a position to learn the running of things for some time to come.



pdhenry said:


> Did anyone catch Maggie Smith on 60 Minutes earlier in the evening? She mused about how old Lady Violet must be by about the timeframe where we are in the series.


Maggie was wonderful, the interviewer was clueless.



SoBelle0 said:


> I was so sad that turned out to be Matthew. I did not know he'd chosen to leave the show - and wondered why they'd write out such a significant character. Plus, he and Mary are my favorites. I only cried a bit last night, but am sure there'll be many more tears when we see the family respond to this horrific news.
> 
> Complaining bits: I sure wish this had been a total surprise. So I could have really felt it as everyone else did upon their initial viewing. I didn't know it was Matthew, and felt like I was waiting for the bad news to drop. UGH! Guess I should have watched it weeks ago and not had to deal with all hints and nods toward what was coming. Completely ruined it! First Facebook post I saw yesterday morning was from someone saying, "even though I know who dies, I'm so sad about tonight." Seriously people! Why? Blargh!!


People are oblivious. Once they know something, some people assume that "everyone" must know it, too -- others enjoy flaunting their knowledge. It's annoying either way.

It was hard to watch the episode without second-guessing "how they were going to do it". I wondered if there would be a shooting accident in Scotland involving the editor, which would give them the opportunity to scorch that entire sub-plot, but no such luck. 

I was especially hoping Gregson would be sent packing when I saw Edith starting to soften. Lady Violet and Robert may soon rue the day they chased off Sir Anthony, because I doubt they'll care for Edith being involved with a married man.

As for British actors moving on, I suspect some don't care much for the idea of being typecast. As cmontyburns said, the industry is different there, and people move on.

Edited to add: 
Good riddance to the new maid.
Interesting truce between Jimmy and Thomas
loved the 'tea' scene with Mrs. Patmore and Mrs. Hughes.


----------



## Satchel (Dec 8, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> It will be interesting to see what develops between Robert and Tom. Before this episode, we saw Matthew and Tom forming a friendship because of their age and common "in-law" status. Then we saw Tom and Robert starting to form a tenuous connection because Tom has more understanding of what it means to be connected to the land than Matthew did. Now Robert will never get to take Matthew under his wing, and while the new baby might grow up with Downton as home as previous generations have done, he won't be in a position to learn the running of things for some time to come.
> 
> Maggie was wonderful, the interviewer was clueless.
> 
> ...


Don't overlook the fact that the last episode was year later than the previous. That means they've had a year under Matthew's new lead on getting the estate to sustain itself.

I'm guessing with the year's lead and Tom and Lord Grantham still there, they'll be fine.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Are the spoilers in this thread about the episode? Or other information? Don't know if I should read them or not. 

Mrs. Patmore's talk with Tom was what got me. Mathew's death was almost comical, it was such a classic setup for a fatal car accident.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

The spoiler is about Dan Stevens, the fellow who plays Matthew Crawley.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

SoBelle0 said:


> The spoiler is about Dan Stevens, the fellow who plays Matthew Crawley.


Thank you!



cmontyburns said:


> And then with all the talk of "get your handkerchiefs ready" -- which was _impossible_ to avoid --


(Pulling this out of the spoiler tags b/c they're not necessary for this snip.)

Au contraire! I hadn't heard a word about it. The closest I've come to spoilers are the comments here in the other threads about the last episode.

Some of us are REALLY good at living under a rock.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Robin said:


> Some of us are REALLY good at living under a rock.


Lucky you! (I think.) While I was not following (and in fact specifically avoided) Downton news in the offseason, the bit about Stevens surfaced in general entertainment news, which I do follow. And even if I didn't "follow" such news, I do read the Arts sections of the NY Times and USA Today and such, and the Stevens news was even there in headline form. I don't know how I wouldn't have seen it. Pray tell me your secret!


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

cmontyburns said:


> Lucky you! (I think.) While I was not following (and in fact specifically avoided) Downton news in the offseason, the bit about Stevens surfaced in general entertainment news, which I do follow. And even if I didn't "follow" such news, I do read the Arts sections of the NY Times and USA Today and such, and the Stevens news was even there in headline form. I don't know how I wouldn't have seen it. Pray tell me your secret!


I don't read any of those things. 

Now, if Stevens had shown up on NPR I would have been screwed.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I read an article that there is some talk of PBS airing the next season at the same time as it airs in the UK. That would help some to keep spoilers away from the unsuspecting. That said, I watched this season well after it aired in the UK and all of the death on this season came as a complete surprise to me. I guess I was lucky,


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Too Funny!!



Spoiler















Stolen from the giggling images thread


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Ha! Stolen for Facebook.


----------



## KenDC (Jun 18, 2001)

I had heard that a male character (actors name) was going to die/leave the show but I didn't know whom and didn't look at the actors names in the credits to save myself. So, Cybil was a major downer and like others have said because we had to watch her die and morn with the family. Great season overall and after complaining about the slowness in one eposide the season really took off in the last two.

Do we have a date for next season, yet?


----------



## rosieambles (Jan 22, 2013)

What will Lady Mary think when she realizes that she will never be Lady (Countess) Grantham?


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

Jstkiddn said:


> Ha! Stolen for Facebook.


Me too, LOL.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

rosieambles said:


> What will Lady Mary think when she realizes that she will never be Lady (Countess) Grantham?


She'll probably _really_ be sad then.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Too bad they already used the "injury changed my face" story. They could bring Matthew back with a new face. But they did show us his face looked just fine as he stared out into the sky.


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

murgatroyd said:


> It will be interesting to see what develops between Robert and Tom. Before this episode, we saw Matthew and Tom forming a friendship because of their age and common "in-law" status. Then we saw Tom and Robert starting to form a tenuous connection because Tom has more understanding of what it means to be connected to the land than Matthew did. Now Robert will never get to take Matthew under his wing, and while the new baby might grow up with Downton as home as previous generations have done, he won't be in a position to learn the running of things for some time to come.
> 
> Maggie was wonderful, the interviewer was clueless.
> 
> ...


It's interesting how people managed to keep the plot twists secret in "The Sixth Sense" and even the fans of "LOST", but couldn't keep quiet about the Downton Abbey ending. Different kind of audience?

Totally agree about the firing of the maid.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)




----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Robin said:


> Thank you!
> 
> (Pulling this out of the spoiler tags b/c they're not necessary for this snip.)
> 
> ...


I, too had no idea that a character was on the way out in this episode....until that is he was seen driving so happily, staring off into the sky. And to drop the anvil on our heads, here comes the truck over the hill.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)




----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I see what he did there.


----------



## dinglehart (Dec 4, 2002)

Thought you might enjoy this.... 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&docid=_EycVwjBe0MSmM&tbnid=hHWAxlXuN05nEM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnerdlaugh.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F43533481384&ei=USIlUbroG4OoiQK47YC4Dw&bvm=bv.42661473,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNGC2RSAzsjZgxhc5m2NLTuxTfl7dQ&ust=1361474511791809


----------



## malayphred (Jan 29, 2007)

markp99 said:


> Too Funny!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LMAO


----------



## Sadara (Sep 27, 2006)

pdhenry said:


>


That's a great picture!


----------



## Satchel (Dec 8, 2001)

Good interview with Julian Fellowes about this season and next season.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eason-of-comings-and-goings-at-downton-abbey/


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Satchel said:


> Good interview with Julian Fellowes about this season and next season.
> 
> http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eason-of-comings-and-goings-at-downton-abbey/


While reading that, I just realized that they killed a major character at Christmas time in Britain!

Ouch.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> While reading that, I just realized that they killed a major character at Christmas time in Britain!
> 
> Ouch.


Fellowes addresses that in the second excerpt of the NY Times post. According to him, a lot of the soaps kill off characters at Christmastime. The idea is to have episodes of higher-than-usual drama. Not unlike (my opinion, not Fellowes') Sweeps Week in the US.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> Fellowes addresses that in the second excerpt of the NY Times post. According to him, a lot of the soaps kill off characters at Christmastime. The idea is to have episodes of higher-than-usual drama. Not unlike (my opinion, not Fellowes') Sweeps Week in the US.


I read that. Still a head shaker. Brits are funny.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

At first I thought the writers were morons. But what do you do when the stars force themselves off the show?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> spoiler.


Could you edit that out, please? Too late for me, but you can help someone else.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

pdhenry said:


>


Oh, that's cool except Bates is a Manchester United fan!


----------



## Satchel (Dec 8, 2001)

Anyone else notice that Bates hardly limped at all in the latest episodes?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Robin said:


> Could you edit that out, please? Too late for me, but you can help someone else.


Which post needs to be edited? I don't think he spoiled anything.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Robin said:


> Could you edit that out, please? Too late for me, but you can help someone else.


Huh ? The character died in THIS episode. How is that a problem ?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

My bad... I'm an idiot. I was thinking the "Christmas special" was still to come since there was nothing Christmassy in this ep.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Don't feel so bad, Robin. I didn't realize at first that this was the episode aired on Christmas Day. Looking back, there are clues -- like the amount of time that has elapsed since the previous episodes, and the ending of the previous episode, which seemed like it was made to end out a season. If I had put those two things together, I would have figured it out, but I wasn't looking at the episodes that way. I was watching them for the story.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Robin said:


> My bad... I'm an idiot. I was thinking the "Christmas special" was still to come since there was nothing Christmassy in this ep.


Oh. Okay. I was confused for a bit.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Just now watched it. (thanks TiVo) Wife did not know what to expect and is wicked pissed at the actor. I knew from accidentally seeing a snippet on the internet months ago that the actor was leaving. 

I had 2 different solutions...
1. Simply re-cast Matthew like they did with Helen in "All Creatures Great and Small" and say nothing
2. Do an edgy cross venue thingy and have Matthew return as a vampire. Makeup does wonders and a whole new demographic will watch.

You can thank me later Julian for my genius


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I knew that Dan Stevens was leaving, but even if I didn't... this is Soap Opera 101.  When everyone is super happy and all is going well in the world, like we saw at the end of the cricket match in the episode before, then it is 100% sure something bad is about to happen.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

I see my quote CASTING SPOILER unquote from this morning got deleted without my knowledge or any advance warning. No, I am not going to repost it in


Spoiler



tags - you want to know, fire up your google machine.

I find this utterly ridiculous. The news was widely reported - I saw it in the Huffington Post. The show has completed season 3 and has not started shooting season 4. I posted no plot details, because I don't have any, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN WRITTEN.

To characterize this news as a "spoiler" is to distort the meaning of the word out of all recognition.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Marco said:


> To characterize this news as a "spoiler" is to distort the meaning of the word out of all recognition.


I have two things to say about this.

1) Whining because someone called you out for making a mistake, instead of saying something like "oops, sorry!" is uncool.

2) You posted in an episode-specific thread, which is supposed to be where people talk about what actually happened in that episode. What part of "talk about the episode in the thread title" is not clear? It's not like there isn't another, more general thread. Go post over there.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

murgatroyd said:


> I have two things to say about this.
> 
> 1) Whining because someone called you out for making a mistake, instead of saying something like "oops, sorry!" is uncool.
> 
> 2) You posted in an episode-specific thread, which is supposed to be where people talk about what actually happened in that episode. What part of "talk about the episode in the thread title" is not clear? It's not like there isn't another, more general thread. Go post over there.


1. Presupposes that I should agree about the existence of a mistake. I reviewed the spoiler rules today, and for the life of me cannot find my "mistake" in there. [p.s. Whining? No.]

2. I admit I didn't do a search for the general thread. You have my _mea culpa_ on that front.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Marco said:


> 1. Presupposes that I should agree about the existence of a mistake. I reviewed the spoiler rules today, and for the life of me cannot find my "mistake" in there. [p.s. Whining? No.]
> 
> 2. I admit I didn't do a search for the general thread. You have my _mea culpa_ on that front.


A casting spoiler is, whether you agree or not, a spoiler. If the audience knows an actor is leaving a show, it puts undue emphasis on that character.

I don't care how widely reported the casting news in. If I've gone out of my way to avoid hearing it, I don't want to see it in a thread that is supposed to be about a specific episode that was filmed before the casting change was made.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Marco said:


> 1. Presupposes that I should agree about the existence of a mistake. I reviewed the spoiler rules today, and for the life of me cannot find my "mistake" in there.


Direct quote from the rules:

"Any spoiler information from other sources, such as articles, websites, webisodes, personal friendships with producers, etc., must also be tagged."

I don't think you can get much clearer than that.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

David Platt said:


> "Any spoiler information from other sources, such as articles, websites, webisodes, personal friendships with producers, etc., must also be tagged."
> 
> I don't think you can get much clearer than that.


If it said "...including information about casting..." it certainly would be clearer whether casting information is considered a spoiler.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

john4200 said:


> If it said "...including information about casting..." it certainly would be clearer whether casting information is considered a spoiler.


But this is a pretty silly debate in this context. The casting spoiler Marco posted wasn't "Liam Neeson joins Downton Abbey in role of mysterious stranger" or something, where we'd have no idea what the implication of the casting was to the plot. In this case, it was "existing actor leaving the show", which will have obvious plot implications and is thus a spoiler.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

cmontyburns said:


> In this case, it was "existing actor leaving the show", which will have obvious plot implications and is thus a spoiler.


Not so obvious.

If someone posted that a certain show would not be renewed for another season, it would have plot implications. But does it count as a spoiler? Not obvious either.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> But this is a pretty silly debate in this context. The casting spoiler Marco posted wasn't "Liam Neeson joins Downton Abbey in role of mysterious stranger" or something, where we'd have no idea what the implication of the casting was to the plot. In this case, it was "existing actor leaving the show", which will have obvious plot implications and is thus a spoiler.


Yes, a silly debate, and your comments are some of the silliest.

None of these casting examples, by their very nature, are part of the content of the episode which we are supposed to be discussing in this thread. So it ought to be intuitively obvious that they don't belong here.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> Yes, a silly debate, and your comments are some of the silliest.
> 
> None of these casting examples, by their very nature, are part of the content of the episode which we are supposed to be discussing in this thread. So it ought to be intuitively obvious that they don't belong here.


Come on, murgatroyd, I'm on your side.

It seemed to me that the discussion was less about whether what was posted was allowable in this episode-specific thread, and more about whether it was a spoiler at all. Clearly it was not appropriate to the thread; I was responding to the latter. My gosh.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Sorry to snap at you, but there's no percentage in feeding the sea-lawyers.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Not so obvious.
> 
> If someone posted that a certain show would not be renewed for another season, it would have plot implications. But does it count as a spoiler? Not obvious either.


I'd call that a spoiler, too.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

I will admit it was probably luck, but somehow I avoided all casting spoilers regarding anyone not renewing their contract for next year and the related plot points written into this season were complete and total surprises. 

Never assume because it was widely reported that everyone has seen the news.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Marco said:


> I see my quote CASTING SPOILER unquote from this morning got deleted without my knowledge or any advance warning. No, I am not going to repost it in
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



What is so hard about following the rules? And why are you arguing that what you did shouldn't be against the rules? Rules are rules.

#1. The rules say no spoilers. 
#2 What you posted was clearly a spoiler.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

And if you can't see how this spoils future plot lines, you have no forethought whatsoever.


----------



## Doh (May 18, 2001)

whitson77 said:


> At first I thought the writers were morons. But what do you do when the stars force themselves off the show?


I dunno but there has to be a better way than melodrama.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

The ultimate insult to the departees would have been to simply re-cast the parts and proceed as if nothing happened.


----------



## rosieambles (Jan 22, 2013)

philw1776 said:


> The ultimate insult to the departees would have been to simply re-cast the parts and proceed as if nothing happened.


It's a soap opera so that's what they should do. The role of Matthew Cawley is now being played by "Insert name of actor here".


----------

