"The Crown" (2016-Present) - Netflix Drama Series on Queen Elizabeth II

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Oliver Dowden has told The Mail on Sunday that there should be a disclaimer (or like health warning) in the beginning of each episode stating that there are fictional scenes


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-fiction.html

Sky news and ITV news have picked this up
https://news.sky.com/story/the-crown...cious-12145719
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-28/...ecretary-fears

There was a recent DM article expanding on this subject, how many historians, etc..think there needs to be a warning prior to episodes airing. I fear that Netflix doesn’t give a hoot - and I don’t expect any changes. I AM encouraged that so many are speaking out, defending the BRF when they can’t themselves.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I AM encouraged that so many are speaking out, defending the BRF when they can’t themselves.

It's my experience that people believe what they want to believe, and disregard any facts that contradict that.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

It's my experience that people believe what they want to believe, and disregard any facts that contradict that.

Exactly
And "the Crown" is just giving that : an alternative, binary universe with a vilain and a victim, with no subtility whatsoever. A dangerous simplification game, easy to understand and digest.
But Life, the real one, isn't black nor white. And we all know that the truth is always in the grey zone. But of course it demands a touch of critical spirit and contextual curiosity. We can all agree that the vast majority of the viewers of "the Crown" will not bother to overtake what Netflix is giving them : a good ol' drama.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

It's my experience that people believe what they want to believe, and disregard any facts that contradict that.

I agree. In many ways, this makes me think of “confirmation bias”.

Confirmation Bias is the tendency to look for information that supports, rather than rejects, one’s preconceptions, typically by interpreting evidence to confirm existing beliefs while rejecting or ignoring any conflicting data (American Psychological Association).

[Empress Merel]

I don't see why Netflix would even bother putting in a disclaimer. If you cannot understand that this is a show BASED on events and real life people and not a documentary, you do not live in the real world, to be very frank.

Secondly, they hardly made the Diana/Charles storyline up did they? The material was given by Diana and Charles themselves! The showrunners didn't have to crack their heads here to come up with a story. It's all there. It's a fact that they fought against one another for public favor and used the media to gain it.

So now being all boo-hoo? Grow up man, the 80's and 90's were an absolute mess for them. Peter Morgan is only using what's right in front of him and turned it into a drama. Will we make an equal fuss when season 6 show how Charles gained favor back after showing the world how devoted he was to his son? Doubt it.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

I don't see why Netflix would even bother putting in a disclaimer. If you cannot understand that this is a show BASED on events and real life people and not a documentary, you do not live in the real world, to be very frank.

Secondly, they hardly made the Diana/Charles storyline up did they? The material was given by Diana and Charles themselves! The showrunners didn't have to crack their heads here to come up with a story. It's all there. It's a fact that they fought against one another for public favor and used the media to gain it.

So now being all boo-hoo? Grow up man, the 80's and 90's were an absolute mess for them. Peter Morgan is only using what's right in front of him and turned it into a drama. Will we make an equal fuss when season 6 show how Charles gained favor back after showing the world how devoted he was to his son? Doubt it.

where did he "get favour back"? Charles' approval figures are relatively low for the future kng.. He has tried for years to work hard at his job and since Di's death, to take care of the boys....

[caethi]

Very often when real peoples' lives are dramatized, there is disclaimer saying "based on real events" and "some scenes have been fictionalized" or something like that. I suppose it's more of a legal disclaimer, to prevent lawsuits, and the BRF aren't likely to sue. I doubt that Peter Morgan wants to cast any doubt on his version of history, however. Are there people who cannot distinguish fact from fiction? Absolutely. Would a disclaimer reverse that? Not for most.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

I don't see why Netflix would even bother putting in a disclaimer. If you cannot understand that this is a show BASED on events and real life people and not a documentary, you do not live in the real world, to be very frank.

Secondly, they hardly made the Diana/Charles storyline up did they? The material was given by Diana and Charles themselves! The showrunners didn't have to crack their heads here to come up with a story. It's all there. It's a fact that they fought against one another for public favor and used the media to gain it.

So now being all boo-hoo? Grow up man, the 80's and 90's were an absolute mess for them. Peter Morgan is only using what's right in front of him and turned it into a drama. Will we make an equal fuss when season 6 show how Charles gained favor back after showing the world how devoted he was to his son? Doubt it.

I didn’t want to respond because frankly you’re incredibly rude, but...

Peter Morgan didn’t make up the War of the Wales, but he has clearly invented events and, in some cases, twisted things to make Charles the villain and Diana the innocent lamb led to slaughter. That much is obvious.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I didn’t want to respond because frankly you’re incredibly rude, but...

Peter Morgan didn’t make up the War of the Wales, but he has clearly invented events and, in some cases, twisted things to make Charles the villain and Diana the innocent lamb led to slaughter. That much is obvious.

I didn't see an innocent lamb. I think it showed Diana as selfish, self-centered, immature, impulsive, attention-seeking, unfaithful, and self-destructive. Just because they left out her crueler moments (like apparently telling Charles he would never be king) and kept or invented some for her husband — who looked equally bad and tortured — does not mean Diana came off flawless.

Perhaps raging against Charles' supposed villainy is just more confirmation bias.

[Empress Merel]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I didn’t want to respond because frankly you’re incredibly rude, but...

Peter Morgan didn’t make up the War of the Wales, but he has clearly invented events and, in some cases, twisted things to make Charles the villain and Diana the innocent lamb led to slaughter. That much is obvious.

So she wasn't a 19 year old girl, paired up with a nearly thirty year old and let's make a life out of it? The disparity in life experience is huge and she was set up to lose from the very beginning. If that isn't cruel, what is? They're both products of the environment they were raised in and I feel sympathy for Charles, but he did what he did and so did she. Both didn't come out looking flawless.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

So she wasn't a 19 year old girl, paired up with a nearly thirty year old and let's make a life out of it? The disparity in life experience is huge and she was set up to lose from the very beginning. If that isn't cruel, what is? They're both products of the environment they were raised in and I feel sympathy for Charles, but he did what he did and so did she. Both didn't come out looking flawless.

Charles was actually over 30 and how was she "set up to lose"? She may have had less experience than Charles but she chose to marry him and had she been told that the marriage was off for any reason, I think she'd have been very upset and angry. She wanted to marry him, she wanted to be Princess of Wales. ANd it was inevitable that there would be a gap in age between them.. but if she found it too daunting she did not have to do it.

[Empress Merel]

The lack of support she got within the family, Charles still in love with Camilla? She fancied herself in love with him, he for sure didn't with her. He was(is) the heir to the throne, well over a decade older, more eloquent, experienced and not a boy. I'd say the odds weren't stacked in her favour. This was the 80's, but imagine Harry just a couple years younger than he is now and marrying someone who's barely legal and actually think she is his match in all things that are important in a marriage that is also a job function?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

The lack of support she got within the family, Charles still in love with Camilla? She fancied herself in love with him, he for sure didn't with her. He was(is) the heir to the throne, well over a decade older, more eloquent, experienced and not a boy. I'd say the odds weren't stacked in her favour. This was the 80's, but imagine Harry just a couple years younger than he is now and marrying someone who's barely legal and actually think she is his match in all things that are important in a marriage that is also a job function?

yes of course he was older than her.. but she came from a court family.. knew the RF and should have known a bit about royal life and what was expected of her as a PRincess. I dont think she did, but that was hardly Charles' fault...She got support from the RF, she had staff and ladies in waiting advising her.. but she did claim later that she hadn't had any support.

[Claricecolin]

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

The lack of support she got within the family, Charles still in love with Camilla? She fancied herself in love with him, he for sure didn't with her. He was(is) the heir to the throne, well over a decade older, more eloquent, experienced and not a boy. I'd say the odds weren't stacked in her favour. This was the 80's, but imagine Harry just a couple years younger than he is now and marrying someone who's barely legal and actually think she is his match in all things that are important in a marriage that is also a job function?

Thank you! I have somewhat softened on my view of Charles since the War of the Wales but I still hold him more responsible as he was in love with someone else and hoped in time to love Diana. We don't know actual conversations and the timeline is a bit winky but the broad strokes are there. I think because this is recent history and there were very strong feelings at the time they are being stirred up. It will be interesting to see what is left out in the next 2 seasons. There were damaging phone calls leaked (especially Charles) on both sides. People don't like to look back at the messy parts of life. I have followed the BRF since Diana (as I am only a few years younger). They may be "The Firm" but they are also people and people are messy.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

I didn't see an innocent lamb. I think it showed Diana as selfish, self-centered, immature, impulsive, attention-seeking, unfaithful, and self-destructive. Just because they left out her crueler moments (like apparently telling Charles he would never be king) and kept or invented some for her husband — who looked equally bad and tortured — does not mean Diana came off flawless.

Perhaps raging against Charles' supposed villainy is just more confirmation bias.

To your last comment...nope, lol.

[RandyDrx]

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

I don't see why Netflix would even bother putting in a disclaimer. If you cannot understand that this is a show BASED on events and real life people and not a documentary, you do not live in the real world, to be very frank.

Secondly, they hardly made the Diana/Charles storyline up did they? The material was given by Diana and Charles themselves! The showrunners didn't have to crack their heads here to come up with a story. It's all there. It's a fact that they fought against one another for public favor and used the media to gain it.

So now being all boo-hoo? Grow up man, the 80's and 90's were an absolute mess for them. Peter Morgan is only using what's right in front of him and turned it into a drama. Will we make an equal fuss when season 6 show how Charles gained favor back after showing the world how devoted he was to his son? Doubt it.

You'll be surprised by how many people that thinks "The Crown" is 100% true and take it as gospel.

[MARG]

Sadly, no I wouldn't. This series was a brilliant move for the Republican movement which at present isn't that loud. But they are creating a whole new membership with this series, especially with those born since Diana's death.

They had already set the stage by the depiction of various senior members of the royal family. Now they are cold, callous and just plain vicious.

I really think a note should be made that its fiction.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by MARG

Sadly, no I wouldn't. This series was a brilliant move for the Republican movement which at present isn't that loud. But they are creating a whole new membership with this series, especially with those born since Diana's death.

They had already set the stage by the depiction of various senior members of the royal family. Now they are cold, callous and just plain vicious.

I really think a note should be made that its fiction.

Its fiction but it is based on real life events.

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Denville

Its fiction but it is based on real life events.

Seriously?

Yes, the major, historical events are real. But every conversation, every thought, disagreement or fight is completely made up. And this is what the people are talking about and thinking it was real, not the historical events.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Fem

Seriously?

Yes, the major, historical events are real. But every conversation, every thought, disagreement or fight is completely made up. And this is what the people are talking about and thinking it was real, not the historical events.

yes seriously. It is not fiction in the sense that Pride and Prejudice is fiction. Its based on historical events, and is about real people. Its not very accurate I gather but I cant' think of a historical series in recent years that IS accurate..