It pains me to say this, but I do think Feud looks good. Feud is the new miniseries from Ryan Murphy, and the first 10-episode miniseries is Feud: Bette and Joan, and it’s about Joan Crawford (played by Jessica Lange) and Bette Davis (played by Susan Sarandon). Joan and Bette famously hated each other for decades, and they came together to make the camp classic Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? It’s classic Hollywood and it stars two over-50 actresses, so I should be on-board. The problem is that Susan Sarandon has been justifiably canceled. So I won’t be watching. Anyway, that premieres this coming Sunday, and I guess there’s a lot of excitement about it, because FX has already confirmed that there will be a second Feud miniseries, and Ryan Murphy already knows what “story” he wants to do: the divorce war between Prince Charles and Princess Diana.
Feud is going royal for its second season. FX announced the newest installment of Ryan Murphy’s anthology series will be titled Feud: Charles and Diana and tackle Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana. Prince Charles and Princess Diana were married from 1981-1996. Diana, mother to Prince William and Prince Harry, died in 1997. Their marriage became fodder for tabloids around the world, with allegations of affairs happening in the early 1990s. Prince Charles’ current wife, Camilla Parker Bowles, will likely be a major figure in the series.
The second installment will be 10 episodes and debut in 2018. Murphy will write Feud: Charles and Diana with Jon Robin Baitz and serve as executive producers. Dede Gardner, Plan B Entertainment and Alexis Martin Woodall are also on board as executive producers.
Nope. This is going to be a mess. It’s not that the story lacks potential: the divorce war between Charles and Diana was possibly THE international gossip story of the 1990s. By the late 1980s, their marriage was in shambles, and when they finally separated, there were years of petty grievances and photo-ops and Diana’s famous Panorama interview and her interviews with Andrew Morton and more. Of course it has dramatic potential. But here are the problems with it:
1. Diana is dead, and so there will be many accusations of the crassness of a bunch of Americans making her story into a miniseries.
2. No one can play Diana. Naomi Watts tried and failed spectacularly. Name one actress – specifically, name one British actress – who could truly play Diana adequately.
3. The story is too big to even cover. If this was a proposed 10-part documentary series, I would be there. I would be all for it. But that’s not what we’re talking about.
4. It seems cruel, right? Diana was not in the best place in those years. It’s not a “feud” as much as it’s a fictionalized recreation of one woman’s pain and suffering and heartbreak.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Getty.
Listen, I am no Ryan Murphy fan but it seems like a total failure of imagination to say the story can’t be done. If they can do decent limited series about Queens Elizabeth and Victoria, they can certainly do this. Diana isn’t really so special that no actress can play her and do that story justice.
@EOA I totally agree with you. I don’t understand how people can’t see Diana as a human, but only as an icon. She isn’t a saint, y’all, just because she died in a horrible away, it doesn’t mean she couldn’t be a bad person too.
And I’m dying to see how Ryan Murphy will deal with the “tampon”. It’s hilarious, c’mon, royal s**t is the best s**t.
Exactly. People take the alleged sainthood of this woman to ridiculous extremes. She was a person, just like anyone else. Hire a good actress who plays her as a character, just like anybody else. I seriously think there are loonies out there that just want to intimidate people out of making stories about her. It’s insane.
The tampon? Could you please explain that to me? I was pretty young during this scandal, but it’s so interesting to me now.
@Jill – Charles apparently either wrote or said – can’t remember – to Camilla that he wished he was her tampon.
Jill: Charles and Camilla were illegally tapped having a sexy phone conversation in which he said (paraphrasing) that he wished to be inside her all day like a tampon because he wanted to be intimate with her all the time.
Here is the full transcript
http://www.ubermorgen.com/UM/camilla.txt
The conversation was posted by tabloids worldwide to much hilarity or disgust depending on POV.
Personally i think we shouldn’t judge because we all have those sexy conversations with our lovers which would cause raised eyebrows elsewhere.
I don’t know how old you are but … yeah, she was. And people have been idealizing her for nearly 20 years, that certainly doesn’t help.
It took several centuries for decent, well rounded storytelling about those Queens.
If he wants to mine English royal feuds, how about Elizabeth 1 vs her sister Bloody Mary or Elizabeth 1 vs her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots? Or really get into the Plantagenets, plenty of feuding there.
The Charles vs Diana feud is too soon and it’s been done to death. It needs to be put away for another decade or two. The OJ saga was given that time to seem interesting.
Charles/Diana and OJ happened at the same time. Why is one considered “given that time to seem interesting” but not the other? It’s been 20+ years since Charles v Diana. I think that is enough time.
I like where you are going with this LAK. I would add the de Medici family to the list.
Trixie: the OJ trial was given breathing space to percolate, gestate and seem new. We didn’t have daily, weekly, monthly, annual news articles, books, sources, documentaries, miniseries, feature films, docu-dramas etc rehashing it for the last 20years.
Give the Charles vs Diana saga a rest for a decade. Let it sit in the back for some time, then rehash it.
M.A.F: the Medici family would be awesome. May i throw in Catherine Medici vs Diane Poitiers?
Going back to English history…Victoria vs her children.
Yes we did, actually. You probably just missed out on all the books and endless theorizing because it was an American circus more than anything. I would also make the same argument here, that the UK has been subjected to the endlessness of the Sainthood; America, not so much. There is nothing special about any of these people that warrants a sacred holy veil being placed over their stories for centuries. They are people just like anybody else, and they had their flaws. They are public figures, and thusly fair game. Charles etc. are more than entitled to put in their two cents if they don’t like it.
Victoria and her children would be fascinating given she wanted to project the ideal family when it wasn’t.
I’m not saying we need to pause on these films to make the subjects better or to spare them or to elevate them. I’m also not saying that a film should never be made.
I’m saying that we are oversaturated with this particular story for now.
There are other recent feuds i’d object being fictionalised within the next decade for similar reasons eg Brangelina vs Aniston.
Yeah, correction, “Name one actress – specifically, name one British actress – who could truly play Diana adequately”, AND willing to come within 100 miles of ANY brutal or honest project about the monarchy and Di. I would also argue that you still are not getting well-rounded stories about these people. (And regardless, I wouldn’t bet money on Murphy to be the one to do it.) “The Crown” was practically a freakin’ love letter to Elizabeth II. Hell, it was most generous to Bertie, the D.o.W., and Churchill too. Sure, Phil and Liz have a couple of fights in a few episodes. Edward’s a bit greedy. Porchie’s in there. (But at this point that only means something to people who have already heard about it. And it’s bound to go nowhere since it is unsubstantiated gossip after all.) But they smoothed out Margaret’s “rough edges”, were completely uninvested in the Queen Mother, and Philip’s the only one routinely put in a negative light. “The Queen” wasn’t terribly nuanced either. Though it tries to be “fair” to all. That’s the problem. In the end it’s a tribute! It’s about Blair cutting his teeth, unwittingly earning himself a PR coup. But saving the monarchy and tending to “the people” out of decency through the goodness and charity of his common, bleeding heart. And it practically portrays Liz as the victim of that situation. “If only WE could understand where SHE is coming from and appreciate all that she’s done for us…” I mean, I think it’s still a roll of the dice with depictions of Victoria or Elizabeth I, too.
It is an issue–This is not some petty, mostly-passive, camp opportune feud between two actors over fifty years ago. This was just a hate-filled, ceaseless, slog of a saga to end a miserable marriage between two messy, dysfunctional… people. The next King of England, and the mother of the next, next king, who was one of the biggest icons of all time. And all the major players in this story are still alive! Oh, except for the one who died tragically. And I agree with LAK. I’m too young to have any first-hand memories of Diana or remember the OJ trial. But I still knew about this stuff long before William and Kate’s wedding and my interest in the monarchy. Literally never heard of Kate prior to the engagement. That’s how much I did not care about these people. But I knew about the War of the Waleses. Yet watching American Crime Story I was like, “Who is this weirdo blonde guy living on OJ’s property?” (I also thought he was alone and driving the Bronco.) Nicole Brown doesn’t get a cover story in Vanity Fair every year. There aren’t dozens upon dozens of books about her. There aren’t regular monthly articles written about OJ or Bette Davis. Davis’s bodyguard doesn’t have a book deal and isn’t giving his thoughts on what kind of king her son will be to any tab that calls. And there wasn’t daily, endless coverage of Crawford vs. Davis. This to me would be more like if they did a show that focused on Nicole and OJ’s relationship rather than that trial. Those are different stories. And this will be Feud, not American Crime Story anyhow. You know, it will be aiming for schlock. Btw, Murphy was one of four co-creators and eight executive producers on A.C.S. He directed four episodes. He did not write it. Nor was it primarily his, Brennan, and Falchuk’s vision like the majority of his other projects. I know exactly what this is going to be simply by his choosing of it. Like, of all BRF stories? Of all royal adjacent stories for centuries? FFS, go after Monaco with this trash! Create a show called “Scandals” and do the abdication. (Also done to death.) Or the f’ed up relationship Victoria had with her kids. Mad King George! (Boy does that have it ALL. George IV, Charlotte, the rush for the middle aged heirs to pop out kids.) I’m fully expecting “Versailles” meets AHS: Coven with this. I’m not opposed to a harsh/truthful depiction of who these people actually are. Far from it. That’s why I get so tired of the inaccurate tabloid-y, trite stuff. I have no doubts that this will quickly devolve into nonsensical schlock, with the hysterics turned up to eleven, and no chance of being at all factual.
Sorry but this sounds just boring. There are much more interesting “feuds” than this one.
Oh no. Bad idea, agreed.
They should do Truman Capote and all of his “swans” after their falling out.
Ooh now that sounds good.
That’s an awesome idea (although also kind of sad because Capote was a raging alcoholic at that point).
Now that’s a good idea.
That’s a great idea, though I’d rather anyone else do it than Murphy.
I would totally go for that!
Yes! What a great story that would be.
Awesome thought. But, the show would have to include the rise and fall. After all, when the swans iced him, they iced him — and that was that.
Wouldn’t William and Harry have to approve this? I can’t imagine them being OK with it…
Why would William and Harry have to approve this?
I don’t consider this as a feud – the Diana-Charles-divorce and everything after that was just a mess.
This version of Feud could be diabolical depending on the writers.
Too soon.
I agree with Kaiser. Diana had to play out her pain in the world’s eyes. This is wrong
I don’t know that this even counts as a feud. It was a terrible marriage, that’s really not the same as two actresses fighting on a film set.
And it’ll be the worst finding someone who can play Diana. She is still so iconic and we all still think we knew her. She simply had that special something that can’t be replicated. This is why I thought Netflix should’ve done The Crown as a mini series. When I read that they’re planning on six seasons I immediately thought oh hell, who’s going to play Diana and is that when it goes off the rails?
I think the movie is a terrible idea, but I think Charlize Theron could play Diana. Charlize is more beautiful than Diana when she (Diana) was young, but Diana really grew into her looks and she and Theron were both tall, imposing blondes.
I think,
1. It’s disrespectful to go down this road.
2. I feel like the Diana and Charles story has been beaten to death.
3. It seems really unoriginal .
He should do a special episode of Courtney Love vs. Madonna – I’d kinda love to see this ^^
No. For goodness sakes, no. Every time people talk about the good things Diana did, I feel like they qualify it with “but she had a messy romantic life” or “in spite of her personal problems.” She’s not here to have a say in any of this. Let’s just appreciate her instead of nitpicking.
Many dead people have had movies/tv shows made about them and weren’t around to have a say in any of it.
Katy Perry and Taylor Swift….Bring it !!!
You mean Kate Perry vs. everyone.
You mean Taylor Swift vs. Everyone.
wow, that first picture! Diana looking like an English Rose and Charles so very unattractive! I’ve always wonderd how two reasonably good looking parents could have produced such an unfortunate looking son
You never heard. Good looking parents make ugly children. lol
Oh no…
There are just so many more options when considering Great Feuds. I guess I never really considered Charles and Di in that vein.
I was hoping for another Golden Age of Hollywood rendition because those were messy and vicious and the quotes! Good lord. I wanted to see Olivia De Havilland and Joan Fontaine. They were sisters and absolutely hated each other and they didn’t care about playing it out in the press either.
I think this too soon to make a series let alone a movie on the like of Princess Diana and Prince Charles. Think of the consequences….. 1. You will be sued if anything that secrets that the Royal Family is trying to keep under wraps for coming out, expect a lawsuit. ” 2. I agree with Kaiser, no one can’t or shouldn’t play Princess Diana, ‘Nuff said, and lastly, people of Great Britain still holds Princess Diana as an icon to their hearts and to decimate her legacy is a cheap Let down. She deserves a lot better than that.
Sorry, Ryan Murphy pick someone else. Might I suggest a feud between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. That would be saucy.
OMG, yes please! I wish he would do a few seasons of the “old Hollywood” feuds or at least those stories that haven’t been done to death.
I know she’s not British and would never do this miniseries…but I think Margot Robbie would do a great job playing Princess Di.
Mmmm I think she would too.
Emily Blunt as Diana?
Good casting!
Personally I would put the story on the shelf at least until all dramatis personae are dead. There were so many great Hollywood feuds, I don’t know why that had to insist on this.
Hmm… I see no reason why he shouldn’t make a “Feud” mini based off of their divorce. True, Diana is dead but clearly so are Bette and Joan. There have already been plenty of movies (both theatrical releases and tv movies) based on their courtship, marriage, affairs, divorce and her death and have been produced by a range of people, not just the British. As far as finding anyone adequate enough to play “Diana that argument will always go in favor of the individual who is viewing it. Some will like the portrayal and some won’t. Over the years, I’ve seen some actresses give believable performances as “Diana” in both looks and manner.
I hope Ryan does go through with it. He’d certainly have enough to work with. Lol.
All I saw in the pictures is how astonishingly beautiful Diana was.
No one could come anywhere near her. And a certain shallow me will always wonder why did charles give her up for camilla?
She was naive young freshly out of school 19 yr old. Couldn’t Charles have persisted and had some patience?
In 10 years she was such a matured person, with such a charismatic connection to people.
And the wedding pic in carriage, Bill Normal takes totally after his dad. Uncanny similarity
Diana was preternaturally beautiful, No doubt.
That being said, looks alone cannot sustain a long term relationship.
Thank goodness, actually. That gives the rest of us mortals a chance at keeping our relationships going when we are past our prime.
I think Vanessa Kirby could do it. She’s tall, blonde and can play aristocrats capably.
I’m gobsmacked at how beautiful she looks as a brunette.
She’s utterly forgetable as a blonde.
Oh, I disagree. She was mesmerising in Uncle Vanya and she was blonde there. She had amazing chemistry with Tobias Menzies.
tacky murrican is tacky
There’s only one thing wrong with this: TOO SOON
I agree that it is crass, but Emily Blunt would kill playing Diana. that girl can do anything, and I will watch it. and sadly I’d probably be more into this then the current Feud because I remember Diana, she was my icon growing up, bette davis and joan Crawford mean nothing to me.
I think Blunt is too small. Diana was a tall, imposing, charismatic blonde who owned the space she took up and the space around her. Like Charlize Theron. She could play her.
Jessica Chastain would be amazing. I would love to see Sarah Paulson take a crack at it. I’m optimistic that even if it’s bad it will be good!
Keira Knightley could play a Duchess so she could probably play Diana reasonably well.
Agree that it’s crass and he needs to leave it alone. Diana did seem to suffer a great deal over the loss of her marriage, for years. The thing that could make feud enjoyable to watch is the fact that both Davis and Crawford were both major divas who gave as good as they got. They were both probably theatrical and bitchy to the extreme. This does not apply when witnessing one person’s heartbreak. It’s not remotely the same.
I saw the first two episodes of Feud and it is pretty good. In an entertaining, fascinating, campy, Ryan Murphy-esque way, not OJ Simpson good, I have to clarify. The series has a deeper message clearly (look at how we treat women just because they’ve aged!) but what stands out is the pure gossipy quality of it, and the acting, of course.
I can’t imagine a story about Charles and Diana being like that, especially considering how tragically it ended. I imagine they chose it to be in a very different tone, but still, I hope Murphy gets a good screenwriter because I don’t want his campy ways near that story.