Upon reflection, I suppose you are right. Still, the characters didn’t seem “real” to me, with the exception of Tom the Builder. Maybe it was all the hammy overacting rather than the writing.
Also, the war scenes were pretty stupid, in the way that a lot of cinematic medieval war scenes are stupid: everybody just rush in together and have a melee!
Is it? I’ve only sat through six of the episodes dvr’d so far, though, so by my count there are two more I still have to watch with Dad.
I really liked it on the whole, but I can’t believe that both the main villains were killed in self inflicted villain-falls.
Are we supposed to assume Aliena’s brother got to keep his fathers title and castle after King Stephen gets defeated by Maud? With her son as King i don’t see how he would get to keep the title OR his head after killing her brother and years of fighting on Stephens side.
Just finished watching the final episode.what a great ending to a great work. Despite feeling a bit rushed it truly satisfied me, and even had a bit misty eyed.
Pooh that’s right he was the one that killed maud s brother and someone would surely recall this to her. I picked the book for my iPad and will start reading it today the preface from the author already sold me on the book though so did this mini series.
Any one know if hbo or star is planning any more of these period pieces soon?
In the book, Richard dies in the Crusades, so any point of contention with Henry II becomes moot.
I thought the miniseries had moments. The romance novel feel of it was irritating at times and Eddie Redmayne’s voice was grating, but it looked good usually and it’s rare you see the Middle Ages enacted at all, but I have to say the final episode was terrible. It wasn’t just rushed but it was near farce, especially the “let’s whoop his ass!” scene with Waleran at the end.
While McShane’s scenery chewing was good, I thought the best performance by far was Michael McFadyen as Prior Philip. His smile when he learns Jack has returned was priceless. The actor playing Remigius was also good, though I wish they had aged him more and made his character more obviously desperate after his expulsion as they did in the book.
The most ridiculous aging, or lack of, was Martha who remained an adolescent for 30 years. I can’t decide about the incest twixt Regan and William- true it was over the top but the Hamleighs were a family of waxed moustache twiddling villains in the book anyway, and I definitely liked substituting a birthmark on an otherwise attractive woman for the boils in the book (though I would have made the birthmark more pronounced perhaps).
In any case I liked the miniseries better than the book, and it has me wanting to reread and rewatch David Macauley’s CATHEDRAL again. No desire to read or see a movie version of the sequel however.
Not just that, he was also the one who carried out the deception about Stephens son during the hostage swap causing her to lose the throne in the first place, i just don’t see a happy ending in his future.
“Wait…that was the last episode???” was my reaction.
For some reason I wasn’t under the impression that it was a mini-series, but something with at least a dozen episodes. I’m going to have to reel in a few of my past comments on pacing and such, because now that it is apparently over, there were some definite issues with that. They spend pretty much an entire episode on the construction of a wall, but previously had leaped from flirting with Boy A, to getting engaged to Boy B, to clandestine impregnation fling with Boy A, to marrying Boy B, to giving birth to Boy A’s baby, to getting kicked out by Boy B to wander Europe with the baby looking for Boy A, all in the span of about 15 minutes.
And there was no conclusion or satisfying resolution to anything. The build ups that took place felt like they were waved away with a closing monologue by John Moschitta.
I’ve just finished listening to the book, and have only seen the first episode of the miniseries, but this is my biggest complaint with the story as well. I was expecting something…more, based on the reviews I’d seen and heard. More epic, maybe? Anyway, I thought it was a decent, but certainly not outstanding, novel. And the first episode rushed through so much story so fast I felt like I had it on fast-forward.
Spoilers removed since the series is over.
Some rocks have tiny- invisible to the naked eye- pores that can be caused by any number of natural things like erosion or tiny fissures or by man made things such as a hairline crack or whatnot. The one in the plot could have been damaged by an internal fissure caused when being quarried, which would be why it “cried” but the rock quarried with it was fine. Not being a geologist I can’t explain the technical side well, but the point is some rocks (not types of rocks but individual rocks) absorb humidity in their pores, and when it’s cool the humidity they’ve absorbed condenses and, presto, tears.
Wiki on weeping statues- there are lots of them. The most genius element of the plot was that Jack made only the eyes of the statue from the rock so that it cried rather than “sweat” like some statues and stones do. The most unrealistic thing about the one in the plot was the way it cried on cue when the sun set. It would more likely take it longer to have full blown “tears” than two seconds after sunset- the cathedral would have to get noticeably cooler and that usually takes at least a few minutes after dark sets in. It also probably wouldn’t be a steady stream of tears but a couple or a few and then all the water would be out.
Regarding Maud after Stephen’s defeat: she really didn’t have any power but essentially abdicated in favor of her son, Henry II, who was- as you probably already know- well up to the task of ruling. Any influence she had with him had been largely usurped by the time he was crowned by her new daughter-in-law, the Queen Mother of Cougars, Eleanor of Aquitaine.
While the movie didn’t really have time to deal with Henry’s complicated succession and, understandably for dramatic purposes, made it quick, it was actually settled more by diplomacy than by sword. As in the miniseries Stephen really did adore his son Eustace, though unlike in the miniseries Eustace wasn’t Earl of NambyPambyland but a spoiled little bastard with a nasty reputation; when he died it was not on the battlefield as but it really did devastate his father as much as it in the miniseries, but there were many people who were quite happy about it including on Team Stephen because the thoughts of King Eustace were terrifying to them. (Among this group: Eustace’s brother William, who was never that loved by their father.) There is suspicion dating to not long after his death that Eustace was done in by members of Team Stephen who were either bribed by Team Henry or just wanted “peace, dammit, peace”.
In any case, Stephen was already devastated by the death of his wife, Matilda of Boulougne, who was unfortunately not in the miniseries but was a real piece of work herself; when he was captured she was his regent and a kickass one at that. (It can get very confusing remembering which Maud/Matilda you’re dealing with, especially since they were both Queen of England at some point or other, so they’re usually delineated as “the Empress” or “the Countess”.) Eustace’s death very soon after Maud’s basically made him give up the ghost. He was getting old (late 50s in an era without any of the modern treatments for the aches and pains of middle age), he was sick to death of fighting, he knew that Henry was young and eager to fight and had just married the richest woman in Europe as well (though only because his younger brother failed to kidnap her on the way to her wedding) while he himself just wants to die in peace. HOWEVER, he still had plenty of soldiers and could have kept up the war for years more at least.
So instead he hammered out the Treaty of Winchester:
1- Stephen got to remain king until his natural death
2- Upon his death Henry would be the clear king
3- Maud relinquishes any claims to Henry
4- Stephen’s considerable holdings in France and his English estates would be split between his other children
5- Several castles that were constructed and titles created by both sides during The Anarchy would be done away with and most titles and estates would go back to status quo antebellum (the way they were before the war)
6- A general amnesty for those who fought on both sides, with only a few very glaring exceptions
So since Richard was the rightful heir to the Earl of Shiring before the war, he’d have been restored and his killing of Gloucester (who of course wasn’t really killed by Richard since Gloucester was real and Rich wasn’t, plus Gloucester didn’t die in battle) was overlooked. True, were it real Maud would likely have found a way to poison him in his sleep, but Henry was a new and young king who wanted peace because war is bloody expensive and he wanted to fight the King of France more than he wanted to fight in England. His French possessions, which at their height were greater than those held by the King of France, were his real darlings and his real moneymakers and while he certainly took a very active interest in English affairs he was more inclined to let it be his cash cow to bolster up his adventures on the Continent (though he did love having the title of King and Eleanor liked being a Queen again).
In real life, incidentally, Richard would most likely have still been the Earl of Shiring after his father’s execution; it was extremely rare for a family’s titles and lands to be taken even if the last holder was a traitor. The Tudors would do things like that a lot more, but the Plantaganets not so much and it was quite common for your best friend to be the grandson or nephew of a guy your uncle or grandpa beheaded. King John would also become notorious for selling the guardianships of orphaned heirs and the hands-in-marriage of orphaned heiresses (he even sold his ex-wife in remarriage).
PS- Link to an older post detailing some of the reasons I didn’t like the book
I finally finished watching the whole miniseries, and I did not like it at all. I ended up with a pretty negative impression of the book, and it seemed like the miniseries made an heroic effort to up the cheese factor by about 10. I think my biggest beef was the addition of so much nonsense to make it feel more correct to modern audiences. There were so many lines of dialogue and plot points that just screamed “21st century” that it was almost laughable. Just one quick example - everyone in the town would have known that there would be no way they’d get away with killing a sheriff and cardinal, regardless of the justification or who was in charge. No ruler would allow that. Many of the moralizing speeches were grating in the same way, and making Waleran torture himself? That was obviously some network guy saying, “Can we make this a little more Dan Brown?”
It was just full of little things like that. On top of which, I thought the writing was abysmal, the acting generally mediocre, the special effects horrible, and the editing looked like it was done by a food processor. Was there any scene that lasted longer than 30 seconds?
Anyway, I’m sure no one cares any more what I think, but I had to get it off my chest.
Hmm. And here I disliked it because of the stunning lack of character development. What little there was merely gave each of the good characters a single flaw, though I’m not sure what was hoped to be acomplished through that (“they’re not saints but people,” I guess). And the bad guys didn’t even under go that much of an attempt to show some complexity.
Not even rulers could get away with it. Only a few years later Henry II, king of England and most powerful man in France as well, was whipped for words that led to the death of Thomas a Becket. (In the novel IIRC Philip is one of the guys who whips him.)
That ending was absolutely ridiculous and made you almost think they had to wrap and told Ian McShane “do something that ends Waleran- anything, we don’t care”.
How about the scene where the witch (Jack’s mother- forget her name) desecrates a Bible by pissing on it AND on the bishop, yet manages to come and go pretty much as she pleases from there on? Oh, she might put a cape over her head, but once Philip learns it’s her he’s pretty much “Hey long time no see! We have a new translation of Augustine of Hippo you might like to take a leak on!” I’m not even sure if he’d be legally permitted to grant absolution for that kind of blasphemy, and I’m sure he wouldn’t let her into a cathedral.
See, now I liked the Bible-pissing scene, but not due to it’s meaningful insights into the social struggles of the times. I liked it because I’ve wanted to piss in the general direction of quite a few religous leaders.
My initial reaction to the show was definitely under a different set of expectations than what it ended up being. I have not read the books and I was thinking it was going to be a multi-season show and not a long mini-series. Heh. When I realized it was it wasn’t as I’d thought, I started trying to justify continuing to like it. It was still entertaining, but I can’t say much more than that at the bitter end.
I agree with that wholeheartedly, but I didn’t mention it because it’s a flaw in the book as well.
I suppose that’s the reason I was told not to read the book. Good to know.
I just finished it. I actually liked it, but only because I knew going in that it was going to be Desperate Housewives in 12th century England. It’s indulgent and fast-paced and easy to follow. It’s Jaws if the editor cut every scene that didn’t have the shark in it. It’s the kind of stuff the wife and I can agree on. Shrug.
If someone had told me beforehand that it was “great”, though, I would’ve shot my tv.
I knew this would be an issue going in, because it was a huge problem in World Without End, too.
Does anyone remember the scene where Phillip asks Jack to build a wall, and Jack laughingly says something like “It’ll be pretty much the worst wall ever!” It was a line that I couldn’t imagine existing pre-Simpsons. Took me right out of it.
Waleran also said “renege” at one point- a term that wouldn’t be coined for another 500 years. I know that if they stuck to the vernacular of the time the whole series would probably be incomprehensible, but that term stood out to me for some reason.
And wtf was with ending it in modern times? I hate it when period pieces do that.
I hardly noticed the acting or sfx, which is exactly my standard for good acting and sfx, so I have to disagree with you there. Spot-on about the editing, though.
I just saw it over the weekend. Is it okay to revive this thread?
I liked it, but it was way too PC. You don’t build a Cathedral for a prior, it is the seat of a cardinal.
The woman pissing on the bishop and stabbing him was uproarious. All the church men are scared to death and can’t stop her from walking out of the room.
I liked that everyone had some failings, even Phillip, who was ostensibly the head hero.
The Hamely family was a bit cartoonish though.
All in all, it was something my D & D group for the 1970s would have really loved.
Lastly, any updates on weeping stones?