Could be, but I don’t think so. It was the teleplay that had all the hallmarks of a “Godfather” story, and I doubt if Graves would have available for such advice on the set. As the series’ principal writer, Pulman is the one they would logically turn to.
Apparently Graves did visit, see the photo in this article.
Oh yeah, but the DVD documentary does say Pullman.
Whatever. I’m sure the two men saw eye-to-eye on that aspect of the production, but Pulman would have been the one to consult on a regular basis.
That’s a great article. I’m sure Graves was thrilled to see his work turned into a BBC drama, as it certainly deserved to be.
Pulman, BTW, was sacked after writing the first four episodes of Poldark because Winston Graham was very pissed off at the way he had changed things. Not only did he alter the whole dynamic between Ross, Demelza, Francis, and Elizabeth, he created a number of continuity problems that had to be resolved farther down the road.
This is immediately apparent once you start reading the books.
What about that movie where Steve Carrell plays Alexander’s father? You know, Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day? I haven’t seen it but I like to imagine it’s about the day Alexander wept when he heard there were infinite worlds and realized he had not even conquered one.
Quite apart from Claudius, the script writing seems to be one of the processes where there is always a lot going on that we don’t hear and that aren’t in the end credits. Rewrites by directors/producers and people being replaced or refusing credit and so on.
I think there was another UK series of that age where one guy’s name was taken off the credits and replaced with someone who hadn’t contributed at all to those episodes. And that last person then got an award for those specific episodes, and collected it too.
Does ‘the man who would be king’ get half points? Connery is not exactly Alexander, but all of the locals think he’s the reincarnation of Alexander.
History Buffs did not like it at all. It is a rare case of him rejecting an historically accurate movie* because it’s bo-o-oring, to say nothing of confusing.
You should hear him rant about Mel Gibson’s historical dramas.
*Exceptionally so by Hollywood standards.
Can’t be bothered right now to watch more than a few clips of that channel, but I’m not sure I see the point of the exercise. Yes, films are always inaccurate. Get over it, history buff, what did you expect. There is no relation between accuracy and goodness/enjoyableness of the film.
It’s a bit like starting a channel to help people find Wally. “And in this next picture, if you look at the bit just left of the fold about halfway up to the first staple, you will find Wally there, crouching behind a fire hydrant…” Or am I being unfair now? Well, at least he doesn’t make them too long, like some others do.
So that makes you the perfect person to critique it, then.:dubious: If you had bothered to watch some, you would have discovered that he’s not some Sheldonesque history nerd chipping at every little detail where a movie veers from The Real Thing. One of his favorite TV shows right now is Vikings, which he cheerfully admits only touches on the historical data (such as it is) now and then. What he likes is that it authentically portrays Vikings as they really were and doesn’t try to paste modern sensibilities on the protagonists (We were here at Lindisfarne to kill the monks, rape the nuns, and steal their stuff… but that would be wrong!) to make them more palatable.
Hodges generally starts out by giving the background and historical information on the period the film depicts, then a critique of the movie itself (what works and what doesn’t), then what inaccuracies the film may have had. I like him enough to give him some money. YMMV
But you can see, I hope, how that is the first impression that someone could get from the channel. The problem is that I know a thing or two on the subject myself, so it’s unlikely to have any added value for me.