King and Conquorer - from 24 August BBC and iPlayer

[IwantToRetire]

I had heard about this and sort of didn't listen as I thought it was Netflix.

But it isn't. Its the BBC!

"A clash that defined a country, and a continent, for a thousand years. The epic story of 1066 and the brutal battle for a kingdom. Starring James Norton and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0024pyz

Supposedly based on verified historical facts.

I am imagining a mash up of Game of Throne and Vikings.

(Haven't seen another thread but am nominating this as a binge watch thread, rather than tv pace. If available on iPlayer.)

Awfully disappointing!

On episode two now; why is Morcar’s daughter the same age as him???? I had to rewind it to make sure I’d heard it right when she said “Father”. I also love how everyone seems to know exactly at what point on the coast their enemy/ally/spouse etc will be arriving or leaving, and at what time….

I am enjoying it - it’s a tricky story because ultimately it’s ending in a huge defeat, it sat awkwardly between men in tights musketeers style caper and an attempt at something serious like wolf hall.

very difficult to get the right funding and script - they should’ve aged up the actors as the time span is over 20 odd years.

I wasn’t a fan of the totally anachronistic female dialogue - something smarter could’ve been done here, Emma was an interesting character who attempted to wield power and lost. I know they wanted to big up the female roles but it didn’t really come off as authentic or intelligent…

The endless fighting felt authentic to me though - warrior societies were endlessly bloody, that part I thought was well done, the griminess, the constant threats of war and minor skirmishes.

I wasn’t a fan of the totally anachronistic female dialogue - something smarter could’ve been done here, Emma was an interesting character who attempted to wield power and lost. I know they wanted to big up the female roles but it didn’t really come off as authentic or intelligent…

I totally agree. Have to roll my eyes at them constantly trying to big up all the female characters. 🙄 And Lady Emma's "wit" doesn't come across as very intelligent at all.

No…it could have been so much better. All that sitting around nodding about men’s choices vs women’s choices…

The scheming-dowager-Queen-as-power-behind-the-throne is a bit tired even when it's historically accurate. And Juliet Stevenson's hair keeps reminding me of Gary Oldman in Dracula.

But that's what I struggle with - tension. How can there be tension since we know the outcome?

That was his sister! She said 'Brother...'.

You could say the same of Titanic, though?

Did you read what I put?
no stone motte and bailies in England before 1066 cos Norman’s hadn’t arrived.
in NORMANDY, uniquely, stone moat and bailies in already established over previous 100 years.
not sure why you can’t read what I put in both messages. I wasn’t ever talking about stone castles in England.

oh well…have it your way …I’m not going to argue about this … my point has been spectacularly missed… I was trying to say if you’re wanting to show something to indicate where power lay, showing a few flipping Norman stone castles in NORMANDY scenes might give viewers a clue as to how the Norman’s were conquering..lt wasn’t all Williams personal brute force

James Norton is hotter - he should be the winner. 😝

He is a million times hotter than weasly William with the dodgy tash. I like Norton's hard stares he's a bit Tommy Lee Royce in this <Happy Valley>.

I did read. I know we’re talking about Normandy and I wasn’t talking about England either. Not sure why you think I was

I’m not being difficult it’s just we disagree on the progression of the use of stone as a material at and before the mid 1000s
Thats fine.

@Piggywaspushed That makes a lot more sense!

Indeed it does!

I am not even sure what episode I am on. Might be 6.

I am partly so dismissive of it because they made a big thing about the script being based on historical accuracies.

On one level I dont care, but the portrayal of Edward is so wrong. He may have been "pious" but he wasn't an idiot. As PP said he stayed in power for quite a long time!

And as to the hysterical over the top performance by Juliet Stevenson as his mother, it is total rubbish.

By this time he had already to rid of her, partly because she was syphoning off money, but she was a pain in the neck. And he always said she never did anything for me.

(Spoiler alert in next paragraph)

As for bashing her head in with the crown, just stupid.

Instead of this totally invented event, they could have put more into why Harold seemed to become a totally different person.

Why do the let men who remain immature schoolboys churn out this infantile rubbish? Embarrased to know Norton commissioned this.

What a complete waste of prime time tv.

Every character is turned into a cliche that would be at home in one of the soaps.

That is, historians believe, why Harold scarpered back to Kent....

Sussex.

(Invicta!)

But Rose and Jack in Titanic were fictional characters, we didn't know what was going to happen to them, so we were on the edge of our seats. Here, we know what happened to Harold and to William. We know William cannot die at this point in time, no matter what peril he's in.
I suppose you could argue that we know what happened to the kings in Shakespeare's dramas, but that is on a completely different level, this is all so pedestrian.

As for bashing her head in with the crown, just stupid.

Yes, I wondered where they conjured that up from. Matricide is definitely against the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not kill and honour thy father and thy mother. I'm sure Edward was mightily pissed off with his mother at times, but that does mean he done her in himself, so violently.

And if he had you would bet it would be recorded in history!

Hardly by Edward the Pious, althuogh not doubt any number of bawdy songs or ditties would have spread.

As it is well recorded he ceased to have anything to do with her, why is she even shown in this series.

Accept sulking in Denmark.

Have watched Ep 1 so far. My gold standard is The Last Kingdom, which cleverly marries historical events, with swashbuckling fiction ( Utred) and still maintains a sense of accuracy vis a vis the historical period. A couple of points-
the horses - toulting Icelandics - give me a break! One look at the Bauyeux tapestry & you know that’s not accurate - it’s really jarring as those are very specific types unique to Iceland.Odd!
Awful sound quality. My DS is a sound engineer, & poor quality suggests they were cutting corners on the budget. This is a constant problem he has, hence producers don’t allocate sufficient funds re sound. The result is as you see. Sound really enhances the viewer’s experience, but a lot of producers don’t get it.
Really dark filming - I thought a lot of it was way too dark, but this also suggests budgetary constraints- good lighting costs £
Dirty faces- I mean, really! I am sure folk of 1100 AD occasionally wiped a rag across their faces from time to time. They all looked like coal miners at the end of their shifts.
Sets, amateurish & awful - just bad! Again speaks to cost- cutting
In summary, it looks to me like they got a great cast together, then didn’t have the budget/production nous to make a good series. A shame, really

i think James Norton is also filming something else, so he had to be Harold and die, perhaps because there is another series about William, or at least the chance of one

Also, as far as I remember William's half brother was anything but a wimp.

He may have nominally been a member of the clergy but was very much involved in politics.

But here he is shown as some sort of whimsical nerdy male.

Just so stupid. That could have created a fictional character like that.

And bothered to reflect how he helped William invade England.

And not a nice person at all. Not known as Odious Odo for nothing.

Seriously beginning to that ChatGP could write a better script.

Dh is into all this , but I’m just confused by who is who and yes Swyne or whatever his name is sounds like Wayne. I do need to watch 1 agsin , but cba. Which isn’t helping.

I understand what you're saying @Limehawkmoth and agree. I remember reading a few years ago (may have been in Norah Platt's Scottish Hazard about the Flemish immigration to Scotland) that Motte and Bailey castles developed because Normandy and Flanders are pretty flat so a raised fortification had an advantage.

After 1066 they just carried on building what they knew but took advantage of the more hilly terrain, conferring an even greater advantage.

For anyone interested McGibbon & Ross's "Domestic and Castellated Architecture of Scotland" although very old, is a great resource. I don't know if similar exists for England.