[QuickTidal]

Finished Ep 10 this morning. It's funny, but before I watched this I never thought the War of The Roses could actually be so riveting. By the end of it I really disliked the White Queen (Elizabeth Woodville), but I liked her daughter...even though she fell in love with her own married uncle...ick. You can tell she's a product of her mothers power machinations and politicking, and her late fathers brashness, thoughtlessly and blindly blundering into things (like a boar, coincidentally...avatar of the House of York). Whether it was the author (Phillipa Gregory) or the producers and writers behind the show...by the end I liked Margaret Beaufort (Stanley) best (pious though she was)...and they allow you to actively root for The Tudor's, and especially young Henry (VII) Tudor, after a hard life in exile he finally gets to be king. Oh, and fuck Lord Stanley for only deciding to throw in with Henry when the tide of the battle could be turned and he felt he was safe to do so. The bastard.

Anyway, BK you were right, from about ep 4 onwards this thing got REALLY entertaining. In fact I liked it even more after the ten year time jump in Ep 7.

Richard has a nice progression, from weakling 3rd brother, to player on the board, to reluctant guardian, to conspiracy-mad king. that was a hell of a storyline, and by the time he dies you're kind of glad. Oh, and I stopped feeling sorry for Anne Neville at about ep 7 as well...as she was almost worse than her sister for scheming.

I loved how poetic the shot was when Stanley gives the crown to Henry and the shot blurs to pull back every so slightly and while Stanley and the other Tudor's are chanting "God save the King", we see Richard's bloody corpse and lifeless eyes. Hauntingly done. The cinematographer ought to be proud.

Now this is how impressed I am. I have never before considered reading a Phillipa Gregory novel, but I'll probably pop out today and buy THE WHITE PRINCESS...cause now I'm invested in this story (and Gregory tells a heck of a yarn) and I want to know what happens with Elizabeth of York marrying Henry Tudor, and about the Princes In the Tower...

It will also allow me to see how accurate the book is in comparison to the forthcoming second series about this new book.

[Werthead]

You guys liked this?

There was about three passable episodes in the whole thing and the rest of it was terrible (to be fair, sometimes so bad it was hilarious). The 'witches actually doing magic that really works' thing in a supposedly historical drama was awful, a few of the actors - most notably Edward IV - were horrific and the battle scenes were so utterly inept they shouldn't have even been attempted. Against that a few of the actors (Warwick, Stanley, Margaret Beaufort, maybe Richard III in the last few episodes) were really good and made the most of really bad material.

But this wasn't even remotely on the same level of quality as The Tudors, let alone anything by HBO. I thought it was even weaker than Pillars of the Earth.

Also, this was really not a good retelling of the Wars of the Roses. It started about a third of the way through the conflict, some time after the largest battle of the wars (Towton), and really didn't get to grips with the historical backdrop for the war or why it was happening. They dropped a lot of vital characters (Warwick's brother for one) and the insane pace really stripped away the resonance from events. The entire, significant Scottish involvement in the conflict is missing, as is most of the Burgundian and French stuff (oddly, as they set it up by mentioning it in the first two episodes). Also, the Battle of Bosworth FIELD did not take place with 20 guys in a dense forest riding in single file IN THE SNOW (it happened in August). Dramatic licence to improve story flow is fine, and the first two or three episodes were actually reasonably accurate (magic aside), but it veered so far away from the real history by the final episode it really couldn't be called accurate at all.

[QuickTidal]

Werthead, on 20 October 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

You guys liked this?

There was about three passable episodes in the whole thing and the rest of it was terrible (to be fair, sometimes so bad it was hilarious). The 'witches actually doing magic that really works' thing in a supposedly historical drama was awful, a few of the actors - most notably Edward IV - were horrific and the battle scenes were so utterly inept they shouldn't have even been attempted. Against that a few of the actors (Warwick, Stanley, Margaret Beaufort, maybe Richard III in the last few episodes) were really good and made the most of really bad material.

But this wasn't even remotely on the same level of quality as The Tudors, let alone anything by HBO. I thought it was even weaker than Pillars of the Earth.

Also, this was really not a good retelling of the Wars of the Roses. It started about a third of the way through the conflict, some time after the largest battle of the wars (Towton), and really didn't get to grips with the historical backdrop for the war or why it was happening. They dropped a lot of vital characters (Warwick's brother for one) and the insane pace really stripped away the resonance from events. The entire, significant Scottish involvement in the conflict is missing, as is most of the Burgundian and French stuff (oddly, as they set it up by mentioning it in the first two episodes). Also, the Battle of Bosworth FIELD did not take place with 20 guys in a dense forest riding in single file IN THE SNOW (it happened in August). Dramatic licence to improve story flow is fine, and the first two or three episodes were actually reasonably accurate (magic aside), but it veered so far away from the real history by the final episode it really couldn't be called accurate at all.

Odd, Most people I know found THE TUDORS to be laughable.

When I watch historical fiction...I'm watching it for the fiction part. I could care less about accuracy. If I want accuracy, I'll crack a textbook, or watch a documentary.

This wasn't solely about the War of the Roses...the books are called THE COUSIN'S WAR, and it's more about these specific events concerning these specific ladies and how they affected these events (between the Rivers ladies move into the house of York, and up to the end of said Yorkist-era)...the war is merely the backdrop.

Brit's apparently were rather unforgiving of it...and us North American's aren't nearly as rough on it. The BBC passed on helping Starz do a second series (about Henry VII's reign and Elizabeth's involvement with it)...but Starz is gung ho to do a second series since reception over here was much warmer.

I liked it a lot. A lot, a lot. All the requisite events (that needed to be present) were there...the frills, and embellishment...meh, again, it's fiction. I'm not fussed.

For me I like stuff that is somewhat accurate (WHITE QUEEN), and stuff that is not even TRYING for accuracy and is effectively anachronistic (REIGN)...becuase first and foremost I'm looking to be entertained. If they achieve that, then we're golden.

[Werthead]

The problem wasn't just the accuracy though. It was the fact it was a fantasy series (using magic) when it was billed as a historical series and the fact that the production values were weak (the BBC said it was a big-budget production, but it was made for less per-episode than a standard American network drama), the scripts poor and about half the actors were incompetent.

I'll suspend a lot if the show is entertaining despite its problems, but The White Queen was borderline for most of its length.

[QuickTidal]

Briar King, on 21 October 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

It was different times back then and I know cousins married all the time but an Uncle/Niece fling? Yuck

YUP. Gross-o-rama. Made worse by his rejection of Anne in the end.

[QuickTidal]

Werthead, on 21 October 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

The problem wasn't just the accuracy though. It was the fact it was a fantasy series (using magic) when it was billed as a historical series and the fact that the production values were weak (the BBC said it was a big-budget production, but it was made for less per-episode than a standard American network drama), the scripts poor and about half the actors were incompetent.

I'll suspend a lot if the show is entertaining despite its problems, but The White Queen was borderline for most of its length.

See, I didn't find either of the bolded statements to be the case. I thought the acting was very good, and the dialogue fitting. In contrast, I certainly found the scripts poor for THE TUDORS (the eps I watched anyways)

Also revised to add: Re: The Witchcraft...they treat it nebulously (AKA it's always presented as accidentally coinciding with real events)...like you curse an army on the shores of Brittany, and you have a 50-50 % chance of being right and there being a storm that stops them coming across the channel, you curse the heir to the Duke of Clarence and Isabel and the baby dies on a rocky sea voyage...it's all chance that coincided with Elizabeth and her mother doing curses and being right. As her daughter has already mentioned in the narrative of the WHITE PRINCESS book, the amount of horrid stuff that happens to Elizabeth (her mother) shows that if she's a witch, she's not at all a good one. Gregory's narrative plays off the real accusations that Jaquetta was a witch, and rolled that off into her daughter being into it as well. But yeah, it's treated no more or less real, or coincidental than Margaret Beaufort's prayers to god and him answering her with "signs" is, like the nearly stillborn Richard, whom after she holds finally cries...she fully believes that god worked through her to put Henry on the throne, and a series of unfortunate (or fortunate) events did that, not her belief in god...in short I don't see them having focused on the witchcraft in the show and saying "Their magical"...rather "they thought they were magical because of the odds and what occurred when they cursed things"...and such a belief in the 13th century was not at all far from people's belief systems.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 21 October 2013 - 01:36 PM

[QuickTidal]

The sequel series, THE WHITE PRINCESS, is in production already and has its cast. No release date as of yet, but considering how much I ended up enjoying the first series, I have high hopes for the second.

[QuickTidal]

I've not heard or seen anything recently. Probably being lined up for Fall this year?

[QuickTidal]

I'm pretty sure it's just the one book actually. I'm not sure if they'll be fluffing it out for 10 eps or not. The good thing is that the author is highly involved with the production, so if they add anything new to it to make it fill the ten eps...it will come from her.

[QuickTidal]

I don't get the channel, so I'll have to wait sadly.

[QuickTidal]

Briar King, on 16 April 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

How long? I was looking forward to chatting about it.

At least till it shows up on iTunes for seasons pass. Tomorrow maybe?

[QuickTidal]

Briar King, on 17 April 2017 - 02:04 AM, said:

No spoilers.

It was ok, not the best ever. I'm glad I rewatched Queen last week or I would have forgot many show vs history elements and probably been lost. Visually it is the same as Queen, brilliant sets and costumes. Now after watching I wish people had reprised their roles big time. I think the only person to do so was the Duchess(3 York brothers mother).

This is my main hitch going into this actually. Enough of the people fro the first show lived through the events, that they could EASILY reprise their roles....and it sounds like it was down to the fact that the first show was a Starz & BBC Co-producuton....and this is all Starz...and there are likely contractual issues that prevented that....but it feels like a huge missed opportunity to me.

Also, it's not up on iTunes yet. I dunno if Starz is holding out?

[QuickTidal]

Briar King, on 17 April 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

The new Henry and Elizabeth are really good. Pretty much everyone else is just off. I'm not the biggest fan of (Cat Stark) as Margaret Regina. The meek, mousey chick from 1st was damn near stellar.

Amanda Hale? yeah she was fantastic. Not sure how Michelle Fairley got that gig this time around.

I don't see why Elizabeth Woodville (The Queen mother) could not be Rebecca Ferguson with some old-age makeup applied.

Ah well, as long as the two leads are good, it should be fine.

[QuickTidal]

So, I THINK Showcase (who air Starz shows in Canada) are hanging tight onto this, as it's not shown up on CDN iTunes yet for seasons pass...and normally by this point it would have at least the title card if it was going to.


Considering OUTLANDER also airs on this channel, I think it might be time to pony up some dough to get this channel.

[QuickTidal]

Nada sadly. I keep checking tho.

[QuickTidal]

It's on iTunes now (FINALLY), but it's still pricey so I'm going to wait a bit for that to drop before buying.