Well, just read the article and watched the clip, then threw up a bit in my mouth. :'( >:(
Another chance for some nice history based visuals ruined by a producer who wants to stamp their own 'creative' mark on history. RECTANGULAR F**KING SHIELDS and FUR everywhere. >:( >:( >:(
(This is entirely my own opinion based on a detailed knowledge of the period and should not detract from anyone's enjoyment of the series.)
though they are samey.Great fun reads...but Slightly repetative,
Another chance for some nice history based visuals ruined by a producer who wants to stamp their own 'creative' mark on history.
Great fun reads...but Slightly repetative,
the same way the shieldwall from the Clip is. :)
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2mn5hjm.jpg)
Sadly it's not even "their own creative mark" but merely a rip-off of Game of Thrones aesthetics – which are, in turn, heavily inspired by Lord of the Rings and some random 90s fantasy TV series.
I had high hopes for this but they just took a bit of dive.
Didn't Uthred have blonde hair,which more easily helped him pass as a Viking in many a situation in the books...I have a bad feeling about this :(
I think we wargamers - we few, we happy few, we band of grumblers - are hard to please.
:D You got that right!!!
Look, really...did anyone actually expect re-enactment/museum-quality accuracy here?? This is telly! I admit that it makes me a bit grumpy as well, as accuracy of fighting gear for Vikings etc, isn't hard to get right. But then Romans aren't exactly hard too find info on and when was THAT ever right either? Even on the 'mighty' BBC...
I shall watch it for the same reason I watched the Musketeers, Atlantis, Merlin, etc... A bit of light entertainment involving chaps with swords and stuff!! :D
This one - The Last Kingdom - I don't know. Having not read the books, is it meant to be accurate historically, or is it more of a 'fantasia on the theme of... ' ?
This one - The Last Kingdom - I don't know. Having not read the books, is it meant to be accurate historically, or is it more of a 'fantasia on the theme of... ' ?
Does anyone know more about what the series will cover? Will they be covering one book each season, or is this a one-off thing for this year?
If its first season is successful, BBC America can also count on the possibility of longevity for The Saxon Storieshttp://www.ew.com/article/2014/07/09/bbc-america-last-kingdom-bernard-cornwell
In the words of the great man himself, Sitting Bull, "That is all I have to say".
And by the time I get to it, there's only praline left.
Mmmmm...I like Praline. Swap you for these Strawberry and Orange Cremes.
Vile ... no trade.
Trying to claw things back somewhat, has anyone seen an extended clip or know in what context the hated rectangular shields appeared? If they were just peasant rabble, I don't see anything wrong with them having some hastily-constructed board shields.
It's just like Sharpe, events happen around historical fact. Come on did anybody really think Sharpe shot the Prince of Orange at Waterloo.
As for the TV Show - life is like a box of chocolates. You don't know what you are going to get till you open it.
Having watched a different trailer I am slightly less offended, I'm certainly going to go into this with an open mind and hope for the best.
The Lord Uthred of Bebbanburg (Matthew MacFadyen) has got one, so not really a rabble.
Frankly, shieldwall fights should make it easy to tell which side is which
Really looking forard to this. I just finished book 4 todat and will buy the next as soon as I see it on a shelf. This is what has been inspiring my to make my Saga terrain :)
“Kick off with a battle..............
“Kick off with a battle – gets the book off to a nice, fast start. Lots of dead Frenchies. Introduce the plot, right? Plot begins to sag? Wheel on 40,000 Frenchies and start slaughtering them. Keep it moving. More plot. Finish with a set-piece battle that ties up all the plot ends and kills off the four villains. Works every time.”
Anyway, great show! I really enjoyed. I hear what you're saying - wrong shields, wrong helmets, etcetera, etcetera. All true. Didn't care in the least. I didn't tune in to watch a frigging documentary, after all, I tuned in to see a story.
I saw the first episode last weekend, which aired on BBC America, which is really odd because I expected it to air in the UK before us.Maybe they had first shout on it,
A Carnival Films* and BBC America co-production for BBC Twohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/the-last-kingdom
It's one of the reasons why I've never read any of his books since.
Considering the year, they really should have adapted his novel 'Azincourt'. I think the Grail Quest trilogy would possibly make a good series too.
Lot of good points both for and against here. Haven't read this series by Cornwell but I have enjoyed some of his others (though I would agree with some of the comments regarding his formulaic writing style). I will probably give it a go when it's aired in the UK. Just to throw my tuppence in too, the dividing line between pedantry and accuracy is always going to be a personal choice but I find the attitudes within the film and tv industry rather frustrating. I don't see why historical accuracy should detract from a great story. In many cases I think a bit more attention to detail and some basic research would vastly improve these kind of shows and films. The thing I hate most about braveheart for instance is not the total disregard for the timeline or the political realities but the way the studio threw away the opportunity to bring the spectacle and mayhem of a medieval battlefield to the screen and opted instead for a bunch of extras in leather and bad fancy dress rolling around in the mud and sloshing red paint over each other. I could have forgiven a lot of the other stuff for just one decent pitched battle.
That's the point I was trying to make. In this instance a historically accurate shieldwall would surely look more impressive on the screen and be a lot more evocative of the period. My frustration is at those in the entertainment industry who seem to view historical research and detail as detracting from a story when instead it should help sell it.
I don't see why historical accuracy should detract from a great story.
Thanks for the heads ups about historical accuracy issues. Forwarned is Forwarned. I'm happy to say I quite enjoyed it, having approached it with a just enjoy the action and ignore the accuracy issues attitude.That is the only way to approach it in my book, it is entertainment.... entertainment for the masses, and the masses need to grasp the story and be able to tell oo's who hence the dodgy shields etc. Same as Vikings, if the Saxons looked near exact as the Norsemen... well the masses get lost. When they start turning over the money dries up and we are left with painfully accurate bugger all, nothing, zip!
That is the only way to approach it in my book, it is entertainment.... entertainment for the masses, and the masses need to grasp the story and be able to tell oo's who hence the dodgy shields etc. Same as Vikings, if the Saxons looked near exact as the Norsemen... well the masses get lost. When they start turning over the money dries up and we are left with painfully accurate bugger all, nothing, zip!
Oh dear, I can't decide which is worse, the wooden shields or the wooden acting.
- The Red Indian wailing on the theme tune. There seems to be quite a habit of conflating primitive north European cultures with aboriginal native American cultures
......the wooden acting.
- There were a few shit lines (Vikings greeting each other after a long voyage... 'How are you?', 'Good to see you', 'How have you been?' It sounded like Sunday morning at the golf club... Ludicrous... )
I'll certainly keep watching. Not unenjoyable - in a largely predictable, formulaic kind of way.
:)
Matthew MacFadyen, who played... Matthew MacFadyen.
Funnily enough he was cast brilliantly in Ripper Street bu one of my old school friends who directed the series and really gets into character in said series. He probably didn't get too much of an opportunity to get into character(?). Benefit of the doubt and all that lol
In my mind's eye I now see a bunch of blokes called Ragnar and Harald Bluetooth discussing the merits of a nine iron or pitching wedge when playing the 14th hole....very Monty Pythonesque. But what do you actually imagine them talking about? It can't be all "been to any good gang rapes lately?" or "You missed a good massacre last week, claret everywhere"
Matthew MacFadyen, who played... Matthew MacFadyen. He plays exactly the same character in exactly the same way, with exactly the same voice and mannerisms, in every single thing I see him in. Thankfully, he was killed off halfway through.As Prior Philip would have said, "there´s a Blessing"
As Prior Philip would have said, "there´s a Blessing"
Could have been worse. "Mate, traffic was a nightmare, stuck behind some old fella rowing so bloody slow" or "my wife's gonna kill me, I'm not supposed to be out out, I was only supposed to go down the fjord for a couple with the lads but you know how it goes".
lollol
Yep. Exactly the same in that one too - swap the bowler for a tonsure... carry on.
;)
I actually like him. He's a very nice looking chap with a pleasant, open face, and a lovely soothing voice.I like him as well..his voice is soothing..they should get him reading childrens bedtime stories..theyéd be snoring in seconds..but It´s his eyes...like a dead fish..he never changes the Expression in his eyes..."stick a sword through his neck"..they widen a bit but then go back to normal... o_o
It's just that he's exactly the same in every blinking thing he does.
All actors play to type to some extent, but this guy is so absolutely the same in every role he plays (or at least the half dozen that I've seen him in) that it's almost comical.
There again, apart from his first outing in Zulu, Michael Caine has had a stellar career playing more or less the same character in almost every movie, so maybe I shouldn't knock it ;)
I haven't read the books but I can see it being a bit of an 'anguish' piece as the lead fellow struggles between his Saxon blood and Danish upbringing (?). I do think it is a nice change to see something that isn't just cheap 'follow 'X' vocation/minor celebrity/cat' around with a camera programmes.
Maybe I'll try Black Sails again from the start then...
I just watched the Arn (TV series not the film) last evening and the difference in quality between the Swedish offering and the BBC's is embarrassing, for a UK citizen at least!
Arn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTA2lLPtGBg
Darrell.
I just watched the Arn (TV series not the film) last evening and the difference in quality between the Swedish offering and the BBC's is embarrassing, for a UK citizen at least!Arn is pretty good and the books by Jan Guillou are well worth the read....None of the repetitive Story lines ...and (considering an uncalled for, innacurate and IMHO, mildly racist comment on page one of this thread) made in conjunction with Denmark, Norway
None of the repetitive Story lines ...
I haven't read the books but I can see it being a bit of an 'anguish' piece as the lead fellow struggles between his Saxon blood and Danish upbringing (?).That's a Cornwell trope, Sharpe was a common soldier made an officer, Starbuck was a Northerner fighting for the South, Derfel was a Saxon raised as a Briton etc. etc.
Well. Read the books before this show destroys them forever.
The first few are good.
Black Sails? Having trouble sleeping? If so, watch it. :)
I am up to date with reading the books, still waiting on getting the very latest one, and have enjoyed them all, some more than others, but still, they are pretty entertaining.
I'm enjoying the series quite a bit too. Agreed that Uhtred does not look like I imagined him, but it is pretty damn good.
Black Sails? Having trouble sleeping? If so, watch it. :)
I have to take issue with comments like this. I read the books and have watched the series so far. If I am unhappy with the series as a whole will my books spontaneously ignite? How do they get get 'destroyed forever'?
I guess it's like pouring barbecue sauce on your sponge cake. The cake isn't destroyed, but it's no longer the same either.
Once you associate both things (the show and the books together) it takes a superhuman effort of mindfulness to ever disassociate them. I read the LotR many, many years before I saw the peter jackson films, but forever more Aragorn will look like Viggo Mortensen, Gandalf will be Ian McKellen, etc. The memories of one, colour the other.
I read the LotR many, many years before I saw the peter jackson films, but forever more Aragorn will look like Viggo Mortensen, Gandalf will be Ian McKellen, etc. The memories of one, colour the other.
Game of Thrones is another good example. A lot more people have watched the HBO series than have read the books, and they therefore have a view of that world which (in some cases) is a very long way from what Martin actually describes in the books. But hey, that's ever been the case with adpatations.
STOP MOANING, it's better than im a celebrity crap and Soaps all the time. Beowulf looks good, Black Sails is OK and I also like the Frankenstein chronicles. Things are looking up, who knows what next year brings.
"The book is better" happens to me a lot; so I made a conscious decision to avoid ASoIaF until I watched the first season of Game of Thrones, to prevent the books colouring my view.
I still think the book is better. ;)
STOP MOANING
it's better than im a celebrity crap and Soaps all the time.
Gotta love those 'Celtic' square shields with a hole cut in them(!!) on last nights episode lol lol lol lol lol
Darrell.
At least the Danes didn't have horned helmets just so people would know they were 'vikings' (I'm looking at you Doctor Who!).
You expect historical accuracy in Dr Who? ;)
STOP MOANING
I bet they have an Egyptian 'historical' series coming up soon.
Moaning? It's artistic criticism, darling.where is the man in the high castle on Richard?
I'm off to watch episode 6.
Anyone been watching The Man In The High Castle, by the way? Now that is simply effing brilliant. The detail is stunning. Everything about it. Stunning. I couldn't even find the tiniest thing to moan about with that.
Well, that's not strictly true, because they've buggered about fairly majorly with Philip K Dick's cult 1960's novel - but the result is an absolute work of art. Love it.
I dunnop about a TV series... but how about this film trailer?I like the look of that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJBnK2wNQSo
Pretty shocking stuff, no? Granted, it's supposed to be Egyptian mythology not history, but still..... Wow.
"Only one God can save us. But not without his eyes."
where is the man in the high castle on Richard?
Moaning? It's artistic criticism, darling.
I'm off to watch episode 6.
Anyone been watching The Man In The High Castle, by the way? Now that is simply effing brilliant. The detail is stunning. Everything about it. Stunning. I couldn't even find the tiniest thing to moan about with that.
Well, that's not strictly true, because they've buggered about fairly majorly with Philip K Dick's cult 1960's novel - but the result is an absolute work of art. Love it.
STOP MOANING,,,,Still by far better than most other crap on the box. I really enjoyed the last episode, although not historically correct, so what. Get back to watching X factor and I'm a Celeb.
Right. I guess things are above criticism now so long as they aren't the worst thing on TV.
don't really care all that much about historical accuracy - either of the events portrayed, or the details of arms, armour, dress and culture (although The Last Kingdom was average to poor on both counts).
What I do care about is the fact that, like most BBC attempts at drama set-pre 1700's, it's a lame, pantomime portrayal. It's not BELIEVABLE. It's dumbed down. It's got no dramatic weight or self belief. Essentially it's no good because it's not serious about what its doing.
I just think historical issues aside, they would never be able to capture the first person narrative from the books.
What I do care about is the fact that, like most BBC attempts at drama set-pre 1700's, it's a lame, pantomime portrayal. It's not BELIEVABLE. It's dumbed down. It's got no dramatic weight or self belief. Essentially it's no good because it's not serious about what its doing. Just watch the extras cheering in the battle scenes: they're like really bad actors in a really bad school play.
Despite moaning, of course I watched it all, and it wasn't awful. Parts of it were enjoyable. The main actors were pretty good. One or two were excellent. But it doesn't make it any good overall.
How come the BBC (and ITV) can produce endless drama programmes set in the Regency, or Dickensian times, or the Victorian / Edwardian era, and make them look and feel utterly believable in every detail. And yet as soon as they go near anything from earlier periods, they end up as pap like this? It's just very odd. It's almost like they approach it having already given up on any attempt to try to do it properly or seriously. They're happy with a panto approach to the whole thing: characterisation, dialogue, production design. One notable recent exception was Wolf Hall, which was subtle, adult, brilliantly done in every detail, as well as sublimely acted. That's the difference we're talking about.
If it's serious, make it seriously, like Wolf Hall. If it's going to be a bit tongue in cheek, and an out and out romp, like The Musketeers, then fair enough. Play it like that. But I think, like so much historical drama, The Last Kingdom fell exactly into that trap of being neither one thing nor the other, and just ends up feeling lame as a result.
I enjoyed the series, and will watch season 2 if there is one. Nice to watch between seasons of Vikings!
Yeah, but it probably did not cost them too much when they made Wolf Hall as they already had all the cozzies from Blackadder to fall back on.
;)
I would say there's a quantum leap in design and production quality between Vikings and The Last Kingdom. I wouldn't personally put them in the same bracket at all.
I'm sure they're both full of historical, wardrobe and cultural inaccuracies as far as experts in the period are concerned.
But in terms of pure TV drama, which is the more fully realised, believable world, and which of these can I take seriously - Vikings is in a different league. It's not quite A Game of Thrones, but it's a credible attempt at the epic genre. The Last Kingdom feels like low-grade stuff by comparison.
lol lol
Actaually, I rather enjoyed it. But then my taste is awful. ;)
A friend told me there are 9 (?) books in Cornwell's series so I presume we could be in for quite a lot more episodes?
Apparently it hasn't been renewed for a second season - yet...
I think if it had proved an instant ratings smash, GoT-like, the usual process in TV-land is for an ensuing season to be announced as the first season is ending. Or immediately after.
Which would tend to suggest that - like we, the mixed bag of pro- and anti- LAF critics - the jury's still out.
Damn you, Paolo, with your relentless good humour and positivity - you are ruining Christmas >:D lol lol
According to this there is a 2nd series
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/bbc2-returns-to-the-last-kingdom/5098051.article
It looks like ITVs upcoming Beowulf is going to be worse, by the looks of the trailer...!
Despite the obvious inaccuracies in clothing, armour and shields, I liked the series as a good semi-historical romp. Beocca and Arthur were the best portrayals for me, whilst Brida was the most annoying. However, my wife eas annoyed because they hade written Steppa Snotta (her favourite character) out of the series.
Major plus point - this has energised me to making more dark ages terrain :)
I was directed to resurrect this instead of making a new thread!
I will ignore the warning above:
"Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic."
If nothing else it's given me the name for the leader of mi' marauding warband for 'Blood Eagle'...'Putrid son of Putrid'lol
In some cases, when one arrives late to a particular topic on which a long conversation on the forum has already taken place, it's better to revive the lapsed thread rather than having the same conversation all over again. Opening a new thread on the same subject usually entails the same people feeling obliged to weigh in and restate the same comments and points they made in the original thread. So you usually end up with a duplicate thread. All of which takes up a lot of time and hot air which has been spent once already on the original discussion.
So in cases like this, a little judicious threadomancy is preferable to re-running an entire conversation all over again.
It is, in the immortal words of Lucky Jack, the lesser of two weevils.
;)
I am just now on the second series (almost done episode 6) and I am enjoying it reasonably well. I do like season 2 better than season 1. I like the portrayal of Alfred best, I think.
-Michael
Alfred did burn the cakes in the first series but it wasn't a big part of the plot and I think it was bread anyway IIRC.
I had to explain that Edward IV almost certainly did not ride to the battle of Towton with his 'army' of three extras, and all wearing lycra leggings, pixie boots and faux-leather bomber jackets...