As someone who loves the books, I have to say you hit it right on the head. Matthew and Jack's interactions in the novels are my favorite part of Sansom's series. I was so excited to see they were bringing Barack into this first story, even though he doesn't enter until the second book. My god though... what a miscasting! Neither one exemplifies any of the charisma required of them, nor is there any chemistry between them. Jack is supposed to speak like a lower class citizen, but they sound identical in their deliveries. I'm so disappointed. And it's clear they threw quite bit of money into it, because it looks fantastic. I just don't know how they could have fumbled this so badly.

@tonymcmahon_historybear

2 ай бұрын

Exactly - I couldn’t tell their characters apart :)

It seems that the people who made this had not actually read the books. They didn't really establish the setting or the characters. The monks were very odd indeed. The actors did the best with a poor script, but alas it was a miss.

The casting was straight out of the DEI department (a black Abbot in the 16C? LOL.) Jack Barak was a jack-the-lad in the 1st book (Dark Fire) but he had mellowed by the Dissolution novel, on which this series is based. Disney seems to have a great talent for ruining anything it touches.

@SG-1-GRC

Ай бұрын

I think you are confused as Dissolution is the first book.

@salud7432

Ай бұрын

Lol ... an antifanboy

I liked the production design and cinematography. Great atmosphere, gloomy swamps, shadowy halls, shafts of light in the darkness. The actors were good, did their best with a script that, yes, could have been better. I agree, though, there was something that did not quite gel about it all.

I've now watched it right to the end and it got even sillier. The murder of the monk with the crossbow made my partner and I laugh. And the plot finale was a plot mess.

I enjoyed it. Though i think all your critisism is absolutely correct- i just wasn‘t that bothered by these flawes. Many shows were not that great in the first season so i am hoping they continue and learn from their mistakes (the hallucinations monologues were very painful) but the actors were great!

Too bad, was hoping for good movie with Sean Bean as I've liked him in so many other things.

Disney is Disney, they'll ruin any movie if at all possible. Loved your take on it! And thanks for the warning!😝

@tonymcmahon_historybear

2 ай бұрын

Thank you!

The trailer made it look ok, but oh dear... Anachronistic tickbox diversity, Sean Bean playing Boromir again and a South American macaw in medieval England, alive and talking? Looks like the vision of medieval life of someone whose knowledge of the period has been gleaned from a few old Robin Hood movies.

@SG-1-GRC

Ай бұрын

Just one small point. The talking bird is actually in the book. At that time sailors were bringing birds and monkeys etc back from different parts of the world. And it wasn't necessarily an English sailor that got hold of that initially. If exotic species survived their capture and captivity they often passed through many hands. Everything else you've mentioned is accurate but not the bird.

We hadn't read the books. But otherwise we found the setting, acting and plot quite enjoyable. Agree about the pathetic accidental killing and found references to the monks sexual habits unnecessary

@melusinam6250

Ай бұрын

I recommend the audiobooks read by Steven Crossley. It’s 100 times more interesting than the film.

I was very disappointed in the series. I couldn't even watch the whole way through the first episode. There was too much CGI and not enough genuine atmosphere. I found the colour blind casting a very poor choice, in particular because the books already have a black/non white character in the form of the excellently written Guy Malton. An intelligent man who has to deal with the ignorance surrounding him, including the ignorance related to his being different. He has that in common with Shardlake. And surely that influences their friendship. In fact the books strongly suggest that it does. Yet, by making him one amongst many non-white characters that affinity between the two men is lost. I personally think Jack Barack was miscast and wrongly portrayed. He was too well spoken and too polished. He didn't come across as a wide boy with the street smarts you would expect from Jack. Also, the costumes are not well done. They look unfinished and are not accurate to the period. Regarding this video. Although I do agree with many of the comments. It sounds to me that the person who made this video, hasn't actually read the books! So he's kind of guilty of the same thing Disney is guilty of. The reference to the skulls of St Barbara,which he criticises, is actually one of the few things accurately lifted from the book itself. As I couldn't bring myself to finish watching episode 1, I don't know about how the series portrayed any of the monks' sexuality, but in the book one of the monks was gay. And in the book, Shardlake's assistant, Mark, does complain that he doesn't like the way the monk looks at him. Again the video commentator doesn't seem to be aware of this. In fact, in the book this monk is exposed as a peeping tom. Although, again in the book, none of the sexually active straight monks are portrayed in a flattering light either. So, that particular portrayal can't really be called out as picking on the lgbt character. Not when the straight people are also being portrayed as not very nice. As they are shown to guilty of harassment and far worse.

Me too re The Name of the Rose. Thats all i kept thunking about. Love Sean Bean normally, but really disliked this version of Cromwell. Not at all believable. It was flat, unbelievable, and i couldnt find anyone to root for. I was so disappointed. 😢

It's called Shardlake, that's all you need to tell you what this is.

Well, it's still fiction. The books and the series. Not every book can be filmed exactly as it was written. That wouldn't work. The series is fantastically realized. The technology, the camera, the light, acting. It works. It is the Middle Ages. And the monasteries were the world of everything that is known and occurs in a forensic psychiatric department of today. Sex and Sadism. What they tried to do is implement the time. Amateurs are not scientists and the mistake is always to conclude from oneself about others. especially when it comes to historical films. They are films. And they are also made by people who understand something about it. You have to learn that. You have to have talent. And I don't think so. For me, however, the books are also pure entertainment. For me, they don't come close to Umberto Eco, Paul C Doherty, Georgette Heyer, Agatha Christie and other literature. But I don't criticize art. Homosexuality in these times was everywhere, was never allowed to be mentioned at all, was not discussed, was punishable and consequently everyone knew about it and it became an obsession. But it has no meaning at all in our sense. And it has no connection at all with private personal views, opinions and life plans, or sex. Historically, the Middle Ages were probably less uptight in sexual matters than we are today. I don't think we have to fear that such series and films should be more than entertainment and that the worldwide longing of minorities for the "good old days" will make the majority enforce it again. Except in England, of course. From the point of view of people who find themselves in the England of 2024, I think I understand the concern. But I don't see that in the series. The series is made with absolute zeal. Many people had a lot of fun and wanted to implement these books. The love is in the details. There is so much work behind it. Just the costumes. You should sit down and at least acknowledge that, for example, a person sat down there, thought about the scenes, researched the characters, how it looked, and in the end it even took maybe four weeks to sew just a shirt plus doublet and trousers, because that has to be sewn, you can't buy that. The make-up has to be done. This is masterfully done. The light had to be made in such a way that the darkness and the mood of the Middle Ages comes across, etc. It's nice that you want to sell something. The situation in England must be desperate. But Jack the Ripper may be cleared up at some point. And the result will be, as with all real murders: banal, determined by chance and disappointing. What I don't understand is why you think you're a historian. I have my doubts. Or England slipped further than I thought. To be honest, I don't spend much time on good old England. Perhaps there is a little lack of inclination towards scientific facts. As I said, at the end of the criticism I am bothered by the reversal that something should be sold with the veriss. And that with Jack the Ripper. There are so many issues in England that could be dealt with. Libraries could be filled with it. Maybe not sell much? But if you're a historian, with soul and everything you have, then you don't want to sell anything. You want to know. Infinite curiosity. These are historians. Most of the time, anyway. The ones I have met, in all continents of the world, basically always. And thanks for listening if you've made it this far. Have a nice day and stay healthy.

I love the books and I love the series. The homophobic stuff has to be in there. It’s the 1500s come on.