William of Normandy and Harold of Wessex were two individuals destined to meet at the Battle of Hastings in 1066; they were allies but had no claim to the British monarchy until fate drove t... Read allWilliam of Normandy and Harold of Wessex were two individuals destined to meet at the Battle of Hastings in 1066; they were allies but had no claim to the British monarchy until fate drove them into a conflict over the country's crown.William of Normandy and Harold of Wessex were two individuals destined to meet at the Battle of Hastings in 1066; they were allies but had no claim to the British monarchy until fate drove them into a conflict over the country's crown.
Browse episodes
Featured reviews
The cast is packed with talent. The cinematography is excellent. The stakes couldn't be higher. In these regards, it's a success as a drama.
The issue is everything else. The script couldn't be more boiler plate. It even has the trope of ending some sentences with "was it not" just to make it sound old timey. This is a cliche that has been used in numerous times in poor historical dramas. The actors are good, but they still have to spit out the lines that they're given and the script isn't as strong as the performances.
Then there is the history. Let's just leave it that despite this being a genuinely exciting time with larger than life characters and a genuine series of epic and exciting events. I have no idea why the writers just decided to make most of it up.
We have Anglo-Saxons wearing tartan, the armour is largely wrong as our most of the architecture. Battle tactics and interactions between key people are nonsense. The question has to be who is this for? If you're a fan of history, get it right. If you can't be bothered to tell the historical story then write a fantasy like the Witcher. This is an example of a project that will keep nobody happy.
I have literally written a book about the complexities of bringing the past to life. If you're interested, it's called- Hollywood and History by Jem Duducu. This is one of these examples where it has a veneer of quality to it but the reality is this is as high fantasy as the movie 300. It's a solid enough drama just don't call it history.
The issue is everything else. The script couldn't be more boiler plate. It even has the trope of ending some sentences with "was it not" just to make it sound old timey. This is a cliche that has been used in numerous times in poor historical dramas. The actors are good, but they still have to spit out the lines that they're given and the script isn't as strong as the performances.
Then there is the history. Let's just leave it that despite this being a genuinely exciting time with larger than life characters and a genuine series of epic and exciting events. I have no idea why the writers just decided to make most of it up.
We have Anglo-Saxons wearing tartan, the armour is largely wrong as our most of the architecture. Battle tactics and interactions between key people are nonsense. The question has to be who is this for? If you're a fan of history, get it right. If you can't be bothered to tell the historical story then write a fantasy like the Witcher. This is an example of a project that will keep nobody happy.
I have literally written a book about the complexities of bringing the past to life. If you're interested, it's called- Hollywood and History by Jem Duducu. This is one of these examples where it has a veneer of quality to it but the reality is this is as high fantasy as the movie 300. It's a solid enough drama just don't call it history.
I know the details of 1066 intimately and this bares little resemblance to that. Shut my eyes and it could be muddled headed gangsters squabbling over booze - the dialogue is so contemporary to sound ridiculous. For a while I struggled to understand who was who or where they were as everything appears to be set in the exact same landscape. I want to be in awe of sets and reconstructions but London looks like the entrance to a mini-golf course in a seaside resort.
Having watched the first episode, I was very distracted with the cast selection. Most of the characters do just not seem to fit. Maybe it will improve as the series progresses, but I will await the TV airings. A shame as it's obvious a lot of work has gone into the series. Good sets and costumes. For me it just doesn't work.
If you want to disappoint the history buffs, late Dark ages enthusiasts and spin it all with inappropriate casting then this production has succeeded. This subject has long been sought after as far as a full length epic feature and to treat it with an over abundance of artistic license is flat out disrespectful...particularly given the historical significance of Anglo-Saxon England.
The details, timeline, armor, helmets and a couple of the main characters cast diversely are all so obviously incorrect as to beg the question, "We're any of the producers or historical advisors on set, ever?" The hope lies in the resurrection and resumption in producing the feature length film Godwinson 1066. It showed promise and now certainly has a blue print of how not to proceed.
The details, timeline, armor, helmets and a couple of the main characters cast diversely are all so obviously incorrect as to beg the question, "We're any of the producers or historical advisors on set, ever?" The hope lies in the resurrection and resumption in producing the feature length film Godwinson 1066. It showed promise and now certainly has a blue print of how not to proceed.
I so wanted this to be great but immediately you can tell its been knocked together on a budget.
The locations are unconvincing. Scenery is non existent. Journeys that would take days or weeks are made in what appears 10 minutes.
Heavy with exposition because its so poorly written nobody can tell who's who and what the plot is until episode 3 The acting is hammy and bordering on Horrible Histories. Juliet Stevenson thinks she's in Game of Thrones.
Tired old comical clichés like: "we ride out at dawn"
King Edward is a cartoon character and far from the real personality who was on the contrary a very astute , well respected and pious King who established Westminster Abbey and his tomb takes pride of place in it.
William has no charisma whatsoever and the Godwin's dialect is an anachronistic 2020's Estuary English.
This should have been the quality of Wolf Hall or the Hollow Crown.
Its more like Carry on in Normandy.
The locations are unconvincing. Scenery is non existent. Journeys that would take days or weeks are made in what appears 10 minutes.
Heavy with exposition because its so poorly written nobody can tell who's who and what the plot is until episode 3 The acting is hammy and bordering on Horrible Histories. Juliet Stevenson thinks she's in Game of Thrones.
Tired old comical clichés like: "we ride out at dawn"
King Edward is a cartoon character and far from the real personality who was on the contrary a very astute , well respected and pious King who established Westminster Abbey and his tomb takes pride of place in it.
William has no charisma whatsoever and the Godwin's dialect is an anachronistic 2020's Estuary English.
This should have been the quality of Wolf Hall or the Hollow Crown.
Its more like Carry on in Normandy.
Did you know
- TriviaThe Norman's had a distinctive hair cut in the 11thC with the neck and back of the head shaved, and the front with short hair. None of the Normans in the series have this haircut.
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content