Pillars of the Earth

[Duckjake]

Anyone else watching this? Talk about a series running out of gas. Of course the show has a huge hole in it regarding the transfer of prisoners. They should have hired Cheesebeef to write instead of the people they had.

 

[Stout]

The problem is that they're trying to cram a 900+ page book into one season. It's bound to have holes in that case. Its still an enjoyable show.

 

[Louis]

The problem is that they're trying to cram a 900+ page book into one season. It's bound to have holes in that case. Its still an enjoyable show.

Agreed. Wife and I have been enjoying this show. Not many redeeming characters in this show as everybody has a little dirt on their hands as they try to set their own lives up.

Can't believe it'll be ending next week.

 

[Duckjake]

The problem is that they're trying to cram a 900+ page book into one season. It's bound to have holes in that case. Its still an enjoyable show.

But the transfer of prisoners is an enormous hole. Richard simply would have traded Maud's brother for the Earldom at Shiring not for Stephen who he hated. Of course that would have been the end of the story so I guess you're right.

 

[Stout]

But the transfer of prisoners is an enormous hole. Richard simply would have traded Maud's brother for the Earldom at Shiring not for Stephen who he hated. Of course that would have been the end of the story so I guess you're right.

For one, he didn't hate Stephen--Richard was fighting for Stephen and remained loyal to Stephen for the entirety of the war. You have that part all wrong. The other problem is that Maud would not have granted the earldom to a knight fighting against her to ransom her brother. Oh, she may have done it, but Richard wouldn't have been fool enough to do it. "Okay, I name you Earl of Shiring. Oh, hello Robert. Oh, and Richard, you aren't Earl any more...chop off his head!"

 

[Mulli]

Terrible. Gave it 10 minutes.

 

[Duckjake]

For one, he didn't hate Stephen--Richard was fighting for Stephen and remained loyal to Stephen for the entirety of the war. You have that part all wrong. The other problem is that Maud would not have granted the earldom to a knight fighting against her to ransom her brother. Oh, she may have done it, but Richard wouldn't have been fool enough to do it. "Okay, I name you Earl of Shiring. Oh, hello Robert. Oh, and Richard, you aren't Earl any more...chop off his head!"

No? Given the way other characters went from one side to the other and back again I don't see why it wouldn't have worked.

Stephen killed Richard's father, he had to hate him. He was only fighting for Stephen to keep his sister and hopes of getting Shiring back alive. I don't see where in the story the writers developed a reason that Richard would do anything to help Stephen once the latter was out of power.

 

[Stout]

No? Given the way other characters went from one side to the other and back again I don't see why it wouldn't have worked.

Stephen killed Richard's father, he had to hate him. He was only fighting for Stephen to keep his sister and hopes of getting Shiring back alive. I don't see where in the story the writers developed a reason that Richard would do anything to help Stephen once the latter was out of power.

It was taken from a book.

 

[Mulli]

It was taken from a book.

Book was really good.

 

[Renz]

Book was really good.

I thought so, too. Have you read the sequel that just came out a few years ago? I haven't, just wondering if it was as good as the first one.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

I liked what I've seen so far, even though the plot began to make very little sense due to the aforementioned reasons.

I hate to admit it, but I'm a sucker for any show set in medieval times with legit English accents, and high production values.

However, I must say that casting Donald Sutherland as a 12th Century English Earl ranks number 3 on my all time miscast roles list. (number 2 being Jack Warden as a Roman Senator in "AD", number 1 being John Wayne as Genghis Khan in "The Conqueror").

 

[Mulli]

I thought so, too. Have you read the sequel that just came out a few years ago? I haven't, just wondering if it was as good as the first one.

The sequel was not really as good as the first one.

 

[DemsMyBoys]

The sequel was not really as good as the first one.

Agree. (And here I thought it was just me.)

 

[Duckjake]

I liked what I've seen so far, even though the plot began to make very little sense due to the aforementioned reasons.

I hate to admit it, but I'm a sucker for any show set in medieval times with legit English accents, and high production values.

However, I must say that casting Donald Sutherland as a 12th Century English Earl ranks number 3 on my all time miscast roles list. (number 2 being Jack Warden as a Roman Senator in "AD", number 1 being John Wayne as Genghis Khan in "The Conqueror").

Me too. I even watched Centurion last night and that had about as much plot as my home life.

 

[Renz]

However, I must say that casting Donald Sutherland as a 12th Century English Earl ranks number 3 on my all time miscast roles list. (number 2 being Jack Warden as a Roman Senator in "AD", number 1 being John Wayne as Genghis Khan in "The Conqueror").

I thought Sutherland was convincing enough, it's not like they cast Ray Liotta. Sutherland was much more miscast as Mr. Bennet in Pride & Prejudice, IMO.

My pick for worst casting of all time though has to be Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffanys. Man, that was bad!

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

I thought Sutherland was convincing enough, it's not like they cast Ray Liotta. Sutherland was much more miscast as Mr. Bennet in Pride & Prejudice, IMO.

My pick for worst casting of all time though has to be Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffanys. Man, that was bad!

Nah man...I need to change my worst casting of all time to James Hong in The Last Zulu Warrior

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Renz]

 

[Mulli]

I thought Sutherland was convincing enough, it's not like they cast Ray Liotta. Sutherland was much more miscast as Mr. Bennet in Pride & Prejudice, IMO.

My pick for worst casting of all time though has to be Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffanys. Man, that was bad!

Really? He was fine as Mr. Bennett. I thought the worst miscasting in Pillars was making the bad guy (young dude whatshisname who rapes whatshername). The guy in the book was more of a bad ass. The guy in the tv show was scrawny.

 

[Renz]

Really? He was fine as Mr. Bennett. I thought the worst miscasting in Pillars was making the bad guy (young dude whatshisname who rapes whatshername). The guy in the book was more of a bad ass. The guy in the tv show was scrawny.

I was just talking about that this morning. William in the book was much more powerful and brutish. The guy in the movie is a weenie.

 

[Renz]

I liked the series quite a bit. It was very faithful to the novel, for the most part, which was a bit surprising considering the novel was 1,000 pages long.

Casting of Waleran, Jack, Aliena and Philip was spot on.