King & Conqueror

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.

I used to tell this story to my three sons growing up and now tell it to my grand kids. They all love it.

A king that rules a kingdom is dying. The country is at peace. Life was good and the people happy. But the king has no heir.

The leaders of the country do something unknown then. When the old king dies, the leaders vote for a new one called Harold. The people are happy. One person is not.

A nasty prince called Tostig sails to Scandinavia and convinces a different Harold to come attack and take over England. He says yes and gathers an army.

Meanwhile a nasty Norman which is part of France tells the Pope if you help me build an army to capture England I will force the people into your church.

Now the Battles for England are set. Great right? It has it all. So to see this terrific story mangled up and told so badly just breaks my heart. What are they doing using black actors here? To me it's insulting and unkind to the actors. It is condescending to them. Jamming them into the makes as much sense as Timothy Spall playing Shaka Zulu.

I only hope the show attracts someone to make it properly.

I really wanted to love this production & had big hopes BUT a boring script, corny lines, dont do it for me. Most of the actors are capable however a couple are dire (or their lines and the delivery of them is dire)..one character being the young Judith whom Harold's' brother Tostig has taken a shine to. Why is it the trend at the moment for some actors ('Judith')to deliver their lines in such a mind-numbingly flat and boring style with no impact whatsoever that i wonder why they got the role? The script is so dull that you fall asleep. The cast is pretty damn good (Edward Norton & 'William' especially stand out in this) but the whole thing could have been SO much better.

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.

Sometimes a historical drama gets a few things wrong but is still absorbing and piques one's curiosity about the period. Not here. This is no Wolf Hall. This series is so ahistorical and melodramatic that it's just an insult to viewers. The on and off bromance between Harald and William is farfetched, and every encounter rings false. The known events of this period seem to be distorted or changed outright, when the truth would have been more interesting (see, e.g. Harald's brother Tostig). Then there is the inclusionary casting (the Mercians especially) and the scenes either exaggerating the role of women or voicing frustration with their political status. Of course there is a gay romance. The timeline is absurdly condensed and travel absurdly easy. This version of 1066 is happening in a different dimension. Worst of all is the contrived relationship between the two frenemies, Harald and William.

Why does this show pretend that it's historical? Why not change all the names (they did change at least one) and present it as fully fictional? Actual fiction by Bernard Cornwell or George R. R. Martin has more history in it than this soap opera and is more enjoyable.