King & Conqueror

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.

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.

I love historic dramas and was looking forward to one set at the time of the Norman Conquest of England.

The story is in no way historically accurate, but I don't mind that, as long as it is well written and believable. The problem is it is not believable - the use of race inappropriate actors for the period totally breaks immersion. Why bother with period costumes if they are going to change the race of characters? Both are equally important for a believable period drama.

There is no evidence at all of Africans at the Battle of Hastings and none in the Norman or Saxon armies. In no way was England "diverse" in the 11th Century.

In the film Prey all Native Americans were played by actors of Native American heritage, in Shogun all Japanese characters were played by amazing Japanese actors. The same respect should be given to white European dramas. I am fed up with these double standards.

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.

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.