Page 7 of 10

Posted: Mon August 16th, 2010, 7:59 am
by Vanessa
[quote=""Madeleine""]Just read that Channel 4 will be showing POTE later this year.[/quote]

[quote=""Leo62""]Yay!

Though unfortunately it will mean ad-breaks. :mad: [/quote]

Great stuff! I don't think Ch4 has as many adverts as ITV but I agree that they can be a bit of a pain, especially when the editing isn't very good. You could always record it and fast forward!!! LOL.

Pillars of the Earth Comments

Posted: Tue August 17th, 2010, 1:22 am
by RichardWarrenField
I agree with Berengaria - Maud/Matilda seems way too girlish for the role. Rufus Sewell's voice - hmmm - Matthew McFayden and Ian McShane have such dynamic, resonant voices that Sewell's may suffer in comparison!

I have been enjoying this series, as an entertainment, and as a curiosity as a writer of historical fiction. After all, like it or not, this book was a huge success. I enjoyed rereading it, and then seeing how "Hollywood" dealt with it in a mini-series form. It seems to me the producers have squirmed as they have gone in and out of synch with the novel. There are some improvements, and other occasions where I think they should have stayed closer to Follette's original.

Richard Warren Field
http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/
http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/TheSwordsofFaith.htm
Richard Warren Field's blog: http://creativeeccentric.wordpress.com/
(If you are watching "The Pillars of Earth" mini-series on Starz, stop by my blog for comments and discussion...)

Posted: Tue August 17th, 2010, 9:35 am
by Leo62
[quote=""RichardWarrenField""]It seems to me the producers have squirmed as they have gone in and out of synch with the novel. There are some improvements, and other occasions where I think they should have stayed closer to Follette's original.

[/quote]

I agree. :D The royals are much more a presence in the series than in the book, which I found annoying in the first couple of episodes but it's working better as the series progresses. After a slightly clunky opening, it really gathered pace from episode 3 on - and the last one was a cracker!

The Pillars of The Earth discussion

Posted: Tue August 17th, 2010, 1:56 pm
by RichardWarrenField
I think that initial clunkiness, with respect to the royals, had to do with having King Stephen at Kingsbridge during the Battle of Lincoln. As you are probably aware, Stephen is at the Battle of Lincoln in the novel. By having him at Kingsbridge, foaming at the mouth from his reaction to Jack's statue, they had to, in essence, insert a second Battle of Lincoln. When Maud/Matilda won that battle, they could get back to the book, complete with Maud/Matilda's assessment of the exorbitant fee for the Kingsbridge market.

Richard Warren Field
http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/
http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/TheSwordsofFaith.htm
Richard Warren Field's blog: http://creativeeccentric.wordpress.com/
(If you are watching "The Pillars of Earth" mini-series on Starz, stop by my blog for comments and discussion...)

Posted: Tue August 17th, 2010, 3:34 pm
by Leo62
[quote=""RichardWarrenField""]I think that initial clunkiness, with respect to the royals, had to do with having King Stephen at Kingsbridge during the Battle of Lincoln. As you are probably aware, Stephen is at the Battle of Lincoln in the novel. By having him at Kingsbridge, foaming at the mouth from his reaction to Jack's statue, they had to, in essence, insert a second Battle of Lincoln. When Maud/Matilda won that battle, they could get back to the book, complete with Maud/Matilda's assessment of the exorbitant fee for the Kingsbridge market.
[/quote]

Wow that's impressive recall, Richard. :D I only re-read Pillars recently, but I didn't remember that - though I did realise the foaming-mouth/statue scene wasn't in the book, and I'm still not clear why they put it in...perhaps there'll be a payoff later.

Pillars of the Earth Comments

Posted: Tue August 17th, 2010, 4:43 pm
by RichardWarrenField
I think they had Stephen at Kingsbridge for two reasons: 1) They wanted to involve him more directly in the action (as has been pointed out earlier in this discussion), and without having the king's brother as a character who acts as an intermediary between Waleran Bigod and Stephen, they wanted that direct contact with a royal at that scene (as you may recall, it is the king's brother who comes with Waleran and is impressed with the cathedral's progress in the book) and 2) They thought the foaming at the mouth would be a good cliff-hanger; I thought it was silly and over-the-top!

Richard Warren Field
http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/
http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/TheSwordsofFaith.htm
Richard Warren Field's blog: http://creativeeccentric.wordpress.com/
(If you are watching "The Pillars of Earth" mini-series on Starz, stop by my blog for comments and discussion...)

Posted: Tue August 17th, 2010, 6:50 pm
by Berengaria
Didn't Stephen suffer from epilepsy?

The Pillars of The Earth discussion

Posted: Wed August 18th, 2010, 2:28 am
by RichardWarrenField
Epilepsy. Hmm. I don't know. So an epileptic fit triggered by Jack's statue. If that's correct, then I guess there's a historical basis for it. My opinion? I still found it over the top...

Richard Warren Field
http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/
http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/TheSwordsofFaith.htm
Richard Warren Field's blog: http://creativeeccentric.wordpress.com/
(If you are watching "The Pillars of Earth" mini-series on Starz, stop by my blog for comments and discussion...)

Posted: Wed August 18th, 2010, 8:28 am
by EC2
I don't know if Stephen suffered from epilepsy in the novel - I don't recall, but he certainly didn't in the historical record!

Re: Stephen epilepsy

Posted: Wed August 18th, 2010, 11:06 pm
by Berengaria
I have spent time checking out my resources to see where I had read about his having epilepsy, but can find nothing. Hmm, maybe I got him mixed up with someone else?? :confused: