Spoilers King & Conquerer

[Morrus]

King & Conquerer (new BBC show about Harold and William the Conquerer) is really good.

Don’t think of it as a historical piece—it’s more in the vein of watching one of the Robin Hood things, maybe a bit more historical, but not a lot. Some people have complained about historical inaccuracies, but, hey, if you can enjoy a Robin Hood movie you can enjoy this.

It’s basically Game of Thrones in look, tone, etc. (and I mean VERY Game of Thrones) but loosely based on real characters and events. Plus it stars Jaime Lannister as William the Conquerer. A bit gory in parts with some graphic battles and at least one gruesome torture scene. Lots of intrigue and backstabbing and brutal fights. Seriously, if you liked Game of Thrones, you’ll like this (no dragons though).

I’d really like to see this show continue through history, through the Normans and beyond, incorporating later legends like Robin Hood and stuff. Real history is just as entertaining as fictional history, it transpires!

I just finished episode 7 where Harold gave the Vikings a good spanking in 1066 at Stamford Bridge. Now he’s marching south to face William’s forces who have landed at Hastings. No spoilers, don’t tell me what happens! I’ll find out next episode. Also, apropos of nothing, I got something in my eye. Ouch!

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Don’t think of it as a historical piece—it’s more in the vein of watching one of the Robin Hood things, maybe a bit more historical, but not a lot. Some people have complained about historical inaccuracies, but, hey, if you can enjoy a Robin Hood movie you can enjoy this.

For me it's always a matter of intent. If a show is clear that it's historical fiction and that they're taking creative liberties, I'm all in for the ride. But sometimes some movies or shows project the image that it's documentary, or historical in nature and then it's all over the place; that I'm less comfortable with.


I didn't know about that new show. I'll definitely give it a watch!

 

[Morrus]

For me it's always a matter of intent. If a show is clear that it's historical fiction and that they're taking creative liberties, I'm all in for the ride. But sometimes some movies or shows project the image that it's documentary, or historical in nature and then it's all over the place; that I'm less comfortable with.

It’s really nothing like a documentary. Like I said, think watching a (gritty Games of Thrones-esque) Robin Hood show.

 

[Gradine]

I haven't seen the show but I've seen that Bishop Odo, William's half-brother, is on the cast; in tapestries he was often depicted specifically wielding a club in battle as it was thought that his status within the clergy forbade him from "shedding blood"* and if that sounds familiar to anyone here, and it absolutely should, he served as the inspiration behind the early D&D Cleric's weapon restrictions.


*the historical reality is a bit muddier, but his reputation as forgoing "shedding blood" persisted

 

[Morrus]

I haven't seen the show but I've seen that Bishop Odo, William's half-brother, is on the cast; in tapestries he was often depicted specifically wielding a club in battle as it was thought that his status within the clergy forbade him from "shedding blood"* and if that sounds familiar to anyone here, and it absolutely should, he served as the inspiration behind the early D&D Cleric's weapon restrictions.


*the historical reality is a bit muddier, but his reputation as forgoing "shedding blood" persisted

I haven’t seen him wield anything yet! He’s not exactly portrayed as the combat type. But he needs to be there so he can go back to Bayeux and make a certain tapestry.

 

[Morrus]

Thinking about it, it just occurred to me… a better analogy than Robin Hood is Braveheart.

 

[Morrus]

Ah, there we go. Odo got himself a mace for the Battle of Hastings.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The problem is, it looks like its trying to be historical, and failing. Wolf Hall deliberately put a different twist on the history-what-everyone-knows, and thereby is a worth watching TV show. This looks like it's just doing a bad job at regurgitating a tired history lesson.

Lucy Worsley discussing whether William was a war criminal was a more entertaining TV show.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The study of history and its web of social, cultural and geopolitical interconnections is fascinating to me. I'd heard about this show, read the positive reviews, and was really looking forward to it. Not streaming in Canada though at the moment. Oh well, I'll catch it eventually.

 

[Morrus]

The problem is, it looks like its trying to be historical, and failing. Wolf Hall deliberately put a different twist on the history-what-everyone-knows, and thereby is a worth watching TV show. This looks like it's just doing a bad job at regurgitating a tired history lesson.

It's just doing a Braveheart. If you are comfortable with the Braveheart approach to history, you'll be fine with this. If you aren't, then you'll have the same problems with this that you'd have with Braveheart. It just comes down to what you're looking for in a a quasi-historical show. I very much enjoyed it.