The Pillars of the Earth

I understand what you're saying about critics and I'm definitely not taking an anti-intellectual line. The biggest issue I have with them is that they're so often wrong. The basic, single, most fundamental piece of information I want to know about a programme (or film) that I have not yet seen is whether or not I will like it. So, for example as I write this, Pans Labyrinth is showing on Film 4. The Radio Times' website starts off it's summary of the film as
This turgid piece of prose servers no purpose, as I (and I expect 99.9% of everyone else) has never heard of anything referenced in it. It was written purely in an attempt to impress - since it neither informs, nor entertains. In fact it just irritates - as does further later irrelevancies such as - what a load of old tosh! Based on this gushing praise, it's almost certain that I'll absolutely hate it, so I suppose in that respect it's done what I require: told me whether I will like it or not. Though the way it's helped me decide that is very unsatisfactory, since it's not based on a description of the programme itself.

... now I've lost my thread. Hang on a sec' ...
Oh yes - this is exactly the sort of thing which makes me think it's all very cliquey. I can just imagine a bunch of critics around the coffee machine in the morning: "well dahlink, did you see the piece wrote about Pan's Labyrinth?" "Yes, wasn't it the most exquisite description ... he/she/it should get an award"

The good news is that you and I agree on some things:
A good critic isn't one who agrees with you. Exactly, their job is to describe accurately and concisely the basic plot/story of a performance (without giving away too much) so that the audience can make up their own mind whether or not to watch it. It is not up to them to decide which programmes are "worthy" or "good" - so they should keep the value judgements and adjectives to a minimum, we're capable of making up our own minRAB.
Secondly: I wish there were more good critics No arguments with that! :)
 
yes and no.

There are many deviations from the book, I mentioned one above.

Another couple.....just from the first three hours of the TV series.

Aliena's father, Earl Barholomew, actually died in prison in the book, not by the executioner's hand as in the TV series.

And that bleeding statue of the Saint when Stephen came to Kingsbridge never happened in the book.

Stephen never invited Richard ro join hs army in the square on the day of the execution.

But on the other hand the core story is being adhered too and I never exoect a great deal from movie or TV adaptations of much loved books anyway so it hasn't stopped me enjoying the series.
 
I'm In the middle of reading the book again - from the few mins I've seen of the TV adaptation there are too many deviations from the book (also confirmed by forum comments on this topic) which grate when I have the story so fresh in my mind- so although I am recording the series I very much doubt that I will watch it. At least the pictures in the mind created while reading the book follow the story.
 
Having read the book about a year ago I was delighted to hear of this adaptation and I am thoroughly enjoying it so far. The characters of Phillip, Eliena, Ellen and Jack especially are just so exactly as I imagined them its unreal.

Of course there are a few departures from the book - realistically this is only to be expected in a television 8-part adaption of a 1000+ page book covering several generations, but this is obviously still much to chagrin of the 'Basildon Bond' Brigade judging from comments on this thread and in the media (One exception: William's relationship with his Mother? Seems pointless.)

Also one of the best high definition productions I have seen on terrestrial TV - full marks to the cinematographer.
 
Yeah this does take some liberties with the plot of the book. Still a pretty decent adaptation. Plus a good cast. Good that Channel 4 are showing it! Hopefully it could be a step back in the right direction for Channel 4, but it is still a bit early to say that.
 
Somehow the fact that it's set in the twelfth century rather than Downton Abbey's early twentieth century means that I'm able to overlook any of the inaccuracies in the former as opposed to those in the latter. I can forgive the modern turns of speech when you appreciate that the characters would be speaking Norman French rather than modern English.
 
I agree with you that they are (or at least should be) more knowledgeable - since that's all they do all day - talk and write about the background to a particular programme or film. However, they know nothing about what I like or would want to watch. It's therefore hubristic in the extreme for them to say a programme is "good" or "bad" in such absolute terms. The best they should say is that it IS or IS NOT like other work by the same people or is simliar to another piece of work. Telling me about the director, or the actors means nothing to me as I have no idea what influence they have - so far as I'm concerned, they read the lines and when they get it right, someone says "that's a wrap" (or another cliche) and it becomes part of the film. I have no interest in directors or producers as I have no control over their output, so telling me who did it is like telling me who made the bottle that the wine comes in. The only attributes of a programme or film that I appreciate is the story/plot and the lack of obvious gaffes in it's production. Since there are almost never alternative versions made with different actors/directors, it doesn't inform the choice on which version to watch, therefore has no part in my decision making process.

In broad terms, yes I do. We're always told about art to "buy art because you like it, not because they're an investment". On that basis, our own personal attraction, or not, to a piece is the overriding factor: not that it must be good because some people with degrees in art history tell us it is. Their main job, like wine and food critics on TV is merely to provide entertainment through their buffoonery and play-acting. No-one takes them seriously, they just clown around really.

Going back to Pan's Labyrinth, the one thing that none of the reviews (all two of them) that I read, saw fit to mention was the single most obvious, most important feature of the whole film: namely that it wasn't in english. I have to say that such an obvious omission is extremely sloppy and just reinforces my view that nothing the critics write is for the benefit of potential viewers: merely for the consumption of their own little clique,
 
The actor playing William is far too cute! He would have made a better Jack imo. I don't care for the way Jack is portrayed at all.

And is it just me or is it hard to understand what Ellen says? Either she is mumbling/has bad diction, or it's my ears.

Aliena isn't at all how I imagined her but Hayley Atwell is doing a good job. Generally, it's well cast I think.
 
If you can afford it you really should invest in a PVR, since we got one we haven't seen any adverts at all. On the commercial channels we just record everything and fast forward over the aRAB! You can still watch it on the evening it's broadcast, just start watching it about 15-20 mins after the programme has begun and you can miss all the aRAB ;)

I'm still really enjoying this series but I haven't read the books. I seem to be mesmerised by Jack's eyes, I can't stop looking at them when he's on screen :o
 
Back
Top