Dear Pillars of the Earth,
My girlfriend was/is on your side, and she and I are usually simpatico when it comes to TV shows. But I suspect that may change when she finally sees Game of Thrones, which did the whole medieval political intrigue much, much better.
What's that you say? Game of Thrones isn't really "medieval" because it takes place in a fictional universe?
Too bad. Putting aside the fact that it's based on the "War of the Roses," GoT's universe still feels more real and authentic than yours, dragons and direwolves and all.
Honestly, there were times I felt like I was watching a Dickens adaptation. You gave us heroes who are impossibly noble, villains who are eeeeeeeeeeeeevil, long-buried secrets, a sprawling cast of characters, and (spoiler alert) an ending in which the wicked are punished and our heroes prosper.
That's fine for Dickens, less so when adapting a novel written 22 years ago.
And it's not like I wanted a Game of Thrones clone, just more nuance in your characters, and much, much more tension in your story. It seemed like any time a problem was introduced or a plot was formed, it would be resolved/put into motion in the next scene.
You assembled an impressive cast: Ian McShane, Rufus Sewell, Hayley Atwell (above), plus Donald Sutherland and a wasted Alison Pill and stuck them with weak material.
The intersections of power/religion/war/politics/art/lust could have made for a powerful series. What we got was pandering nonsense that I thought TV had left behind decades ago.
But I LIKED the eeeeeeevil Bishop, and the eeeeeeevil Lady Macbeth-type lady! *stomps feet*
Posted by: Megan | September 12, 2011 at 09:14 PM