I just recently started reading the books and am considering watching the movies but I'm curious how good they are since they're made for TV movies. Most TV movies are low budgeted and look like it, with questionable acting(though i like Sean Bean alot and am sure he's excellent in them), bad dialogue, and a bit hokey overall, are these the same?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
[deleted]
The TV series was extremely well made, with as high production values as the budget would allow (eg in the scale of the battles) - or so it seemed to me.
I haven't read the books, but I can understand Sharpe purists being disappointed if TV 'mucked about' with them. At this late stage, I think reading the books would just confuse me, and anyway, I'm a girlie and they seem more like something for the boys - I might get bored reading about all that fighting.
However what made the TV series stand out was the quality of the acting - some really solid, great British character actors were involved in every episode who each created very distinct, lively characters - Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Byrne, Brian Cox etc. They didn't scrimp on the 'talent'. In even quite small roles, there are gems of performances, adding weight to the old adage 'there's not such thing as a small role, only small actors.' They had giants in every episode - the casting directors should have one awards!!
The humour that emerged from the interaction between the well draw characters was what I enjoyed most. There are many hilarious moments.
The plots of course get streamlined, especially in Rifles.
The fights really do show the budget. But the props and costumes deserve credit, and Sean Bean really can act.
Bevaremeg - Read the books. Bernard Cornwell is one of my little sister's favourite authors. Cornwells a history geek, and the fighting descriptions in most of his works seve to illustrate the emotions and confusion of historical battles. His postscript historical notes are good enough to reference. And ther is always a romantic angle (although some of the Sharpe's, and The Last Kingdom less so than the rest) I really do recommend his Warlord Trilogy - It's a realistic interpretation of King Arthur from the POV of a character who only appears in the earliest versions of the legends. With the sensibilties of a typical Cornwall hero (I could imagine the barfight that would result of some of Cornwalls heroes ever met.)
To Jhr Gustaaf
- Well actually I've been thinking of reading them - if it's well written, I can get quite engrossed in battle scenes, and I'm keen on history and accuracy.(Isn't it fascinating how good writing can make anything engrossing - I remember reading descriptions of bomb disposal in The English Patient' and thinking 'How interesting!!)
But which Sharpe should I start with ? Should I read them chronologically according to when they were set (is that the order they were written in?), and in that case, which is the first one. I mean, is there a continuity throughout the novels that cross reference and need to be read in order. In the TV series I loved the colourful characters, humour and the relationships between the men. I used to fast forward through the battles.
I'm also fascinated by the notion of Arthur - not the roundtable/Camelot Arthur, but who the real Arthur might have been, eg early British freedom fighter? But often I find books I read based on Arthur don't quite live up to the Arthur of my imagination. Maybe I'll have to write my own version!!
[deleted]
I total agree, Start with Tiger and make your way through. I'm Currently on Gold and Love the Series, I bought the movie for Riffles shortly after finishing the book. It was good but could have been better...I probably feel this way because of how good the book was though.
shareBevaremeg,
I completely agree with Jhr Gustaaf, Cornwell's Novels tend to have enough decent female charachters to hold a female readers interest, get out there and start reading them
But which Sharpe should I start with ? Should I read them chronologically according to when they were set (is that the order they were written in?), and in that case, which is the first one
But often I find books I read based on Arthur don't quite live up to the Arthur of my imagination.
This is a very good series.Good story line,historically correct weaponry and costumes.A very enjoyable movie with great acting and a good, quirky sense of humor. All the action sequences are a bit amateur and somewhat "cheap"looking though.The whole thing,including swordfights are not professionally choreographed and it shows on the screen.It reminds me of the battles what we fought in my reenacting days: Improvised and safety conscious.If I'd make a movie like that I'd make sure that all the "horrors" of the war would be more realistic including more blood,and more realistic explosions.A bit of CGI or better pyrotechnician would be an advantage.Better and more realistic fight sequences would be more beneficial as well.I mean nobody can drop dead of a single sword slash.This is just too theatrical and kitschy and looks stupid on-screen. Other than these, its a very enjoyable series.
" Clouded this boy future is"
"If I'd make a movie like that I'd make sure that all the "horrors" of the war would be more realistic including more blood,and more realistic explosions."
Realistic?, been to war?, NO ONE wants to see that on screen. And swordfights in real life lasted for about 2 seconds. I want a sword fight to be epic, entertaining and flashy. The real thing is as dirty quick and unmerciful as human nature can be. No fellow wants to see a real war. Maybe deranged and mindless chaps , but that sort of people won't watch a bbc tv movie. For sure.
As an action nut I can say that the action sequences are not looking amateur at all. However it does show that the budget is tight and they downscaled in order to make it manageable. For the purposes of the story it does it's job more than adequately.
The CB Association
http://chrichtonsworld.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
I've just watched Sharpe's Rifles for the first time on DVD. I never watched it when it was originally shown so wasn't sure exactly how good it would be. I've read the books and sadly the series is very low budget and it shows with the lack of extras (for example in Rifles, from what I recall, he was actually leading 30-50 rifles through those mountains!). But the locations were good, as were the costumes and I have no complaints at all with their choice of actors. If only they'd had more money!
So I would say read each book before you watch each TV show just so you know how it was supposed to be and I'm sure you will enjoy the episodes.
I'm looking forward to watching Eagles next but how they are going to recreate a whole battle with a group of about 50 actors I don't know ;o)
The only other thing that I thought was a bit amiss was that Wellesley was far too full of humour and familiarity than he is in the books (and how he is actually described in historical accounts) and in general they were all much more 'matey' and laid back than people of rank portrayed by Cornwell, but maybe the screenwriters made them like that to make them more likeable for a TV audience!
I've read the books and sadly the series is very low budget and it shows with the lack of extras (for example in Rifles, from what I recall, he was actually leading 30-50 rifles through those mountains!).
The funny thing is that it actually looks lower-budget than it was, through bad camerawork. Any good director and cameraman can make 30 men look like an army by bunching them close together and zooming in close using a long-distance lens. Then the screen is full of close-packed men, and the audience's eye is quite prepared to accept that there are thousands more on either side of them. But throughout the Sharpe series they did the opposite; however many extras they had, they spread them out thinly as far as they could. So even later in the series (when they already had a hit on their hands and had more money to spend) for which they actually had quite big contingents of extras, the battles look feeble.
But the locations were good, as were the costumes
Still, it would have been nice if they had splashed out on getting some French infantry uniforms. Time after time we saw our heroes scattering the French, and I was sitting there thinking "Of course they're being beaten - the poor sods are artillerymen without any guns!"
I first read Sharpe's Regiment then Company, Rifles and I just finished Eagles.
I bought the Rifles/Eagles DVD shortly before finishing Eagles.
I have to say I'm quite disappointed. I was really dismayed as soon as I started watching, at the detour it takes from the plot, completely ruining it for me. I had a comfortable version of Sharpe snugged away in my head and I much preferred the books I've read to the Rifles episode (the one I've watched so far).
I will keep watching but I hope the others pick up in their plots, actually keeping to the story.
I adore the Hornblower TV series and own all those teleplays but I've only read about 3/4 of one of the Hornblower series' books before getting distracted - I far preferred Hornblower but am I biased in that I've read the Sharpe Books?
I adore the Hornblower TV series and own all those teleplays but I've only read about 3/4 of one of the Hornblower series' books before getting distracted - I far preferred Hornblower but am I biased in that I've read the Sharpe Books?
They are of excellent quality Thomas. The budget was decent and it is realistic,and Bean is great as an officer "not of breeding".
shareI just recently started reading the books and am considering watching the movies but I'm curious how good they are since they're made for TV movies.The answer is pretty simple -- if you are thinking about seeing the series after reading the books then do so. Well-written and acted if not on a blockbuster budget.
[deleted]
I found them quite entertaining. It's fun to see English actors who are well known now but were on their way up back then; Daniel Craig and Elizabeth Hurley to name a couple. You can tell their budgets were limited early on in the series but the writing and acting are first rate. I recommend them unreservedly.
sharethey're quite good but got more fanciful as the series progressed, with sharpe eventually winning the battle of Waterloo virtually single handed. The number of 'chosen men' dwindled dramatically over time as well.
share