MovieChat Forums > The Pillars of the Earth (2010) Discussion > WTF moments, strictly series related.

WTF moments, strictly series related.


Moments that just made me go WTF?!

Tom finds out his infant son is being cared for by the same guy who whacked his daughter on the head, and he's fine with it? Everyone knows it's his child, and he has an almost grown daughter and a significant other, both of whom could presumably care for the baby, but he just decides the outlaw/monk, is the perfect nursemaid?

Speaking of which, an outlaw knocks on the door at Kingsbridge Priory with some random baby, and the monks are like, "Sure, grab a habit, join right in, single fathers make great monks!" How does this make sense?

Martha sees the Ellen, the women her brother and mother suspected of witchcraft before her mother died, and, after meeting her once, runs up and gives her a big hug?

Jack is mute because as a very young child he saw his father get burned at the stake? He looked too young to remember, first of all, and his father had been in prison with his tongue cut out since before he was born, so why did this cause him to be mute?

Since when did they burn thieves at the stake?



The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

reply

All good points, and all because changes were made from the book - in which there was no connection between the person who rescued the baby and the thieves who stole the pig and hit Martha, there was no charge of witchcraft against Ellen by Alfred or his mother, and Jack's father was not burnt at the stake and also did not have his tongue cut off - he sang a troubador song, in French, before his hanging.

reply

I agree. They changed so much from the book, but the problem is, the changes make the storyline NOT MAKE SENSE. I try to judge the series on its merits, but a lot of the plot is NOT logical. These are my some of my Wtf moments.

Jack has scratched some crude shapes/carvings on the cave wall and suddenly Tom is giving him sharp tools and a big piece of rock and telling him to make a statue of Saint Adolphus? Because I guess you need no training in using sharp stone cutting tools, because the stone just "speaks to you?" Never mind no one has the slightest idea what Saint Adolphus looked like.

There's a castle full of people fighting and killing and raping and looting, and they all just stop to hear whether the Earl is going to surrender or not?!




reply

>> Tom finds out his infant son is being cared for by the same guy
>> who whacked his daughter on the head, and he's fine with it?

Yep! Though Tom had a supporting story about not being able to support his family and not wanting to leave the baby behind again, once they decided to stay and work on the church for food and lodging, why not declare their connection to the baby? Especially when Eightpence had recognized them and acknowledge the bond? That part was a bit of contrivance, I agree.

>> an outlaw knocks on the door at Kingsbridge Priory with some random baby, and the monks are like, "Sure, grab a habit, join right in, single fathers make great monks!"
That is not that far fetched I think. First, wasn't there a dialog (in ep 1 or 2) talking about the baby being Eightpence's salvation and the cause for him turning to God? He probably presented himself as a good Samaritan who found a baby and wanted to care for him in a safe haven. In addition, the conversation Cuthbert had with Tom Builder about boy Jonathan in episode 4 (at Aliana's dinner) gives an insight on why Eightpence was welcomed with the baby .

>> Jack is mute because as a very young child he saw his father
>> get burned at the stake?

About Jack, I thought Ellen said something like "he doesn't talk to strangers but he's not stupid." I don't remember mentioning him being mute which in fact he never was.

>> Since when did they burn thieves at the stake?
Perhaps not thieves, but definitely heretics. In ep 4, Walerian told Jack that his father had been accused of "blasphemy" against the church for stealing a chalice and impregnating a novice.



reply

Singing while being burned at the stake? Wouldn't you be choking and hacking from the smoke?

Ellen stabbing Waleran with that teeny knife? As a "healer" wouldn't she have the basic anatomical knowledge to realize that slitting his throat would be much more effective? And if she wasn't trying to kill him, why stab him at all? She's in big trouble, whether he dies or not.



reply

>> an outlaw knocks on the door at Kingsbridge Priory with some random baby, and the monks are like, "Sure, grab a habit, join right in, single fathers make great monks!"

That is not that far fetched I think. First, wasn't there a dialog (in ep 1 or 2) talking about the baby being Eightpence's salvation and the cause for him turning to God? He probably presented himself as a good Samaritan who found a baby and wanted to care for him in a safe haven. In addition, the conversation Cuthbert had with Tom Builder about boy Jonathan in episode 4 (at Aliana's dinner) gives an insight on why Eightpence was welcomed with the baby .


O.K. I haven't watched ep. 4 yet, but I still doubt an outlaw who showed up with a baby would just be welcomed with open arms. If that was the case, the priory would have been filled with starving single parents, especially in hard times. If all you need to become a monk is religious divotion, and a cute infant, there would be more monks and a lot more priory children. I believe monasteries were slightly more selective than that.

>> Jack is mute because as a very young child he saw his father
>> get burned at the stake?
About Jack, I thought Ellen said something like "he doesn't talk to strangers but he's not stupid." I don't remember mentioning him being mute which in fact he never was.


I guess he was only mute around strangers, which would be anyone other than his Mom. She is the one who says that it is because of "something bad" he saw when he was younger. In the scene where his father is being burned, he looks very young, and not particularly upset. So why does she blame his not talking on that event?

>> Since when did they burn thieves at the stake?
Perhaps not thieves, but definitely heretics. In ep 4, Walerian told Jack that his father had been accused of "blasphemy" against the church for stealing a chalice and impregnating a novice.


That makes more sense now, thanks.




The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

reply

However, they are still way overdoing the medieval cliche that people are always being burned at the stake. I can't recall a single instance of the punishment being used during this period. Joan of Arc was 200 years later and she was a BIG time heretic from the establishment's point of view (and also, it made a political statement). Burning at the stake was more a punishment of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. They didn't do it for everyone who stole from a church or impregnated a nun. In fact, during the 12th century, they were still trying to stamp down on married clergy (by censure, not burning at the stake).

reply

Well, quite a few heretics were burned in Continental Europe from the later twelfth century on, though it was unusual quite as early as this: but:

1) The Act for the Burning of Heretics wasn't passed in England until 1401.
2) Stealing a chalice, even from a church, is not heresy, and would be punished by hanging. (In the book, he is hanged: but as far as I remember in the book they don't know he's impregnated a nun, which they do know in the series. That might compound his offence!)
3) Actually, the attempt to burn Ellen for "witchcraft" is more anachronistic than this. The modern concept of witchcraft is based on a LATE medieval idea, i.e. that malefice (cursing) went hand in glove with devil-worship. The twelfth century Church did not believe this, and didn't even believe malefice was possible (though they did believe in devil-worship, and did occasionally execute people for that). And even when executing "witches" became commonplace, from the late fifteenth century onwards, burning was very rare in England: they were normally hanged unless they were ALSO convicted of treason or murdering their husbands.

reply

Rummywench:

Regarding Jack's father burning at the stake and singing (incredibly) in the process: excellent point! Perhaps Ellen just wanted to romanticize his death to Jack. Or maybe he did, indeed, sing, but if so, I find that very odd...and even a bit spooky, if you ask me.

Also, the scene where Ellen urinated on Waleran prior to stabbing him had to have been one of the funniest--as well as unexpected--moments EVER in film. I laughed so hard I nearly peed my pants. The look on Waleran's face was PRICELESS! LMAO!


One more thing...

Regarding Ellen's choice of weaponry: Immediately before Ellen arrived to see Waleran, she was imprisoned and was secretly delivered from the monk who was caring for Tom Builder's infant son (can't think of his name at the moment) something that could be used to escape from the shackles she was being held in. Remember, it was hidden in the infant's diaper? (He hinted to her that the baby had a "heavy load" in his diaper upon her reaching out to hold him and she obviously got the message.) Anyhow, I'm assuming it was some type of file or pick and this is precisely what Ellen had at the moment when she attempted to kill Waleran. She was probably aiming for his heart, but just missed by a couple of inches.

Too bad Waleran didn't just croak right there and then, but then again, he's the story's main antagonist so we need him. :/

Thanks for bringing these moments to light.

Christy


"Don't like me? Then jog on, my friend."

reply

Not a huge wtf moment but I didn't get why Aliena didn't immediately point to Richard the first time she went to sell her wool when they told her that they'd only pay a man a fair price. I was sitting there like wtf 'is she with a man or not?' It's not like she was standing with some 14 year old kid. Made no sense for Richard to be in that scene IMO.

reply

It not only took the sense out of her struggle to support them both, but you wondered why a big strapping guy like that couldn't have fought harder to not let his sister be raped. It made sense for a kid who'd barely handled a sword. It really doesn't make sense for this to be the same guy that a few years later shows up in Stephen's entourage as the mystery knight who's such a great fighter he's a threat to the Hanleighs.

reply

I'm afraid that's just another example of changes from the book making the story not make much sense.



reply

but you wondered why a big strapping guy like that couldn't have fought harder to not let his sister be raped.

I think you are not being fair. They were AMBUSHED. History has shown repeatedly that even the most cunning and experienced warriors or armies can be defeated if attacked by surprise. Not only they were ambushed and their guard killed, Richard was obviously not trained at combat yet.

What really would NOT make sense is for a young guy who got ambushed, amputed and rendered helpless while his sister was raped in front of him NOT to learn combat in the years following this attack. Obviously Richard was motivated and learned well from that experience. That's logical to me.

The issue I personnaly have is that the actor who plays Richard never looked the part of a young unexperienced and pampered lad of 16 (too old). And then when the story jumped ahead in episode 4 (The BattleField) he looked EXACTLY the same as that shocked boy leaning on his sister for strenght. They could have played a bit more with make-up, maybe add some facial hair, different hairdo to visually show the growth.

reply

That is the problem of Richard already being physically an adult when Aliena is raped. His military training should have started in his early teens so he could be knighted around 18; he would have had already had a great deal of training with a sword and developed his arm and shoulder muscles so that he would not stand around helplessly when a weapon is put into his hands. Yes, they were ambushed - though not completely, as they were trying to bar the door; not as though they were attacked in their sleep! - but there is still a fight instinct that should have had some muscle behind it. Anyway, at age 16 - and especially if he has the height and muscle of an adult - Richard should have been well into his military training, not a kid playing hide and seek. He would have had to be REALLY pampered to the point of being mocked by his peers not to have learned to wield a sword by then, even if it panicked him to actually kill someone. Their "guard" was only the castle steward, not a man at arms, so all the more reason that Richard himself should have been the one to put up a fight. In the movie version, I mean. I really don't know why they didn't go with two sets of actors the younger characters, as it has created more problems than it has solved.

reply

My wtf moment..
Tom and Ellen hooking up after, what seems like only days, after his wife died.

Tom leaving the baby in the first place. Im like.. get some other woman to breast feed the kid for god sakes!

reply


Tom leaving the baby in the first place. Im like.. get some other woman to breast feed the kid for god sakes!


Agreed. In the context of the series, total WTF. I mean, supposedly they had just left Ellen's cave. Tom couldn't maybe go ask the healer woman if she knows any lactating women, or anyone who has a goat or cow, that might take pity on a starving newborn?

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

reply

"Tom leaving the baby in the first place. Im like.. get some other woman to breast feed the kid for god sakes!"

IIRC in the book they didn't expect that they'd run into people for days. They literally didn't have a thing to give the baby. They still should have taken it with them of course but they do make it seem like they're all on the verge of starving--not just the baby. Tom tries to tell himself that the baby will suffer for only a few hours as opposed to a few days. Still totally wrong but not quite as heartless as it could have been.

reply

That's why changing the story so much from the book was a bad idea. So many thing that made sense in the book become WTF moments in the series.

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

reply

So true Tell it like it is and the more I watch the worse it gets. The entire third episode was full of WTF moments.

reply

Tom leaving the baby in the first place. Im like.. get some other woman to breast feed the kid for god sakes!

I think this is a WTF moment to us, but only because of the times in which we live. Back in the day, people used to frequently leave infants out to die, whether it's because they couldn't feed the baby, or maybe because it had some sort of deformity or sickness. If you consider the time that the story takes place, it's really not all that far-fetched.


"Well!!! Since when did you become the physical type?"

reply

@lola, well I haven't read the book. I don't know if you have.
But personally I think jack will have something to do with stephens downfall because.. I think his father might have been mauds brother and that makes him the heir tot the throne doesn't it? Well maybe not because he's a bastard. But something along those lines.


WTF moments;

Aliena gave birth to her baby underneath some rocks on the cathedral floor?

Alfred didn't know she was pregnant? How did that happen?! I find it quite hard to imagine they didn't have sex at all after their wedding night..

Alfred throwing Aliena out. Sort of a wtf moment. Because if he would have thought it through a little he could have hurt her much more by forcing her to abandon her child and have her stay with him. But well, I guess he was led by his emotions and hating jack so much.

reply

Alfred actually tries to have sex with Aliena on a number of nights shortly after their marriage but eventually gives up because of his impotence. He is actually never attracted to her and is always drunk; his reasons for marrying Aliena are purely out of spite against Jack. He ends up hating her and basically ignores her for for the rest of her pregnancy; in fact he makes her sleep on the floor. Hard to believe that he wouldn't notice? Yes, but not entirely implausible given that there are some teens in today's world who end up pregnant and giving birth without their own parents knowing.

It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."

reply

"Aliena gave birth to her baby underneath some rocks on the cathedral floor? "

THIS, so so so so much. If anything, I expected the force of the rocks to cause a forced abortion or something, but for her to birth a healthy child, on her own, beneath a pile of stone, within a couple of minutes makes NO SENSE.

I also thought it was weird that Alfred hadn't realized she was pregnant, but I thought him not having sex with her had been pretty clearly explained. Aliena wouldn't have sex with him, so it wasn't really enjoyable for Alfred, and honestly I think he did love her enough to not rape her every night. Most importantly, though, in the last episode (or maybe second to last?) Alfred tells Jack that he couldn't get an erection, supposedly because of the curse placed on him by Jack's mother.

Of course, Aliena magically getting pregnant from her one night with Jack was kind of silly, but nothing out of the ordinary for a movie or book.

reply

In the book, ummm, it's the same day. :)

It was 1135, they travelled alone, and didn't know if they could get job at the next stop, they couldn't afford a nanny you know. I think leaving the baby scene makes sense, people are still throwing babies away even in the 21st centrary. :(

reply

>>I really don't know why they didn't go with two sets of actors the younger characters, as it has created more problems than it has solved.

Not that big of a problem, IMHO. But yeah! Having a younger set of actors might have worked better in some places. But if budget was an issue, then using the same actors but with some aging makeup or props would have worked too. In the case of Richard, turned into an accomplished knight 4 years later, a different hairdo, some facial hair, some battle scars on his face would have done the trick. They were not paying enough attention to some of these details in their screen play that's for sure.

>>Yes, they were ambushed - though not completely, as they were trying to bar the door; not as though they were attacked in their sleep! - but there is still a fight instinct that should have had some muscle behind it.

Perhaps you did not watch the same series I did. The series shows William and 2 cohorts arriving quietly by night in the deserted castle yard and stealthily making their way in. Aliana, Richard, and the guard were unarmed playing some game when they saw armed enemies ALREADY inside the room with them. William’s sidekick quickly gutted the guard and jumped Richard. No one had time to bar or push any door. If this is NOT a total ambush then I don’t know what is. I don't understand how someone can be only "partially" ambushed. In situations like these, it doesn’t matter how experienced and trained the ambushed persons are. You were caught totally unaware and defenseless, the most logical outcome is that you are done with. Period. How does having young Richard (just because he looks like a man) singlehandedly save the day more believable? This is not a superheroes flick, LOL.

One could nitpick that Aliana & Richard got overconfident in thinking that they were alone and safe, leaving lights on, and playing games. But the plot showed a logical progression into that. They were shown getting away using some secret door during the attack. The castle was shown as being left deserted afterward until Prior Phillip came in. Then Prior Phillip had an exchange with Aliana and Richard specifically discussing their escape, the secret passage, the fact that no one knew about their fate etc. All was laid down in the plot to make the next chain of events believable. All that “should have” arguments against the portrayal of Richard is just plain unwillingness to accept how this adaptation depicted things IMHO.

The bottom line in this thread is that when some folks are against something, there are no arguments to be had. Faults will be found in everything and everywhere.

Oh well! To each their own.

reply

[deleted]

I have to say that my biggest problem with that the rape scene was, directly following it, Richard was all scared and sad about killing one of the bag guys? That was ridiculous to me. I think if most chick's lil bros saw them raped, they would have no qualms about killing some of the men responsible....right?

reply

To me, this was one more thing that made more sense in the book, where it's made abundantly clear that Richard was, if not physically weak (because he does eventually become a respected knight), a real weenie who had no strength of will or character, no ability to make important decisions, etc. So this really is a WTF moment in the series, because up to then he's just seemed like a whiny teenager who nevertheless should be trained in the ways of his time (i.e. weaponry), rather than someone so weak he'd let his sister be raped rather than risk injury or death by fighting.

reply

I didn't get why Aliena didn't immediately point to Richard the first time she went to sell her wool when they told her that they'd only pay a man a fair price. I was sitting there like wtf 'is she with a man or not?'

Actually I think this worked. To me, this scene indicated 2 things:

1) Their ordeals obviously made Aliana stronger (she was already depicted as a firecracker in temperament), led her to take charge, and to basically become a mom to her still distraught younger brother, however...

2) As formerly pampered kids from a noble family, they knew NOTHING about some of the rules and commerce practices in the market. So her naivete and ignorance almost cost her the very first profit of her business.

reply

So she doesn't realize that her brother is a man, at least in appearance? I mean, he's standing right there, obviously fully grown and male. Is she just stupid then?

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

reply

So she doesn't realize that her brother is a man, at least in appearance? I mean, he's standing right there, obviously fully grown and male. Is she just stupid then?

IMHO, what she realizes (or not) about her brother's appearance is irrelevant as that was not the point of the scene. The point of the scene was to show what ignorant and vulnerable rookies they were in commerce. Not knowing she could be cheated based on her sex, she had already naively approached the merchant as THE person conducting the transaction. Richard was just standing there, not very imposing looking, letting her take charge. The cunning merchant sized them up right then and there and took advantage because he could. I don't think he would have changed his mind if she had then turned to Richard and said HE was in charge, or if Richard had suddenly changed demeanor to take charge. There are situations (especially in negotiation) when you don't get to make a first impression twice.

However, I do think this scene would have worked better, if the actor who played Richard looked younger.

reply

The cunning merchant sized them up right then and there and took advantage because he could.

The merchant shouldn't have said that anyway, because in the series universe Richard is obviously a man. Even if that merchant has the idea that Aliena is the omly one doing the selling, he has just tipped them off to that mistake, and Aliena and Richard can either, A: says Richard is a man, and he is now the one selling the wool, or B: tell the merchant he can keep his money and go find a different wool merchant, and have Richard do the selling. The Merchant's tactics only work in the book universe, where Richard is obviously a little 13-year-old boy.

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

reply

The Merchant's tactics only work in the book universe, where Richard is obviously a little 13-year-old boy.

Well I didn't read the book. Yet that scene worked for me as it aptly showed two rookies new at commerce and taken aback at what to do when being fleeced. And they didn't need to go to another merchant since Prior Phillip showed up right then and there.

Again my nitpick of the series: The actor who played Richard was too old. Not in regard to that particular scene with the merchant btw, but rather with the fact that 4 years later (Episode 4), when he's an experienced older knight who's been to many battles, he still looks EXACTLY the same physically.

By the by, if you plan on raising WTF moments of the series while constantly keeping the book in mind, most of the series will be WTF moments. It won't stand a chance, LOL. On the other end, I know it's hard NOT to keep the book in mind. There is nothing like the original source.

reply

I know! That's why I was trying to keep the WTF moments strictly series related, but that's not working out so well for me!

reply

I know! That's why I was trying to keep the WTF moments strictly series related, but that's not working out so well for me!


I know you wrote this a long time, but I just finished watching the series and I'm reading up on the posts. My biggest WTF moments were when first Aliena came out of her protective zone to look at William, who was trying to kill everybody in Kingsbridge. I asked myself, "Why the hell did she come out from inside the church/yard where she was protected?" My major one was how Tom Builder was killed. Why oh why did he come out as well? He came out from hiding and walked in the open to William. It's like they wanted to have Tom killed and couldn't find a better way or time. It was so stupid to me how he walked out there, like he wanted to die. And I knew they were setting him up to die when earlier he was talking about who would succeed him as builder, Jack or Alfred. I was so annoyed at how he came out there. That was my biggest WTF moment!




This is my signature and I'm sticking to it. lol

reply

In the book, Richard was pretty feckless and idle, and more than happy at this stage to let Aliena take charge and do all the thinking. We never got to see her exasperation with him over that, but in the context of that scene, I think it was important to her to make it clear that she was the one doing the trading and that there was no reason why, as a woman, she shouldn't get a fair price.

reply

It's been so long since I read the book that I just don't remember more than a few general things about each character. In the mini-series Richard comes across as almost mentally slow. He seems totally ineffectual in practically everything and connected so closely to Aliena that he can't do anything without her help. So when he suddenly becomes a great warrior (away from Aliena) it seemed out of character for him. Was this how he was in the book??




reply

In the book he's a young teenager, very dependent on Aliena and unable to think for himself. He remains conventional in his thinking, willing to take advantage of everything Aliena does for him but still thinking it's his "right" as a male and the rightful heir, which is maddening, given that he should have devoted his life to making hers better and not just taking what she provides. He does grow up big and strong and makes himself useful as a fighter, but still very much thinking inside the box.

reply

Thanks, peggygeordie; that makes sense. I can see why people have trouble with everyone in the mini-series staying the same age throughout. I really think they probably should have started the series with younger actors on some of the younger characters, and then segued into the actors we have now.




reply

I really think they probably should have started the series with younger actors on some of the younger characters, and then segued into the actors we have now.
Definitely. Or use some aging make up and/or props. With Richard and Martha at least.

reply

Hi again Mrs Al.

In the mini-series Richard comes across as almost mentally slow. He seems totally ineffectual in practically everything and connected so closely to Aliena that he can't do anything without her help. So when he suddenly becomes a great warrior (away from Aliena) it seemed out of character for him. Was this how he was in the book??

As I said somewhere previously, I just finished watching this series and now reading the posts. I felt the same about Richard. He was totally ineffectual and a wimp practically. I didn't realise that he was only 16 either because I think he was miscast for that earlier part. He was looking too old there. For the later years he would have been okay but maybe they didn't want to pay to have two actors play the roles. Anyway, jump a couple of years, and without explanation, Richard is this brave and mysterious knight fighting for King Stephen. That one surely threw me for a loop! I too found it seemed out of character.




This is my signature and I'm sticking to it. lol

reply

We never got to see her exasperation with him over that,
We saw a tiny bit of that in the series following their father's execution in episode 3.

but in the context of that scene, I think it was important to her to make it clear that she was the one doing the trading and that there was no reason why, as a woman, she shouldn't get a fair price.
Indeed! And interestingly in episode 4, there is a little follow up to that scene, when during her conversation with Jack she teasingly called herself the "only and most feared female merchant" (or something like that.) Obviously she has gone a long way from that first trade.

reply

This is one of the changes from the book that probably made sense. In the book Richard is a kid at 13 just started taking lessons, and Alena is prabably only 15 at the start of the book. The series made them a lot older, so that one actor keeps playing them to their 40s late in the series. Jack is also supposed to be a kid at 10, 5 years younger than Alena. Jack was born after his father was hanged. It's ok to change the charctor ages, but facts can not be changed - such as the year the ship sank was 1120, and the year Henry died and Stephne took over was 1235. So I guess they had to make Jack older if he witnessed his father's hanging, which happend at least 2 years after the ship sank (if Ellen saved him and got pregnant right away).

reply


Regan who was a female Baron Harkonnen in the book, looks like a quite attractive lady with some Hollywood Homely makeup. And she kills her husband, wtf? And makes out with her son?

Eek.

Also, WTF is this Stephen behaving like Macbeth and being all paranoid? And Philip tortured for "being a traitor"? Wonder how he'll get out of the noose!

Not starting with the hanging scene, and later changing it to stake just for... dunno... moar DRAMMMMA?

Waleran poisoning the old bishop?

Also, rape scene... not a big deal.




reply

Just more examples of making one person after another worse than they need to be to drive the plot. Stephen was actually a fairly decent king despite the anarchy who reigned for 20 years - you can get lots of opinions depending on whose side the witnesses were on, but mostly he seemed to have been a fairly kind but weak man who had a hard time controlling his barons.

I'm hoping all the unnecessary torture and hangings and poisonings come to an end soon, and we can get back to some kind of human drama.

reply

The bathtub scene with William and his mother made me go "WTF?!"

reply

Every scene with William and his mother has had that effect on me. Not to mention her raccoon eyes.... I can't figure out if they think we won't notice the dark purple and think it isn't makeup, if it's intended to make her look more EEEvil or if it's supposed to be more really strange birthmark.

reply

Nice Dune reference. In ways I see a lot of parallelisms with both stories.

reply

I thought that with the title WTF moments, strictly series related, this thread would truly be about what things didn't work story wise in the series. And as someone who did not read the book therefore can only judge by what the series is delivering, there could be some fair discussions about the plot, acting, and all.

However this is merely another classic "book Vs series" polemic to add to the many other similar threads already on this board. Oh Well!

reply

As far as the thing with Johnny Eightpence, I remember reading in a history book a long time ago that infant abandonments was a normal thing. Most of the children that were actually rescued were raised in monasteries etc. That was one of the big problems with faith back then, many people did not believe in god, even though they were raised in priories etc. They lived there because of the chance of life offered. I always guessed that Tom denies the baby as being his out of shame.Not only that, as Agnes said before, if he stayed at his old job, they would have been safe and secure, especially financially. He had other desires and did not find that work fulfilling. I think even in her death scene, it hurts Tom because if it was not for his desires, none of that would have happened. Someone stated before that what impressed the monks the most about Johnny was that he kept the baby alive by feeding him goats milk with a dipped rag. You have to remember back then the sole food source for an infant was its mothers milk, unless you had animals. If a rich mother had difficulty feeding, she would have wetnurses. For the poor, if they could not have that or get milk, the baby would die. The whole reason I am guessing that Tom keeps in a secret in the series is because of what is supposed to happen in the future with deciphering the parentage of the child. Brother Remigius is gonna be scheming again...

And with Richard and Aliena, they were rich brats.. what did they really know about hard lives. That is why what she is doing with the wool is so amazing to everyone,especially for a woman. Also, I believe the reason they did not kill William was because he is a noble and someone of worth. I imagine they didnt kill him because of the law, just like how Regan explained things to her husband when he wanted to jump the gun and attack Bartholemew. The law was harsh back then.. look what they did to the thief !! He could have been stealing milk for his baby lol.

Also, the thing with Jack, someone said before that his fathers ordeal has taught him not to be trusting with strangers and just like his father died being silent, he can practice that discipline or something like that. I cant remember the exact thing they said.. its along those lines though.

reply

I think my only real wtf moment where there wasnt really a reason for anything, was Maud and her bright blue eyeshadow

reply

I'm also on board with the "WTF" reaction to how little the rape seems to have affected Aliena, as though she'd not experience some dark emotions and inner conflicts after being so brutally violated. Granted, rape was probably far more common than it is today and there was no counseling or resource for women who were assaulted so, but she'd still most likely be dealing with some inner turmoil and not bouncing around like nothing happened. I'm not saying that she should be wailing at the top of her lungs....but c'mon....

El horizonte sin luz/esta mordido de hogueras - Federico Garcia Lorca

reply

>> Maud and her bright blue eyeshadow

Yep! That one was hard to miss. I posted it in the "100 things I learned from TPoT" thread. Girl looked stunning though. The eye shadow certainly matched the outfit.

reply

To me, to see the author himself acting in the role of a merchant, even if briefly (more like one of the extras, actually), in this mini-series was delightful. He came to me as someone who can see the fun in being among those who were working to produce something from his story, even if changes have been made. And I think it gave him an opportunity to have a direct, personal, more than a glimpse observation of how different writing a book is from producing a film version - which is more of a group's collaborative effort - based from his book's storyline.

I think even among authors, well-known or otherwise, there are also differences on how they view their work and the success that some of their books have achieved.



Truth inexorably,inscrutably seeks and reveals Itself into the Light.

reply

@lola, I don't think he considered him an actual threat but some things he dreamed about were coming true and I think he must have felt like he was losing it. So then there is this guy he dreamed about too and he has the power to get rid of him, just to be sure.. why not?

reply

But why the f@ck is Jack in his dream, a supposed prophecy? Near the end of the episodes, they better whip out a subplot where Jack does end up mysteriously causing the downfall of Stephen. And even then that would still be ridiculous. Some fans didn't like the fact that they had the inclusion of Stephen and Maud at all (I liked it; you can't say that the wars and political intrigue were refreshing) but to exaggerate the importance of a stonemason, as gifted and artistic as he may be as one of the main protagonists, is just crappy writing and completely defies belief. They jumped the shark with that one.

reply

Honestly, the solution to all these WTF moments is simple: read the book.

Omnia vincit amor; et nos cedamus amori

reply

A good TV series makes sense without having to read the book. Besides, a lot of the WTFery wasn't in the book!

reply

Yes, I understand that, but the series is not good compared to the book. Seriously, I recommend giving the book a read... I couldn't put it down


Omnia vincit amor; et nos cedamus amori

reply

Yes, I understand that, but the series is not good compared to the book

Except in extraordinary rare circumstances movie adaptations can never be as good as the source novel. You know the drill: i.e. format difference, limitation and all.

On the other end, if you read the book you are MORE likely to find WTF moments to point out in a screen adaptation. It's hard not to compare an adaptation which is (in essence) a modified visual "summary" with the more extensive text based source material. It's a catch 22 really.

Although some of them summaries can be damn good. :)

reply

It's strange, because I usually find that whichever I do first (read the book or watch the movie/series) I prefer. Same with musical covers/originals...whichever one I heard first I typically prefer.
Sometimes, but very very rarely, I equally enjoy both. A good example of that is Mystic River. I love the movie AND the book equally It's nice when that happens.

Omnia vincit amor; et nos cedamus amori

reply

>> A good TV series makes sense without having to read the book.

TPotE series makes sense IMHO. I didn't read the book.

>> Besides, a lot of the WTFery wasn't in the book!

Which I thought was the whole point of this thread. However, comparisons with the books were quick to emerge. Oh well.

It's a good adaptation, and one can keep up with the story even if a newbie. But there are things that could have been worked better.

reply

The reason Tom doesn't claim his infant son as his own is because (Ellen tells him this) he abandoned the child and left him for dead. He'd be charged with that, which I believe was a punishable offense, if he told the truth about what he'd done. As it turned out, he was able to see his son raised and cared for while he built the cathedral.

"For the love of God, stop tanning! You look like a Cheese Nip!"

reply

The most recent wtf moment for me is Martha's inexplicable behavior with Jack's ring. I don't get it. What was the point in hiding it especially with Jack leaving? What would it matter if she had it in her possession or not provided she didn't flash it around to Ellen or someone who would recoginze that she'd stolen it.

reply

The most recent wtf moment for me is Martha's inexplicable behavior with Jack's ring. I don't get it. What was the point in hiding it especially with Jack leaving? What would it matter if she had it in her possession or not provided she didn't flash it around to Ellen or someone who would recoginze that she'd stolen it.

I have not read the book but I am guessing there will be some important developments/revelations with that ring later into the series. And the main purpose of the scene with that nonsense (for now) hiding is to set the chain of events toward that. It may also be the plot way to keep the audience's focus on the ring. Perhaps they think we are too stupid to remember Martha had it, LOL? They certainly seems to think we are too stupid to realize that Martha is not aging at all, as well as other cast members. They have been totally lazy in this series in not showing years progressions on the cast in a better way, either with make-up and/or costumes, or a different set of actors.

reply

I waited till this week to watch this series (Starz On Demand). Here are some WTF for me so far (some perhaps already mentioned, but I did scroll the thread first before posting):

Philip engineering Ellen's escape based on a conversation with Tom that basically, Ellen's okay. I can imagine Philip deciding to help her, but not based on what we saw on the screen.

Tom's response to Philip's insistence that Ellen must accept God--that Ellen will have to make up her own mind. His attitude just seemed so anachronistically post-feminist. In his day and age, I can imagine him throwing up his hands, saying she's hard to control--but not saying that she has an equal choice.

Ellen escaping past Waleran and all the monks ranged against her. I know they're not soldiers, but really--they couldn't stop one woman no matter how shocking her behavior?

Ellen traipsing in and out of town, not always disguised, considering a number of people there think she's a witch and want her executed.



-----------------
"I've always resisted the notion that knowledge ruined paradise." Prof. Xavier

reply

Ellen escaping past Waleran and all the monks ranged against her. I know they're not soldiers, but really--they couldn't stop one woman no matter how shocking her behavior?

I agree there were a lot of WTF moments (and the book had a lot, too) and I don't begin to try to explain any of them away. But I do remember thinking when I was watching the scene where Ellen gets past the monks that monks must never touch women. I guess they actually couldn't grab her?




reply

I agree there were a lot of WTF moments (and the book had a lot, too) and I don't begin to try to explain any of them away. But I do remember thinking when I was watching the scene where Ellen gets past the monks that monks must never touch women. I guess they actually couldn't grab her?
Well, maybe... But Philip hugs Ellen in a later episode (yeah, he's Philip, but still--that suggests monks can touch women).

-----------------
"I've always resisted the notion that knowledge ruined paradise." Prof. Xavier

reply

[deleted]

The biggest Ellen WTF for me was her letting Aliena and her grandson go off to France on their own, it was a dangerous time for anyone travelling. Tom was dead, she had nothing to stay in Kingslanding (OOPS!) for - so why wouldn't she want to go find her son too?

reply