MovieChat Forums > The Pillars of the Earth (2010) Discussion > Dumbing it down...

Dumbing it down...

posted 12 years ago by tufrix5858
2 replies | jump to latest

What I just can't understand is why the writers felt they needed to exaggerate to the point of caricature almost every single aspect of this story.

Some examples of what irked me the most:

Regan & William:

Were these characters not monstruous and hideous enough? Why add a creepy incestous relation, which contributed nothing to the story, and instead turned the characters into absolute ridicule? It got so over the top that each time I heard the "what would you do to her?" dialogue I couldn't help laughing. AND they couldn't even let Percy and Regan die of natural causes either? Come on...

Ellen's curse:

I think it would've been pleasantly subtle and ambiguous if Ellen's 'witchcraft' had more to do with her self-confidence and strength as a woman, and thus ability to manipulate superstitious sexist men. Instead, she predicted, or determined, the fate of Waleran, Prior James, Percy & William to a tee. How did she have these supernatural powers and nobody else? And more importantly, why did she not use them in other ways? I mean, am I crazy or was this supposed to be a realistic historical epic? Having magic in there just ruins it.

Waleran:

Again, another character that was more than devious, conniving and treacherous. Spitting in Phillip's face when he's absolving him from his crimes, right before dying? WTF? On top of that they even showed him killing the crown prince himself. At some point, I just couldn't buy it anymore. I'm almost surprised they didn't have him raiding and burning Kingsbridge side by side with William too.

I could go on, but I think that makes my point.

Thoughts, comments?

[–] SnapCrackledThePop 12 years ago

They think it makes for better tv? I was annoyed Wayrlen didn't die in the book do it was nice seeing him fall. Annoyed spittting in Philips face though!

I don't know why they added the incest to the relationship. They made William seem more of a Mama's boy then being evil on his own. Also Ragan wasn't nearly as "disgusting" as she was supposed to be. She just looked like she had a birthmark on her face.

[–] VaticanAssassinWarlock 10 years ago

I haven't read the book. I agree that many of the things you have highlighted seemed over the top, and I was also a little annoyed by the wishy washy use of witchcraft in the film. However I do think Waleran spitting in Philip's face was completely consistent with his character (which, aside from some vague motives, I really liked). He was a man who was willing to take things to the extreme, to perform absolute evils yet remain devoted in his beliefs about his own piety. This was a man willing to risk hell to form the heavens, a killer of kings and builder of nations. After everything he'd done, to have a pathetic pawn like Philip dare to offer him absolution, of course he would spit in his face. Whether, in his eyes, Philip was simply working at an insignificant level of godliness to himself, or whether he had come to accept his own damnation and there was nothing to be done at this stage, it seemed fully in character for this man of extremes to reject so moderate an action as that which Philip was trying to perform.