MovieChat Forums > World Without End (2012) Discussion > good show until the ending

good show until the ending

posted 11 years ago by Zikten
4 replies | jump to latest

I don't know if I would say it had quite as epic a feel as Pillars did. But it was enjoyable. Until the final battle. When the battle started I had 5 people I wanted to see die. Godwin, his mom, that one thug who was his secret brother (the guy shot by the kid) and the king and queen. When the king's father gave up his life, I was so pissed off. wtf. he admired kingsbridge and felt they were his family. so why does he just give up and let their murderer win? the goal was to kill that guy. and the king won. I didn't want him to win. I wish that little boy shot a 2nd arrow through the king's neck and the peasants broke through the soldier's lines and slaughtered the queen. then it would be a proper ending. the ending text says he was a good king for 50 more years. well maybe in real life. but in this story (kingsbridge isn't real so obviously this didn't happen) he was a bastard who was willing to murder his own subjects just to kill a guy who didn't even want to be king. I'm kinda pissed off at the author for writing such a piece of **** ending

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lantzn 11 years ago

You do realize that it was the king's mother who twisted her son's thinking against his father with all her lies. She was no different then the other evil mother who manipulated her two sons in Kings-bridge.
That's why the king was shocked to see his father give up his life so his son could continue to reign. Remember his father's comment, two kings, and only one crown. The father did not want to rule and knew he could no longer keep his secret.
His son realized this at the end and you could see it in his face when he looked at his mother after the battle.

[–] sinclair26 11 years ago

I agree.

[–] Kawada_Kira (7269) 6 years ago

I actually enjoyed it right up through the end, but there is one thing that bugs me. Why couldn't the old king just formally abdicate and still live? Aren't there cases of that in medieval history? I didn't get this thing where Edward III supposedly couldn't be a legitimate king JUST because Edward II was still alive. That doesn't make sense to me. If he just wanted to retire anyway then what's the difference?