If a programme states clearly it's based on the state of play in 1680, that's what I expect LOL If they wanted to run this story line, but all means, but they should have done it in a fictional setting, not off the back of 'history', which is just lazy.
And if they'd stuck to keeping it accurate, they would have just had a different story, not a boring one. Actually, they'd have had a far better one. It's one of the most eventful periods of history...what actually happened in the Stuart reign was far more entertaining as stories than many writers can come up with....and this proved it LOL Ironically, if they'd have stuck to accurate events/personalities in history, they'd have had a far more exciting and interesting plot.
Some examples of the historical mistakes/falsities (not wanting to be boring here! That's why I didn't list any, didn't want to get too nerdy LOL So won't go on too much and will keep the points brief)....
...Charles supposedly mercilessly hunting down people responsible for the death of his father decades after the event, when actually only a few of the regicides were executed and he very deliberately had the others sentences lessened to life imprisonment for the sake of keeping the peace, and either way, pretty much all apart from (I think) a couple were dealt with one way or another within a few years of him regaining the throne...
...this suggestion that he's fanatically persecuting Catholics when some believe he might actually have been a secret Catholic and he had Catholic family. (Yes, there were others at the time who were paranoid of Catholics though, but Charles' main worry was making sure the paranoia didn't split the kingdom again rather than picking a fight with them, afterall, he'd already lost a lot in civil war)....
...the mistreatment of Blood, when Charles actually met him and liked him so much for being daring that he pardoned him and gave him land....
...unfair treatment of people to get materials and money for London when London had been pretty much rebuilt almost a decade before this is set....
...A Roman Catholic husband being perfectly happy with his wife and children behaving in a way so at odds with the time it would have been seen as witchcraft by many back then....
...unless I've misunderstood, (which is very possible), they've got a Catholic household entertaining Monmouth as a future contender as heir to the throne, but Monmouth was Protestant and actually the protestants hope to put on the throne instead of James, the Catholic heir (who a Catholic household would have supported). This is pretty fundamental if your plot is heavily based on religion LOL
Sorry, I know that is a very simplified version of history and not the whole picture, but didn't want to go on too much! LOL
@cinesimonj sorry, just to be clear, when I say 'writers' plural, I don't mean writers as a whole, I specifically mean whoever wrote New Worlds, because I wasn't sure if there was more than one person responsible for drafting up the story outline and the script. Writers (plural as in all writers everywhere!) can make fantastic historical dramas. This just wasn't one of them.
*EDIT* @cinesimonj - I've edited the main thread name so it seems less negative to all writers...you're right, I chose my wording badly! Now edited to only be a slight against the writers of this and not all writers everywhere ;) Apologies to any writer who may have been offended....please don't write a horrible death scene about me..... ;)
~ I hardly looked at his face. His knees were what I wished to see. ~
reply
share
BritAfrica
10 years ago
Totally agree with you!!
This is truly truly bad...!! I was really looking forward to it with such anticipation but so disappointed. Nothing at all like 'The Devil's Whore' which was actually rather good and references to it just p***ed me off!!
Can't watch ep2. The show is dead to me. Really surprised Channel 4 can get it so wrong. I had them up there with HBO on original programming but hey ho....
THIS IS A JEREMY RENNER BOARD - BritAfrica
reply
share