Why couldn't they base a series on Maurice Druon's "The Accursed Kings" series or on Bernard Cornwell 13th century novels? Why this anti-historical mess?
shareYeah, it's a mess (not the Grail? - again!?) but I'm going to give it a little more time.
shareThe first episode was not good. I hate the Grail storyline. Why not just make this about the Templars. When I heard the name Parsifal and the word Grail I said ... oh come on!
The acting was not good. I suppose they are trying to make this historically inspired fiction like Vikings, but most of the actors on Vikings are pretty damn good.
no comparison. i was amazed, given the general schlockiness of the history channel, at the quality of the viking series, from beginning till now. it hasn't flagged a bit.
shareI am 12 minutes in, Mr. Über-Templar just fought the fucking king of France in a hallway in a "friendly" sparring, with life blades and a lot of dangerous moves... it can't get much worse at that point.
Be that as it may, this show is a stillborn from my point of view.
I'm four episodes in, and I don't think it that bad. I understand why some wouldn't, though. I do like the actor that plays Landry. Reminds me of Scott Adkins. The show I watched before this was the first four seasons of Vikings. Great show, but none of the characters were likable. Saw it as being objective though the lens history/a little fiction.
I guess I enjoy this show because I'm a history person. Like Vikings, this show has prompted me to further look into the history of the Knight Templars, which I find pretty fascination.