1066 Middle Earth

[Steve27752]

Well, did anyone else watch 1066 Middle Earth? It`s been on for the last two nights on channel 4?
I thought it was a brilliant interpretation of what happened in 1066. And I must say that I liked the costumes and the leather work.

 

[launditch1]

I watched both episodes.Brilliant stuff,and i agree the costumes and leatherwork looked really good.

Their rubber axes were funny too
I see you can get the dvd of it...

 

[Mesquite]

I watched it also and really enjoyed it. You could see that a lot of work had gone into getting the right look of the costumes, and leatherwork

Interesting fact at the end of it that the decendants of the 190 Norman knights who were given 25% of England as a reward by William still own almost 20% still.

 

[East Coaster]

I watched also.

Romanticised rubbish in my opinion.

 

[malcolmc]

Only seen the first part so far. Good to hear archers being given the command ‘loose’ rather than fire (at long last real expert advice for a TV programme).

 

[firecrest]

It was filmed in the dark ages village where we had the viking meet up

 

[Mikey P]

I thought it was very good but I'm afraid I'm not enough of a spotter to be able comment upon whether the clothing and weapons were authentic.

 

[Lurch]

Knickers. Meant to watch this.
Have to look at 4OD

 

[Wayland]

Difficult to depict epic history with a cast of tens but I was pleased that they mostly stuck to the known history, something Hollyweird has trouble with.

The attempt to shoehorn Tolkien's Middle Earth, through language, onto events that needed no embellishment was spurious and a bit irritating though.

A lot of the supplementary cast were re-enactors so that kept the kit reasonably accurate. The costume department had made a few odd decisions for principle actors though.

The principle women's costume was a joke as were the swinging Welshmen.

 

[Toddy]

I've been wardrobe mistress for two films now, and I have to say often we don't get a choice in the costume. Unless costume is specifically made for the characters it's generally a director or production manager's (budget) call, all we get to say is how to mitigate the worst of it Some of the stuff the hire companies have in stock is just appallingly bad. I have genuinely dressed folks in the hand knitted spray painted grey wool chainmail
At least with re-enactor's in the film some of the kit is right.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Dynamite_1303]

Don't ask an archaeologist what he thinks of it ... it's not polite. I realise that the numbers at Hastings have been exagerated, but I never realized it was actually fought by two dozen men and a dog named Barney (in the edited version of course). The woods were pretty though!

It's surprising how much wool chainmail still makes it into movies - I think my ultimate scene has to be in Robin and Marion where Sean Connery and Robert Shaw knacker themselves out in about three and ahlaf minutes because they're wearing the real stuff and slogging bloody great swords. Now Robin Hood ... there was a bushman, green tights and all!

 

[Tadpole]

I watched the first part, right up to the point the Danes were, running about killing people and saying “we’re here to trade,” We’re learning to trade” And other such nonsense.

 

[Tengu]

It sounds dumb

 

[bushwacker bob]

Difficult to depict epic history with a cast of tens but I was pleased that they mostly stuck to the known history, something Hollyweird has trouble with.

The attempt to shoehorn Tolkien's Middle Earth, through language, onto events that needed no embellishment was spurious and a bit irritating though.

A lot of the supplementary cast were re-enactors so that kept the kit reasonably accurate. The costume department had made a few odd decisions for principle actors though.

The principle women's costume was a joke as were the swinging Welshmen.

Your just upset 'cos the Vikings had their ar*es kicked at Stamford bridge

 

[Brown Bear]

It was a good history lesson, but the low budget acting and production made me wince a bit. And why did every one have such lovely white teeth in 1066?

 

[durulz]

I thought it was enjoyable enough. As enjoyable as films like 'Braveheart'; that is, it's a good 'watcher' but hardly history.
The armour and costumes were so-so (the main saxon character wore a copy of the Coppergate helmet which, stylistically, was a couple of centuries out of date). And he wore a rather short skirt. Almost camp.
As a piece of history it perpetuated a few myths. The idea that the men who fought at Stamford Bridge were the same as those at Hastings, and that the march there and back was on foot is so discredited now that no one believes it. Yes, Harold's huscarls (bodyguards) would have been present at both, but they would have done the journey on horseback. The saxon fyrd would have been raised lcoally for both battles.
But I don't mind all that. I wasn't watching it for a history lesson, but for a good bit of drama. Which it also fell slightly short of. I thought the script was a bit empty - no characterisation or development. Not sure about the acting. Maybe the actors weren't given enough acting to do to let them shine. The relationship between the newlyweds was particularly unconvincing - there was no closeness or sparkle between the two actors at all.
It was an OK prgramme. I certainly wouldn't buy it, and doubt I'd watch it again unless I'd forgotten how average it was.
I agree with Wayland - the 'middle earth' reference seemed tacked on as a cheap cashing-in excercise. Yes, the PAGAN saxons referred to the material world as 'middle earth' (Tolkien was a saxon scholar and it's where he took the name), but that terminology hadn't been used for centuries and would have been seen as pagan and out of date.
I had the impression the producers kept hearing the word 'saxon' and confused everything from a 500 year span of history as being anachronistic.

 

[Draven]

I thought it was pretty great m'self. I watched it on 4OD earlier this morning, having missed the first part on TV.

Ultimately I think it was supposed to do a couple things; give people a general idea of what happened, and be entertaining at the same time. The Tolkien references don't bother me in the slightest, the more people who see it the better in my opinion. Fulford, Stamford and Hastings never came up in High School or Primary school when I attended, and I knew nothing of them until I got interested in Nordic and Anglo-Saxon culture and history, after leaving school. It was an important time period in the history of England and of course all of Britain. People should know about it, and they can be drawn in by Orcs, Middle Earth or candy canes for all I care

Really, I don't see why people look for 100% historical accuracy in TV or movies. Partially, because we don't know what is 100% historically accurate, for this event and for many others - as has been said many times before, history is written by the victor, and victors will often minimise their faults and magnify the opponents', or outrightly lie. And partially, because to include all the little details that Historians are interested in, it wouldn't be a docudrama, it would be a documentary, which wouldn't get the same ratings. I tend to think it's just an excuse to nitpick.

I did like very much that the main Viking shown through the show/movie used an axe, rather than a sword, though. The only complaint I really have is that I must have missed a rather crucial plot point, since I can't figure out why he decided to fight with the Angles. I was carving a comb at the time, though - it unfortunately broke in half!

Pete

 

[bushwacker bob]

Sums it up nicely Pete.

 

[addo]

Watching it now. Enjoying it to be honest.

 

[jimford]

Did anyone find the narration irritating, or is it just me?

It was by Ian Holm and he often spoke so softly that I couldn't hear all he said over the music and sound effects.

I also have problems with Gryf Rees-Jones. He has the habit of lowering his voice at the end of a sentence so the last couple of words I find virtually inaudible. I've given up watching his programmes because of it.

Jim