|
|
Post by kygal on Aug 7, 2010 12:05:37 GMT
Enjoyed episode 4 but not near enough Tom Builder for me! Had a little grey in the beard as 4 years has passed. I may have to read the book as I am sure their is much I am missing.
SPOILERS++++++++++++++
You can see in Toms face how difficult it is to be near his young son but not able to be a father to him. So glad Rufus is playing this role! Hate to think Tom may exit in the next episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by reformeddruid on Aug 7, 2010 15:07:13 GMT
If they were following the book he would have been gone already. They seem to be dragging on the first part quite a bit to keep Tom in it, he is every ones favorite character. Yes, if you haven't read the book you are missing a whole lot of the story and it is very worth reading. LOOONG, but worth the read.
|
|
|
|
Post by vmaciv on Aug 7, 2010 16:21:00 GMT
I do agree that the first part of the book is covering more of the movie. I also believe it has to do with Tom Builder as well. It will be interesting to watch them condense the rest of it. I do think next episode could be his last. I will miss the character. I missed the character in the book as well. But I did love reading how Jack rebuilt Tom's cathedral. So I will be looking forward to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Aug 9, 2010 0:10:19 GMT
SPOILERSI was also very sorry at the lack of Tom scenes in episode 4, but the story was fascinating anyway. Which lets me know that I at will be eager to watch it even after Tom is out of the picture. It's a great story. You can see in Toms face how difficult it is to be near his young son but not able to be a father to him. So glad Rufus is playing this role! Rufus was fantastic in those scenes. I wish it wasn't quite so gory. Unlike the sex, they don't leave much to the imagination in the torture scenes, do they? I know those were terrible times, but I don't need to see the flesh sizzling. Why is it that producers are never reluctant to show blood but are loathe to show true human love? Not that I need porn either, but I'd rather see nudity than violence. (That probably doesn't surprise anyone, does it?  )
|
|
|
|
Post by judypatooty on Aug 9, 2010 1:17:22 GMT
All I can say is "Amen Rueful. Amen."  |
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Aug 9, 2010 2:49:22 GMT
All I can say is "Amen Rueful. Amen." *** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ******* amen indeed. expecially since 85% of that gore was NOT in the novel. comparatively, there was much more sex in the novel, and nicely told too. that tells a lot about television policies, does it not? ahem... back to tom... i believe that rufus's best scenes so far in all 4 eps are those with the little brother jonathan, there is so much expression on his face as he goes from "how cute" to "better off without me". heartbreaking stuff, really. and he is GOOD enough not to overdo it either. i love him. boy, he is so good. oh, one more thing: as i wrote to rueful, how did they DARE have MY matthew tortured?  ?? THAT was definitely NOT in the book, and i WON'T have that. who do i write to? |
|
|
|
Post by nell on Aug 9, 2010 6:34:06 GMT
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I agree with you ladies not enough Tom, but that said I'm pleased he's not been killed off yet. I am enjoying the story too even the gorey bits. It would be a bit dull if they just sat around the table having a chat wouldn't it ! Matthew pulled off the torture scene really well and I felt the make-up was pretty good .
Eddie Redmayne continues to impress me with his overall performance too.
Can't wait for next week
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamer on Aug 9, 2010 8:52:18 GMT
All I can say is "Amen Rueful. Amen." *** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ******* amen indeed. expecially since 85% of that gore was NOT in the novel. comparatively, there was much more sex in the novel, and nicely told too. that tells a lot about television policies, does it not? ahem... back to tom... i believe that rufus's best scenes so far in all 4 eps are those with the little brother jonathan, there is so much expression on his face as he goes from "how cute" to "better off without me". heartbreaking stuff, really. and he is GOOD enough not to overdo it either. i love him. boy, he is so good. oh, one more thing: as i wrote to rueful, how did they DARE have MY matthew tortured? ?? THAT was definitely NOT in the book, and i WON'T have that. who do i write to?
I completely agree, Tipou. In the book I remember there were much more love stories than fights and gore. I can't remember tortures either to Philip. Even the politics aspects and the struggles for the throne were less important than the human stories, I think, at least I perceived this mostly. I don't know why they did that and how Ken has allowed it. I've got that the main purpose of the book was showing the opposite view of life and feelings and values, through the building of chatedral, beteween the pure aim of life of the builders and of the prior Philip for the glory of God and the proudness of Aliena and Richard, against the low and selfish interests of the Church (Waleran) and the Hamleigh family. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Aug 9, 2010 11:36:08 GMT
well, ex-ex-dreamer, thatis how i perceived it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Aug 9, 2010 13:04:14 GMT
SPOILERShow did they DARE have MY matthew tortured? ?? THAT was definitely NOT in the book, and i WON'T have that. who do i write to? Torture scenes are so disturbing to me, much more so than the hacking-with-swords battle scenes. The reminder of the worst aspects of human nature and the up-close-and-personal pain of the victim are a horrifying combination. These scenes might be justifiable if they were being shown with the purpose to disturb the audience in that way, but it's usually shown with an intention to excite the audience rather than repel it--to appeal to the same kind of bloodlust it is showing. For a week or so I had been regretting my decision not to read the book first, but now I'm back to being glad. Good thing I'm not this fickle about my taste in men, isn't it?  I still will read it afterward though. I just think I won't be as annoyed by the changes at that point. It would be a bit dull if they just sat around the table having a chat wouldn't it ! Not if they followed our definition of "chat"! I also didn't really like the horror movie cliche of Smurf-blue Jack popping his eyes open at the end. I appreciate cliff hangers, but I like them to be a bit more realistic. I did think it was a good episode though, and I feel a bit guilty complaining. I really like the series, and it's probably unfair to expect 8 perfect hours of television. Shows like this just don't get made anymore, and I'm happy someone saw fit to make the effort. But you're always hardest on the ones you love, aren't you? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by numbat on Aug 9, 2010 16:09:15 GMT
** SPOILERS **
I agree with rueful that it was a good episode. I don't have a problem with gore (now i've watched Spartacus, i'm immune to make believe violence!!!), and although i didn't like Philip being tortured or Jack nearly dying, it will be interesting to see how those situations are resolved in the next episode. Midway through the series, you can see them giving the upperhand to the evil element to get us to tune in and cheer for the good guys next week.
BUT
And i don't like to complain,
BUT
FOUR YEARS in the freaking cave - you have got to be kidding me!!!!!!!!
How the hell would Tom cope with her being in the bloody cave for FOUR YEARS!!!!
And when he goes to tell her that Jack is dead, could he not have been a bit more sympathetic??? "Gods plan"!!! I'm surprised she didn't curse him or turn him into a toad or something!
Honestly, given the closeness between them and the image of Tom as the caring, compassionate, driven man that they've built up in all of his other scenes, i don't understand why that scene wasn't played much more intimately. I'm not blaming Rufus for one second, in fact the amount of compassion he was able to portray from the other side of the room was palpable, but i just don't believe that he wouldn't have held her (and kept his mouth shut about God's plan seeing as he knows that would not help her grief one iota).
Maybe i'm too much inside his head right now, but i don't believe that's how Tom Builder would have handled that situation for one second.
I didn't like that piece of writing at all.
And as you said rueful, Jack waking up in the pile of bodies was just far too predictable.
But um... i still enjoyed the episode - and all of Tom's other scenes, which were much more in keeping with his true nature!!!
And i did particularly like our first real view of the inside of Tom's beautiful cathedral - surely a character in it's own right.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by wichiwoman on Aug 9, 2010 16:41:27 GMT
If they were following the book he would have been gone already. My son just finished the book and made that observation too. If you read the thread GE2 started about the episodes, it appears something will happen to him in epi 5 or 6. rufussewell.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pillars&action=display&thread=1348** SPOILERS **[quote author=reformeddruid board=pillars threadAnd when he goes to tell her that Jack is dead, could he not have been a bit more sympathetic??? "Gods plan"!!! I'm surprised she didn't curse him or turn him into a toad or something! Honestly, given the closeness between them and the image of Tom as the caring, compassionate, driven man that they've built up in all of his other scenes, i don't understand why that scene wasn't played much more intimately. I'm not blaming Rufus for one second, in fact the amount of compassion he was able to portray from the other side of the room was palpable, but i just don't believe that he wouldn't have held her (and kept his mouth shut about God's plan seeing as he knows that would not help her grief one iota). I was thinking the exact same thing, numbat. All the emotion about Jonathan then he doesn't even give her a hug?!? I forgot to ask my son but was Jack's miraculous resurrection in the book? |
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Aug 9, 2010 19:02:41 GMT
SPOILERSAnd when he goes to tell her that Jack is dead, could he not have been a bit more sympathetic??? "Gods plan"!!! I'm surprised she didn't curse him or turn him into a toad or something!.... i just don't believe that he wouldn't have held her (and kept his mouth shut about God's plan seeing as he knows that would not help her grief one iota). That's how you know Natalia Worner is a professional actress--if it was one of us, we would have insisted to the director, using violence if necessary, that Ellen needed to cry on Tom's shoulder for an hour or two. ;D Seriously though, I agree with you Numbat and Wichi. The "God's plan" line didn't surprise me that much, because even now people say that to grieving families, and Tom is a very devout man living in an age where people truly believe that. Plus, he's been known to say clueless man-type things before ("careful, or you'll only have sour milk for the baby"). But I can't believe he wouldn't have said anything additional that was a little more compassionate or tried to comfort her physically. Now for something completely different! I wanted to say a couple of things I liked, since I said it was a good episode and then proceeded to do nothing but complain: --Percy remaining in character, half-witted until the bitter end, even as his wife sticks a spigot big enough to tap a beer keg in his arm. --When Waleran sees the cathedral for the first time. Ian McShane was fabulous in that whole scene. --The scene where Waleran and the Hamleighs try to worm their way out of trouble with Maud. --Even though I'm not crazy about the blood and guts, I do appreciate how they are so detailed about life back then. For example, how many times have we heard about a castle being under siege, but not thought about the implications for the people inside--starvation and disposing of the bodies, etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by kygal on Aug 9, 2010 19:55:09 GMT
I can see Tom saying what he did. I do think...or like to believe... he was moving in to hold her just before the scene switched. May have just been the camera moving though. Did think the inside of the cathedral was beautiful. Its certainly keeping my interest!
|
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Aug 10, 2010 21:36:40 GMT
Recap/review of episode 4, which has spoilers in it. armchairanglophile.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/pillars-of-the-earth-battlefield/The reviewer had much less fondness for this episode than the previous three. Her summary was: She doesn't seem to realize the true problem, once again a shocking lack of naked masons. It just drags down everything. ;D Just kidding. As I mentioned earlier, I enjoyed the episode, just not as much as the others. |
|
)
?? THAT was definitely NOT in the book, and i WON'T have that. who do i write to?
I still will read it afterward though. I just think I won't be as annoyed by the changes at that point.