The Tudors vs. The Other Boleyn Girl

◄ Back home: <a href="/" target="_self">The Tudors Fan Wiki</a>

See also: The Tudors Episode Guide | The Tudors Depictions Throughout History | The Tudors Photos | The Tudors Historical Inaccuracies and Mysteries | The Tudors Characters

Calling all Tudors superfans! Click EasyEdit above to compare and contrast The Other Boleyn Girl to the Showtime Original Series The Tudors. (Don't see the EasyEdit button above? Sign in or <a href="/accountnew" target="_self">sign up</a>.)

Are you a Tudors fanatic that has seen The Other Boleyn Girl, the movie based on Phillipa Gregory's book? Which portrayal of King Henry VIII do you fancy? Which characterization of Anne Boleyn is more believable? Use this page to compare and contrast the two versions of the historic drama. Please Add your comments to the bottom of the table using the format provided - thanks! Warning ***SPOILERS BELOW***

REVIEWER Username: Tzakaria1 Movie or Series?: Series	PLOT/CHARACTER ELEMENTS The characters on the show are much more captivating and believable.	HOW THE MOVIE PORTRAYS IT I think the movie did a horrible job portraying what really happened in history. I think the cast of the movie was well picked but the overline story was wrong. Who said Henry raped Anne Boleyn? Never did I read that in any books that I have read. and Mary Boleyn's first child was a daughter not a son that was rumored to be Henry's child the son came second , so that was historically incorrect. & although Anne Boleyn was a high political figure she did in deed love Henry if she didn't she wouldn't have fits of rage when she found out he would have mistress'. In the movie you couldnt see the love and passion grow between the two like most historians stated.	HOW SHOWTIME PORTRAYS IT In the show Natalie Dormer does an amazing job as Anne Boleyn she captures the essence of Anne Boleyn being strong willed and weak at the same time. I was captivated by her. King Henry became ruthless when he was married to Jane Seymour because of the uprising rebellion. He wasn't necessarily ruthless before that. The most angry man can still fall helplessly in love. So stating that is quite ridiculous. If you read his letters that were written to Anne Boleyn you could see the passion just in that of its self.
User name: QueenElizabethAnne Movie or series?:		In the end, I came away liking and feeling sorry for Anne Boleyn. Yes, even though they tried to make her so hateful. I came away, not liking or respecting Mary Boleyn at all. They tried to portay her as a sweetheart compared to Anne. I had mixed emotions about Henry Vlll. I hated Thomas Boleyn and Thomas Howard. I came away, feeling sorry for and admiring Catherine of Aragon.	-Still felt the same way about Anne Boleyn, Mary Boleyn. Henry Vlll. l still despised Thomas Boleyn and Thomas Howard. I had no admiration or respect for Catherine of Aragon. I felt she was stubborn and foolish.
User name : Angeldove57657 movie or series?: Movie	I love both, don't get me wrong. I watch the Tudors every chance I get. I think the movie portrays both Henry and Anne better	I believe the movie was more historically correct. -Henry was more ruthless and concerned about only himself and the country not quite so easily swayed by women and it showed him a little less compassionate and i have to believe that someone who could have and destroy six wives would have to have that character. -Anne also appeared more in control. historically speaking back then women did not or rather were not allowed to let their emotions get the best of them. this Anne was doing it for power.	the series is more for the romantic in us all Henry would not be so willing to please a women unless it was for his own gain. i think the series portrays the king weaker and easily thrown into fits of emotion. and Anne although she may have eventually falling for Henry could not have been so smitten with him to start. and as for her fear about losing his love, i think her fear in life was more for his favor and her own life i also wish they had gone more in depth about Mary's role in all this she was a big part of Henry and Anne's life
User name : MsSquirrly Movie or Series? : Series (100%)	The plot of the movie is complete fiction so if fiction is what you want to see then go ahead and see it. The characters were weak with the exception of Elizabeth Howard (Anne's mother) & she was wasted in the movie. (pity she isn't in the series). The series is so much better for plot & character even if there is some dramatic license taken. Jonathan Rhys Meyers won me over despite my original feeling that he was wrong for the part because he physically doesn't resemble the Holbein portraits of Henry. My hat is off to him for his portrayal by sheer presence on the screen. There's a great article here: <a class="external" href="http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/anne-boleyn-and-the-other-boleyn-girl/6685/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Anne Boleyn Files">Anne Boleyn Files </a> which says it better than me	The movie is a total perversion of the historical facts. - Mary Boleyn was not a sweet little virgin on her wedding night and in fact married AFTER her affairs with both the King of France & Henry VIII. - Anne was not married to Henry Percy & there is zero evidence that she consummated a relationship with him. - Mary was not close to her sister Anne and did not intercede with Henry to save her life. - As for the idea that Anne hid a miscarriage & planned to get pregnant by her brother, I just find it abhorrent that this kind of absolute fiction is believed by the masses of novel readers as fact. And those facts I mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg. The movie is so inaccurate, I would never EVER recommend Tudor lovers see it.	The series may have its inaccuracies but in comparison to the Movie, they are minor. The series creators have tried to bring a new audience to the Tudors and I think they have succeeded. They have a great cast of young actors who have brought a new vitality the otherwise stuffy old masterpiece versions. The Writer has layered the storyline & despite knowing the history has made me look forward to his embellishments.
User name: rebbrit Movie or series?: Movie and Series	King Henry was better in the series. Anne Boleyn was better in the movie.	King Henry seemed weak and foolish in the movie. Yes, I do agree with the fact Anne did tricked him into marrying him and made her queen. But, he was a strong king, foolish but quick to come to sense. Anne was better in the movie because she was a powerful figure that knew what to do to get her way. She was not forced into loving Henry but, rather she want to show her family she was not weak.	King Henry is beautiful done in the series. In the series, he is foolish to fall for Anne, but strong through out the whole ordeal. He falls for her tricks, yes. Yet, he was able to run a country while being a fool. Anne, I believe in life was not forced to put herself in front of the king. It seems she want to show her family who they were screwing over. She was the powerful figure in her time.
User name: <a href="/account/sullikan+" target="_self">sullikan </a> Movie or series?: Neither, Books	I love Katherine in the series and better in the movie, very strong, sticks to her beliefs. Anne is stronger in the series, as I believe she was in real life. Mary is non-existent in the series Henry is very likable in the series and I believe he would not have been so likable in real life	The movie was good in the fact that it portrayed Anne's father and uncle as willing to prostitute their daughters for the advancement of the family. I disliked how quickly they passed over the time of their "courting" phase, that lasted something like 8 years and it happened in 8 minutes. I also disliked how it portrayed the Boleyn siblings relationships. Anne helped Mary keep Henry's interests. George helped both girls keep Henry's interests The movie skipped over the whole fact that Mary gave him a son and daughter. I was really angry after I left the movie!	The series does a really nice job. It is beautiful. All the actors are gorgeous. But it really screws up the history. Wolsey did not kill himself. Henry's sister married, I believe a french king and he died of natural causes. Henry's son through Bessie Blount died at 17, not as a small child. Where is Mary in the series? She has two children by Henry,one who becomes a lady-in-waiting to Anne?
User name: Boudica Movie or series?: SERIES!!!!	In terms of historical purity - both are guilty of taking many liberties with facts for the sake of story line. But I find the Series less annoying with the inaccuracies than the movie. In the movie, I did enjoy Ana Torrent as Katherine of Argon, a great performance! Princess Mary, Thomas More, Cardinal Wolsey, were nowhere to be found, however.	The movie left out major players in the Tudor court and minimized the role of others, such as Cranmer and the four other men who were executed for adultery with Anne the queen weren't even there, which reduces the story to being all about the Boleyn's. Plus, the movie only perpetuated rumours that Henry fathered one or possibly more of Mary's children (there's little evidence to support this, sorry Sullikan) and that Anne was always a manipulative gold digger. Plus, Mar never goes to France, where she beds Francis I, who is known for calling her "my English Mare". And Mary raises Elizabeth! WTF? The movie seeks to rewrite history rather than to simply retell it from another woman's perspective.	All the major players are represented and most are given the time their historical counterparts would have had in the show. Compared to More, Wolsey or Cranmer, Mary played a very small role in the king's "Great Matter" so it doesn't bother me that she isn't in the series as much as others would like. Mary is not around much because, quite frankly, it's not known how long Mary and Henry were together, but Mary's role should come up later in season 2, since the reason for the annulment in 1536 was Henry's prior relations to Anne's sister. We shall see :) Also, Nick Dunning is a far better Thomas Boleyn than Mark Rylance (horrible!).
User name: megatza Movie or series?: series!	The acting in the series is far better than in the movie. Of course, the historical liberties in both are relatively drastic. Historical accuracy bothered me more in the movie than in the series, for some reason. And Natalie Dormer is a far better Anne Boleyn than Natalie Portman (though she is also quite good).	The length of the affair between Henry and Mary is portrayed longer than is historically believable. Most historians agree that Mary could not have given Henry a son, especially one who wasn't recognized as a bastard. Rightly, the movie portrays the downfall of Anne as her fall into insanity, based around her failure to produce a male heir. The Boleyn/Howard drive to power is portrayed well: the men are certainly overpowering and willing to do anything. Anne lives up to her name as a Howard girl. But the movie is awkward, and fills in gaps with only more awkwardness. The sex scenes are terrible and completely unbelievable. The movie simply makes too many plot jumps. The religious aspects are far too understated. It mentions, as an end note, that a new church came out of this, but that's essentially all. Kind of important, since that's the church of England.... I will admit, i loved the execution scene. The best part of the movie was Henry's hats.	While the portrayal of Henry as a far younger man is a little bit troubling (he was older when he started courting Anne), his youth makes the series far more believable. I love the politics of Tudor England, and while liberties were taken with world events at the time (popes, kings, etc), it's important to remember that while England was an island, it was remarkably influenced by world affairs. The series portrays Henry as an astute king, trying to make his power known across the world (though ultimately he did it for reasons other than his desires to win battles.) The religious history is spot on (that's my field of study), and i appreciate the acknowledgement of the role religion played in the lives of the characters. Natalie Dormer and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers have great chemistry (where, I'm sorry, Eric Bana and Natalie Portman do not). The series costumes, while dated a little bit later than Henry's actual time (and a bit further south in Europe) are phenomenal and far more attractive than the movie.
User name:lettice Movie or series?: Series	I think the series is better than the movie. The movie with it's 2 hour limit only covers a narrow aspect which revolves around Henry and the Boleyn sisters. The series is more in depth' however, both are historically inaccurate. The	The movie has Anne as more calculating than in the series. Henry is more easily swayed and doesn't seem to think on his own, Mary is portrayed as an innocent victim who is betrayed by both Henry and Anne.	Mary is barely in the series. Her scenes focus around sexual acts, so you don't get to know her beyond the bed chamber. Anne is more humane and has a tender side. Natalie Dormer's portrayal of Anne Boleyn shows more aspects of her character, JRM is by far a better and more believable Henry .
User name: Celticstorme Movie or series?: Both, but books are far much better.	While i love JRM, when i think of Henry i see more of Eric Bana, as the burly sort. I think people have to remember that TOBG is just what is says it's about.. The girls. Not the whole sphere of the Tudors. So, honestly i don't think they should be judges together.	One has to remember they only have so much time in a movie. Sure, big pieces were taken out of the movie.	Again, i don't think i want to weigh the movie and the series against each other. Preferably i like both of them for what they are. I do like JRM but, i still think Bana was better as the burly man that we all see in the portraits. However, i happen to love the show... the scenery and the costumes.
User name: nicole567 Movie or series?: series tho I read the other Boleyn book too.....	Anne Boleyn in the movie is played by; Natalie Portman and the series is played by; Natalie Dormer. JRM plays a better in series tho..	In the movie it's like two and a half hours.that must mean that a lot of stuff is cut out!!!!	in the series there are only like 10 shows and that bores me cause probably like in the 7 or 8 show Anne goes to the TOWER of London...
User name: EpicScreams Movie or series?: Series	Of course both had their historical inaccuracies. As pleasing as JRM is to the eye, for the time frame the movie and series are set in Bana was a better Henry. Also, Katharine in the movie, surprise, looks like a stereotypical Spaniard with black hair, etc.	Henry is portrayed as almost weak, which is very disappointing. Mary, who the movie is mainly supposed to be about, ends up a secondary character to Anne. The movie is very jumpy, and while I understand they have a limited amount of time, they could've found a better way to handle it.	Looks aside, Henry is more accurate. He's right blind when it comes to Anne and is very vain with a mercurial temper. I haven't minded most of the historical changes (nothing's perfect), but one of the changes they did to Brandon caused the elimination of Lady Jane Grey from history.
User name: liztudor Movie or series?: series for sure	I personally think that Natalie Dormer plays the perfect Anne! she was feisty and passionate, so many people write her off as being this ugly plotting witch..i love Anne she is an aspiring women WAY ahead of her time and i honestly think in the years she did love Henry which n.d. shows SO well! Natalie Portman gave Anne a dry boring aspect and scarlet Johannson poor girl..that part was not for her. And as far as J.r.m playing Henry SO what if he doesn't have red hair and isn't bulky he is intense and when he speaks people listen! no one could play the part better..but Eric Bana did a good job in the movie.	The movie moved to fast and jumped back and forth never really explaining what was really going on...like the book it was made after did perfectly well. I also didn't like the fact that Henry only seems intrigued with Anne..not obsessed and crazy in love with her like he really was to do the things he did..and also the fact that he took advantage of her before they even got married!!! I'm sorry but they did a HORRIBLE job on that one scene and ruined the entire movie..now it will be interesting to see how Natalie dormer pulls of the execution scene( which i will hate to see her the show she is amazing!!) because Natalie Portman at least did that part very well.	Now in show time Henry is portrayed as the handsome strong fierce man that he was. he may not be portrayed as looking the same but he shows the passion Henry had for Anne..the love for his country and also the power that a king should have!!! Natalie..though she has gorgeous blue eyes does an amazing job as Anne..showing passion and determination which you would of had to of had back then. As far as historical accuracies NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED! what we know is what they wanted us to know and think about how they lived and thought..so who cares if its not as a history book says! they lived...they loved..they died thats all we REALLY know for a fact.
User name: Courterz Movie or series?: movie book & series	I loved the movie book & series. the historical inaccuracies in all three confused me but i thoroughly enjoyed all three portrayals. the movie was very emotional leaving me in tears after Anne and George Boleyn's executions haha. Celticstorme you really captured my thoughts in that TOBG and the Tudors cant really be judged together as they are entirely different. when reading the book all i could visage was Eric Bana's portrayal of Henry he did an awesome job!	I think Natalie Portman did a fantastic job especially in the execution scene i just love her i think she is a fantastic actress although it made me hate Anne Boleyn. Eric Bana to my surprise also did a great job he was very good at portraying an angry Henry. i also loved Scarlett Johannsen it made me feel sorry for Mary Boleyn it would be good if she featured more in the Tudors series. the movie and book portrayed the Boleyn family in a very negative light and i can see how people back in that time would have hated Anne because Natalie did so well in making her a right old *****!	I am addicted to the series I think it's fantastic. Natalie dormer is just gorgeous but I don't think she captures Anne's evil side quite as well as Natalie Portman did. Jonathan Rhys Meyers does a stunning job as Henry capturing both his soft and angry sides. i think the costumes and locations of the series are much better than that of the movie as they are more appealing, i found the movie quite dark and depressing at times. i also like Charles Brandon in the series he is hot! i cant wait for season two to air here in Australia to see just how dormer portrays the downfall of Anne.
User name: SemperEadem Movie or series?: Series	Both the movie and the series take huge liberties with the historical accuracy, but The Tudors is far better than The Other Boleyn Girl.	The greatest achievement of the movie was its costuming; I was especially impressed to see that they took care to know which people would be wearing French hoods or Spanish hoods, as that was a sign of allegiance to either Anne or Catherine of Aragon. I was disappointed with Bana's Henry; he's played a noble character for too long to get down the spoiled attitude of Henry. Natalie Portman, I thought, was good as Anne; she had the right fire. I disliked that they had Anne worried about being killed before Catherine as dead; I think Anne knew she was safe as long as she was alive. And was Henry supposed to have raped her? If so, that was what REALLY annoyed me. I know there was time issues, but so much could have been made of the 8 year of courtship between Anne and Henry.	The series has its historical problems, but that they dive into the RELIGIOUS turmoil thrills me, since this is the focus of my own Tudor studies. Having written countless papers, I enjoy watching Anne's interest in religious matters in the show. I wish Mary would be shown a little more, but that will hopefully change once Elizabeth is born (after all, this is where Mary is called back to court to serve her baby sister...that can only lead to bad feelings later). Jonathan Rhys Meyers is FANTASTIC as Henry; sure, he may not look as much like him (not exactly a "golden" prince), by by golly, he's got his character down solid. I loved that little tantrum after Luther refuted him, and I loved his paranoia in the plague episode.
User name: miller-pvkk Movie or series?: Series - there is no contest!	The Other Boleyn Girl is great historical fiction, but there are so many inaccuracies. If Anne Boleyn were still alive, she could probably sue, despite being a public figure. Gregory portrays Anne as so vicious (as does the movie) that a good lawyer could argue malicious intent. In The Tudors, Anne is not a saint, but she is certainly not portrayed as an incestuous, evil witch. The approach to Anne in The Tudors is much more accurate and even-handed, even sympathetic. In the following columns, I point out specific differences between The Other Boleyn Girl and The Tudors. As the series continues, I will add additional comparisons and contrasts. One general difference between the two is that I do not consider the movie to be particularly well written or well directed, while I think The Tudors is an outstanding show in nearly every respect. It is also much more accurate than the movie (and the book), although there are some inaccuracies. Although I despise the way Gregory portrays Anne in The Other Boleyn Girl, the book is well written, and the movie simply does not do the book justice.	1) In the movie (and the book), Mary Boleyn is a saintly woman compared to her evil, twisted sister Anne. In fact, Mary had a reputation for sleeping with several men, and there is no historical proof that her moral character was superior to Anne's. 2) In the movie, Henry initially seeks out Anne to be his mistress, but then turns to Mary after Anne offends him during a hunting incident. In fact, Mary became Henry's mistress long before he considered Anne for the post. 3) Henry Percy is a character in the movie, but the movie shows Anne and Percy falling in love before Anne goes to France. In fact, Anne's relationship with Percy occurred after she returned from France. It was actually an honor for her to be sent to France, not a punishment. Also, the movie shows Anne and Percy actually marrying. While some historians believe Anne and Percy were betrothed, and Henry VIII used this later to void his marriage to Anne, there is no evidence that Anne and Percy went through a wedding ceremony. 4) In the movie, Mary does not go to France with Anne. When Anne is sent to France, Mary is already a married woman at that point and has caught the eye of Henry VIII. In fact, Mary spent a considerable amount of time in France, and was the mistress of Francis I during her stay there. This major historical fact is never mentioned in the movie! It was later that Mary became Henry VIII's mistress and also married her first husband. 5) In the movie, Henry VIII savagely rapes Anne in a rather gruesome scene. As vicious as Henry could be, this scene is simply not realistic. Henry was far too romantic to carry out such an ugly rape scene.	1) The series accurately portrays Mary Boleyn as the mistress of both Francis I and Henry VIII. The series also depicts Mary as a well-meaning person, but also somewhat flighty and just a little too fun-loving for her own good. This is generally how she has been depicted by various historians. 2) The series accurately shows that Mary was Henry VIII's mistress well before her sister Anne caught his eye. There is no hunting incident, which is a good thing because it never happened. 3) Poor Henry Percy is totally left out of the series for some reason. I'm not sure why this is, because it is very dramatic that he is later at Anne's trial and in a position to pass judgment on her! Also, it is significant that at this point Henry VIII had developed an interest in Anne and was instrumental in breaking up her relationship with Percy. This is significant because it shows that Anne was less cunning than she is often portrayed. Even in The Tudors, which later shows her falling in love with Henry, she is initially plotting with her father and uncle to win Henry's favor. The fact is Anne was very much in love with another man and initially had no ambition to become Queen of England. This ambition most likely developed once Anne realized she would have to deal with Henry VIII one way or another. 4) The series accurately shows Mary and Anne Boleyn in France together. The timing is accurate in that both Anne and Mary are sent to France before either has any major involvement with Henry VIII. The series insinuates that both women fooled around during their stay in France, but it accurately emphasizes Mary's affair with Francis I. 5) We can only speculate as to how things went the first time Anne and Henry VIII actually had sex, but the way it is portrayed in the series is probably much more accurate and certainly not so disgusting as in the movie.
User name: Lady anne2 Movie or series?SERIES	Natalie Portman is a fine actor, but Natalie Dormer IS Anne. Scarlett J. played the role the same way she played "The Girl With the Pearl Earring". All slack-jawed and mouth with wide eyes. She was considered a ***** in France but became pious in England.	Eric Bana didn't make a memorable Henry at all. Thomas Boleyn was a weakling with no spine. The movie played like a mini-series instead of a big budget film. I hated it.	The characters in the series are fantastic and the whole story is richer and more visually pleasing. JRM scares me as Henry b/c he plays him so well. I guess we'll soon be talking about Jane Boleyn....
User name: Lizziebaby1 Movie or series? Series	Natalie Portman gave a great performance as Anne although I think I prefer Natalie Dormer. -I wish that the movie included more details of the story; I think that's why I prefer the series because the story is more concrete and concise. Not to mention Rhys-Meyers is a far better Henry VIII. - I also thought Scarlett Johannsen's portrayal of Mary got better towards the end of the film.	I thought the movie seemed a little low budget compared to the show especially the scenery and costumes. -The movie had far more to say about Mary and I enjoyed that aspect, that is also something I really liked about the book. I really liked the last scene of the movie when Mary snatched Elizabeth into her care.	Pretty much everything about the series is better save a very few aspects. I enjoy the pace of the series over that of the movie. Overall I like the movie but I love the series.
User name: Perseverance Movie or series? Series	Natalie Dormer is the hands down winner in the battle of the Anne's	Natalie Portman did pretty good in TOBG especially at the execution but she just doesn't have the right looks for Anne.	Natalie Dormer on the other hand played Anne perfectly. After watching her I can't even begin to imagine anyone else playing the role. As for the comment about Henry being too soft in the series, I don't agree at all. Henry was a true romantic at heart. Even though his personality was incredibly tyrannical (which JAM plays exquisitely) he was an artist and a lover in his soul.
User name:BRANDY246 Movie or series?BOTH or Book's	Anne was played by Natalie Dormer in series and in movie Natalie Porter,in movie Henry was played by Eric Bana and in series JRM,i liked Natalie porter in the movie and JRM in series.	In the movie the parts I did not like were - Henry doing Anne that way,then she gets pregnant,when Anne has to get away from Henry's pursuit,going to France, it did not show Anne getting pregnant for the second time,after that Anne gets her head cut off. But really Anne gets pregnant four times,one Elizabeth the second Miscarriage the third and fourth Stillborns. In the movie it shows she gets pregnant twice..on Anne's last and final pregnancy she loses the baby and asks George to get her fully pregnant who says OK ,but at the end they DO NOT DO ANYTHING,but then Jane Parker sees them kissing and goes and tells the king.	In the show Anne gets pregnant three times and that's sad she has two miscarriages,and her ladies-in-waiting tell Mr.Cromwell what they saw in her bedchamber as if Anne had incest with her brother which she did not.
User name: Tudordescendant Movie or series? Series	Even though Michael Hirst has gotten some historical elements wrong, Miss Gregory's story (while VERY entertaining) is just too wrong historically for me to enjoy it. The Tudors is much more enjoyable for me since I am such a fanatic on Tudor history. Being a Tudor through the Stuarts, I am borderline obsessed w/ the facts and downfall of most of my ancestors (Mary Queen of Scots and the like).	The movie portrays it more as a soap opera- w/ Anne trying to win his affections and his not even noticing. And also w/ Mary being pushed into an affair while basically being virginal herself. Well, this just isn't so. While Mary was w/ Henry, Anne was in Paris- not even caring about Henry. Well, not Henry Tudor at least- she did love Henry Percy and Henry did put a stop to it. Then it shows Anne as incestuous and willing to do anything to conceive. That wasn't true, she didn't have relations w/ George- it wasn't true.	Oh much more realistic. Although Wolsey didn't commit suicide and the futures of Jane Grey and Mary Stuart were wiped out w/ the 'morphing' of Mary and Margaret Tudor (I descend from Margaret)- everything else is pretty spot on. The speeches, the ulcerated leg, Henry believing everything Cromwell told him about Anne (though Cromwell knew it was a lie). . .all true. Even Mary Boleyn, tho in briefly, was pretty fairly presented.
User name: queen_elizabeth_1533 Movie or series? If I had to pick, definitely series	I think hands down the characters are portrayed better in the series. I can't think of anyone besides George who was better in the movie. Natalie Dormer is wonderful as Anne Boleyn.	Not only is it horrible in portraying history, but in my opinion, the movie completely skews the point of view so that everyone appears in the way that is most dramatic. Henry has like, zero depth to his character, no emotion at all. Anne is alright, not so mean as in the book, but not as independent and admirable as I feel she should be.	Although the series clearly cannot brag about historical accuracy, I feel that most of the characters are represented accurately, even if the things that happen to them are not exactly right on target. This is a definite plus, and pushes the series way out there ahead of The Other Boleyn Girl, which is pretty much a waste of money and paper.
User name: MadameDeMerteuil Movies or series? Series, for sure	The characterisation is far better in the series -personalities are more complex, nobody is 100% good or 100% bad, which is true not only to History but to Life in general. Physically, none of the actors truly resemble the historical person they play and more effort should have been put into the looks to make them more realistic.	The Other Boleyn Girl suffers from a very bad script. The actors seemed to try to do their best, but the script just was not up to scratch. Too simplistic, too exclusively centered on the sisters relationship, forgetting about the political and religious side of things. I did not like Scarlett Johannson's portrayal of Mary, the slightly week over naive act is just annoying.	The series is a good human drama, not always accurate, but then again no "historical" movie or series ever was. JRM and N. Dormer are excellent and the scriptwriting is fabulous.
User name: candycane744 - Princess Candy Movie or series?: Series	I believe that the character development is much more multidimensional in the series. The characters are explored in greater detail and we the audience have the decision on how we view the situations. Its left to interpretation.	The movie set out to focus on one opinion the obvious portrayal of Anne as the manipulator. In the movie, the characters were one dimensional.	The writers are very successful in making the characters multidimensional. You see the feelings and emotions of each as every situation arises. There is no clear good and bad guy, the viewer takes the performances and interprets the conflict as they see or perceive it to be.
User name: oezel Movie or series?:Series! Couldn't be compared!	Like most said, the character development was more complex and multidimensional in the series. The only question mark to me was the mother of "The Boleyn Girls". Really, where was she?	The movie was really like a short summary of the story. I believe they tried their best, but 115 minutes could never be enough.	Having translated the subtitles from films like: Braveheart, Elizabet I (2005), Elizabeth - The Golden Age, and The Queen into Turkish and being very very interested in English History, I must confess that I'd missed this one. Anyway, I watched the series (both, season I and II ) in three days. I think, all what's to be said is said above. What I would like to add is; Afterwards, as I was listening "Wolsey Commits Suicide" I thought to myself... "Would I still be making those mistakes I did in my life if I'd had the chance of watching such a series like this one as I was younger?" Thanks to "Showtime", how could "The Seven Sins" be told better? Another 'Thank you' goes to Trevor Morris.
User name: Shadow_in_the_Sun Movie or series?: Undecided	The movie is superior in it's portrayals of: Katherine of Aragon (though not much screen time, she owns every minute she gets), The Duke of Norfolk, and quite possibly Anne Boleyn. Too many events are glossed over in the movie - as previously mentioned, there's just not enough minutes to really flesh out the story.	Costuming was absolutely wonderful - the movie far surpasses the series in this respect. Stunning gowns, lovely gable hoods especially - simply gorgeous, and much more historically accurate (though not 100%) than that of 'The Tudors'. The scenery as well was also much more Tudoresque when compared to the series. Natalie Portman's portrayal of Anne was very very good I thought, she has the right looks for it - not a stunning beauty like N.Dormer but, much more like the real Anne would've been like, in my opinion. I cannot blame the movie for it's inaccuracies, as it was based on a highly fictional novel after all.	JRM makes a better-looking Henry. The characters are more in depth, but remember they have a lot more time to achieve this. The series seems to be more accurate when it comes to Mary's portrayal as a bit of a tart - I doubt she had that much importance that the Other Boleyn Girl makes out. I'm at odds with Dormer's Anne in some ways... she is beautiful, but perhaps too beautiful, though her spirit does shine through.
User name: Antoinette2 Movie or series?: Series	I found the book childish and simple. Everything was black and white. It was crammed full of inaccuracies. What's really irritating is that many readers take it as gospel, not fiction.	Visually, loved it. Acting was great but hated the fact that it followed all the historical inaccuracies of the novel.	Movie--Fun for costumes. Series so much richer and better acting. . Netflix it. DVR the series
User name: LadyJane1961 Movie or series?: series	i found the book great. it was a fun read could not put it down. movie stunk. series could watch it over and over again	the movie had a bunch of lies they even showed Anne scared when she was about to die. in the series Anne had courage and she died with class	the series is the best the movie is boring and i wont buy the dvd
User name: Desiderata Movie or series?: The Series	the book was a crazy fun read, finally saw the movie and am glad I didn't pay to see it in the theater. What a bomb. Serious deviations from the book, none of the fun bits shown at all. Give me "the Tudors" any day! (ScarJo is the only redeeming element the movie has) "TOBG" from a few years ago (UK production) is a better version, in my humble opinion.	The movie isn't faithful to the novel at all, and that's why I give TOBG a thumbs down. Examples: historically, Anne died with dignity and calm, as well as her brother, which the movie lies about. In the book (and in real life), Henry woos Anne and they eventually unite as lovers (and there are some gems within the book's treatment of their courtship that I wish had made it into the film) ; the movie has a rape scene between them and there is no courtship, only mutual disgust. Blecch...how dare they insult our intelligence?!	The series gives the actors more time to unfold the characters and what motivates them for us, an advantage the movie didn't have. That being said, the movie should have singled out more memorable, insightful scenes from the book, to bring to life. I can forgive historical inaccuracies, but I want to see the actors flesh out their characters, and the series did this beautifully.
User name: FMFJRMGRL Movie or series?: SERIES	I think the movie wasn't too bad either. I think Eric Bana played a good Henry because of the way he presented himself(plus he wore the big puffy sleeve costumes), but JRM makes you actually believe him to be big with his attitude, which is the best portrayal yet! They should have him wear a few puffy sleeves I don't know if it would make him look funny??? Natalie Dormer was a great Anne. She and JRM went well together. He should pick her to be his girlfriend not that little girl Reena! She doesn't match him!	If I were to have seen the movie first I probably wouldn't have know how many inaccuracies that there were in it. Something about Scarlett Johannsen annoys me. She always wants to look pouting and "the poor dear" look. Natalie Portman was a good Anne in the movie.	I like the costumes better in the series. They are more of what books describe of them as. The series is played out well. Good pick of characters. Although I don't get what all the secrecy with the script is for, don't actors get the script to study??
user name: princess-orla movie or series: series every time!!!	the other Boleyn girl is the first movie or programme i watched to do with the Tudors and it started off my interest but after finding out new things and watching the Tudors:series one I found out the movie was rubbish in comparison!! I think Natalie dormer makes the best Anne Boleyn as she can show how gentle but yet feisty Anne would have been and the chemistry between Natalie and JRM is soooo believable!!	The movie portrays Anne as very bitter and a bit of a gold digger, she seems very jealous of Mary. I do like that Mary is included more than in the Tudors series.	wow...its amazing...there is a lot more detail and shows how much Anne was disliked by the court and shows more of what was going on with the rest of the court. and jrm is yummy!!
user name :Howardfan movie or series: Series most definitely	The other Boleyn girl was a poorly portrayed version of Philippa Gregory's book which was fiction anyway. Had they stuck to the book then the movie may have been passable, still the happiness of the film and American actresses was an inaccuracy in itself. The Tudors may have historical inaccuracies and oh yes it certainly does but none the less, the chemistry between Natalie dormer and JRM is amazing, the acting is far better and the colour and lustful scenes make the series far superior. I think Scarlett could have made Mary Boleyn's character work, had the script not been so unrealistic and glossy as i think she looked the part more so than the Tudor version. Yet the Tudors captured Mary Boleyn's true form better	I found the movie very wishy washy. For a start Thomas Boleyn was no sweetheart, his wife Elizabeth had died in childbirth and their fourth child (supposedly a boy Also died. By the time Mary came to marry William Carey, she was NOT a virgin like the movie portrays. Both Boleyn girls had been ladies in waiting in France. In reality it was in France that Henry took notice of Mary, after his bastard son Henry Fitzroy was born to his first mistress Bessie Blount in 1519. Anne and Mary were indeed close and the notion of Anne being jealous and spiteful toward her "younger" is a lie and utter fiction. Also Anne was not the eldest like the movie and book like to make out she was. there is proof to support this, Mary is believed to have been born in 1499/1500 while Anne's birth is known to be somewhere between 1501-1507 George Boleyn and Francis Weston were not gay, their is no evidence to support this other than an assumption in Retha M warnicke's book "The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. While I am glad they added Henry Percy into the movie as he was said to be engaged to Anne, there is no proof that he and Anne laid with one another. It was Wolsey who forbade them to marry and if they had slept together then that alone would have declared the marriage true and valid. Henry's rape scene with Anne, which was certainly not in the book, is as I believe "Hollywood" bias to show how evil the king Henry VIII was.	I enjoy the acting in this show. Thomas Boleyn and Henry are much more realistic in their personalities, even if they are not authentic looking lol Natalie dormer is English and a much better Anne than Portman. Mary is more noticeable as what she really was "the great prostitute" as her affair with king Francis is mentioned and she took Henry's fancy in France and the king grew tired of her like in history. Mary is also mentioned as the eldest although Natalie dormer looks much older than she.. Francis Weston and Henry Percy are both not mentioned in the series and Henry Percy played a vital role in Anne's life before he married and became ill. He was at the trial of Anne and George Boleyn, and was believed to have been overcome with grief for Anne and died soon after Anne's death of illness. Francis was convicted with the other four men accused of adultery with the queen Anne Boleyn. They were to die of a more severe death, being hung strung and quartered then burned alive but at the kings mercy the sentence was reduced to a simple beheading. George and Anne's trial is not shown in the show. The two were originally to burn at the stake but the punishment was adjusted at the kings leisure to beheading
Username: ProphetCassandra movie or series: series definitely	The other Boleyn girl was a good movie. not a great movie, but a good movie. and the clues that made it a good movie were only the actors. nothing more. and the historical facts it presented were 90% wrong. on the other hand, the Tudors series have everything. excellent actors, terrific costumes, almost accurate historically script, informative and entertaining character at the same time, so i could praise the Tudors series for days...!	This movie was based on the novel. so it is natural not to be historically accurate. but presenting history so differently and wrong, was annoying for me. i mean, presenting a son of Mary and Henry that doesn't exist? saying Anne was in exile to France, when everyone knows that both the Boleyn girls lived in the court of France for a while? having Henry raping Anne? not referring to any social political and religious matters of these times, as Lutheranism and the plague? that was so irresponsible.. plus, the characters were kinda pretentious, and sometimes wrongly-set (such as Mary, who was presented as pure, sweet, and Innocent..) and the only actor that "persuaded" me was Natalie Portman. she was perfect in the role of Anne, but yet, not as perfect as Natalie Dormer.	The series are perfect! I am not surprised they have been given so many awards! I mean, the actors are great, the costumes give such a glamour and luxury, the scenes are not boring, and when they are set in the countryside, they give a joyful feeling that make the series very pleasant and entertaining. the beautiful presences, as Natalie dormer, Jonathan Rhys-Myers, Henry Cavill, or the court ladies, and the handsome noble-men, give a more youthful atmosphere to these dark times, which i believe is needed, or the series would be terribly boring, cause they are trying to give to the audience so many historical facts that can be tiring. i could talk and talk about the Tudors series and how great they are, but my space in this cell is ending I think...
Username: annaboleyna movie or series: series	I believe that tobg was a great movie, I own it, along with the movie posters! but, I didn't like how it made Anne the older sister and Mary as the innocent. I think that Eric Bana looked more like the king than Jonathan, but honestly, Jonathan is so hot..	Anne in the movie is perceived as spiteful and heartless. I don't like that one bit. I like the way they make George, but again with the making Mary an innocent...I just don't like the way Philippa portrays it. The movie is entertaining but not historically accurate at the least.	The Tudors rock. I love the characters. I love Natalie dormer as Anne. I love Thomas Boleyn and cardinal Wesley. And of course Katherine of Aragon!! The actors are perfect for their parts. The series shows how scandalous and exciting court life was and at times, dangerous. I love it!
UserName: The_Lady_Alicia Movie Or Series : Series	I don't find JRM that believable as Henry. Eric Bana wasn't much better but probably more physically like him in terms of build. I didn't really rate Natalie Portman as Anne although Scarlett Johannson as Mary did a good job I thought. I liked Mark Rylance as Thomas Boleyn, he played the part in a more sort of crawling, subservient obsequious manner although Nick Dunning is amazing and I think probably gives a more accurate portrayal of what Thomas Boleyn was like. And nothing could top MDK's performance as KOA.	I found the movie very watered down and wishy washy, skimming over things that really should have been in the movie. Don't get me started on the historical inaccuracies. Probably the worst innacuracy for me however was the rape scene. Oh and Mary just taking Elizabeth and deciding she would bring her up. I had read the book before I saw the movie and I know the book is just as innacurate but I couldn't put the book down despite this. After seeing the movie I felt kind of cheated. I can't believe the amount of stuff they just left out of the movie.	While I am not a fan of JRM as Henry and some of the historical inaccuracies really bug me the series is far far superior to the movies. I am totally addicted to the series and am having severe withdrawl symptoms and wish season 3 would hurry up!!. MDK was amazing as KOA, Sam Neill as Wolsey was genius. Although historically innacurate the sheer drama and standard of acting makes it not matter so much. Although I have to say the morphing of mary and margaret into one character really annoyed me.
user name: twiztedempress movie or series?: both	The movie and series are both wonderful historical fiction.	Many people think gregory's books are all true or all wrong. In fact they are niether. They are just as the show, HISTORICAL FICTION. Which means people who think one does better than the other in accuracy are taking to much time in thinking about it. Its entertainment. The movie is in my opinion very good for it is a movie with great performance.	As for the show Hirst himself said he wasn't told to make a history show, he made a soap opera. So its only natural for facts to be changed for ratings sake. The series is very good and full of intrigue. These two works of art, although based on the same story, are in very different and equally important categories.
User name :Yddib Movie or series?: series	I thought that the series was so much better. I found the movie annoying in places.	The movie was not exciting for me although I loved the costumes and thought that Anne was very good. Mary, I really did not like and the Henry was dull.	I love the show. Anne is spot on in my opin. And Henry although he may be a bit too good looking, I do find him more believable. The series is colourful and exciting and def leaves you wanting more.
username: <a class="external" href="http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">theanneboleynfiles.com</a> Movie or series? Series	The movie was obviously based on the book by Philippa Gregory but was not even true to the book i.e. the book focuses on Mary Boleyn, rather than Anne. The series is more based on history.	The movie portrayed Mary as an innocent virgin, which is far from the truth, and Anne as an expert, manipulative seductress which, from my research, is not true. On the contrary, Anne was a deeply religious person who did not want to end up like her sister. She had strong morals and loved Henry. She was intelligent, had been educated by the Regent Margaret (of Austria), was an important political figure and caused the Reformation in England.	I loved the Tudors show and am looking forward to Season 3. Natalie Dormer's performance, particularly the execution speech, was excellent and was true to records of how Anne behaved and spoke at her execution. I'm not sure about the portrayal of Henry. Yes, he comes across as intelligent, concerned for his country, a lover of sports and women, and a seducer, but I'm sure that in real life he actually started to lose his health and fitness at a younger age.
User name: Maggie-AnneB. Movie or Series? Series	The series has achieved where the movie fail. The series made the characters more like the actual people. Yes the series has made some changes but they still made all the characters real and memorable.	The movie, to me, was suppose to be about Mary Boleyn, not Anne. That's what the book is about, that's why the book was called The Other Boleyn Girl. But the movie was all about Anne. I love Anne, but the movie wasn't suppose to revolve all around her.	Like I have said before, the series has made changes in plot lines when they shouldn't have. I think the actors that play Anne and Henry have played then brillantly, they brought their characters to life! When I watch the show, I forget that it's some actor playing Henry or playing Cromwell, to me it's like I'm really there, witnessing it. The movie didn't make me forget that I watching a movie, the actors were acting and I could tell.
User name: MaccaJack Movie or Series: Series (150%)	Ugh. I hated how TOBG portrayed Anne as this conceited, vain, self indulgent ***** who trampled over everyone and married and bedded Harry Percy. They made her out to be such a *****. Henry himself was portrayed badly, with little dimension to his character. Mary was shown as a sweet virgin, terrifed of Henry. Truth is, she was a *****. The Tudors, made everyone so much more believable and truthful to the plot.	The movie was absolutely terrible. I hated the way it was shot, the look, the costumes and that horrific rape scene. As with "Henry VIII" (2003) that scene ruined the dynamic of the story. You dont need Henry to rape Anne to seem ruthless and misogynistic. Awful film. Plus, what is it with them using foreigners as Royals. Mary is american, Bana is australian and Portman is israeli/american.	I love this series! Natalie Dormer and JRM just stole every scene. Henry and Anne's courtship was so romantic and you just fell in love with the story. Plus the majority of the cast were from Great Britain! Plus the bodice ripping fun is always a bonus. Natalie as Anne, and Johnny as Henry. Aside from Bujold/Burton in AOTD these two have shown the hugest amount of chemistry, and acted so well that now, I am a Tudor groupie!
User name: TsarinaDzhennifer Movie or series?:	Too many characters in the Tudors series are made up. it's hard to keep up with it. Or combined like Henry's sister. Eric Bana is a much more believable Henry but Natalie Dormer is more believable as Ann. Scarlett does a better job as Mary. Perdita Weeks makes Mary look like a dumb skank in the very few lines she has. Overall between the series, book and movie, I prefer the book. They're all good for entertainement value. It's just the truth is so much more interesting, why do they need to make up little inaccuracies?	I liked the tension between the sisters. The costumes are more accurate and you get to see more of the private life of Ann and her family. I wish they would have used Mary's daughter in the movie. The deleted scenes should have been part of the movie. They made mary too innocent in the movie when she was probably something in between the movie and series. Making off with Elizabeth in the end was a silly ending, but Mary did inherert everything from her family because she was the last one left. She got a sweet deal.	The series goes into detail but I wish they would keep more to the historical facts. It's more interesting anyway. I absolutely hate Mary Boleyn's character in the Tudors. she there so brief and she's very dumb and skanky. Also bessie Blount is hardly in there and her son died much older than a todler. The series spends too much time on non important or made up characters. The series also seemed cheap when they didn't used the same actress for Jane Seymore. I mean, she's not even in there that long. The series is entertaining, for sure but they could have done better.
User name: Movie or series?:
User name: Movie or series?:

Votes So far Movie : 1 Series : 31 Neither: 1 Both: 4 Undecided: 1

◄ Back home: <a href="/" target="_self">The Tudors Fan Wiki</a>

See also: The Tudors Episode Guide | The Tudors Depictions Throughout History | The Tudors Photos | The Tudors Historical Inaccuracies and Mysteries | The Tudors Characters