Sign in or 
Location: CHARACTERS - Season 4
Discussion: Portrayal's you did not like
Category:
Discussion Forum /
The TV Series
Share this
LadyMaryAnne |
Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 22 2010, 2:09 PM EDT
Now that the series is over I want to ask: Were there characters that you did not like how they were being portrayed and why?3 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?
Keyword tags:
the tudors
|
Anne'sCurls |
1. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 22 2010, 3:17 PM EDT
1. Charles Brandon- Charles was a horribly written character with no direction or purpose. It seemed every season they decided to change the character for the worse mostly because they would not recast the role of the duke of Norfolk. Charles' marriage to Princess Mary was a love match and they were happy together and had children which lead to Jane Grey and her sister. 2. Edward Seymour - I love Max Brown and think he is a good actor, but why is Edward Seymour almost always portrayed as a villain in every movie or tv show? He was ambitious, but not a sadistic maniac. I also believe he and Anne had a happy marriage and she dominated him, not hated him. 3. Catherine Howard-though Catherine was not suited to be queen, she was not as stupid, immature and juvenile as this show portrayed her. She wasn't the type of person to play in the mud or burst into one of Henry's meetings and scream in front of everybody about her and Henry's procreation problems. 2 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
AugustRose |
2. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 22 2010, 4:16 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 22 2010, 11:20 PM EDT
I didn't fully dislike the following portrayals, but I did have serious issues with them: JS, AB, and KoA. JS: I don't mind a "nice" portrayal, but Anne Stallybrass and Emilia Fox have shown that Jane can be sweet yet still an interesting character with layers. The Tudors Jane is too dull and perfect. S2 Jane looked like she might be interesting, but they did a complete re-write of her character for S3. None of Henry's wives were saints. AB: S2 Anne was well done enough (though I don't like that Hirst never missed an opportunity to depict Anne in a bad light if he could by drawing on the most unfounded and generally unaccepted historical gossip), but S1 Anne was terrible. She was no better than a silly sex kitten who did what her father and uncle bid. Where was the intelligent, cultured, and strong Anne whose personality/brains were as equally attractive as her looks? KoA: I really like Maria Doyle Kennedy, and her Katherine is quite sympathetic, but she's a bit too matyrish for my tastes. Annette Crosbie, Irene Papas, and Assumpta Serna were *strong* and sympathetic, as if they were truly the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella and had been involved in the Battle of Flodden. The Tudors KoA seems more weepy and passive in her ressistance rather than active and badass (if that makes sense lol). Other characters: Elizabeth: Rather than being a complex character in real-time like Mary, Elizabeth was just a flatly written vessel for her "destiny." Charles Brandon: perhaps the most inconsistenly written character on the show. Plots against Wolsey then the Boleyns then against Cromwell...but hey he's a totally stand up guy whose *way* better than all these poeple. Catherine Brandon: First she hates Anne for no apparent reason then despises her own husband. Who was she to judge anyone? Did not understand her character at all. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
LadyMaryAnne |
3. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 22 2010, 4:40 PM EDT
"S1 Anne was terrible. She was no better than a silly sex kitten who did what her father and uncle bid. Where was the intelligent, cultured, and strong Anne whose personality/brains were as equally attractive as her looks? "I thought I was the only one who felt that way about S1 Anne. I dislike how they took out the story of her and Henry Percy and replaced it with Thomas Wyatt. I honestly did not feel any love for Anne in S1. Especially after that scene where she said she'd rather see KoA hanged than acknowledge her as her mistress. I feel all the wives (even Anne) were alot like the stereotypes we have seen throughout history. It seems like the only character he kinda made layered that we don't often see was Mary I 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
fleur_de_lis |
4. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 22 2010, 4:44 PM EDT
"JS: I don't mind a "nice" portrayal, but Anne Stallybrass and Emilia Fox have shown that Jane can be sweet yet still an interesting character with layers. The Tudors Jane is too dull and perfect. S2 Jane looked like she might be interesting, but they did a complete re-write of her character for S3. None of Henry's wives were saints. "Yeah i agree with this. Season 2 Jane was probably the closest to what Jane was like. She still had her nice streak, wanting to help Mary when she didn't need to, but she still had an agenda of her own. It was also the perfect blend of being controlled by her father and wanting to take bring Anne down. They actually gave her a reason to hate Anne because she was being awful to her before she even started anything with Henry. Season 3 Jane was just too nice and bland. I wouldn't have mind that she was so saintly but she didn't even get involved with the politics that the real Jane tried to, she only mentioned the monasteries once and you wouldn't believe she was particularly bothered by it really. I think Season 3 should have spent less time on a fictional, Anne wannabe mistress and should have spent more time and effort making Jane human. Do you find this valuable? |
sweetsister |
5. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 22 2010, 7:11 PM EDT
I know there are allot of Surrey fans but I'm afraid I just didn't take to him. Maybe I've watched too many old Hollywood films but I felt his persona and line delivery to be too rough (or low class for lack of a better explanation) I've always seen the aristocracy more "genteel" . Even In 1969 Lion in Winter Peter O Tools portrayal of Henry felt right to me , he was a bit more "gruff" but it was a "messier" time in history and I feel he carried out the part of Henry well, but we are her to talk about the Tudors and in my opinion the Seymour's appeared more genteel than Surrey.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
DuchessGrey |
6. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 22 2010, 7:54 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 22 2010, 7:55 PM EDT
"Elizabeth: Rather than being a complex character in real-time like Mary, Elizabeth was just a flatly written vessel for her "destiny.""I am in total agreement. Elizabeth was more like an after throught in the series, "I suppose we have to use her so put her in". The constant turn over of actresses was ridculous, which gave none of them a chance to mold into the character the way that Sarah grew into Mary. When Anne started discussing with Henry in the final episode about Elizabeth being clever I was like, "How the hell can you tell? All the girl does is dance and chase her annoying little brother around the damn show" that is not exactly clever. I do not blame the actress. It is ashame she has to take the fall for Hirst feeling his fairy tale is somehow better and more accurate than actual history. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
Boleynpatentpending |
7. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 22 2010, 10:20 PM EDT
"Now that the series is over I want to ask: Were there characters that you did not like how they were being portrayed and why?1. There were big problems with Anne Boleyn. They focused far too much on unproven negatives... her sexual history, her sexual manipulation of Henry (though this one is most likely true), her demand that Henry execute Mary, and a completely unfounded theory that she was borderline psychotic (as portrayed near the end of S2) and barely touched on her talent and zeal for religious reform. She an evangelical, like Parr, but they just tossed in a couple of nods to that, having her briefly mention "here's an English Bible, I visit religious houses, now back to paranoia and plotting." If it weren't for Dormer's ability to bring sensitivity and complexity even to simplistic and/or corrupt situations, Anne would have been little more than Cruella de Ville with sex appeal. 2. It was ridiculous not to have Henry get fat in Season 4. It destroyed willing suspension of disbelief for me. Henry's obesity was not just an intriguing detail, it informed his whole life. It may be a big part of what killed him. It was so severe as to be a physical disability, one which many people suffer from. 3. Jane Seymour. I watched scenes from the first Keith Michel movie about Henry VIII (the one that demonizes Anne and sanctifies Jane) and despite Jane being so virtuous, she was a flesh and blood human being. You saw her struggle with her conscience over Henry dumping Anne for her, you saw her anguish at how Henry handled the Pilgrimage of Grace, and yet you understood how she could still love him, because of her sympathy for his mental problems. Jane in S3 of The Tudors was a washout. How could she still feel the same about Henry after (on the show) being cheated on, threatened, and witnessing Henry's cruelty to those who followed the religion she loved? Only a Stepford wife could do that. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
Elliemental |
8. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 23 2010, 7:50 AM EDT
Edward Seymour - Wooden acting and a slur on Edward Seymour. Seymour was not involved in brutal acts of torture, and those scenes were totally unnessecary. Yes, the man was a little aloof, and ambitious. But that ambition did not manifast itself in the psychotic ways shown on the series.1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
freya9 |
9. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 23 2010, 5:04 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 23 2010, 5:31 PM EDT
1) Jane Seymour. I totally agree she was just too good to be true . It may sound a bit weird but when they replaced the actress after Anne's death it seemed to me to have the effect of 'distancing' her from Anne's downfall. (That wasn't the reason it was done of course). 2) Katherine Howard died bravely and had many good points which the series falied to show. 3) I liked the way Cromwell was played on the whole but I hated the fact they had him crying at his execution. 4) George Boylen suddenly turning into a woman hating rapist for no reason was incredibly insulting to his memory. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Boleynpatentpending |
10. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 23 2010, 5:17 PM EDT
"Edward Seymour - Wooden acting and a slur on Edward Seymour. Seymour was not involved in brutal acts of torture, and those scenes were totally unnessecary. Yes, the man was a little aloof, and ambitious. But that ambition did not manifast itself in the psychotic ways shown on the series.Wasn't there, in real life, a criticism of E.S. that he was "too nice" during the Regency? Do you find this valuable? |
queencaroline |
11. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 23 2010, 10:46 PM EDT
"Yeah i agree with this. Season 2 Jane was probably the closest to what Jane was like. She still had her nice streak, wanting to help Mary when she didn't need to, but she still had an agenda of her own. It was also the perfect blend of being controlled by her father and wanting to take bring Anne down. They actually gave her a reason to hate Anne because she was being awful to her before she even started anything with Henry.Anne knew that Jane had been called to court by her husband. That meant something. Jane couldn't even look her in the eye, and she deserved that stare-off. (But then, I hated Anita's Jane. I didn't get how a man would leave Natalie's Boleyn for such an insipid character, no matter how b*tchy the former was.) 1. Jane Seymour. Now that we've seen the series finale, we know Annabelle can act. And she's beautiful. So why did they waste that? They could have made me like Jane Seymour. But no. 2. George Boleyn. Why do screenwriters always bastardize George's character? I have no problem with gay men or lesbian women. However, I do not like it when hetero figures are portrayed as homosexual. The theory that George was gay--thanks again, Retha Warwicke, for your useless insights that Philippa Gregory uses so often--has been discarded by most historians. Why make him gay, then? Worse still was that they gave us absolutely no sign of this in season 1. He had a freakin' threesome with those odd twins. Magically, in season 2, he succumbs to Mark Smeaton's charms... And rapes his wife. I LOVE George Boleyn. What the heck was up with that? 3. Elizabeth. She felt like she was inserted in there, and terribly overdone. So heavy-handed. I wish we'd seen Robert Dudley with her; or a question about her mother, SOMETHING. She would have been so much deeper. Do you find this valuable? |
booklvr44 |
12. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 23 2010, 11:03 PM EDT
"Wasn't there, in real life, a criticism of E.S. that he was "too nice" during the Regency? "Yes, the main problem that the other Privy councilors had with Edward Seymour was that he was too lenient with the rebelling subjects. Which is rather ironic, considering his most famous scene in the series is sticking a hot poker up a Northern rebel's you know what. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Boleynpatentpending |
13. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 23 2010, 11:50 PM EDT
"2. George Boleyn. Why do screenwriters always bastardize George's character? I have no problem with gay men or lesbian women. However, I do not like it when hetero figures are portrayed as homosexual. The theory that George was gay--thanks again, Retha Warwicke, for your useless insights that Philippa Gregory uses so often--has been discarded by most historians. Why make him gay, then? Worse still was that they gave us absolutely no sign of this in season 1. He had a freakin' threesome with those odd twins. Magically, in season 2, he succumbs to Mark Smeaton's charms... And rapes his wife. I LOVE George Boleyn. What the heck was up with that?I bet I know exactly where they got the wife-raping business, from that poet who trashed everyone involved in the Boleyn business. He was hardest of all on George Boleyn, who, he said, raped widows and if I recall correctly, married women. I think they wanted to give a nod to that poem so they had him force what appeared to be anal sex on his wife. I guess they needed to give his wife a reason to betray him. Speaking of gayness, I read that Henry VIII passed England's first anti-buggery law in 1533, around the time he married Anne. Now that would have been an interesting S2 storyline. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Boleynpatentpending |
14. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 23 2010, 11:56 PM EDT
"Yes, the main problem that the other Privy councilors had with Edward Seymour was that he was too lenient with the rebelling subjects. Which is rather ironic, considering his most famous scene in the series is sticking a hot poker up a Northern rebel's you know what. "Well, some people LIKE that. ;p Do you find this valuable? |
DuchessofSuffolk |
15. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 24 2010, 1:52 AM EDT
For some reason I REALLY hated Joss Stone as AOC ... I love Anne's character, but man I really despised her on the show :(
0
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
likesthesilence |
16. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 29 2010, 6:23 PM EDT
There were two portrayals in particular that I just absolutely do not like:- Thomas Culpeper. I know the real Thomas wasn't exactly the nicest person, but I just found him completely intolerable in the show. Every scene he was in, I just found myself feeling really disgusted with him and annoyed, both by his attitude and his presence, along with what he did. - Katherine Howard. I've read several books, both historical and fictitious, about Katherine, and I've always felt at least a little sympathy for her. But the version portrayed by Tamzin just annoyed me to no end, and I was honestly glad to see her storyline concluded. She was shown as being overly stupid and childish, and while I do think the real Katherine was naive and thrust into a position she wasn't suited for, the show's version just completely struck me as a waste of space, and completely dim-witted. To be perfectly honest, though, I wasn't fond of Charles Brandon, Surrey, or Margaret Tudor, either. I just never liked them, and I really don't like the actress chosen for Margaret. Her delivery was just really dry and boring, and her overly tanned appearance was just completely wrong for the period, particularly considering the pale complexion was considered beautiful. The first time I saw her, I couldn't help but question why she looked like she'd just stepped out of a tanning bed. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anne'sCurls |
17. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 29 2010, 10:03 PM EDT
I hate when Hollywood makes straight historical people gay as well. The one's I can recall are Alexander the Great, who at the most was bi-sexual, and the book written a few years ago stating Abraham Lincoln was gay. Aren't there people out there who try to argue Jesus was gay as well?I don't know much about George, but I must say I liked him and Mark together, mostly just because I liked Mark. They were much better than the Compton/Tallis affair. I don't know if I mentioned Jane, but she was too one dimensional in this show. In Henry Viii and his 6 wives Jane was sweet but not a 1 dimensional character. Emilia's Jane was one of the best ever. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Boleynpatentpending |
18. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 29 2010, 11:56 PM EDT
"I hate when Hollywood makes straight historical people gay as well. The one's I can recall are Alexander the Great, who at the most was bi-sexual, and the book written a few years ago stating Abraham Lincoln was gay. Aren't there people out there who try to argue Jesus was gay as well?But honestly, how can we know who was straight and who was gay in the past? Even now some people stay in the closet. When it was a hanging offense just about everyone stayed in the closet. So can we ever really say it's historically inaccurate to portray someone as gay in historical fiction? Do you find this valuable? |
|
Boleynpatentpending |
19. RE: Portrayal's you did not like
Jun 29 2010, 11:58 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jun 29 2010, 11:59 PM EDT
"There were two portrayals in particular that I just absolutely do not like:I like Gabreille Anwar but she was totally miscast. Her looks -- the collagen, the fake tan -- are way too "Over-35 Hollywood Star" for the part, especially since Princess Mary was younger than Henry, not 10 years older. That said, I liked her acting and found her character intriguing. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
