World Without End (2012) User Reviews (99)

Having NOT read the book...I enjoyed it most theroughly

[Jay_Jay2664 · 7/10 · 5 June 2013]

The storyline was great, the acting above and beyond and the villains were cringe worthy. I saw this on Netflix and was totally saturated with it.

The villains were not only evil it made me feel as if I wanted to reach out and personally reach through time and strangle them myself.

I thought C. Nixon was very inspiring as a villainess. The sex is tame compared to the awesome Borgias series on Netflix. Some complete female nudity, male behind. The sex scenes were more like light Skin-i-Max TV.

All the ranting and raving of the book must say a lot and I might check it out. Although I understand it is quite wordy and time is not always on our side.

If there is something that leaves you full yet wanting more it was this.

Love Histori-fiction

[timstiles37 · 8/10 · 20 September 2012]

This is an impressive time trip back to the middle ages. There are a lot of characters to sort out but a great group of actors. Tom Weston Jones is on Copper too. Amazed at the scale of Kingsbridge, which seems a lot bigger since Pillars -- and cleaner.

Love the idea that dung was the best available medicine of the day. Of course seems like some of the characters are finally catching on that maybe that's not such a smart idea. Charlotte Riley's character is the most modern, channeling the Englightenment it seems. As is Miranda Richardson. The state of affairs was truly rank -- corruption, scheming and violence of all sorts, plus the Hundred Years War with France.

Good Historical Drama

[antoniodiggs · 8/10 · 6 September 2012]

This new historical drama based on the Ken Follett novel of the same name is well worth watching and a must see for any historical fan. It is set in the fictional English town of Kingsbridge at the onset of the Hundred Years' War and (coming soon) the Black Death.

Sure it had political intrigue, backstabbing and more hangings than ham in a smokehouse. What makes it stands out is the generous production that historical dramas rarely get. You can thank Tony and Ridley Scott for backing this worthy tale and the set locations that sets the stage. The acting as good so far, nothing great with one notable exception Cynthia Nixon takes to her role deftly.

The first episode opens with Edward II surrendering to his French wife who crowns their son Edward III. In the aftermath of the war certain nobles are accused of treason by supporting the defeated king. Lands are forfeited, families destroyed and a slew of characters from the hot queen (Aure Atika) to a corpse picking mercenary keeps the pace moving without getting confusing.

Aside from the royal treachery the show deals attacks medieval medicine in a humorous and sometimes heavy handed way. The old healer Brother Joseph (David Bradley) adheres to bloodletting and dung poultices while the barber's daughter (Indira Varma) embraces herbal medicine and is predictably accused of witchcraft.

Excellent writing, great editing and a commendable cast makes this viewer want to watch the series that preceded it, The Pillars of the Earth.

THIS SUCKS...if you have read the book

[tramainepaul · 21 March 2014]

If you have not read the book, you may enjoy this movie. However, like most Jane Austen fans, if you are a Ken Follett fan, you require only two things in turning books into movies: 1) an attempt at accuracy with plots/characters, 2) changes that only ENHANCE the movie. Sadly, this does neither. The characters are changed. The plot is changed. I am wondering throughout series if why Ken Follett didn't sue them for using the name of the book as that was the only thing that remained unchanged. This movie is a poor man's Ken Follett novel. This is the tootsie roll that you eat last after you have eaten good Halloween candy. This is the person who thinks since dirt looks like cocoa powder, he can use dirt to make brownies. This my friend is dirt in brownies. I am a little sad and confused that they would even use the title of the book if they planned to use nothing else. Also, there seemed to be a campaign to make the movie as horrible as possible. However, I am still watching and addicted. My goals is to see how bad a job they did. I may write another review.

Bad things happen to good people

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 21 May 2014]

It starts in 1327. The old king Edward III loses the civil war to his french Queen Isabella. She installs her son Edward III in as the new king. A knight Sir Thomas escapes after the murdered of the imprisoned former king to the fictional town of Kingsbridge. He seeks sanctuary as a monk. The toad Sir Roland uses his influence with the Queen to take over as Earl of Shiring. He launches a reign of terror condemning Edmund Wooler as well as the old Earl and others to death. Edmund's evil sister Petranilla (Cynthia Nixon) who poisoned Edmund's wife bribes to get Edmund freedom. Edmund's daughter Caris (Charlotte Riley) has the feel for medicine but the backwards world has little use for her except Petranilla is sending her to marry the brutal Elfric Builder. Petranilla's son is the weasel Godwyn (Rupert Evans). Roland spares the lives of the old Earl's sons taking Ralph as his squire while Merthin is given as Elfric Builder's apprentice. There are about twice as many other important characters.

It's a maze of characters. This feels like a cheaper version of shows like Game of Thrones without the dragons. It's work to stay on top of every character. Basically the theme is bad things happen to good people. The world is an ugly place and people are ugly, too. It feels very repetitive. The best ugly people has to be Cynthia Nixon and Rupert Evans. That's a crazy mother and son duo. Caris feels a little too modern. She should realize what comes with the world she lives in. She seems to be always shocked at the injustice. Overall, there are good actors in a reasonable mini-series.

Lacks punch and intrigue.

[buggsi · 6/10 · 12 September 2012]

"The Pillars of the Earth" started with a great punch and a gripping intrigue. I enjoyed every minute of it until the last episode. The acting was top notch. So, I was eager to watch "World Without End" but when I did I didn't feel any interest. The characters are flaky and boring, and by the second episode I'm still not sure where the story is going. The casting is bad, the actors are bad. I wish this series had a true villain acted by someone like Ian McShane! Instead, the villains are superficial and lack any credible evil. Even the good guys can't be appreciated for they lack determination and assurance. A very disappointing start for sure, I hope the series improves in future episodes, but I'm not counting on it.

Great series with a disappointing end

[lisahkirkland · 9/10 · 23 October 2012]

World Without End is an amazing television series, full of fascinating characters and twisting plots set within interesting historical times. Loosely based on the Ken Follett novel, the first 7 episodes are exciting and capture the spirit of the book, with small plot deviations suited to television. The finale, Episode 8, diverges greatly from the book and becomes trite, with several unbelievable events, including a sword fight between two highly unlikely combatants. While I look forward to watching the first seven episodes again and would highly recommend them to others, I would skip the finale as it just does not match the quality of the rest of the series.

... history made for TV programming

[bjarias · 7/10 · 17 December 2022]

... 14th century witnessed most fatal pandemic recorded in human history, causing deaths of 75-200 million people ... Europe alone saw Black Death claim 50 million - half of Europe's then population

... in addition, Kingdoms of England & France fought a protracted Hundred Years' War after the death of Charles IV of France, leading to a claim to the French throne by Edward III of England.. this period marks beginning of strong separate identities for England & France, as well as foundation of Italian Renaissance & Ottoman Empire

... lots of blood-deaths-political-intrigues in World Without End ... flowing by fairly-easily-quickly for all 8-episodes... ensemble-cast does well, with production values highly credible... not a watch-again-production, yet is reasonable way spending several hours it takes getting through to its sanguine-ending.

Surprisingly good - better than Pillars of the Earth

[phd_travel · 8/10 · 1 February 2013]

This is a jolly good yarn - a clever and effective blending of historical fact (King Edward II & III era and the Black Death) and fiction. It's more involving than Pillars of the Earth - the characters are more interesting. It's also more violent with lots of hangings etc. There are some surprising twists and turns and a few exciting battle scenes. Covers a lot of ground with commerce, history, religion, politics, medicine, romance.

The cast is well chosen. Cynthia Nixon plays against type as an evil woman though her accent is a bit off. Oliver Jackson Cohen is quite charismatic as the evil Ralph. Charlotte Riley isn't beautiful but is a convincing healer.

The location and production is quite beautifully filmed in Eastern Europe.

There may be a few story elements that are too fantastical but it doesn't matter this is a good historical epic mini series.

Good, but it's the same story

[parrisadams287 · 7/10 · 27 September 2012]

I really like World Without End, it's a good series with fair acting and there is a depth in the details that I do enjoy in period pieces.

With that said I did not know this was a sequel to Pillars of the Earth, which I did enjoy, and I had not read either book. While watching, I didn't make the connection right away that these two series were linked. As I was watching it I became suspicious that I was watching a remake of something I had previously watched, I didn't know right away what it was.

Knowing that this is a sequel, one can expect some amount of plot and character types being recycled, but this series does it a lot. I haven't read the book, but from what I've gathered about them, the series alters from the source a lot and seems to have infringed on the previous series.

I can't go over every detail of the two series, to do so I'd have to re-watch them both side by side, but the one reason which for me linked the two series is the main male protagonist characters both leave to study abroad while their loved one is trapped in some commitment, and then there's the brothers that for the most part are misunderstood or suffering from some issue.

Again, I do like it though, but it's more of a remake than something fresh and new in my mind.

If you loved the book, avoid this series like the plague

[robindavies · 2/10 · 2 October 2012]

So I read and watched and Pillars of the Earth, which I loved despite some misgivings with the TV adaptation. Like Pillars of the Earth, World Without End is an excellent novel, full of historical drama but still accessible through the very human characters in the story. At over 1000 pages, if is a lengthy novel but it was such a gripping story I read it in under 2 weeks. I wish I could say that the TV series did the book justice but sadly it falls flat. Actually, it is worse than that. I found the story to only barely resemble the book in only a few key events. The screenplay is awful, the characters have been ruined by actions that are out of character, the actors ham it up so much that it seems they are embarrassed to be in this series.

I watched 2 and a half episodes and threw in the towel. You can see that the production values are not the same as Pillars of the Earth too. No cool animated beginning, just some cheap looking titles, no recognizable acting talent, cheap looking sets and costumes... I could go on and on. Worse still, the episodes are only about 40 minutes long which gives the TV station lots of time to break up any storytelling with a million commercials (Pillars of the Earth episodes ran almost an hour without commercial breaks) but ultimately it is the liberty that the screenwriters have taken with the story that I could not handle because they really have not crafted a good one by any standard.

I understand now why The Movie Network in Canada took a pass on this one, even though they aired Pillars of the Earth first in Canada a couple of years ago. On that note, you would be wise to follow their lead and give this one a pass too.

Thank God there is no third novel in the series to be ignominiously slain by these people.

My New Favourite Show, but...

[k-tomasone · 10/10 · 27 September 2012]

This is an amazing series, but I haven't read the book. Supposedly the book is much better, but I think the show is well done and I can't stop watching. I also saw Pillars, and I don't think the similarity is so obvious as to ruin it as a sequel.

Despite how oppressed women were during the medieval era, there are a lot of strong women in the show; there are even some clever enough to plant the seeds for their own ideas in the heads of powerful men. I hope they can lead the town to success!

I think the show is amazing, but I do hope the producers add some more male characters who defend women. It makes me a little sad to see so many women raped in more ways than one.

Not The Same As The Book

[karry_gardner · 6/10 · 14 January 2013]

I hate it when great books get messed around with . The same thing happened with "Pillars of the Earth" and I felt stupid cause I had urged people to watch it based upon the book and it was nothing like the book at all. We are only one episode in and already the plot has deviated from the book - in fact, it deviated in the first scene . I have to say that the computer graphics are amazing because the backdrops are very good but why mess around with the original story ? I can see no good reason to alter the story - its annoying for people who have read it . As Ken Follett advises on the series , I can only think he is paid a Kings Ransom to allow this to happen and as both books were best sellers, its only going to put off viewers when they tune in to find that the TV series has been altered . I have given it 6 - I would have given 5.5 if it had been possible. I will watch it primarily because TV on a Saturday night is so bad, I have no options .

Burn the writer

[raistlin72 · 1/10 · 16 October 2012]

The first TV show inspired by the pillars of the earth was great, so I was eager to see the sequel. How disappointing it is. The book is really good and depict a great saga taking place over decades. Th show is simply completely different, characters and location just wear the same name, but some others were added, some are radically different, and one important character simply disappeared (or so much different that it's almost as if he disappeared).

If you read the book, just avoid this show as it will drive you mad :

Alice (Caris's sister disappeared completely) Philemon disappeared : Holdger became a soldier Godwyn and Petronila are murderers : Petronilla poisoned Caris's mother and her own brother Elizabeth Clerk is just helping Godwyn with no reason and then betray him Matie Wise is hanged instead of the mad girl (don't remember her name) Elfric is Caris's husband even if he rejects her wtf ! Flagrant untruth : Crecy's battle, hopefully it remains a french defeat (assuming the author is never shy about changing stories).

Actor's are not that bad I think but misused and misdirected, following a poor scenario full of shortcuts.

Depressing!

[leilamehti-88452 · 10 October 2020]

Does anything good ever happens to these people? only in the last 10 min of the last episode - otherwise it's 8 episodes of depression. Don't bother.

AN INTERESTING FOLLOW UP!!!

[ramothlord · 7/10 · 9 December 2019]

An interesting follow up to PILLARS OF THE EARTH but certainly no sequel. The first four episodes are slow, ponderous, lack exciting direction and no cinematography to speak of. Stay loyal and keep watching, though, because its full of lufe, energy, and apparently a higher production budget because everything looks and sounds better. The show actually belongs in medieval England and the viewer is ripped out of their armchair from the 21st century to find themselves in the middle of the action, be it war with France, losing the fight to the pestillence or getting lost in a love tragedy. The story itself lacks the religious ferocity of PILLARS and by comparison its really just a love story coupled with power struggles but its still fun to watch.

Meh

[mike-quatrale · 7/10 · 6 January 2014]

Okay, as it says, there are spoilers below.

I read the reviews. Seems like those that did not read the book enjoyed the miniseries, while virtually everyone who read the book did not enjoy the miniseries.

I agree completely. I read the books and the miniseries left a lot to be desired. My issue is, why change the plot so significantly?

In the miniseries, many key characters were missing, Caris marries Elfric,Petronella and Godwyn are murderers, the queen hates Kingsbridge, Sir Gerald was Earl, there is no mention of Shiring, etc. etc. and I am only half way through the videos. I understand cutting it short for film, but why the huge changes? And why did Ken Follett agree to this?

Did he think it was an improvement on the book? (Maybe it was, I don't know). I was just looking forward to the video version of the novel. I found myself simply comparing all of the changes which seemed needless.

1) Maybe if you haven't read the book or seen the series, watch the series first. The book is much more detailed and it will still be fresh because of the huge differences.

2) The only reason I gave it 7 out of 10 is that if you have not read the book, it probably would be an enjoyable miniseries. The acting is good, the characters are good. I want to be fair to the screen version and not tainted by my having read the book. (BUT WHY THE NEEDLESS CHANGES?)

3) Mr. Follett, I really hope they paid you a huge amount of cash for the video rights. Not for it being bad, just for it being basically so different from the book.

Hope this helps!!

Very real to me

[cls1954 · 10/10 · 4 November 2012]

I am entranced with the dark ages and absolutely loved this series. I also loved Pillars, maybe a little more, but both truly deserve ten stars in my book.

I really do enjoy how it meanders through the story giving it more of a feeling of being there, being drawn in by the story and its characters. If you are looking for a fast-paced dark ages thriller, this is not it, but a more realistic account of the times and the hundred year war.

Someone mentioned that their accents were not authentic, but if they were, 90% of us would not be able to understand a word! They were authentic enough for me to fully immerse myself in the story.

Both Pillars and World will become part of my DVD collection.

Not as good as Pillars, but fun for history lovers

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 11 August 2013]

WORLD WITHOUT END is the TV miniseries follow-up to PILLARS OF THE EARTH; both are based on novels by Ken Follett and set in the medieval English town of Kingsbridge. I have a special place in my heart for PILLARS, because it single-handedly got me interested in historical TV programming, and since then I've gone on to experience the delights of ROME, THE TUDOR, SPARTACUS, GAME OF THRONES et al.

WORLD WITHOUT END is nowhere near as good as PILLARS. Despite an equally impressive cast and budget, it feels like the show is rushed. The characters are occasionally artificial and the narrative feels manufactured. Many of the episodes are repetitive, at least thematically: it features the 'good' characters making progress only to be shot down by the 'bad', and the formula is repeated ad nauseum. The last episode, meant to tie everything up, does so in a merely defunct manner that robs the audience of so much emotional fulfilment.

Despite the many obvious flaws, I still liked this show. It's extraordinarily fast paced, and never boring. A lot of the actors are decent: Peter Firth as the hateful feudal lord, Ben Chaplin as the mild-mannered monk, Charlotte Riley as the sensitive heroine. You even get that bastard Walder Frey thrown into the mix for good measure. The villains are increasingly pantomime, in particular Rupert Evans, but in the end I kind of admired the guy for his intractability and, of course, entertainment value.

At the end of the day it's not a great show, and I can fully see where everybody is coming from in regard to criticisms. But I liked it enough to buy it and rewatch it in future; I just love medieval stuff filled with drama, political intrigue, the plague, swordfights, you name it. WORLD WITHOUT END fills all of the relevant quotas, even if it does so obviously and to a strict formula.

Great actors and adaptation

[mccarthys-53088 · 10/10 · 18 August 2018]

Just finished reading the book for the second time plus second read of Pillars ote I have the 2 bluray dvds also and revisited them. I am a huge Ken Follett fan and have read all his works...fantastic research and writing and a blues bass player as well. No it's not the book it is a tv adaptation...Loved them both

I haven't read the book but ...

[jrneptune · 7/10 · 3 September 2019]

Saw all the warnings about it not living up to the book. Watched it anyway and although much is predictable besides historical occurrences it was entertaining to watch.

With all the positive comments about the books I added both Pillars of Earth and Worlds without End to my future reading list knowing I will enjoy both even more.

YUCK!!! What did they do to the story???

[cink-1 · 1/10 · 23 October 2012]

Well, I stuck it out and watched all 8 episodes.....just because I wanted to see how badly they ended it....

I've read both Pillars and World without end...loved both of them. After seeing the first couple of episodes of World and not sure if my memory was that bad or that they had completely strayed from the story, I started reading the book again. Finished it just before the last episode. It proved me right in that the story has been changed, so it is barely recognizable.

Why did they feel the need to change the basic story? And the characters? Others before me have posted more details about the changes, but I can only say again, if you've read and liked the book, DON'T BOTHER...you will be disappointed.

Very good

[Luigi-33 · 8/10 · 5 January 2013]

I could not disagree more with the above review. I thought the story was even more interesting than "Pillars" and the photography and production values were very solid. Nothing to quibble about. And yes, while most of the cast are not well-known, they were all very good performers, and Cynthia Nixon and Miranda Richardson, who ARE well known, were superb. The above review sounds like it was written by someone with a grudge. Maybe someone who didn't get hired on the show. Anyway, see it for yourself and make up your own mind - it's one of the better shows I saw all of last year. And Ken Follett himself was pleased with the result, which carries far more weight than what the above "reviewer" and I think.

Decent enough and compelling story. Ignore the disingenuous bad reviews.

[ToneBalone60 · 7/10 · 17 February 2021]

Setting On the whole World Without End (WWE) is a decent series and follows on from Pillars Of The Earth (POTE) a century or so later. We are now in the mid 14th century. King Edward II has just been deposed (Murdered or disappeared?) by his unfaithful and politically ambitious wife; Isabella of France and her lover Roger Mortimer. (The Mortimer family were a powerful dynasty of Welsh Border/March Lords and very influential in the period from Edward I through to Henry V). Isabella's objective was to depose her husband and co-rule as Queen regnant with Mortimer. In truth she was only Queen Consort and resigned to Queen mother after the coronation of her son and heir Edward III.

Faithful to the Book Many reviewers are complaining that the series doesn't reflect the book. I never understand why this is an issue, surely if a series directly represents the book then there isn't much point in watching the series or vice versa. I like the fact that some TV series are slightly different from the books because then you have two alternative stories to enjoy. There is no law that every TV show needs to faithfully copy the book. All that matters is that the Historical elements are close to reality.

Horrible history With regards to those complaining about the level of violence and rape. This is historical fiction and these times in history were very violent and bloody. Serfdom (economic slavery) was the primary political structure in Europe during this period and it would be wrong to sugarcoat or cover up the facts. It is unconscionable and anachronistic to attempt to revise history to meet with the expectations of 21st century liberal ethics. Those that find history offensive and too horrible might well be advised to stick to romantic fiction.

On the whole WWE's like POTE's depiction of historical elements are close to actual events with no significant revision or twisting of history apart from the fictional Kingsbridge element.

Continuity With regards to continuity from POTE, given that WWE is a century later in time, I don't think it was necessary to give a recap of POTE at the beginning of the show. Some viewers may come to this as a stand-alone series and references to POTE are not necessarily needed. Those that have seen or read POTE will know exactly where the continuity of Kingsbridge comes in.



Some minor criticisms:

French language. I was happy to finally have some French speakers in the cast. POTE depicted all of the Plantagenet family as native Anglo Saxons which we know is incorrect. All of the royal family were French, together with most of the nobility. Everyone in court and the earls & knights should have had French accents. In WWE however only Isabella has a French accent. Again all of the court and nobility in Kingsbridge should be speaking with a French accent.

Strength of storyline Compared to POTE this is a more rudimentary production and felt a little hastily knocked together. Some of the acting was bordering on cheesy and some of the villains are a little too obvious and comical. The manipulative characters should be noticeable to all so that when a sudden death occurs after the victim has just eaten a dish provided by said character, only the most naïve would not put two and two together. That said the show still has some big-name actors and on the whole they managed to pull it together.

I also had an issue with the bridge. The focus of the story around construction of a new bridge seems a little contrived compared to the construction of the cathedral that was the central theme of POTE. I'm pretty sure there wasn't that much volume of traffic going over one bridge into a 14th century English village. This is the sort of traffic congestion one would have expected on London bridge at that time. And a second bridge over the River Thames in London (Westminster Bridge) wasn't considered until 1750 (some 400 years later) so I very much doubt that a second bridge would have been considered in a smaller English village like Kingsbridge in the 1300's. With POTE one felt that the Kingsbridge fictional story was the central tenament set against the parallel backdrop of the Plantagenet era and the anarchy with believable intertwining between both stories. With WWE one gets the feeling that Follet just took a particular time in history around Edward VIII and Edward III.and threw in a somewhat weaker parallel story of the Kingsbridge residents. The result is a much more contrived and somewhat unbelievable chain of events.

Summary Nevertheless WWE is still a solid production and those that enjoyed POTE will enjoy this. Much of Follet's work, like that of Philippa Gregory provides a very accessible way for people to connect with real English history and all are solid educational tools.

Overall worthy of a 7.0 compared to a 7.3 for POTE.

This sucked.

[camilla-aaroen · 2/10 · 25 October 2012]

This sucked.

I loved the book, and I loved Pillars of The Earth (book and series), but this was awful. When I saw the first episode, I knew this would be bad. I thought the intro was stupid and cheesy, many of the characters were uninteresting and flat and I couldn't really recognize them from the book. I liked Gwenda, and I liked Ralph. But I think that's it. It felt like all the good stuff from the book had been left out, and that they just took the names and put them in a new story. In every episode I had several "wtf"-moments and I felt that the story just didn't make sense.

But the last episode was the worst one, by far. They rushed to kill off three major bad guys and one monk who used to be a knight but who really was the king who everyone thought was dead. Okay. Did they just throw that in there? I'm trying really hard to remember if this happened in the book, but I can't remember it, and I think I would. The fight scene, which I felt was stupid to begin with, dragged on and we just saw a bunch of people we didn't know die. And when everyone was told to stop, they turned to look at the king, who obviously was in a spot that was visible to the whole town, with this really impatient and confused looks on their faces. Sure, confusion (and maybe impatience? I never fought) is normal in a fight, but no one was scared, angry or bloody. It didn't look like they were fighting for their lives.

And what about Merthin, wasn't he supposed to be a really good builder? In the book he makes Kingsbridge Cathedral the tallest building in England, but in the series he just seems annoying and controlling over Caris. I couldn't even see what the deal was about their love. I didn't like any of them. Caris was supposed to be strong and independent, but in the series it seems to me that she's just pushed around. It's ridiculous! And still people seem to respect her and listen to her. I miss Aliena from Pillars. She was strong and her character clearly developed trough the series. In the books I kept comparing them to each other, but in the series Caris was a big disappointment.

I could go on and on like this. Like, what the hell was Merthin doing fighting in the last episode? We all knew he sucked, it's like he was TRYING to get killed. And lady Philippa, why'd she kill herself? Sure, she didn't want Ralph to have her, but she had a daughter! It just seemed sort of selfish to me. And a bunch of the major characters in the book were mostly squashed under other characters.

I'll tell you what I liked about the series too, but that's not a lot. Like I said, Gwenda and Ralph was okay. I liked that Gwenda was happier in the series. And the actress seemed strong and talented, though I had imagined her accent would be more prominent. Ralph was ruthless and strong, and I do remember thinking that "YES, this character is developing! He has a motivation!" but now I can't remember why. I think I am too angry that someone allowed themselves to destroy this story that I love so much to think clearly. This will be hard to get over.

In all fairness, in Pillars they changed a lot from the book too, it's just that they did it in a good way. World Without End just made a mess of everything. The characters, the plot... I think that if they'd made 12 episodes the quality of the series would have been a lot better. They could have developed the characters and spent more time exploring the bigger events of the story.

My advice is: Don't watch this. If you watch this and agree that the first episode is crap, DON'T think it'll get better and be worth it in the end. The good parts are few and far between. Go watch Pillars again instead. Pillars is amazing.