Are the final edited versions different? I have seen a few things on tumblr - something about a sex scene between Richard and Elizabeth of York?? That wasn't in the BBC's version. I have seen some other pictures/gifs that I just as assumed were deleted scenes, if they are different I do want to see the Starz cut too. Anyone know?
Yes, my understanding is that the U.S. STARZ version contained sex scenes that were cut from the BBC's version.
shareWell, there were 2 basic stories put out about this. One had a spokeswoman for the series state that cameras were kept rolling for an extra 30 seconds or so in a couple of sex scenes but no additional scenes were written or filmed. Max Irons noted that the "Starz cut" let viewers see more "a---" and remarked that in some scenes there were extra words added to help American audiences keep track of players in history they are unfamiliar with. (I roll my eyes at this, being an American who knows the history quite well, and it was annoying to hear Queen Elizabeth call her son "Thomas Grey" instead of "Thomas.")
That story is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10123456/The-White-Queen-Cameras-kept-rolling-in-sex-scenes-for-US-audience.html
But a month later, the supposed 30-seconds-longer story changed to they-stripped-for-the-Yanks. Though I haven't seen the "BBC cut" - I saw it on Amazon Instant Video and the T&A was definitely there - apparently on the BBC ladies wore more chemises and guys only showed their chests and not their arses. Too bad; Max Irons' is definitely worth seeing.
Here is that article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362662/The-White-Queen-Uncut-US-version-BBC-features-alternate-nude-scenes.html
This whole thing is funny to me, because I'm used to seeing much more nudity on British shows than I do on American ones. I think the difference in the cuts was because Starz is a cable network. On regular network tv in America it's still considered pretty daring to show a little bare arse. Violence abounds, but breasts are still pretty verboten; I'd far rather it were the other way around.
I find it ironic that the US version was more sexy?
Many US versions of TV shows have the sex, violence and swearing cut/edited out, whereas European films and shows are usually grittier, and uncut?
Many US versions of TV shows have the sex, violence and swearing cut/edited out
True, actually.
I remember Starz' Spartacus (unsure if the same transatlantic differences apply?) being 'gritty', as was the brilliant HBO prison drama series, Oz.
and remarked that in some scenes there were extra words added to help American audiences keep track of players in history they are unfamiliar with. (I roll my eyes at this, being an American who knows the history quite well, and it was annoying to hear Queen Elizabeth call her son "Thomas Grey" instead of "Thomas.")
Walk down any street in London, pick 10 Brits at random, and ask them to name Elizabeth Woodville's first son without looking it up on their phone.
Walk down any street in London, pick 10 Brits at random, and ask them to name Elizabeth Woodville's first son without looking it up on their phone.
And apparently - and most alarmingly for me - the starz version also has a sex scene between Richard III and Elizabeth of York, his niece! Apparently she visits him on the night before he goes to his final battle.
There was also a short scene cut out from the Starz version consisting of Isabel telling Anne the horrors of Margaret of Anjou, which was actually a really cute sister bonding moment that I'm sad they cut out of the Starz version.
Also the Princess Lizzie/Richard III scene was totally uneccesary and cringe worthy.
I wasn't too impressed with the BBC version myself (which is a shame, because the folks at the Beebz tend to put a lot of effort into their shows), but by the sounds of it, the Starz version probably makes the BBC one look like bloody Game of Thrones. It's the Wars of the Roses, for god's sake. Why was it so boring?
Also the Princess Lizzie/Richard III scene was totally uneccesary and cringe worthy.
All other things being equal (even though some of them shouldn't be) - I enjoyed the series as mildly entertaining.
One thing, however, really annoyed me about the final episode - the depiction of the "final battle," as the episode is titled.
To begin with, I've always read that the Battle of Bosworth Field was fought in August...and in a field. Instead, we see snow (?!) on the ground and a battle in the woods?
Also, in the episode we see Richard slowly surrounded by what he describes as a "bastard army" - which looks nothing more than an angry mob. And then, Henry Tudor is handed the crown after he is killed. By all accounts of the period, Richard was undone by his foolhardy - but headlong - charge into Henry's camp, where he came within fighting range of Henry before Henry's guard enveloped him.
My point is, it really wouldn't have taken much more effort to make the battle look more like the actual accounts of the period - and it would have been much more dramatic too.