Kings
I have the last two episodes of Kings, but it's hard to muster up the will to watch them. I want to finish the show because, after all, I'm so darned close to done, but at the same time the show's world-building is so sloppy that I've sort of lost interest. It's supposed to be a modernized retelling of the Biblical story of David, but they clearly haven't put any thought into how the modern world would look different if divinely inspired kingship remained the government of choice.
To take the most egregious example, why does the press believe that it has the right to commit the treasonous (in the context of divine kingship) act of printing stories that cast a negative light on the royal family? And why does the queen deal with it by stopping the entire postal service for the whole kingdom? Surely she has the power for the much-less-disruptive act of forcing the news media to shelve the story.
Especially given that we've seen the royal family commit assassinations for far less disloyal acts than this. They are vindictive people. King Silas keeps one of his former rivals in solitary confinement in a cave and occasionally assassinates his opponents personally, by stabbing them in his office. We are nonetheless meant to consider it one of David Shepard's virtues that he remains slavishly loyal to the king.
The show really falls apart around the characterization of David Shepard, who is fated to become the next king but shows no signs that he might be any good at the job. He's is stupidly loyal to people who don't deserve it, consistently overwhelmed by circumstances, unable to think out the long-term consequences of his actions, incapable of plotting his way out of a paper bag, and easily manipulated. If David doesn't get assassinated early in his reign then he will clearly become a puppet for anyone who cares to pull his strings.
He's a nice boy. But the show-runners seem to have confused niceness with goodness, and it is goodness, not niceness, that is required in a good king. He and his girlfriend the Princess Michelle are both nice, but they lack moral courage and steadfastness, and it's impossible to imagine them reigning well. I don't think they would set out to reign badly; I think they would just be overwhelmed by the task.
It is of course possible that the show-runners will try to turn this around in the final two episodes, but it's hard for me to imagine that actually working. The show has given David plenty of chances to show his quality, and he consistently chickens out in the face of moral dilemmas. If he does change at the eleventh hour, it will probably feel cheap; but I think even that weak gratification will be denied us. I don't think the show-runners realize that David is in any way lacking as kingly material.
To take the most egregious example, why does the press believe that it has the right to commit the treasonous (in the context of divine kingship) act of printing stories that cast a negative light on the royal family? And why does the queen deal with it by stopping the entire postal service for the whole kingdom? Surely she has the power for the much-less-disruptive act of forcing the news media to shelve the story.
Especially given that we've seen the royal family commit assassinations for far less disloyal acts than this. They are vindictive people. King Silas keeps one of his former rivals in solitary confinement in a cave and occasionally assassinates his opponents personally, by stabbing them in his office. We are nonetheless meant to consider it one of David Shepard's virtues that he remains slavishly loyal to the king.
The show really falls apart around the characterization of David Shepard, who is fated to become the next king but shows no signs that he might be any good at the job. He's is stupidly loyal to people who don't deserve it, consistently overwhelmed by circumstances, unable to think out the long-term consequences of his actions, incapable of plotting his way out of a paper bag, and easily manipulated. If David doesn't get assassinated early in his reign then he will clearly become a puppet for anyone who cares to pull his strings.
He's a nice boy. But the show-runners seem to have confused niceness with goodness, and it is goodness, not niceness, that is required in a good king. He and his girlfriend the Princess Michelle are both nice, but they lack moral courage and steadfastness, and it's impossible to imagine them reigning well. I don't think they would set out to reign badly; I think they would just be overwhelmed by the task.
It is of course possible that the show-runners will try to turn this around in the final two episodes, but it's hard for me to imagine that actually working. The show has given David plenty of chances to show his quality, and he consistently chickens out in the face of moral dilemmas. If he does change at the eleventh hour, it will probably feel cheap; but I think even that weak gratification will be denied us. I don't think the show-runners realize that David is in any way lacking as kingly material.