Not that Dirilis Ertugrul was historically accurate, or avoided formulaic plots, but within the constraints of appealing to a TV audience it still managed to bring heart and dexterity to its management. It had a rich and diverse cast of characters, and even if it was all's well that ends well, it still managed to surprise in the details, rarely following expected lines. It showed a deft hand at the writers table. The characters were well cast. Engin Altan especially did an excellent job of bringing Ertugrul to life. It was on the back of these strong points that the success of Ertugrul was built. That a considerable population of the Muslim world mistook it for a revivalist retelling of history only buttresses the excellence of its storytelling.
Kurulus Osman eschews all that. Perhaps it has - rightly - been spooked by the fanatical reaction to Ertugrul, and decided to being the religious content a notch, laying more emphasis on nationality than religion. So far so good. But - and I say this as a fan of its predecessor - did it have to sacrifice character and plot and replace them with bombast and melodrama?
The character of Osman literally, and I do mean literally, struts around like some self obsessed model. He self consciously flips his hair out of his eyes, speaks in an arrogant monotone and a block of wood shows more expression than his face.
He is also a superhero. He kills legions of enemies single handedly. He portrays an injury by staggering around like a bad actor playing drunk, and love by staring unblinkingly. (The writers forget to show any real injury in any case.)
Pain, fear, self doubt, are emotions unknown to his heart, and they have never visited his face.
Where Halime Hatun passed her debut with a stoic melancholy, despite her dire situation, Bala Hatun sheds a fake tear over a sick horse.
It makes me weep. What a lost opportunity. There is more available history on Osman than on Ertugrul. They spun that into a fantasy of fine gold. What might have been possible with the more material on Osman?