Meghan Markle’s royal wedding looked like something out of a fairytale, but according to a new book, the signs that her life inside the monarchy would unravel may have been there all along. In “Divide & Rule,” author Catherine Mayer argues Meghan’s eventual exit from royal life was not entirely shocking in hindsight, but rather the result of a deep cultural mismatch between the Duchess of Sussex and the institution she married into.

The former “Suits” actress entered the Royal Family in 2018 alongside Prince Harry, with many hoping the marriage would modernize the monarchy. As the family’s first biracial member and an outspoken feminist, Meghan appeared to symbolize change.

But Mayer suggests the very traits that initially made Meghan seem like a breath of fresh air may have also made royal life impossible to sustain. “How did the dream crumble?” Mayer asks, arguing that Meghan’s differences ultimately “would count against her.”

Markle Was ‘Too Different’ For Palace Life, Author Suggests

According to Mayer, one of the biggest signs Meghan may have struggled as a royal was simply who she already was before she met Harry. Unlike other women who married into the monarchy, Meghan had spent years building her own career, public image, and platform.

Long before becoming the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan openly shared opinions on lifestyle, fashion, politics, and activism through her now-defunct blog, The Tig. Mayer argues that Meghan’s personality, ambitious, independent, and outspoken, never naturally aligned with the traditional expectations placed on senior royals. The author even points to Meghan’s admiration for “She-Ra, Princess of Power” as an early sign she valued independence and agency.

Before meeting Harry, Meghan once identified with the fictional heroine because she represented strength and self-determination, qualities Mayer suggests were difficult to reconcile with palace expectations. Even after announcing her engagement, Meghan made clear she did not view joining the monarchy as giving up who she was.

“I don’t see it as giving anything up. I just see it as a change. It’s a new chapter, right?” Meghan said during her engagement interview. At the time, the comments sounded hopeful. In hindsight, Mayer suggests they may have foreshadowed the friction to come.

California Culture And Palace Life Were Never A Natural Match

Mayer also argues Meghan’s California upbringing may have made palace culture especially difficult to navigate. The book describes California as a place where emotional openness, ambition, self-expression, and even public vulnerability are embraced, a sharp contrast to the famously reserved traditions of the British monarchy.

That disconnect reportedly surfaced in subtle but revealing moments. Meghan previously recalled feeling surprised by Prince William and Princess Kate’s reaction to her casual nature. “They came over for dinner, I remember I was in ripped jeans, and I was barefoot,” Meghan once shared. “I was a hugger. I’ve always been a hugger. I didn’t realize that is really jarring for a lot of Brits.”

According to Mayer, interactions like these underscored Meghan’s difficulty adapting to what the author describes as “Planet Windsor,” the rigid, highly structured world of royal protocol.

Prince Harry Compared Royal Life To ‘An Unending Truman Show’

Complicating matters further, even Harry has acknowledged how difficult royal life can be for outsiders to understand. In the Sussexes’ Netflix series, the Duke of Sussex described royal life as “this surreal state, this unending Truman Show.”

Harry also highlighted just how unusual palace customs can feel to someone entering the family from the outside. “How do you explain that you bow to your grandmother?” he previously mused.

According to Mayer, no amount of Googling or preparation could have fully prepared Meghan for the reality of royal life, one involving relentless scrutiny, limited privacy, palace aides, and strict traditions.

Why Meghan Markle Could Never Be The ‘Perfect Royal’

The book ultimately argues that Meghan was never likely to succeed by following the same path as Princess Kate. While Catherine, Princess of Wales, is described as someone who perfected the traditional royal role, Mayer suggests Meghan never could have comfortably embraced the same level of restraint, even if she wanted to.

Instead, Meghan continued to value emotional openness and authenticity, something that became increasingly clear during a 2019 royal tour of South Africa. When asked how she was coping, Meghan candidly admitted the experience had taken a toll. “Thank you for asking, because not many people have asked if I’m OK,” she said at the time. “It’s not enough to just survive something, right? Like, that’s not the point of life. You’ve got to thrive, you’ve got to feel happy.”

For Mayer, moments like those revealed the deeper divide at the center of Meghan’s royal story, a California-born public figure trying to navigate an institution built on tradition, restraint, and silence.

In hindsight, the fairytale may have always been heading toward a very different ending.

When Mindhunter debuted on Netflix in 2017, it became an immediate hit. For two seasons, David Fincher‘s psychological thriller followed two FBI agents tracking down the worst killers. Mindhunter ended much too soon in 2019, but if you’re searching for something similar and missed out on it the first time around, check out HBO‘s The Outsider. The 2020 miniseries is an adaptation of Stephen King‘s novel of the same name. It follows two detective-types as well, played to perfection by Ben Mendelsohn and Cynthia Erivo, as they come face to face with a different, even more terrifying kind of killer. Produced, co-directed, and co-starring Jason Bateman, The Outsider only needed one season to tell its shocking story.

‘The Outsider’ Is Stephen King’s Take on a Police Procedural

Stephen King’s novel, The Outsider, was published in 2018. On the surface, both the book and the 10-episode miniseries begin like so many other mysteries. A young boy is found murdered, and irrefutable physical evidence leads the police to a coach in town named Terrence Maitland (Bateman). There’s only one problem. Maitland has an airtight alibi which puts him several towns away when the murder occurred. He can’t be the killer, even though fingerprints and DNA samples say otherwise. How can this possibly be?

Enter Stephen King’s mind to take it in a direction that only he can. Investigating the murder are by-the-book detective Ralph Anderson (Mendelsohn) and an unusual private investigator named Holly Gibney (Erivo). The Holly character has appeared in several King books and their adaptations, including Mr. Mercedes. Here, she and Detective Anderson will follow the trail in a search for truth, but what they find will shock them to the bone.

Ben Mendehlson and Cynthia Erivo Encounter an Impossible Monster in ‘The Outsider’

Holly Gibney is not your traditional crime solver. She’s quiet and socially awkward, and carries an air of sadness. What Holly does have is an incredible amount of intelligence. She can figure out things others can’t. This contrast immediately makes her someone to pay attention to. Ralph Anderson is her exact opposite in many ways. He’s the older, grizzled veteran who does things a different way, but like Holly, Ralph carries a heavy weight of sadness. The HBO series goes much bleaker than the novel by making Ralph the father of a child who died of cancer. To add to the layers, his son was also once coached by Terry Maitland.

The Outsider moves from a typical murder mystery to supernatural horror due to its real villain. It’s not giving anything away to reveal that Terry isn’t the real killer, a fact which should be impossible because it’s not only characters who see Terry in the wrong, but the audience as well. The camera doesn’t lie with scenes such as Maitland covered in blood in one place while somehow being miles away in the next scene. Without getting into spoiler territory, The Outsider takes its time unraveling its mystery. Rather than a horror story filled with jump scares, gore, and shocks at every turn, the miniseries is a bleak, slow burn that is more interested in getting to know its characters first before showing the monster. The audience feels for these people, including Terry. Only then can the true terror have any impact, becoming Mindhunter with the restraints of real life ripped away.

‘The Outsider’ Premiered to Phenomenal Reviews

Image Via HBO

Like Mindhunter, The Outsider is expertly written, with most of the episodes penned by series creator Richard Price. He’s not only one of the writing masterminds behind The Wire, but he is an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter, having worked on Martin Scorsese‘s The Color of Money. Price captures the darkness, fear, and paranoia overtaking the residents of Cherokee City, Georgia. He’s not the only one. Bateman is given the tall task of introducing the audience to The Outsider by directing the first two episodes. It’s a job he is more than capable of. The actor has been directing off and on for decades, including movies such as Bad Words, and winning an Emmy for his talents helming Ozark. Like with his popular Netflix series, Bateman showcases the grittiness of a small town and how an invading force gets under the skin of its protagonists. His acting chops are no joke either. The Hollywood A-lister puts the audience on the fence with Terry. Because it’s Bateman and Terry has been shown to have an alibi, the viewer wants to trust him, but there’s also something dark about him that’s impossible to shake. Bateman earned an Outstanding Guest Actor Emmy nomination for his efforts.

Stephen King TV adaptations have been hit-and-miss over the decades. For every IT: Welcome to Derry, there’s an Under the Dome or The Tommyknockers, which miss the mark. There are no worries with The Outsider, which debuted to a stellar 91% Tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes. Although not perfect, as it arguably lasts a few episodes too long, the characters, especially Ralph and Holly, keep the attention focused even as the plot starts to wane at points. It’s worth it to stick through the meandering middle to reach the frightening end, when the thing responsible for all of this hell shows what it can do.

Even the master of horror himself was a fan, posting on Twitter, “THE OUTSIDER is one of the best adaptations of my work. Hope you’ll watch it.” Collider agreed, putting it as the number one Stephen King TV show ahead of titles such as The Stand and Castle Rock. Six years later, it still hits as hard and is required viewing for fans of Mindhunter, Seven, Zodiac, The Killing, and True Detective. If you haven’t seen it, check out what all the hype is about. The Outsider will hook you and not let go.

Perhaps no other director working today has done more to keep the Western alive than James Mangold. Although he’s hopped from genre to genre throughout his career, the spirit of the Western is present in films as varied as Cop Land, Walk the Line, and Logan. So it’s surprising that he’s only directed one proper cowboy movie: 2007’s 3:10 to Yuma, a remake of a 1957 adventure yarn adapted from a short story by Elmore Leonard. It seems appropriate that Mangold would remake a movie from the ’50s, considering his life’s mission seems to be infusing Old Hollywood classicism with New Hollywood sensibilities. And with 3:10 to Yuma, he found the perfect vehicle to express the themes that have been ever-present in his work. The film recently left Peacock, and is now streaming once again on Plex and Philo.

James Mangold’s ‘3:10 to Yuma’ Goes Deeper and Darker Than the Original

The plot of 3:10 to Yuma is a model of simplicity: wounded Civil War veteran Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is struggling to keep his ranch from being sold to the railroad company that wants to use his land for development. Desperate for cash, he agrees to help transport outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to the town of Contention, where he will take the 3:10 train to Yuma to await trial. A battle of wills ensues as Ben tries to escape by playing mind games with Dan. Meanwhile, Ben’s gang, led by the bloodthirsty Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), is headed towards Contention to free their boss.

The 1957 original, directed by genre master Delmer Daves, starred Glenn Ford as the outlaw and Van Heflin as the rancher. At a brisk 92 minutes, it’s a tense, psychologically complex B-movie that seems to play out almost in real time in its second half (much like another Western from that era, High Noon). Mangold’s version, which adds an extra half hour to the runtime, takes the bones of Leonard’s story and expands it into a more ambitious action spectacle, extending the journey to Contention, creating some rich supporting characters (including Dallas Roberts and Alan Tudyk as members of Dan’s posse) and taking full advantage of the R-rating to show the gruesome reality of the Old West. He also develops the role of Dan’s eldest son, William (Logan Lerman), who loathes his father and accompanies him on the mission because he doesn’t think the old man is capable of handling Ben on his own.

There are a number of bravura set pieces, from Ben and his gang robbing the stagecoach transporting the railroad’s money (with Peter Fonda as the Pinkerton agent paid to protect it) to the finale, as Dan evades dozens of gunslingers recruited to stop him from getting Ben aboard the train. But what’s most surprising about this remake is how rich and complex the relationship between Dan and Ben is. Even though they’re on opposite sides of the law, the two live by a moral code. Ben might be a thief, but he’s stealing from the railroad company who are using illegal tactics to force Dan off his land. Dan, meanwhile, could very easily save his ranch by taking Ben’s stolen money in exchange for letting him escape, but that would be wrong. In the end, there’s mutual respect between the two, as they’ve each come to respect the other’s strict sense of ethics. The performances by Crowe and Bale — a significant upgrade over Ford and Heflin in terms of movie star charisma — help sell this as each plays into the ways in which either man could be considered the hero or villain of the story. (It also helps that Foster is so good at playing a brutal henchman, making his boss seem tame by comparison.)

Ben Foster Gives an Underrated, Rock-Star Performance

Image via Lionsgate

When speaking to Vulture about his role in 3:10 to Yuma, Ben Foster provided some behind-the-scenes color to the story about his character’s tan leather jacket. He and the wardrobe designer were looking at photos of historical outlaws, and they concluded that the outlaws were the rock-stars of their era. Thus, in a bleached tan jacket with shiny brass buttons, worn by a character named Charlie Prince, was born the regal and deranged inspiration for his performance.

Foster’s character building provides another insight into the rough-and-tumble outlaw world Mangold is exploring in the remake. The flamboyance that he brings to the role can be seen especially in moments of violence. In a scene where the outlaw attempts to get his boss back from the townsfolk assisting with this custody, Charlie gleefully rides through the main square shouting: “This town’s gonna burn.” The rock-star arrogance he brings to the role again comes out when Charlie introduces himself to the Pinkerton agent they are about to rob, drawling “I assume you’ve heard of me?”

An especially poignant moment is the final gun fight that ensues when rancher Dan is trying to escape through town as the team of outlaws awaits them. As Dan leads Ben down a back alley, the surrounding gunmen are alerted, and the trigger-happy outlaws begin shooting wildly in their direction. Foster’s performance as he realizes the danger his boss is in plays across his features as he shouts wildly for the surrounding gunslingers to aim for the rancher and “not the black hat.” As his words have no effect, he springs into action and rapidly takes down the nearby gunmen. It’s a masterful moment where the idea of “black hat vs. white hat” morality is ambiguous as Charlie suddenly enters the fray and momentarily saves Dan from the other outlaws, but only in the hopes that he can kill him himself while freeing his boss.

Foster told Vulture that on each new set an actor needs to “learn how to act again,” as you become open to embodying this new person. He paraphrased Neil Young’s famous quip that songwriters need to “get out of the way” of the song to describe this entry into a new character, saying he wants only to get out of the character’s way. With his performance in 3:10 to Yuma, Foster clearly got out of Charlie’s way and the film was all the better for it.

‘3:10 to Yuma’ Is James Mangold at His Very Best

Although his filmography encompasses titles like Girl, Interrupted and Kate & Leopold, Mangold has always been drawn to stories centered on men standing apart from society, using a variety of genres to explore issues of masculinity, male bonding, and individuality. Perhaps no other film of his has better expressed these themes than 3:10 to Yuma, which centers on two loners with distinctive views on manhood who eventually come to respect each other. While he would explore similar terrain in his 2019 racing drama Ford v. Ferrari, 3:10 to Yuma is even more effective because it belongs to a genre that has always lent itself to interrogations of male archetypes.

One of the dramatic threads in 3:10 to Yuma is Dan’s struggles to earn William’s respect. Having lost his foot in the war and unable to provide for his family, Dan feels constantly emasculated, and his son reinforces this by sneering at his attempts to prove himself. Throughout their trip to Contention, William is put in the middle of Ben and Dan’s warring views on masculinity — tough and violent on the one hand, quiet and noble on the other. As the journey progresses, and the rest of the crew are either killed or scared away, Dan’s mission to get Ben on the 3:10 train has less to do with the money and more to do with regaining his self-respect. By the end, through watching his father, William has learned what it means to be a man, and so has Ben.

Advertisement

Release Date

September 6, 2007

Advertisement

Runtime

122 minutes

Writers

Advertisement

Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, Elmore Leonard

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Prince Harry has long spoken about the similarities he sees between Meghan Markle and his late mother, Princess Diana, and according to a new book, those parallels may run far deeper than many realized. In “Divide & Rule,” author Catherine Mayer argues Meghan Markle’s turbulent royal journey echoed Diana’s in ways that ultimately shaped Harry’s decisions, including his determination to step back from royal life.

For Prince Harry, protecting Meghan Markle reportedly became deeply personal. The Duke of Sussex has repeatedly suggested he feared history could repeat itself, believing his wife faced many of the same pressures Diana endured from both palace life and relentless media scrutiny.

Mayer writes that Harry became determined to protect Meghan “in a way he could not protect his mother” from what he viewed as threats from both the institution and the press.

Harry Saw Familiar Patterns In Markle’s Royal Struggles

According to Mayer, royal women have historically faced intense scrutiny, often finding themselves embraced by the public one moment and vilified the next. The author argues that Diana and Meghan followed strikingly similar paths, both entering the Royal Family as symbols of change before becoming deeply polarizing public figures.

Meghan was initially celebrated as a modernizing force within the monarchy and briefly soared in popularity following her marriage to Harry in 2018. But Mayer argues the shift happened quickly.

The author describes Meghan as someone later portrayed by critics as “too ambitious” and “too difficult,” comparisons she says echoed how other royal women, including Anne Boleyn and Diana, were viewed when they challenged expectations.

Like Diana before her, Meghan increasingly became a lightning rod for public criticism.

Meghan Markle And Princess Diana Both Struggled With The Weight Of Fame

One of Mayer’s strongest parallels centers on fame itself. According to the book, Meghan and Harry’s marriage briefly pushed both royals to extraordinary levels of popularity, with Harry even surpassing Queen Elizabeth II at one point while Meghan climbed to sixth place in royal approval rankings.

But Mayer argues Meghan quickly learned a difficult lesson Diana knew all too well. “Soon enough, she learned the difference between manageable celebrity and her new level of fame: one opens doors, the other imprisons you,” the author writes.

Mayer suggests Diana experienced the same suffocating pressure decades earlier, with the late princess also struggling under the weight of constant attention and public obsession. “Princess Diana found herself in a similar position. And she, too, felt suffocated,” the author notes.

For Harry, watching Meghan navigate overwhelming fame may have intensified fears that his wife was following an all-too-familiar path.

Princess Diana’s Death Still Shapes Harry’s Fears

Mayer also revisits the aftermath of Diana’s tragic death in 1997, recalling a moment outside Buckingham Palace when a hotel worker pointed toward the monarchy and said, “They killed her.” The author stresses that the accusation was not intended literally but rather reflected public anger toward the Royal Family and perceptions that Diana had been left vulnerable.

After revisiting Diana’s story for the book, Mayer admitted her perspective had shifted. “In 1997, I remained dry-eyed. Now, I weep for Diana, and the damage such forces continue to inflict,” Mayer writes.

Harry has openly acknowledged fearing that Meghan’s treatment mirrored the pressure his mother faced decades earlier.

Why Meghan Markle Still Sparks Such Strong Reactions

Mayer also argues that Meghan’s significance extends far beyond royal gossip. The author points to Meghan’s unprecedented global recognition, noting that her name recognition recently reached nearly universal levels in international polling.

According to Mayer, Meghan’s identity as a woman of color and her public association with social causes have only intensified public opinions surrounding her. While critics blame Meghan for damaging the monarchy’s reputation, supporters, including members of the so-called Sussex Squad, argue that misogyny, racism, or a mix of the two fueled much of the hostility directed at her.

Mayer ultimately poses one lingering question to critics who continue calling for Meghan to disappear from public life: “What exactly has she done to earn such hostility?”

For the author, Meghan’s story may not perfectly mirror Diana’s, but the similarities are difficult to ignore, especially through Harry’s eyes.

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published 4 seconds ago

While I mostly lurk these days, I’m still hanging around on X, formerly known as Twitter. Admittedly, the place has become a real hellscape, with a feed constantly serving up ragebait and idiots constantly asking Grok to do their thinking for them. Speaking of idiots, X is filled with people who pay for blue checks, and as you might imagine, the people who pay extra to force their comments to the top almost never have anything interesting to say. Why am I still there, then? Because every single day, there’s some insanely brilliant bit of sh*tposting that makes me utter the motto every Twitter veteran: “I’m never leaving this site.” 

For example, even though the last House episode aired nearly a decade and a half ago, new fans are constantly discovering the show. New haters, too, as evidenced by one user (@jan_murray) starting Season 1 and griping about the show’s repetitive episode formula. Normally, this would be no big deal; people posting bad media takes on X is hardly anything new. What made her critique noteworthy, though, is that House star Hugh Laurie actually provided a response so wonderfully sarcastic and withering that it’s like he brought his famous TV doctor back for one last rodeo. A Golden Globe-winning actor dunking on a random fan out of nowhere? Man, I’m never leaving this site!

The New Main Character Is Here

All of this began with X user Janet Murray’s capsule review of House. Admitting that she was “late to the party,” she described starting Season 1 and getting annoyed with its repetitive story structure. “Patient has mysterious illness. Hugh Laurie (House) gets diagnosis wrong. Patient nearly dies.” She goes on to describe how the titular characters will get the diagnosis wrong again and nearly get fired, with the patient almost dying again. Finally, “Hugh Laurie has last minute leftfield idea. Gets diagnosis right. Doesn’t get fired.” She ends her critique with a rhetorical question: “Eight seasons of this?” 

As expected, many House superfans began mocking her criticisms. But that was nothing compared to Hugh Laurie, House himself, coming into the comment section like a wrecking ball. He immediately began with his character’s signature snark, criticizing her use of brackets in the original post. The actor then sarcastically noted that the crew tried a couple of episodes where “House gets it right the first time, but they were only 6 minutes long. NBC weren’t happy.“ He then joked that they tried episodes “where House never gets it right and the patient dies. The audience wasn’t happy.”

Making A House Call

Honestly, this was already brutal enough, but Laurie wasn’t done. Continuing, he wrote, “One could apply your trenchant analysis to other art forms: JS Bach wrote 30 Goldberg variations on the same chord structure; Frida Kahlo painted 50 portraits of herself…The point is, or was, variations on a theme; if all you see is hospital, medical blah blah, then it wasn’t meant for you.” As if he could hear the House fandom crying for him to finish her, Laurie added an absolutely devastating final sentence: “Nonetheless, I look forward to your first novel!”

Aside from the relative novelty of a famous actor talking sh*t to a sh*t poster, what makes Hugh Laurie’s response so great is that it might as well have been written by House. From the initial mocking of her communication to dragging her for not understanding media, the whole thing feels like a (slightly) more polite version of the TV doctor’s famous onscreen takedowns. Plus, Laurie’s final dig, essentially pointing out that this is creative criticism from someone who hasn’t created much, feels like the kind of thing House might throw out, mid-argument, before dramatically walking away.

The Diagnosis Is Correct

Beyond the sarcasm, Laurie offers some pretty spot-on media analysis. Most great new stories are, in fact, variations on stories we have seen before. Joseph Campbell pointed this out in his groundbreaking 1949 book Hero with a Thousand Faces. According to him, most great myths (ranging from The Odyssey to the Bible) tell the same essential story using different variations of the same tropes. He called this the “monomyth,” and his theories influenced George Lucas. This is why the first Star Wars, despite being sci-fi, has so many King Arthur callbacks: a magical mentor, an enchanted sword,  and a hero of destiny who has to rescue a damsel in distress from a terrifying castle.

While many fans and even a few of the show’s actors have been hoping for a House revival, nothing has been announced. Realistically, we may never get another TV series that brings back Hugh Laurie’s famously cantankerous physician. However, this hilarious kerfluffle over on X is a reminder that fans can effectively summon House back for more wit and wisdom whenever they want. All they have to do is say something really, really stupid where Hugh Laurie can see it, and then brace themselves for the most hilarious clapbacks in celebrity history!

Fantasy TV is often dominated by the biggest and flashiest names in the genre. Shows like Game of Thrones and The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power dominate most of the conversation, and for good reason. However, the catch is that while everyone is busy binge-watching the greats, a bunch of other brilliant fantasy shows get left behind.

Some of these shows premiered before the audiences started appreciating fantasy TV, and some lacked the marketing power of bigger franchises. Despite that, many of these overlooked series delivered the same sense of wonder and imagination that viewers appreciate in the more popular titles. For anyone looking to venture beyond the mainstream, here are the forgotten fantasy shows that are perfect from start to finish.

‘The 10th Kingdom’ (2000)

Image via NBC

The 10th Kingdom is a true blue fantasy adventure for the whole family. The miniseries focuses on what happens after the happily ever after, and in doing so, it delivers a clever, funny, and surprisingly ambitious story that feels like a love letter to the genre. The narrative follows young New Yorker Virginia Lewis (Kimberly Williams), whose ordinary life is turned upside down when a magical mirror transports her and her father, Tony Lewis (John Larroquette), into a realm made up of the Nine Kingdoms. There, familiar fairy tales have continued long after their original endings, and descendants of legendary characters now rule kingdoms of their own.

Now, when Snow White’s grandson, Prince Wendell (Daniel Lapaine), is transformed into a dog by the Evil Queen (Dianne Wiest), Virginia finds herself entangled in a quest that could determine the fate of the entire realm. The 10th Kingdom is genuinely one of the most creative fantasy shows of the 2000s. The series constantly finds inventive ways to reinterpret fairy-tale mythology and weaves together characters, locations, and lore from classic stories into a world that feels both familiar and yet completely original. This is what gives The 10th Kingdom a charm that holds up even today. This show is the definition of a forgotten gem that deserves to be rediscovered.

‘Neverwhere’ (1996)

Image via BBC

Neverwhere, created by Neil Gaiman, is a six-part BBC miniseries that takes a simple premise and transforms it into one of the most imaginative fantasy worlds ever put on television. The story follows Richard Mayhew (Gary Bakewell), an ordinary London businessman whose life changes forever after he helps an injured young woman named Door (Laura Fraser). That single act of kindness traps Richard in London Below, a hidden realm that exists alongside modern-day London.

As Richard searches for a way home, he joins Door on a dangerous adventure while being pursued by the sinister assassins Mr. Croup (Hywel Bennett) and Mr. Vandemar (Clive Russell). Neverwhere really shines in its worldbuilding because of how the show takes familiar London landmarks and transforms them into fantastical locations. It’s easy to tell that the show was made on a modest budget, but what it lacks in technicality, it more than makes up for with its compelling storytelling.

‘Pushing Daisies’ (2007–2009)

The premise of Pushing Daisies sounds absurd on paper, but the show is whimsical and quirky in all the right ways. The series follows pie-maker Ned (Lee Pace), who has the extraordinary gift of bringing the dead back to life with a single touch. Of course, that ability comes with strict rules, and if Ned touches someone a second time, they die forever. If he leaves a revived person alive for more than a minute, someone else nearby must die in their place. Chaos ensues when the protagonist starts helping private investigator Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) solve a murder and ends up resurrecting his childhood sweetheart, Charlotte “Chuck” Charles (Anna Friel), whom he does not want to lose again.

Aside from this hooking premise, Pushing Daisies feels like a storybook come to life with its colorful, elaborate sets and playful dialogue. Ned and Chuck’s love story is the most heartwarming part of the show. The two are hopelessly in love, yet can never physically touch each other without catastrophic consequences. Most would treat that limitation as a gimmick, but Pushing Daisies turns it into the emotional heart of the series. The fantasy comedy revolves around the idea of death itself, but never feels cynical. Even years after its cancellation, audiences still celebrate it as a one-of-a-kind TV masterpiece that ended way too soon.

‘His Dark Materials’ (2019–2022)

Image via HBO

Advertisement

His Dark Materials, based on Philip Pullman‘s acclaimed novels, begins with the story of Lyra Belacqua (Dafne Keen), a seemingly ordinary orphan living at Jordan College in an alternate version of Oxford, where every human soul exists outside the body as an animal companion called a daemon. Things take a turn when Lyra’s best friend mysteriously disappears, and she sets out on a journey to find her. Along the way, she crosses paths with armored polar bears, witches, scholars, angels, and Will Parry (Amir Wilson), a boy from another world whose destiny becomes linked to her own.

His Dark Materials is one of those rare shows that grow with the audience. Season 1 has all the makings of a classic fantasy, but as the story progresses, the show makes way for its more philosophical themes to coexist with its elements of adventure and wonder. The series stays true to Pullman’s immersive world-building and, across three seasons, tells a complete story with a powerful emotional payoff.

‘The Almighty Johnsons’ (2011–2013)

Image via TV3

The premise of The Almighty Johnsons could have easily taken a ridiculous turn, but the New Zealand series remains surprisingly grounded till the very end. The show follows Axl Johnson (Emmett Skilton), an ordinary student who discovers he is actually the reincarnation of Odin on his 21st birthday. Not just that, but all his family members are reincarnated Norse gods, whose divine abilities are weakened. It’s up to Axl to find the reincarnation of Frigg (Siobhan Marshall), Odin’s destined wife, to restore his family’s full powers.

The reason why The Almighty Johnsons is so entertaining is that the show runs wild with this setup. It treats mythology less like a spectacle and more like a series of relatable family problems in modern Auckland. This approach gives The Almighty Johnsons a personality that is unlike the standard, flashier fantasy shows. The series builds its fantasy through sharp writing and the idea that ancient gods might be just as confused and emotionally complicated as everyone else.

‘Carnivàle’ (2003–2005)

Image via HBO

HBO’s Carnivàle is one of the most underrated fantasy shows of all time. The series is set during the Dust Bowl years of the Great Depression and follows Ben Hawkins (Nick Stahl), a young farm boy with mysterious healing abilities who joins a traveling carnival after his mother dies. As Ben travels across the American Southwest with the carnival’s collection of performers, fortune-tellers, and outcasts, he becomes haunted by strange visions that seem connected to a drifter named Henry Scudder (John Savage). Simultaneously, in California, charismatic preacher Brother Justin Crowe (Clancy Brown) begins discovering supernatural powers of his own, completely unaware that his path and Ben’s are leading toward an inevitable confrontation.

Carnivàle blends intimate character drama with a grand battle between good and evil. The show’s mythology is extremely ambitious. It draws from religion, folklore, tarot symbolism, prophecy, and even American history, but never loses sight of the character arcs that drive the narrative. Carnivàle also remains one of the most visually stunning fantasy shows ever produced, accurately portraying the era in which it is set. However, the show’s greatest strength is how confidently it embraces mystery. It trusts the audience to piece together clues and symbolism, which makes for the kind of active viewing experience that the fantasy genre calls for.

‘The Magicians’ (2015–2020)

Image via SYFY

The Magicians is a treat for anyone who loves Harry Potter but wants a story that feels more grown-up. The series, based on Lev Grossman‘s novels, begins with Quentin Coldwater (Jason Ralph), who discovers that magic is real when he is unexpectedly accepted into Brakebills University, a secret institution that trains magicians. Things quickly become far more complicated as Quentin and his fellow students learn that magic is dangerous, unpredictable, and often comes with devastating consequences. The real twist comes when they discover that Fillory, the magical fantasy world from Quentin’s favorite childhood books, isn’t fiction at all.

Not only is it real, but it’s also far more dangerous than anyone imagined. Now, Quentin definitely serves as the entry point to the story, but The Magicians quickly evolves into a true ensemble show. It follows characters including Julia Wicker (Stella Maeve), Eliot Waugh (Hale Appleman), Margo Hanson (Summer Bishil), and more as they grow, fail, lose friendships, and deal with personal struggles along with the magical threats they face. The series isn’t afraid to tackle dark themes like depression and addiction, but even then, it never loses its sense of wonder. Obviously, the cast’s brilliant performances allow such tonal shifts to work without ever feeling disjointed. The Magicians kept reinventing over its five seasons, and is easily one of the distinctive fantasy shows of the last decade.

Advertisement

The Magicians

Release Date

Advertisement

2015 – 2020-00-00

Directors

Chris Fisher, James L. Conway, Joshua Butler, John Scott, Carol Banker, Scott Smith, Guy Norman Bee, Rebecca Johnson, Salli Richardson-Whitfield, Meera Menon, amanda tapping, Bill Eagles, Jan Eliasberg, Kate Woods, Shannon Kohli

Advertisement

Advertisement

• 
• 

  Olivia Taylor Dudley

  Alice Quinn

Advertisement

Advertisement