Heart Of Invictus

[Enero]

Synopsis: Following six people competing in the 2022 Invictus Games, a global sporting event founded by Prince Harry that helps wounded service members heal through sports. Release Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2023. 

If you’re active military a special screening of the series will be held on August 28th in San Diego. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CwYP9RiPjDm/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[Enero]

This is very good. I liked how they talked about the origins of the Invictus Games and how Harry’s experience serving  drove his desire to do something for veterans. It’s incredible that the war in Ukraine started while they were filming this documentary. The stories of the veterans participating in the Games are real and raw, no sugar coating. They talk about pain, substance abuse, mental health struggles which negatively impact the relationships they have with their families. But the last 15 minutes of episode 3 is heart wrenching and shows the true horrors of war. 

Thus far, all of the veteran’s stories are compelling. I will say Taira, the paramedic soldier in Ukraine has  been most compelling. Gabe’s story is interesting as well. So many join the military, especially in the U.S. to escape a situation at home. The anguish on his face from the perpetual pain he feels due to his injury is palpable. 

Also, it was heartbreaking hearing the Korean soldier talk about people who are disabled live in isolation, never coming out in Korea due to society’s negative view of them. It was courageous of him to participate in this documentary considering that fact.

These veterans have been through hell, but they are all resilient and amazing.  Their stories really does shed much needed light on  the struggles they face no matter which country they are from. I hope this documentary will generate more support for the Invictus Games and inspire more programs around the world to help veterans. 

I’ve not finished the series (just completed episode 3) but I’m enjoying it thus far. 

Edited August 30 by Enero

[Laura Holt]

I don't have Netfix so am hoping I will eventually be able to see this elsewhere but several of my friends have watched and have been very impressed.  One friend whose family is originally from Ukraine was particularly affected because one of the soldiers profiled was a Ukrainian medic and some of the filming was done in Ukraine prior to the war.  Just a little extra reminder of what the series is all about.

The Oscar-Winning ‘Heart of Invictus’ Team on Filming in Ukraine and Collaborating With Prince Harry

Edited August 31 by Laura Holt

[Enero]

6 hours ago, Stones Girl said:

I do have Netflix but I don’t plan to watch the series because of my anxiety. I read some clickbait about it, though, and I have a question for @Enero.  They found something to complain about, as we knew they would. Did you find that the number of Harry’s speeches interrupted the flow of the Invictus narrative?  That seemed to be the only complaint I think. I was just wondering if it was true. Thanks!

I honestly want to know what you think about this, as someone who has actually watched the shows.

In the first episode a couple of the cuts from a veteran’s story to Harry was a little choppy but that was it. When cutting to Harry what he was saying was relevant to the documentary. So I didn’t think the cuts to him were unwarranted. The only complaint I have is that some of the sound effects used when a veteran was having a triggering moment was unnecessary. I think maybe they were trying to make the moment more real for the audience. That wasn’t need. For the veterans words, expressions and body language said it all. But this was a very minor complaint. Everything else was top notch. 

I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Invictus Foundation has more activities and programs beyond the Games. I think this is so wonderful. It’s not the Games and that’s it. There is more for injured veterans to tap into that will hopefully help them. 

This was a great series! The stories were so touching. I can’t believe Harry’s original plan was to do this for three years but it took on a life of it’s own and here we are a decade later and the Games have grown and will likely continue to grow after this series. I was happy to see all of the veterans featured seeming to be in a better place with the follow ups they did six months after the Games. I know it will be an ongoing process for all of them to heal but I hope they will all continue to make positive strides towards a better future. 

[Laura Holt]

I was curious about the Ukrainian medic - could I ask @Enero what happened in the follow up you mentioned for her?

[Adgirl]

I'd be surprised if this doesn't win a bunch of awards. The segments about Ukraine were so poignant. That they were serving as well as participating in the games was incredible. Taira the paramedic's story was just bananas. 

Gabe being in constant pain broke my heart. 

I have to say this was miles more compelling than I expected. 

[Enero]

15 hours ago, Laura Holt said:

I was curious about the Ukrainian medic - could I ask @Enero what happened in the follow up you mentioned for her?

She was eventually released, but had been held captive by the Russians for 12 weeks and was tortured during that time. :(  She seems so strong. The fact that she had the strength to talk about it (very briefly) and be on camera after all that is amazing. But you could see the pain in her eyes over what she'd experienced. 

As I watched her I thought, she was already traumatized but now here's more trauma on top of that earlier trauma due to this horrific experience. After all she's been through and continues to go through (with the ongoing war in Ukraine etc.) I hope she remains strong. 

[Laura Holt]

Thank you @Enero.  Heartbreaking. 

I'm going to get a chance to see this over the week-end, I didn't realize my daughter still had Netflix but lucky for me she does.  I'm really looking forward to it but am bracing myself for some of the stories being particularly poignant.

Edited September 1 by Laura Holt

[Laura Holt]

In the Royals thread this was said:

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, Suzee2 said:

 In my opinion, Harry would have done more for these soldiers if he'd said as little as possible and allowed their stories to speak for themselves.

But since that didn't happen, some of his statements have drawn more attention from the media than the soldier's stories.

 

Harry's on screen time came to a grand total of about 30 minutes out of 5 hours. And out of those 30 minutes  a few fleeting comments have become the focal point for some in the media rather than the rest of HOI.   That speaks far more to the media than it does to Prince Harry.  And is a sad testament to how little they seem to care about Invictus or about wounded soldiers.  

Edited September 1 by Laura Holt

[DkNNy79]

22 hours ago, Laura Holt said:

I was curious about the Ukrainian medic - could I ask @Enero what happened in the follow up you mentioned for her?

In the promotional pics for this year’s games I believe I saw her with Team Ukraine.

I really enjoyed it.  Thought it was very moving, especially the parts involving Ukraine.  Harry’s screen time was fine.  I didn’t find it obsessive.  It’s a documentary about a program he co-founded and is still deeply involved in running.

[realityplease]

4 hours ago, Laura Holt said:

In the Royals thread this was said:

Harry's on screen time came to a grand total of about 30 minutes out of 5 hours. And out of those 30 minutes  a few fleeting comments have become the focal point for some in the media rather than the rest of HOI.   That speaks far more to the media than it does to Prince Harry.  And is a sad testament to how little they seem to care about Invictus or about wounded soldiers.  

Here are several articles, though there are many more.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2023/08/30/heart-of-invictus-harry-and-meghan-netflix-ep-1-review/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12461323/How-Prince-Harry-credited-brother-William-2017-persuading-seek-therapy-mothers-death-returning-Afghanistan-despite-telling-new-Netflix-mental-health-never-discussed-no-one-helped.html

I didn't see the media failing to care about "Invictus" or wounded soldiers.  Most of the media previews of the series (at least the first 3 segments) were positive about "Invictus" & sympathetic to the stories told by the wounded.  If the media had any nit to pick, it was to profess a wish for inclusion about the events that led to the soldiers' injuries, rather than just telling what happened after the event itself & the struggle for recovery.

Where the real criticism comes is as to Harry's 30 minutes during which Harry made statements on-screen that didn't comport with reality or contrary to past interviews Harry gave.  For example, some media have disagreed (&  even a wounded soldier professed his admiration for Harry, but nevertheless, also disagreed in the press) with Harry's statement that the media ignored the injuries incurred by soldiers in Afghanistan as events unfolded.  In fact, there was plenty of coverage at the time. I don't see a thing wrong with the media trying to vindicate themselves against Harry's claims that they didn't cover the war or issues sufficiently - because this can be shown to be untrue.

Harry also, apparently, complained that he was prevented from continuing duty & pulled from the front when "the media" outed his service, forcing his removal. In fact, it was a U.S. website, The Drudge Report, that reported it, while other media outlets, including the British media, adhered to a blackout on Harry's service.

Harry also, apparently, described his mental health issues & said he received no support following his mother's death & separation from service. But in fact, in 2017, Harry gave an interview describing how William and others, recognized his struggles, told him it wasn't "normal," & urged him to get help.

Specifically, in the 2017 interview Harry said "It's all about timing.  And for me, personally, my brother, you know, bless him, he was a huge support to me.  He kept saying, this is not right, this is not normal, you need to talk to [someone] about this stuff. It's ok."

So if certain in the media are calling Harry out for re-writing history in his 30 minutes on film, so be it. They have a right to defend the truth or expose inconsistencies given Harry's past statements.  If he, as a producer, decided to inject his "story" & viewpoint among the others, then the chips fall where they may.  As far as I can tell, it didn't stop the media from giving recognition & approval to the rest of the undertaking.

Edited September 2 by realityplease

[realityplease]

Several soldiers disagree with Harry's view that the media ignored the injuries sustained by soldiers in the Afghanistan conflict:

https://www.newsweek.com/veterans-prince-harry-netflix-war-claims-heart-invictus-1823922

Edited September 2 by realityplease

[LadyAmalthea]

Just finished, I found the series compelling, with the appropriate focus on the competitors and their incredible stories. I appreciated the exploration of mental illness, ptsd, ableism, ongoing conflicts, and other issues they faced. I’ll be keeping an eye on this year’s games.

There will always be those who choose to look past all that in favour of picking apart Harry’s every word but that’s on them, imo. 

[Laura Holt]

Two episodes in (will watch the rest tonight) and a word of warning, if you are anything like me make sure you have a box of kleenex handy.

I was wondering how they could make a 5 episode series of this and have ended up thinking they could easily have made it even longer.  The focus is on the soldiers and what they went through and are still going through.  Incredibly moving.

The timing of its airing is also well thought out and will hopefully bring a little extra attention to Invictus in Dusseldorf.

With regard to the British media and their whining - well I think to be honest they're on the wrong track here - focusing on a few random lines from Prince Harry instead of on what Heart of Invictus is all about makes them look petty and pathetic.  So be it.  I think they're also salty because Meghan barely appears and, as with the Coronation, this has robbed them of the opportunity to write hundreds of articles picking her apart.  I mean as you would in a series dedicated to wounded veterans 🙄.

 

Edited September 2 by Laura Holt

[Laura Holt]

On 9/1/2023 at 12:44 AM, Adgirl said:

I'd be surprised if this doesn't win a bunch of awards.

You can definitely tell it was made by Academy Award winners.  I don't know if this will win awards but I will be very surprised if it isn't nominated in several categories.

[Suzee2]

It doesn't take much time to make statements that can be easily fact checked by the media. As described in the post by @realityplease above, Harry's complaints about not receiving support from his family after his mother's death, the media not covering veterans issues and the UK press revealing that he was in Afghanistan were all refuted, by his own 2017 interview and published articles.

I suspect that Harry's screen time rehashing his grievances against his family and the media was probably kept in check by the Oscar-nominated director who deserves the credit for keeping the majority of this documentary's time focused where it should be, on the courageous veterans working on rebuilding their lives. Unlike Harry, who was whisked away as soon as his "secret" mission was blown (not by the UK press, but a US web site and an Australian publication), these veterans experienced the realities of being sent to a war zone and managed to survive devastating, life-altering injuries.

A veteran who was one of the injured on Harry's flight from Afghanistan, Ben McBean, who lost an arm and a leg, challenged Harry's assertion that the press was apathetic about war veterans. His published statement:

“I have had his back for 15 years. I’ve always championed him but it doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything that comes out of his mouth. On this one the Duke of Sussex is wrong."

“I can say, hand on heart for a fact, that the British media — and especially The Sun — did cover the stories of veterans. One of the only positives post-injury was how the media ­supported the troops."

“They didn’t write us off and told the world about us and our disabilities. Thanks to The Sun, everyone was wearing a Help for Heroes wristband.”

“I have seen Harry lots of times over the years. He has brought me beer and ‘Get well soon’ cards when I have been sick."

“My mum, dad and uncle have met him and William. I think Harry is cool but I am a 36-year-old man and I don’t agree with him. The papers and the media explained why the war was on and why you were going to see amputees walking in your local city."

“The whole country knew about us. I’ve nothing bad to say about the media supporting the military."

This article includes Ben's statement as well as statements from Mark Elliott of Help for Heroes, Andy McNab, and former commander of British troops in Afghanistan, all challenging Harry's claim about lack of media attention to veterans. Perhaps most telling is a photo showing William and Harry wearing Help for Heroes wristbands in 2008 which was widely publicized -- by the media. 

 

Edited September 2 by Suzee2

[Enero]

13 hours ago, Laura Holt said:

Two episodes in (will watch the rest tonight) and a word of warning, if you are anything like me make sure you have a box of kleenex handy.

 

It definitely pulled at the heart strings. Though I thought Yulia’s story was most compelling I couldn’t help but feel for Gabe. I felt for all of them but he was in incredible pain. The angst on his face when the nerve pain ramped up was palpable. I wonder what type of treatment he’s getting for it? I know that it is difficult to treat and with all the issues with pain management medicines and the potential for it leading to substance abuse it’s a fine line to walk for doctors and patients. 

He doesn’t appear to be returning to the Games this year. I do wonder how many of those featured in the documentary will be participating again. It was mentioned upthread that Yulia may be attending this year. I also saw that the guy  from the Netherlands who has PTSD will be returning, I believe as a team lead. I’ve not seen anything on the others. 

[Sailorgirl26]

On 9/1/2023 at 8:53 PM, realityplease said:

Here are several articles, though there are many more.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2023/08/30/heart-of-invictus-harry-and-meghan-netflix-ep-1-review/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12461323/How-Prince-Harry-credited-brother-William-2017-persuading-seek-therapy-mothers-death-returning-Afghanistan-despite-telling-new-Netflix-mental-health-never-discussed-no-one-helped.html

I didn't see the media failing to care about "Invictus" or wounded soldiers.  Most of the media previews of the series (at least the first 3 segments) were positive about "Invictus" & sympathetic to the stories told by the wounded.  If the media had any nit to pick, it was to profess a wish for inclusion about the events that led to the soldiers' injuries, rather than just telling what happened after the event itself & the struggle for recovery.

Where the real criticism comes is as to Harry's 30 minutes during which Harry made statements on-screen that didn't comport with reality or contrary to past interviews Harry gave.  For example, some media have disagreed (&  even a wounded soldier professed his admiration for Harry, but nevertheless, also disagreed in the press) with Harry's statement that the media ignored the injuries incurred by soldiers in Afghanistan as events unfolded.  In fact, there was plenty of coverage at the time. I don't see a thing wrong with the media trying to vindicate themselves against Harry's claims that they didn't cover the war or issues sufficiently - because this can be shown to be untrue.

Harry also, apparently, complained that he was prevented from continuing duty & pulled from the front when "the media" outed his service, forcing his removal. In fact, it was a U.S. website, The Drudge Report, that reported it, while other media outlets, including the British media, adhered to a blackout on Harry's service.

Harry also, apparently, described his mental health issues & said he received no support following his mother's death & separation from service. But in fact, in 2017, Harry gave an interview describing how William and others, recognized his struggles, told him it wasn't "normal," & urged him to get help.

Specifically, in the 2017 interview Harry said "It's all about timing.  And for me, personally, my brother, you know, bless him, he was a huge support to me.  He kept saying, this is not right, this is not normal, you need to talk to [someone] about this stuff. It's ok."

So if certain in the media are calling Harry out for re-writing history in his 30 minutes on film, so be it. They have a right to defend the truth or expose inconsistencies given Harry's past statements.  If he, as a producer, decided to inject his "story" & viewpoint among the others, then the chips fall where they may.  As far as I can tell, it didn't stop the media from giving recognition & approval to the rest of the undertaking.

Except . . . he doesn't say ANY of this in Heart of Invictus. He doesn't mention his brother. He doesn't trash the media, nor does he "rehash his complaints." 

The only thing he says about the media is that he was forced to leave the war zone because the media outed his location. That happened. And he brought it up only because it was on the plane out where he saw the wounded and DEAD British soldiers that impacted him so deeply as to drive him to create Invictus Games. That is the entirety of the reference, and explains how the idea of the need for the games came to be -- completely appropriate for a documentary about the games. 

The reference to his mother's death was contextual and appropriate to the conversation he was having with the Canadian athlete about bottling up trauma for years and then having it explode everywhere with no idea of how to manage it. There is absolutely NO discussion or what support was or wasn't given when that started to happen. Because it wasn't appropriate to the conversation. It was a statement of the source of his trauma -- that he shared only in response to something the Canadian athlete said. He didn't bring it up out of nowhere, and he didn't take anyting away from the Canadian athlete. Stating the source of his trauma was the entirety of the reference to Diana's death.  

No conversation he is shown having is out-of-place, awkward, or anything other than germane to the documentary, the athletes, and the story about what the Games were created for and what they achieve. 

Saying he injects his "story" and "viewpoint" implies he was making it about him and that it distracted from the rest of the documentary. Not the case. At all. 

The parts of his "story" and "viewpoint" that are shown are relevant, and in fact, critical to the documentary, because his story and viewpoint are what drove him to create the Invictus Games -- the entire subject of the documentary. Of course his story and viewpoint are going to be shared as appropriate. And it WAS appropriate. Because what documentary about anything like this doesn't address how it began, where the idea came from, etc? None. All documentaries do this. 

If "certain in the media are calling Harry out," for any of the above, they are full of shit and its irresponsible to spread those falsehoods -- it takes away from everything this documentary is and represents. Full stop. 

Edited September 4 by Sailorgirl26

[realityplease]

No one said that Harry mentioned his brother in the film.  What Harry said in the film was that no one gave him any support after his mother's death & separation from the military.  So the media brought up a 2017 interview where Harry gave credit to William & others for doing so. Harry's words were at odds - it was not irresponsible to point this out nor spreading a falsehood.

Likewise, Harry said "the media" outed him.  In fact, the British media strictly observed the blackout on his location & activity, but an American website did not.  And so certain of the British media wanted to correct the false impression, given Harry's overbroad use of "the media" that "the media" included the British press.  His words were unclear.  It was not irresponsible to point this out nor spreading a falsehood.

So too, Harry gave the impression that the media was apathetic to the wounded soldiers & to the war itself, and obviously conveyed this with enough clarity that fellow soldiers & a commander of the British forces felt is necessary to issue statements that contradicted Harry's impression. If his words did not comport with their impressions, it was not irresponsible to point out their views nor spreading a falsehood.

Challenge to Harry's statements takes nothing away from the impact of the soldier's stories & struggles as related in this film. It merely requires Harry, in his limited appearance in it, to be accurate. As  the Queen famously said, "Recollections may vary."  The media & other soldiers are entitled to clarify where variances may arise.

[Laura Holt]

I finished it.  In the main I would say it was positive, life affirming and uplifting.  But it was also an emotional experience that probably isn't for everyone.  The truth about what happens to soldiers who return from war zones, after the welcome home confetti has been swept up, is a pretty sobering one and this documentary did not pull any punches. 

[PerformingArtist]

8 hours ago, realityplease said:

Challenge to Harry's statements takes nothing away from the impact of the soldier's stories & struggles as related in this film.

I am far more interested in the documentary itself than any opinions that the British media has about it. Kudos to the British media for making a documentary about wounded soldiers all about how butthurt they are at supposed slights, though.

[Notabug]

Heart of Invictus flops on Netflix

This is not at all good news for Harry and Meghan and the future of their association with Netflix.  I am sure no one expected the ratings that their personal POV on royal life got; but to not even make it onto the list of most watched shows is really pathetic.

While the cause is tremendously worthwhile, it is meaningless unless people want to watch it.  And, if no one wants to watch it, it will not drive traffic to Netflix, which is the goal, of course.  It is becoming ever more clear that, aside from their royal ties, which they've deliberately severed; the public just isn't all that interested in the Sussex or their outside projects.

Edited September 4 by Notabug

[PerformingArtist]

1 hour ago, Notabug said:

It is becoming ever more clear that, aside from their royal ties, which they've deliberately severed; the public just isn't all that interested in the Sussex or their outside projects

As a member of the public, I am quite interested in their projects, and I feel secure in saying that I am not alone on that.

I am not too surprised about it not breaking into the top 10; it’s a niche topic, which normally doesn’t bring in ratings. I do think it has a chance of growing in popularity once this year’s games begin. Nonetheless, I am proud of him for doing this documentary. 

[Laura Holt]

35 minutes ago, PerformingArtist said:

I am not too surprised about it not breaking into the top 10; it’s a niche topic, which normally doesn’t bring in ratings.

It's pretty intense.   It's not gossipy, even if some in the media tried hard to make it sound like it was.    Not everything that gets made is expected, or even intended, to be another Game of Thrones (or whatever).  Sometimes worthwhile projects get the green light just because they're worth making.

[Brn2bwild]

2 hours ago, Notabug said:

Heart of Invictus flops on Netflix

This is not at all good news for Harry and Meghan and the future of their association with Netflix.  I am sure no one expected the ratings that their personal POV on royal life got; but to not even make it onto the list of most watched shows is really pathetic.

While the cause is tremendously worthwhile, it is meaningless unless people want to watch it.  And, if no one wants to watch it, it will not drive traffic to Netflix, which is the goal, of course.  It is becoming ever more clear that, aside from their royal ties, which they've deliberately severed; the public just isn't all that interested in the Sussex or their outside projects.

Newsweek is notoriously pro-Royal and anti-Harry and Meghan, so they will look to put a negative spin on anything they do.  I don't give their view any credence.

By nearly all measures, the series is well made, thought provoking, heartbreaking and uplifting.  A series that does all of those things can hardly be deemed a failure. 

[Laura Holt]

18 minutes ago, Brn2bwild said:

By nearly all measures, the series is well made, thought provoking, heartbreaking and uplifting.  A series that does all of those things can hardly be deemed a failure. 

It has also gotten very good reviews. Even from Royal reporters who tend to view anything Harry does less than positively.  As noted upthread I will not be surprised if this show is nominated for Emmy's and other related awards down the road.

Edited September 4 by Laura Holt

[Notabug]

12 minutes ago, Brn2bwild said:

Newsweek is notoriously pro-Royal and anti-Harry and Meghan, so they will look to put a negative spin on anything they do.  I don't give their view any credence.

By nearly all measures, the series is well made, thought provoking, heartbreaking and uplifting.  A series that does all of those things can hardly be deemed a failure. 

In this particular article, Newsweek was simply reporting the fact that the documentary was not getting big numbers on Netflix.  The numbers are publicly available and Heart of Invictus is nowhere to be found on the daily lists of which offerings are getting the most views.  The article did not comment on the content or quality of the program.  It was an objective assessment that the program was not delivering viewers to Netflix.  That is the bottom line for Netflix itself and doesn't bode well for future non-royal Harry and Meghan projects on the service.

I don't see the reporting of facts as bias, whatever feelings the editors at Newsweek have about Harry and Meghan.  The article wasn't about the merits of the documentary, but about its commercial success, which is disappointing at this point.

[Enero]

6 hours ago, Laura Holt said:

I finished it.  In the main I would say it was positive, life affirming and uplifting.  But it was also an emotional experience that probably isn't for everyone.  The truth about what happens to soldiers who return from war zones, after the welcome home confetti has been swept up, is a pretty sobering one and this documentary did not pull any punches. 

Well that’s one of the things I found most interesting about this documentary is that the soldier experience when returning home was almost universal. No matter what country to which they were returning. Meaning many experience PTSD and many seem to struggle to get support. It’s sad and unfortunate that so many countries don’t have strong programs to help their veterans, especially those returning from war. 
 

Quote

By nearly all measures, the series is well made, thought provoking, heartbreaking and uplifting.  A series that does all of those things can hardly be deemed a failure. 

Indeed! If it helped even one soldier find hope and the inspiration to strive another day and seek out help that is huge! I agree with others I will not be surprised if it gets some award  nominations. I think it’s missed the EMMYs for this year. So it’ll likely have to be nominated next year if a nomination happens. 

[realityplease]

If few watch but for the reviewers, that's not a success by most standards.  A critical success that few watch - not great.

The Heart of Invictus isn't on the top 10 list in the UK or the US.  In the US, perhaps understandable.  The US already has its Warrior Games with a number of documentaries about it.  Also, H&M turned a lot of folks off to any project fostered by them with their family-bashing, histrionic car chase  & the poor press generated when Spotify dumped them. Harry's appearance in the film is relatively brief & the subject matter otherwise compelling - but the fact is, it's not attracting viewers.  I thought there would be a lot more interest in this series in the UK - but guess not.

The timing of its release in the US was also unhelpful. Completed but sitting around since last January, it didn't hit screens until just as families were taking end of summer vacations, busy getting their kids ready for & back to school, attending parents' meetings & the like.  Doing things other than plunking before a screen for hours.  H&M will no doubt attribute the series lack of success to "bad luck" or "bad timing" (as they are wont to do), rather than a lack of interest in their projects or the subject matter itself, but whoever was in charge of the release date didn't consider some obvious obstacles.

Yes, it aired before the Invictus Games. But as I understand it, the Games will only air in the US on BBC.  A major cable company is currently in dispute with ESPN & ESPN blacked out where otherwise there might be mention of Invictus on it to spark US interest. That is bad timing.  With a virtual blackout in the US of the Games but for BBC, any significant bump in Heart of Invictus viewership as a result, is unlikely.

While there will always be a minority of folks who will eagerly watch anything the Sussex Strivers churn out - H&M just aren't hitting a sweet spot with the general public in the US or UK.  Netflix is not in business to cater to tiny niche markets - because that's not how they make money.  They want viewership & new subscribers who are attracted to their content.  H&M aren't making that happen with this effort.

Edited September 4 by realityplease
omitted word

[Laura Holt]

13 minutes ago, Enero said:

No matter what country to which they were returning. Meaning many experience PTSD and many seem to struggle to get support. It’s sad and unfortunate that so many countries don’t have strong programs to help their veterans, especially those returning from war. 

I think the one from Korea was the saddest in this regard and certainly brought out an aspect of Korean culture that I was certainly not aware of.

[Laura Holt]

24 minutes ago, Enero said:

Indeed! If it helped even one soldier find hope and the inspiration to strive another day and seek out help that is huge!

Agreed.  If it was expected to appeal to royal watchers and those who were hoping tea would be spilled then that's too bad,  but it was never marketed as that.  And as long as the people who would most benefit from seeing it, see it, and know there are people out there who can help them (BetterUp as one example has renewed their partnership with Invictus for another year) then that's a good thing.  If along the way it opens a few eyes as to what veterans can experience then that's another good thing.

Edited September 4 by Laura Holt

[Notabug]

If Netflix' only goal was to produce an informative, uplifting series on the topic of returning vets and a program designed to help them, they could've done that without hiring Harry and Meghan for the tune of $100 million.  For that kind of money, they wanted Harry's name on the project to draw a wider viewership to the program, perhaps for the benefit of the disabled vets and certainly for their own bottom line.

Harry isn't just any content producer for Netflix; his contract guarantees that he is one of the very highest paid.  There are many documentary producers who could've done Heart of Invictus for a small fraction of Harry's pay and managed to earn the same or better ratings.  And possibly done a better job, too.

Netflix has got to be re-thinking their agreement with Harry and Meghan who seemingly cannot draw viewers to anything but royal gossip.

Edited September 4 by Notabug

[Suzee2]

3 hours ago, realityplease said:

H&M turned a lot of folks off to any project fostered by them with their family-bashing, histrionic car chase  & the poor press generated when Spotify dumped them. Harry's appearance in the film is relatively brief & the subject matter otherwise compelling - but the fact is, it's not attracting viewers. 

This. I think there is degree of backlash from the public toward anything associated with the Sussex brand, as shown in their low popularity ratings, being made fun of on SouthPark. They needed a ratings win with this documentary, maybe not at the impressive level of their first documentary, but at least in the top 5 or 10. Their second documentary, Live to Lead, also faired poorly in ratings. It's  been pointed out that a 5-hour documentary is too long which may have been another factor affecting the number of viewers. This was a compelling story to be told, but Netflix is all about ROI, and at this point the Sussex brand isn't delivering a consistent level of return on their $100M investment.

[sadie]

Does anyone think making this a 5 part is part of its lackluster viewing numbers? It might have done better as one, say 2 hour documentary. I’m it sure most people want to commit to an extended program when the topic is so heavy. Just thinking out loud YMMV.

[SilverStormm]

Please talk about the show's impact/content/reception etc, not each other. 

Thanks.

[Brn2bwild]

2 hours ago, sadie said:

Does anyone think making this a 5 part is part of its lackluster viewing numbers? It might have done better as one, say 2 hour documentary. I’m it sure most people want to commit to an extended program when the topic is so heavy. Just thinking out loud YMMV.

Not being Top 10 doesn't equal lackluster viewing.  For my part, I have been watching each episode slowly.  It's both very good and hard to watch.  It requires putting everything else down and focusing.  If others are doing the same as me, that could be why it didn't rocket to the Top 10.  The current Top 10 appears to be filled with feel-good self help shows (Live to 100) or "fun" dramas, mysteries, and high-octane shows.  Stuff that is easy and quick to digest, not something you need to consume slowly.  

[Notabug]

1 minute ago, Brn2bwild said:

Not being Top 10 doesn't equal lackluster viewing.  For my part, I have been watching each episode slowly.  It's both very good and hard to watch.  It requires putting everything else down and focusing.  If others are doing the same as me, that could be why it didn't rocket to the Top 10.  The current Top 10 appears to be filled with feel-good self help shows (Live to 100) or "fun" dramas, mysteries, and high-octane shows.  Stuff that is easy and quick to digest, not something you need to consume slowly.  

Even if people watch in bits and pieces, their viewership is recorded and counted for the ratings.  Heart of Invictus is not drawing big numbers of viewers which has got to be a major disappointment to Netflix as well as to Harry.

While the current top 10 may be feel-good stuff; plenty of documentaries on difficult topics have gotten huge viewership on streaming platforms.  Invictus is not even getting a fraction of what other difficult-to-digest programs have gotten.

[Laura Holt]

6 minutes ago, Brn2bwild said:

  For my part, I have been watching each episode slowly.  It's both very good and hard to watch.

Same for me.  I watched the first two episodes and then needed to take a break.  I had to watch more quickly than I would have preferred though as I was staying at my daughter's house and she's the one with netflix not me.  Which is a rant for another day (how many good shows are on places like netflix etc now and I don't have access to them).

[Brn2bwild]

13 minutes ago, Notabug said:

Even if people watch in bits and pieces, their viewership is recorded and counted for the ratings.  Heart of Invictus is not drawing big numbers of viewers which has got to be a major disappointment to Netflix as well as to Harry.

While the current top 10 may be feel-good stuff; plenty of documentaries on difficult topics have gotten huge viewership on streaming platforms.  Invictus is not even getting a fraction of what other difficult-to-digest programs have gotten.

Since most platforms don't reveal their exact streaming numbers, it is impossible to compare HoI to other series on difficult topics.  All I know is what I see in the current Top 10 of Netflix, and what I recall seeing previously.  HoI is not as easy to digest as Is It Cake? (pun intended), and that makes it harder to binge.

[Ohiopirate02]

15 minutes ago, Brn2bwild said:

Since most platforms don't reveal their exact streaming numbers, it is impossible to compare HoI to other series on difficult topics.  All I know is what I see in the current Top 10 of Netflix, and what I recall seeing previously.  HoI is not as easy to digest as Is It Cake? (pun intended), and that makes it harder to binge.

This still has a chance of cracking the Netflix Top 10 list.  I found this in an article from the Hollywood Reporter--

 For its all-time top 10 lists, Netflix also lengthened its measurement from four to 13 weeks.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/netflix-viewership-data-metric-explained-1235521282/

The doc was released less than a week ago, far too soon to call it a flop.  

Edited September 5 by Ohiopirate02

[Laura Holt]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The doc was released less than a week ago, far too soon to call it a flop.  

What would be ironic for the tabs determined to call it a flop (it isn't) would be if the reluctant positive reviews from the royal reporters and the tabs encouraged more people to watch than might have otherwise.  

Edited September 5 by Laura Holt

[Absolom]

I think part of what is hurting the viewing is that it is so far along in the history of Invictus and the warrior games.  I won't be watching it because I've already seen what I want to see from previous US programs.  Yes, I'm in the US so not heavily invested in Harry or Invictus.  

[Suzee2]

I wouldn't call HoI a flop, I think it's more that, unlike their first documentary, it's not the kind of entertainment that people would typically binge-watch over and over. There's nothing gossipy, no shocking accusations about the RF. It's a serious look at a serious subject. Of course, there is an audience for this type of documentary, but I think Netflix paid $100M so that Prince Harry's participation in all of his projects would significantly increase the number of viewers as reflected in the top 10. So far only 1 of 4 projects (including Pearl, which was shelved) have met that level of success. From a business viewpoint, Netflix has to look at the cost of investment vs. profit to decide if they're getting the value they expected from the Sussex contract.

[realityplease]

It's pretty clear that Netflix is NOT getting the value they expected out of the Sussex Strivers with respect to Heart of Invictus.  Netflix can twist like a pretzel to reconfigure the watcher metrics or extend the period of time for measurement, but the fact is, by their present standards, the film flopped. Or for those that quibble about the word "flop," let's just say it didn't live up to expectations.   (Just as Meghan's podcast numbers trended down after the initial curiosity waned & much air sucked in as it did, but it just wasn't a sustaining performer. Not picked up for season 2 - & only crickets since despite much palaver about another outlet picking it up.)

Same here.  The idea of Harry as an additional draw over & above any interest in the subject matter is over. Rather, he's a criticism magnet over his inconsistencies or inaccuracies.  The presumed magic of attaching the Duke & Duchess' names to any project (other than a royal tell-all) tested & failed. 

Harry went on the warpath against the media - he now expects grace from them to overlook his failings.  Clearly didn't happen with Heart of Invictus. The media didn't have to make up issues - it needed only to use Harry's own past words.  

No doubt, Netflix is looking long & hard at the value of their Sussex collaboration. Reconfiguring watcher metrics fools no one. No doubt plenty of thought, heart, and effort went into this film, but the long delayed release was a hint of Netflix's lack of interest &/or support & the metric change just an effort to save face.

Edited September 5 by realityplease
typo

[Salacious Kitty]

Maybe they saved it to release closer to the Invictus Games? 

[Notabug]

46 minutes ago, realityplease said:

It's pretty clear that Netflix is NOT getting the value they expected out of the Sussex Strivers with respect to Heart of Invictus.  Netflix can twist like a pretzel to reconfigure the watcher metrics or extend the period of time for measurement, but the fact is, by their present standards, the film flopped. Or for those that quibble about the word "flop," let's just say it didn't live up to expectations.   (Just as Meghan's podcast numbers trended down after the initial curiosity waned & much air sucked in as it did, but it just wasn't a sustaining performer. Not picked up for season 2 - & only crickets since despite much palaver about another outlet picking it up.)

Same here.  The idea of Harry as an additional draw over & above any interest in the subject matter is over. Rather, he's a criticism magnet over his inconsistencies or inaccuracies.  The presumed magic of attaching the Duke & Duchess' names to any project (other than a royal tell-all) tested & failed. 

Harry went on the warpath against the media - he now expects grace from them to overlook his failings.  Clearly didn't happen with Heart of Invictus. The media didn't have to make up issues - it needed only to use Harry's own past words.  

No doubt, Netflix is looking long & hard at the value of their Sussex collaboration. Reconfiguring watcher metrics fools no one. No doubt plenty of thought, heart, and effort went into this film, but the long delayed release was a hint of Netflix's lack of interest &/or support & the metric change just an effort to save face.

Yep, the delay in the release indicates that Netflix wasn't impressed that this was going to garner top numbers and figured their best bet was to pair it with the start of this year's games.  I think that was especially clear when Harry wasted his precious airtime in the documentary to once again talk about his mother's death and to complain that his family didn't try to help him after he returned from Afghanistan despite previously saying that they did.  I think Netflix saw that the public was tired of Harry's constant complaining and they tried to distance this from his book and the previous interviews he's given in hopes people would forget about that.  Unfortunately, Harry used the documentary once again to air his personal problems at the expense of people with far more problems and far fewer opportunities than Harry has ever had.

If a Prince of England cannot get the support he needs after returning from war, how can anyone else expect it?  Really bad messaging there, Haz.

[PerformingArtist]

1 hour ago, Notabug said:

I think that was especially clear when Harry wasted his precious airtime in the documentary to once again talk about his mother's death

@Sailorgirl26 explained the context: 

 

On 9/4/2023 at 1:01 AM, Sailorgirl26 said:

The reference to his mother's death was contextual and appropriate to the conversation he was having with the Canadian athlete about bottling up trauma for years and then having it explode everywhere with no idea of how to manage it. There is absolutely NO discussion or what support was or wasn't given when that started to happen. Because it wasn't appropriate to the conversation. It was a statement of the source of his trauma -- that he shared only in response to something the Canadian athlete said. He didn't bring it up out of nowhere, and he didn't take anyting away from the Canadian athlete. Stating the source of his trauma was the entirety of the reference to Diana's death.  

I doubt Harry or anyone who watched the documentary thought that Harry wasted his time. In context, it was appropriate.

[Notabug]

18 minutes ago, PerformingArtist said:

@Sailorgirl26 explained the context: 

 

I doubt Harry or anyone who watched the documentary thought that Harry wasted his time. In context, it was appropriate.

In context, I think that ANOTHER discussion of Harry's trauma over the tragic death of his mother while he was a child was not relevant to the topic at hand and actually detracted from a documentary which was supposed to be about the difficulties of veterans returning from combat.  It was unnecessary.

As far as Harry's declaration that his family turned their backs on his PTSD after his service in Afghanistan; this is in direct contradiction to multiple previous other interviews he has given on the topic.  Once again, he detracts from the impact of the documentary by introducing an obvious untruth into it.  

Giving the public another opportunity to discuss Harry and his issues was not the purpose of the documentary and he could've easily avoided interjecting himself into it.

[Brn2bwild]

I came into this thinking that it would be approached like American Ninja Warriors, with high-adrenaline competitions right off the bat and a feel-good flavor, with stories sprinkled in here and there.  I was not expecting such an unflinching look at wounded veterans and their efforts to live with trauma.  Maybe the former approach would have drawn more eyeballs, but the later approach has more of a lasting impact.

[Brn2bwild]

I finished watching the series today.  One thing that surprised me is how little the Invictus Games actually feature - only in the final two episodes.  This series is really about the soldiers that compete in them.  The series easily could have gone for the whole "Hooray, Watch Disabled People Overcome!" angle, where their lives and their disabilities are dealt with in a superficial manner, treated in a way that allows the viewer to feel good but never challenged.

Instead, we see that while Invictus is an important milestone in these people's lives, life goes on and they understand that it won't be magically better.  The whole thing was presented in a non-glamorous, realistic manner.  And though Harry is in it here and there, his screen time isn't much, and Meghan is in it even less.  The story is about the soldiers.  It might not hold as much inherent binging appeal, but it is better.