I tried to get into
Poldark
but didn't find the dialog interesting, especially about Poldark's business. Also I didn't like the costumes and all the make up on the women. Women didn't look like that back then or wear the kind of dresses many of the characters wore. When I watch period movies I am interested in how people dressed, spoke and behaved in the past.
I liked
Wolf
very much. According to other people on this board, the costumes weren't perfect but from what I know they seemed pretty close to that time period. The way it was filmed was great and the lighting was realistic for the early 16th century. As others mentioned
Wolf
is slower paced but if you're interested in Henry VIII's court and that time period, you will probably enjoy it.

A lot of what you say is correct, especially that Henry VIII really wanted an English Catholic Church. However, he never tried to abolish transubstantiation - "the literal belief that the wine and wafer were the actual blood and flesh of Christ". On the contrary, he ordered the executions of several people who espoused such views, most notably Anne Askew. That kind of "heresy" appalled him.
Also, it seems far more likely that Cromwell's daughters died separately, from the typical childhood ailments which made such deaths so commonplace, before the epidemic which did indeed kill his wife. We know nothing at all about what kind of husband and father - good or bad - he was. There is nothing to indicate his views on female education. On the other hand, Thomas More was a believer in equal education for boys and girls.
Also, there is no way of telling when a follow-up will be made, as the book from which it will be adapted has yet to be published. Unfortunately, we must all wait!

Moss_Garden: Poldark is a fictional melodrama - although a cut above the usual rubbish we get in this category. Wolf Hallnis revisionist history at its best. The writing and Mark zrylance's wondeful, nuanced performance, give us a new perspective on the archetype villain we have seen in other series about HenryV111s Chancellor after the fall of Wolsey. We can not judge historical characters from the 16th century with 21st century values - which is the problem with many historical films and literature. This was a time when the religious revolution propagated by Luther were beginning to tear Europe apart. A time when people preferred to be burned to death than renounce their faith, whether Catholic or Prostestant. Would any sane person do this today? Point made.
Henry V111 was a catholic at heart but wanted an English Catholic Church which made him, the sovereign and not the Pope, the head of it. Henry eliminated the worst abuses of the Catholic Church - the selling of Indulgences, the superstitious belief in relics, the vast land holdings of the bishops and the abbeys combined with a great deal of lechery and hypocracy of the priests and monks, and the celebration of the Mass with the literal belief that the wine and wafer were the actual blood and flesh of Christ, and the service being held in Latin. But he was not prepared to go any farther. The bishops and priests of Henry's reformed Church still dressed in georgous robes etc. and the altars still had golden candlesticks and other "Papist" trappings; and a lot of the Catholic liturgy was still there. He required everyone to swear an oath that he was the Supreme head if the English Church, that his marriage to Katherine if Aragon had been no real marriage as she was the wife of his brother and therefore his child by her, Mary was illegimate etc.
Cromwell and everyone who wanted to keep his head signed the Oath. But in secret, he was a devout Lutheran - and wanted the reform to go much farther as did his friend, an obscure bishop Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer had found biblical and theological justification for the divorce. Cromwell introduced him to Henry - who was by now desperate as Anne Bolyn ( another dedicated Reformer ) was now pregnant. Cranmer was able to give Henry his divorce and was made Archbishop of Canerbury as a reward. Cromwell tried to save his friends from the stake but in vain - they could not risk their immortal souls. Meanwhile, he made Henry rich by confiscating Abbey lands for the Crown. He was also a loving family man who had lost his wife and two daughters to some epidemic, but had the devotion of his son. We see a much more subtle and possibly real Cromwell than the one-dimensional opportunist-villain than we've seen before.
Cromwell understood that confiscating the lands of the Church to make his master rich was just a small part of a larger picture. Henry gave some of this land to what the noble's at his court referred to as "the New Men". These new men owed their new wealth and position to the King and were steadfastly loyal, unlike the magnates with their ancient tiles. Cromwell's loyalty to the Wolsey ( also low-born ) who had raised him from obscurity and made him his Secretary, was real and admirable.
I look forward to the next Season. Does anyone know when this will be aired on US television?

I have to agree with Moss's opinion both counts bwgood. I could not finish watching Poldark, but importantly, for you, if Episode 1 of Wolf Hall did not resonate it's likely the rest of the series won't either.
It's a slow moving show, more focused on dialog and performance not so much action. Too nuanced for some.
Cheers

Thanks.
In the future, I'll tell my grandkids that I am older than the internet, and blow their minds

It's so extraordinarily different from Poldark that they're honestly hard to compare. I certainly think it's better than Poldark, but I wasn't a big fan of that one.
I will say this: the pace does not really pick up. If you didn't enjoy the first episode, it's not very likely that you'll enjoy the rest.
Formerly Nothin_but_the_Rain