Rome

[Malthus]

Coincidentally, I'm re-watching it now - very entertaining, I think (though I still think I, Claudius is better ... though you gotta admit, Rome sure looks better!).

I love most of all the who feel of the piece, as someone already said the alien-ness of the culture. My least favorite bits are the roles of the female aristocrats - they did the whole woman-as-scheming-snake thing far better and more believably in I, Claudius.

The portrayal of Brutus didn't bother me. I did sometimes wonder at how long stuff was taking - Vorenus' kids seemed to have unnaturally long childhoods!  But my actual knowledge of the time-lines is pretty limited, so I was able to swallow that in the name of drama.

One thing that deserves mention is the opening credits, with the animated grafitti on the walls - I loved that. Very clever.

[Sheilbh]

She fucked a ranker legionary...  A Ptolemey smoking opium and getting banged by a common soldier - and not even a macedonian at that !  If you think english aristocrats were/are class conscious - try a queen of Egypt whorshipped by millions like a living godess.  No, that was simply inconceivable !  And inserted there as a crass plot device. 

No it wasn't.  I think it was a suggestion of her Machivellian streak.  Just before hand she talks about it being a pity that she couldn't be with Caesar given that she's menstruating and could have a child.  She fucks a Roman for political not lustful reasons.  I think that bits essential because without it she's just dippy and seductive, she's not calculating and manipulative - which Cleopatra needs to be.

My least favorite bits are the roles of the female aristocrats - they did the whole woman-as-scheming-snake thing far better and more believably in I, Claudius.

Yeah.  Atia and Servilia just don't hold a candle to Livia.

The portrayal of Brutus didn't bother me.

I'm less annoyed now, the character's developed.  But I don't know Brutus seemed too much of a flippant wag early on in the series.  So I didn't find his stress at having to choose between Pompey and Caesar that believable.

[Malthus]

I'm less annoyed now, the character's developed.  But I don't know Brutus seemed too much of a flippant wag early on in the series.  So I didn't find his stress at having to choose between Pompey and Caesar that believable.

He does grow as a character as the series progresses. I have my problems with his portrayal - it's a bit of a spoiler though, so maybe I'll save it ...

[Martinus]

So how does it compare to Tudors then?

[Sheilbh]

The portrayal of Brutus didn't bother me. I did sometimes wonder at how long stuff was taking - Vorenus' kids seemed to have unnaturally long childhoods! 

Yeah I think you're right.  But it's probably best that they avoided the prosthetic ageing of I, Claudius :lol

[Malthus]

The portrayal of Brutus didn't bother me. I did sometimes wonder at how long stuff was taking - Vorenus' kids seemed to have unnaturally long childhoods! 

Yeah I think you're right.  But it's probably best that they avoided the prosthetic ageing of I, Claudius :lol

The price of having Derek Jacobi playing "Claudius" from a young teen to an old man ... a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief over the makeup was worth it. 

In contrast I found replacing young Octavian with older Octavian was a bit jarring in Rome.

[Malthus]

So how does it compare to Tudors then?

I haven't seen the Tudors, so I'm curious as well.

[Grallon]

I think it was a suggestion of her Machivellian streak.  Just before hand she talks about it being a pity that she couldn't be with Caesar given that she's menstruating and could have a child.  She fucks a Roman for political not lustful reasons.  I think that bits essential because without it she's just dippy and seductive, she's not calculating and manipulative - which Cleopatra needs to be.

There were plenty of other ways of showing this - other than turning her into a cheap whore.  And btw the real Cleopatra was, by all accounts, quite plain.  What made her interesting was her charm and intelligence.  Instead, here we have a coy bitch that does nothing but sway her ass provocatively.  If that's what you call Machiavellian then we'll have to agree to disagree.

In fact the way they chose to portray her touches what I've always detested about those historical recreation: hardly any effort is ever made to show us people that are different from us.  Different and yet with whom we can ultimately connect because they remain human.  No, far more easier (not to mention cheaper) to go for the most common denominator: sex.  No mention of alien concepts such as "dignitas" (which drove Caesar's actions for instance), that would be potentially too offensive for an audience that beleives in the pseudo egalitarianism of our 'democratic' societies.  But sex everyone understands.  So let's throw in full frontal male nudity, incest and lesbianism and that should give the idiot viewers enough of a alien feel...   

But let me ask you the question: what makes it entertaining for you ?  What exactly is entertaining in seeing people dressed in funny clothes behave exactly as they would in LA or London today ?



G.

[Sheilbh]

There were plenty of other ways of showing this - other than turning her into a cheap whore.  And btw the real Cleopatra was, by all accounts, quite plain.  What made her interesting was her charm and intelligence.  Instead, here we have a coy bitch that does nothing but sway her ass provocatively.  If that's what you call Machiavellian then we'll have to agree to disagree.

What's Machivellian is that she's shown saying if she could be with Caesar now she would seduce him.  Then she says she's menstruating and she just knows that they'd have a child.  So she sleeps with a Roman, for the purpose of having a child, with whom she can then use with Caesar (and later Anthony).

And if your beef is with them not portraying the real, plain Cleopatra then bitch at Shakespeare and Plutarch not HBO :p

In fact the way they chose to portray her touches what I've always detested about those historical recreation: hardly any effort is ever made to show us people that are different from us.  Different and yet with whom we can ultimately connect because they remain human.  No, far more easier (not to mention cheaper) to go for the most common denominator: sex.  No mention of alien concepts such as "dignitas" (which drove Caesar's actions for instance), that would be potentially too offensive for an audience that beleives in the pseudo egalitarianism of our 'democratic' societies.  But sex everyone understands.  So let's throw in full frontal male nudity, incest and lesbianism and that should give the idiot viewers enough of a alien feel...   

I think there's plenty alien about it.  The way religion is treated, the brutality of Roman life, I think the character of Vorinus who is almost an ideal Roman, the way slavery comes across, the importance, but also the cynicism of omens and auguries, but also that sense that Rome was an unruly demotic place that you get too rarely in depictions of the city.  It may not be history but it's no worse than Suetonius or Plutarch.

[The Larch]

One thing that deserves mention is the opening credits, with the animated grafitti on the walls - I loved that. Very clever.

Totally agree, I loved the credits sequence every time I saw it.

[The Larch]

In contrast I found replacing young Octavian with older Octavian was a bit jarring in Rome.

That's something lots of people complain about, but I personally don't find it so outrageous, even if the aging is a tad abrupt.

[Malthus]

In contrast I found replacing young Octavian with older Octavian was a bit jarring in Rome.

That's something lots of people complain about, but I personally don't find it so outrageous, even if the aging is a tad abrupt.

I'd have preferred the prosthetic make-up. After all, we've invested a lot of viewing time in the character, to have him replaced by another actor who doesn't look anything like him is a bit of a stretch - when all the other actors remain the same.

[The Larch]

In contrast I found replacing young Octavian with older Octavian was a bit jarring in Rome.

That's something lots of people complain about, but I personally don't find it so outrageous, even if the aging is a tad abrupt.

I'd have preferred the prosthetic make-up. After all, we've invested a lot of viewing time in the character, to have him replaced by another actor who doesn't look anything like him is a bit of a stretch - when all the other actors remain the same.

I thought they looked remarkably similar.  Maybe my memory is slipping...

[PRC]

The second Octavius I thought looked remarkably like a younger Paul Bettany.  I kept thinking of Dr. Maturin.. which is funny because when I looked at the first Octavius I kept thinking of Lord Blakeny.

[Malthus]

In contrast I found replacing young Octavian with older Octavian was a bit jarring in Rome.

That's something lots of people complain about, but I personally don't find it so outrageous, even if the aging is a tad abrupt.

I'd have preferred the prosthetic make-up. After all, we've invested a lot of viewing time in the character, to have him replaced by another actor who doesn't look anything like him is a bit of a stretch - when all the other actors remain the same.

I thought they looked remarkably similar.  Maybe my memory is slipping...

I dunno, they look very different to me.

http://www.hbo.com/rome/img/cast/actor/season2/actor_simonwoods.jpg

http://www.hbo.com/rome/img/cast/character/character_octavian.jpg

Edit: one easy way to make them seem more similar would have been to give the second guy the same very distinctive curly blonde hair.