Battles B.C. [Archive]

View Full Version : Battles B.C.

desert

03-14-2009, 04:29

http://www.history.com/content/battles-bc/about-the-show

Just what we needed?

Sounds cool, if you ask me.

Edit: http://www.history.com/content/battles-bc/videos

Oh God, I take it back.

I'll never get the image of a barechested, 7 foot tall Hannibal decapitating a Roman with dual swords and then emitting a classic 300 scream out of my head now.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

03-14-2009, 04:35

Argh. I fear the day they gonna buy it over here.

A Very Super Market

03-14-2009, 04:42

*facepalm

I don't see why you would bother having historians when you're going to make such a silly show.

Ibrahim

03-14-2009, 04:58

ah, yes, I was going to make a thread about that Frank-miller poisoned abomination of a documentary, but desert beat me to it..

but as you can tell from above half, I do not like the fact that battles BC is being made 300 style...TPC is not the only one who despises Miller and whoever follows him(though for slightly different reasons)...

EDIT: doesn't the blood letting in those commercials seem to much to you?

desert

03-14-2009, 05:19

I know people will decry the visual battle bits for being inaccurate because well, they are, but to me that doesn't matter. When I thought about it I came to the conclusion that had those leaders who participated in the battle had the chance the tell the tale in a visual format they would do something like this. When stories of the battles were told they were not told in an accurate fashion, they were sensationalized as is one to do when one is the victor. Characters turn into larger than life legends to live for the ages. I will be tuning in.

I would be inclined to agree, but seriously, those scenes in the trailers where Hannibal is showing off his 6-pack, killing dudes with dual swords...I might have been able to tolerate it, but the teeth-baring, slow-mo closeup screams that follow are just so ludicrous.

*slash*

BYRREYUEUEUEEUUAAAAGH!!

:inquisitive::shame:

Ibrahim

03-14-2009, 05:23

I would be inclined to agree, but seriously, those scenes in the trailers where Hannibal is showing off his 6-pack, killing dudes with dual swords...I might have been able to tolerate it, but the teeth-baring, slow-mo closeup screams that follow are just so ludicrous.

*slash*

BYRREYUEUEUEEUUAAAAGH!!

:inquisitive::shame:

indeed. you can thank/curse frank miller. he started the tendancy by writing comics that ended up in movies (e.g 300 and sin city)

desert

03-14-2009, 05:31

Ibrahim

03-14-2009, 05:37

I don't blame Miller, I blame the producers for making this so over-the-top.

For example...https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/final001.jpg

Is that Hannibal...

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/kratos.jpg

or Kratos from God of War?

I have a hard time telling really. I lean towards him being an unholy cross between the two.

also, you need to read the man's comics: the producers were faithful in every detail, including the over the top nature. serious.

EDIT: you can watch Noah Antwiler's review of watchmen the movie: he mentions Miller's 300 and compares it to the movie adaptation (I figured you wanted a seperate view from mine, equally based on experiance):
http://www.thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/boredshitless/spoonyone/vlogs/5277-spoonys-take-on-watchmen

Rilder

03-14-2009, 07:38

History channel has really gone down the drain hasn't it. Instead of teaching people about history all they do is put together some CGI of some barbarians and plate or lorica failmenta clad romans fighting and throw in some 75% false info they saw in a movie.

Give one of the history buffs around here a copy of fraps and a microphone and he could probably put together a better show.

Elukka

03-14-2009, 08:14

Ow, my brain.

How can they pass this off as history? 300 type things are okay, because they don't claim to be historically accurate. This, however, markets itself as a documentary type thing. :/

Macilrille

03-14-2009, 09:33

I have not seen it, I do not intend to even see the trailers. I despise telly as a way of propagating history. I started feeling that way about ten years ago as Discovery took off "Battlefield" and started doing some crap. I have not owned a telly for 3 years. It has gone down the drain, even the net is better as you *can* actually dig up something good here and there :-(

Fortunately the gaming industri now surpasses the movie one in terms of production and income. THIS is the next, the future way of propagating and teaching history together with the I-net. Which is why things such as EB is so nice to find and why even RTW is important as it at least has many of the basics right, and might tempt some to learn more.

What we really need is to spread EB everywhere. Personally I am a substitute teacher these days and I intend to make the 6th + graders learn about RTW and EB.

sgsandor

03-14-2009, 10:33

:wall:All I can say is that, yes i was very very very disappointed. Like it was said i thought it was the history channel not Frank Miller Tv

Lysimachos

03-14-2009, 11:47

It's ridiculous. Have you read under "upcoming episodes"? They have an episode about David, obviously based on what is written in the bible, although it's not certain if he even existed! And may I quote from the description of the episode "Joshua: Epic Slaughter":

Joshua's special operations forces secretly infiltrate and destroy Jericho from the inside out

His special operations forces?!

Dutchhoplite

03-14-2009, 12:30

I hope they give Hannibal those rhinosaurs from 300 or it will a real disappointment!

His special operations forces?!

His secret ramshorn unit ~:cool:

Hax

03-14-2009, 12:31

On March 9th, Hannibal Rises!

<insert obvious Silence of the Lambs joke here>

Hannibal's merciless attacks on Roman soil dealt a near fatal blow to the soon-to-be Empire.

Yes.."Empire". I think they might be confused about 200 years now

the tokai

03-14-2009, 12:34

THIS. IS. CARTHAGE!!!

Also, why did they have an anthropologist commenting on the battle of Cannae and what the hell is Hasdrubals cowvalry?

Dutchhoplite

03-14-2009, 12:35

Trivialities!

Amuse the people, that's what i say!

Africanvs

03-14-2009, 13:08

I don't know, I love history so much I'll watch anything there is to see on the topic, even ridiculous thinks like 300 or the new Battles B.C. I'm happy I have a fully functional brain and can tell what is silly and what is history. It's kind of the same as watching war movies after you've been to war. All the nonsense stands out so much more than it ever did. Focusing on Battles for a moment though, it was about as historically accurate as 300 was. Some things it got right, some not so much, some never mentioned. I found it funny that the Carthaginian forces were described as tribal warriors from all uncivilized parts of the world, and naked gauls, yet, they never mentioned the African troops. Then throw Hannibal on an elephant half naked and let him cross the Alps. He would have frozen his teets off if he wasn't such a bad ass. There is so much to say, I'm laughing as I talk about it. I guess I can't really blame the history channel though. They have to sell advertising like everyone else and Axemen, Iceroad Truckers, and roid-munching half-naked Hannibals seems to be what the general public wants to see.

Teleklos Archelaou

03-14-2009, 20:15

Wow - what a huge step backwards. This is clearly an enormous pile of steaming shit. The people they get to comment on it certainly are third or fourth tier "experts" also - I'd bet the usuals were way too afraid to let their names be associated with something this awful.

Ibrahim

03-14-2009, 20:25

antisocialmunky

03-14-2009, 21:38

Here's a thought, would you rather have Battles B.C or more UFOs?

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

03-14-2009, 21:50

Here's a thought, would you rather have Battles B.C or more UFOs?
Don't forget Ice Road Truckers!

Husker98

03-14-2009, 21:52

ive lost alot of respect for the history channel here recently, monster quest, UFO's and reality TV B.S. has really made me angry. ITS THE HISTORY CHANNEl. it should be about history not monsters and little green men. And the whole Hannibal 300 conparison they are making is a great example of how far they have fallen, their documentry directors see a movie like 300 and try to make what they saw apply to the punic war is embarassing. They did the same thing when the movies Alexander and Patriot came out if i recall correctly, alot of the shots and the visual effects in their documnetries were awfully similar as far as i could tell.

wat ever happened to Roger Mudd????? That dude told it how it was, and those documenteries were freaking great. he prolly passed away but man i liked how the history channel did things back then.

Ibrahim

03-14-2009, 22:06

-Praetor-

03-14-2009, 22:17

Honestly, it's one thing to produce an adaptation of a fantasy graphic novel such as 300, and entirely another to pass this garbage as history facts. This is wanton mis-education.

The more I watch History Channel... the more I love vainilla RTW.

A Very Super Market

03-14-2009, 22:21

Christ, the only period that history channel emulates with any degree of competency is WWII, and thats with a hefty amount of US-centric thinking.

Aemilius Paulus

03-14-2009, 22:23

I never had any respect for them anyway. They always do the sensational stories. I have not watched TV since I was 10, and the last thing I remember watching on History (sic) Channel was a "documentary" about the purported "Bible Code". They make me sick. Same goes for the "Discovery" (sic) Channel. (sic) because there is no real history or discovery in both. I remember watching some Discovery Channel show one time, and it had busty females in skimpy clothing spraying water on each other and testing various explosives. And that was supposed to be a children's programme. At noon.

Kids in my school seem to think I am a smart nerd, so they always run to me and brag how "they watched the History Channel" yesterday as if it is some exceptional intellectual achievement. I may be a snob and an "elitist" but I do not approve of getting one's own knowledge from television. I read books. I believe I am actually making some effort to learn. Sitting in a couch, devouring and masticating crisps (chips), gurgling a soft drink and then claiming to be "smart" is not something I accept.

antisocialmunky

03-14-2009, 22:41

Everything intellegent produced in the last 30 years has moved to science channel.

Owen Glyndwr

03-14-2009, 22:56

Man, I actually ended up accidentally watching this for about 20 minutes, watching some half naked guy running around with two (were those falcatas?) slitting people's throats. My favorite were the scenes with him marching around chest exposed in the snow.

Why can't they return to the times of such shows as Engineering an Empire and Barbarians? Those were the shows where I would drop everything to watch. I hate that these channels feel that in order "attract viewers" they need to abandon their founding pronciples?

History Channel has gone down the same path as G4; you watch 4 hours of crap so you get to see 30 mins of what you actually want to see.

Aemilius Paulus

03-14-2009, 23:01

Everything intellegent produced in the last 30 years has moved to science channel.
Is it really better? I doubt it. It may not be sensational, but still, you know. All those stories about "cool gadgets" as they say. No, they could not call it new technology. They had to say "cool gadgets". Gah! But really, do they show anything that might be boring to a slightly above average person? The channel might not for the truly intelligent people, just for, as I said, above average people who wish to make themselves feel marginally better by watching something supposedly "educational". Do they ever go into physics in that channel?

Really, I do not want those channels to be only for people with IQs of over 140. I would simply like to see them run something that is actually educational as opposed to sensational. Educational channels are not supposed to worry about ratings. A good example of such channel might be PBS, for any Americans who had the fortune to notice it. Then again, PBS is non-profit, whereas History and Discovery Channels are. And how can you make profit by running two hour lectures of university history professors? Most of the individuals on these forums might be fond of those lectures, but I doubt the public will.

Aemilius Paulus

03-14-2009, 23:09

So really, any Americans here that have watched PBS? The problem is money. History Channel makes more money showing the crap it runs today than the material they displayed ten years ago. Sad but true. That is what capitalism does (not that I am a communist/socialist myself). You want to make money, so you have to abandon the few history nerds that watched your channel and move your viewer base to the general public, the plebeians, for the lack of a better word.

I would have done the same. Why should I care about people who want to learn history by watching TV? Let them read books! That is where the real information is. A ten hour documentary cannot teach as much as a 100-page book. So what I would do, being the owner of the channel, is attempt to make more money. And creating sensational, gory, Hollywood-style history is what brings people in. And then those deluded persons believe they are actually "learning" by watching an "educational" "documentary".

SwissBarbar

03-14-2009, 23:12

THIS. IS. CARTHAGE!!!

Also, why did they have an anthropologist commenting on the battle of Cannae and what the hell is Hasdrubals cowvalry?

:laugh4: :laugh4: great

Positive effect: It may arise people's interest in history (yes, I know, to me too it's hard to believe, that there are some few, who are not interested in history :dizzy2: )

Negative points: Monster-Hannibal? Romans at cannae all wearing muscular-cuirass? Nooooo

Cyrus

03-14-2009, 23:53

Man that stunk!!!!!!!!!! Worse than wet dog.
Oh and I would like to add that many people here (including me) if not for EB would have noticed only half of the many things wrong in that "documentary" (so thank you very much EBteam), and that is thanks to paying attention in history class. But there is one thing that puzzles me, why the screming hannibal? They could have just as well made him someone in the back looking and enjoiyng the fighting, or even a silent killer if we want to get out ov historical perspective. I doubt many generals would get theyr hands that dirty, especially a future sophet......
Oh and did anyone notice the resemblance to the Star Wars 3 scene? When Anykin slits Duku?
The only difference between those two characters seems to be the lightsabers.........:inquisitive:
Edit oh and i didn't mean to offend anyone by "many people here"

Aemilius Paulus

03-14-2009, 23:54

Positive effect: It may arise people's interest in history
Oh yeah? What kind of history? Vanilla RTW and more History Channel?? That is the path of 99% of the History Channel's viewers.

Television does not seem like the best place to get anyone interested in anything. My interest in history began when my father gave me a history book, an illustrated encyclopaedia on the history of the world from Medieval times to 1914. It was quite a thick book, and it also happened to be the first book I have read on my own. Then, I received three more books of the same series. One was on geography and the other two were on general science and physics. The two were very complicated actually, not surprising I suppose, given that it was my uncle, an astrophysicist, who gave them to me.

But all that aside, those books shaped my interests for life. I like history, science, geography, psychology, and economics. If every parent did the same, this world would be a much better place. Children should start out with books and not television.

Hax

03-15-2009, 00:02

Oh yeah? What kind of history? Vanilla RTW and more History Channel??

Name another game that included Hastati, Principes and Triarii.

Cyrus

03-15-2009, 00:05

None AFAIK.
So some credit is due to CA......:inquisitive: :yes:

SwissBarbar

03-15-2009, 01:43

Oh yeah? What kind of history? Vanilla RTW and more History Channel?? That is the path of 99% of the History Channel's viewers.

Television does not seem like the best place to get anyone interested in anything. My interest in history began when my father gave me a history book, an illustrated encyclopaedia on the history of the world from Medieval times to 1914. It was quite a thick book, and it also happened to be the first book I have read on my own. Then, I received three more books of the same series. One was on geography and the other two were on general science and physics. The two were very complicated actually, not surprising I suppose, given that it was my uncle, an astrophysicist, who gave them to me.

But all that aside, those books shaped my interests for life. I like history, science, geography, psychology, and economics. If every parent did the same, this world would be a much better place. Children should start out with books and not television.

And because it happened to you, it has to happen so for everyone? For example my interest in ancient history began when I was a child, reading fictional Asterix-Comics. Another person may see a good - or at least impressive film - and inform himself about the history the film was about on wikipedia - then in another fictional book - may visit a museum - and if he's getting more and more excited, in the end he will even read accurate sources. No one starts with reading Cicero or Herodot! Consider yourself lucky that you got such an uncle, not everyone has, you know?

Kikaz

03-15-2009, 02:01

*Next big History Channel series: Battle Brennus; Watch as Brennus filets Roman Legionnaires garbed in Lorica Segmentata with dual Bruce Campbell-style chainsaw hands!*

antisocialmunky

03-15-2009, 02:17

They have alot of the old documentaries that aired in the 90s that were pretty good. I mainly watch it for some of those older ones and some interesting new stuff. Its basically where all the old stuff from Discovery Channel goes like "Walking With Dinosaurs" and stuff.

DaciaJC

03-15-2009, 02:22

"As Joshua's army parades around the walled city for six days, the Israelites sneak special ops forces into Rahab's house. Once they amass forty soldiers inside, Joshua and his army outside the city blow their horns and attack. The forty troops inside catch the city completely unaware, and the city falls."

Now it's my turn to say "WTH". I can't accept such flagrant re-telling of documented events such as THC is trying to pose here. Where in the Bible does one find any mention of SpecOps troops inside of Jericho? The only way I can see them with coming up with that is by using the spies as these "special forces". How you make 40 soldiers out of 2 spies, though, is beyond me.

As far as I'm concerned, THC can continue coming up with the garbage that is Ice Road Truckers/Axemen/UFO Hunters/MonsterQuest instead of deliberately feeding the public sensationalized history.

antisocialmunky

03-15-2009, 02:57

That guy has alot of theories. History Channel gave him a whole special about biblical battles. I guess they felt like he deserved another one or they just rehashed footage for the cheap fail.

Conan

03-15-2009, 02:58

Pah!!...

This stuff seems pretty accurate to me...

You guys never read the sources that tell of Hannibal decapitating two dozen Romans with one swing of his penis?

*Honestly... yes I vomited after seeing this*

Aurgelmir

03-15-2009, 04:40

Name another game that included Hastati, Principes and Triarii.

Grand Ages:Rome..?

I must say that the footage doesn't look bad...from a technical point of view.But that is the only (good) thing about it.

Imagine that there where no names involved,so no hannibal or cannea(is this correct spelling?)
And people had to guess...lol it looked like fantasy persians against fantasy greeks

10 years ago i wanted that docu's get good special effects,rather then c-acting barbarians vs (my gladius got stuck/my helmet falls off)romans

Now finally they have the shit what they need to do it.....and they fukk it up.Some historians should sew there asses for implanting false info to the young ones/unknowing olders

Rilder

03-15-2009, 05:42

A Very Super Market

03-15-2009, 05:50

Honestly, this is just "fake" awesomness as well, since I don't get a 300 feeling from it at all. Its a bit like an old man trying to win over teens by repeatedly saying "homeboy", or anything from Disney nowadays.

Owen Glyndwr

03-15-2009, 06:56

Oh yeah? What kind of history? Vanilla RTW and more History Channel?? That is the path of 99% of the History Channel's viewers.

Television does not seem like the best place to get anyone interested in anything. My interest in history began when my father gave me a history book, an illustrated encyclopaedia on the history of the world from Medieval times to 1914. It was quite a thick book, and it also happened to be the first book I have read on my own. Then, I received three more books of the same series. One was on geography and the other two were on general science and physics. The two were very complicated actually, not surprising I suppose, given that it was my uncle, an astrophysicist, who gave them to me.

But all that aside, those books shaped my interests for life. I like history, science, geography, psychology, and economics. If every parent did the same, this world would be a much better place. Children should start out with books and not television.

Oh yeah? Me too.

My interest in history started initially when my Dad read me a biography on Alexander the Great every night when I was about 6. I do agree that not everyone learns in the same way, but I think that by starting with reading, good things are bound to happen.

mlc82

03-15-2009, 07:25

Name another game that included Hastati, Principes and Triarii.

The truly awesome yet barely remember "Great Battles of Hannibal" wargame. I've yet to find any other game that crashes so constantly on WinXP, along with the other excellent two in the series, Great Battles of Alexander and Caesar. I want to get a Win98 PC to play these and "Age of Rifles" again in their full glory.

Only ancient era games I've ever seen that give any sense of the real scale of some of those battles...

Husker98

03-15-2009, 07:47

"Warning nothing of what you are about to see is fact, if you want to know what really happened read about it at your local library or post about this show on the Europa Barbarorum forums and get told what really happened"

i like ur disclaimer they need to use it. and another thing ppl watch alot of TV period. im in communications and journalism school and the rapid decline of news papers and other journalistic material has alot of my fellow students futures in doubt. a large percentage of people just dont read books anymore, especially history books. they, unlike us, find them boring. so i can see why history channel is trying to spice things up a bit but i am still disappointed, im mean y not us EB like they use to do with vanilla RTW on that ancient battle show? i forget the name of it but it was cool show were they used vanilla total war to show how the battle developed, and i was a frequent watcher.

heldelance

03-15-2009, 07:53

Personally I think this would be a totally awesome show, I just wish they wouldn't market it as a historically accurate thing. They should say that it's history from an entertainment standpoint. I for one love my action movies and shows, 300 was awesome despite not being true history.

Macilrille

03-15-2009, 10:27

"It's ridiculous. Have you read under "upcoming episodes"? They have an episode about David, obviously based on what is written in the bible, although it's not certain if he even existed! And may I quote from the description of the episode "Joshua: Epic Slaughter":"

Vuk is going to love that, Old testament as Source...

Not that it cannot be used as a source for its time, correlated with other sources; "one source is no source" we often say here. I am just vary of it and other religious texts and people who rely solely on them.

Macilrille

03-15-2009, 10:30

Dutchhoplite is right, in fact this is a very good example of something the Romans at least knew very well, keep the people docile and unthinking byt feeding them trivialities. The Romans called it bread and shows...

Macilrille

03-15-2009, 10:48

"Kids in my school seem to think I am a smart nerd, so they always run to me and brag how "they watched the History Channel" yesterday as if it is some exceptional intellectual achievement. I may be a snob and an "elitist" but I do not approve of getting one's own knowledge from television. I read books. I believe I am actually making some effort to learn. Sitting in a couch, devouring and masticating crisps (chips), gurgling a soft drink and then claiming to be "smart" is not something I accept."

:balloon2: for you.

My own nephew got heavily influenced by his uncle (my sis is 10 years older than I, and got him early, so he is but 11 years younger than me and one of my friends as well as my kin). He too is a Viking re-enactor and has a Master's Degree in History, exactly like his uncle. He also loves games like this one and roleplays. In fact besides working at a museum he makes a living by propagating history through live roleplaying.

I am rather proud of him in fact :-)

But, I cannot also help thinking that we should not "whine", rather do something about it. Live Roleplaying or games like EB, even Vanilla... those are the ways to go I think.

There is more and more need for actual valid history online. The 6th-Graders I taught last week did not look in libraries for information until I forced them to. They used the net.

antisocialmunky

03-15-2009, 13:46

We could always reenact battles online and then narrate them after EBII comes out.

Aurgelmir

03-15-2009, 14:43

I wouldn't go far as suing, I would however try get and get them to put a disclaimer before the show starts that says "Warning nothing of what you are about to see is fact, if you want to know what really happened read about it at your local library or post about this show on the Europa Barbarorum forums and get told what really happened"

hm that makes me think...I guess they will do that disclaimer thing....is it an american show or british?

I think there will be people(historians)who are not happy with something like that.

Africanvs

03-15-2009, 16:42

Someone earlier said something about not learning from TV but to pick up a book. They couldn't be more right. It might be interesting to note that THC is owned by General Electric Corp. who also owns NBC and several other networks and stations. GE is a corporation interested in profts. As far as TV is concerned, the point is to keep you entertained, so you tune in, and they can make ratings which translate to big advertising dollars. 300 was a popular movie which made a lot of money. The execs at THC, or whoever had the idea, figured that if they make a series based on a popular movie, it will get good ratings, just lke the spartan special they aired during the release of 300 did. Their job is not to be accurate, their job is to make money. There is crap peddled for truth on TV every day on the network news, why should the history channel be any different. Use TV for what it is, entertainment. But again, we should all be happy that we are intelligent enough to know the difference.

satalexton

03-15-2009, 17:38

and woe to the sad fact that most of the world don't =[

Aemilius Paulus

03-15-2009, 18:28

and woe to the sad fact that most of the world don't =[
Well, now, lets not turn into those elitists now. The world may not know history like we do, but they know other things. Everyone has their own interest, be it computers, machinery, agriculture, philosophy, anatomy, law, etc, etc. They too have their own elitist groups where they sit in a circle, one leg crossed on top of the other, and bemoan how uneducated the rest of the world is and how enlightened they are. No one likes such groups. No reason why we should turn into such.

No one can learn everything. Instead, people prioritise. And as far as education goes, sorry to say this, but history is basically the most impractical and useless thing to learn. I am an avid history fan. History is my life. Yet I recognise this fact to be true. There is some use in history, but compared to other things, it is basically useless.

Cyrus

03-15-2009, 18:45

Yeah, that-s the great thing about history, it-s end is itself! By end i mean final objective. Still you are right up to a certain point AP many people like me don-t just stop at history, i went on with philosophy, languages, and the study of ethnicities( wich i have no idea how it-s called in English) so to really be enlightened one must embrace all paths of knowledge (i am shure i ve heard someone famous said that, but cant remember who sry):yes:

Africanvs

03-15-2009, 19:27

Well, now, lets not turn into those elitists now. The world may not know history like we do, but they know other things. Everyone has their own interest, be it computers, machinery, agriculture, philosophy, anatomy, law, etc, etc. They too have their own elitist groups where they sit in a circle, one leg crossed on top of the other, and bemoan how uneducated the rest of the world is and how enlightened they are. No one likes such groups. No reason why we should turn into such.

No one can learn everyting. Instead, people prioritise. And as far as education goes, sorry to say this, but history is basically the msot impractical and useless thign to learn. I am an avid history fan. History is my life. Yet I recognise this fact to be true. There is some use in history, but compared to other things, it is basically useless.

I agree with you on the point of avoiding elitism, but I think he meant that it's too bad they don't know the truth in this situation.

As far as history being impractical and useless, I would have to agree to differ. I believe history to be one of the most important ingredients in a quality education. I suppose it boils down to every individual and how they measure things of importance, usefullness, and success in general.

Pontius Pilate

03-15-2009, 23:49

Well, now, lets not turn into those elitists now. The world may not know history like we do, but they know other things. Everyone has their own interest, be it computers, machinery, agriculture, philosophy, anatomy, law, etc, etc. They too have their own elitist groups where they sit in a circle, one leg crossed on top of the other, and bemoan how uneducated the rest of the world is and how enlightened they are. No one likes such groups. No reason why we should turn into such.

Finally, something positive out of this thread!

So really, any Americans here that have watched PBS?

I have actually watched a few of their programs.

but history is basically the msot impractical and useless thign to learn. There is some use in history, but compared to other things, it is basically useless.

perhaps, but isn't it this kind of thinking that causes people and societies to repeat history and the mistakes of the past?

anyway, I saw the entire Hannibal episode on TV. it wasn't very historical as many of you mentioned, but it was somewhat entertaining, to an extent. I mean, its not like I went into it expecting to get an education.

Macilrille

03-16-2009, 00:03

Well, HBO has made a series for entertainment and drama that is quite historically accurate. The more knowledge you have I think, the more you enjoy it despite its glitches.

It is interesting that a historical fiction series is apparently more accurate than one that claims to be documentary...

Aemilius Paulus

03-16-2009, 01:45

Well, HBO has made a series for entertainment and drama that is quite historically accurate.
Ugh. Do not even get me started. Now this thread is going to move on from History Channel bashing to HBO bashing...

Anyway, HBO is quite honest. No one takes them for an educational channel. I really fail to see why they so painstakingly attempted to make HBO Rome so accurate. There is really no point to it. Anyway, the show had ten million "average" people watching it and a couple of thousand of history nerds. Even if the show cut the historical accuracy, the nerd would still stay. Why? Because, remember all that sex?

Which brings me to the next point. That whole series felt more like a porn movie than anything else. Seriously, what did it not have?? It had all the possible fantasies and fetishes: small goateed fat men sex, incest sex, sadomasochistic sex, lesbian sex, gay sex, "normal" sex, sex/nudity centimetres away from child pornography, casual sex, intimate sex, sex with prostitutes, sex in clothing, sex without clothing, sex in armour, etc, etc, etc.... I loved the series, but I wished for a censored edition. If anything, the series was a testament to the benefits of censorship. I found out more about coitus from that series than I had ever known before and more that I ever wanted to find out. If I could only have been warned.

That, I bet, is why the show was so widely viewed. Is it normal for HBO to make such material? After watching the series, I supposed there was considerable outrage after its release, but I did not find anything especially notable.

Now, I wonder how legal was my post. I was only discussing a TV series that pertains to EB...

desert

03-16-2009, 01:54

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

03-16-2009, 01:56

Which brings me to the next point. That whole series felt more like a porn movie than anything else. Seriously, what did it not have?? It had all the possible fantasies and fetishes: small goateed fat men sex, incest sex, sadomasochistic sex, lesbian sex, gay sex, "normal" sex, sex/nudity centimetres away from child pornography, casual sex, intimate sex, sex with prostitutes, sex in clothing, sex without clothing, sex in armour, etc, etc, etc.... I loved the series, but I wished for a censored edition. If anything, the series was a testament to the benefits of censorship. I found out more about coitus from that series than I had ever known before and more that I ever wanted to find out. If I could only have been warned.
Well, I gotta say something on this...

My favourite scene was when Antonius "met" the sheperd woman at the wayside.
"Rome" was more accurate than "Battles B.C." will probably ever be
If they can make people watch historically more or less accurate programs by inserting lots of sex, it's just perfect. They will see the sex and learn something at the same time. No need for "300"-style combat any more.

A Very Super Market

03-16-2009, 02:01

HBO has made quite a bit of accurate miniseries, although I do think that Rome does have an abnormal amount of racy material

Aemilius Paulus

03-16-2009, 02:06

"Rome" was more accurate than "Battles B.C." will probably ever be

You are absolutely, without a question correct. How could "Battles B.C." have taught me so much about sexual positions and fornication?? I mean really, there is no way it could have done that! Not to mention Rome's frank and down-to earth depiction of intercourse. What other porn flick could have done the same?? Obviously they are not as realistic. Only Rome is. That is why we should always watch Rome when we ant some pornography and read books when we want some history. Because the days of accurate, unadulterated history on television are irrevocably gone.

Aemilius Paulus

03-16-2009, 02:12

Well, I gotta say something on this...

If they can make people watch historically more or less accurate programs by inserting lots of sex, it's just perfect. They will see the sex and learn something at the same time. No need for "300"-style combat any more.

I would not say perfect. The fact that learning history, for most people, necessitates copious quantities of either sex or violence, then I am not altogether too impressed with the today's state of our society. It truly does not say much about it. I wonder how it was in the old days? What drew people to television and films back then?

But seriously, are you not bothered by how we are seemingly turning into something out of those multitudes of fictional, future dystopias where people are zombies of television that is filled with nothing but pornographic material?

Rilder

03-16-2009, 02:20

So what your saying is that you want to lead a colony of history buffs to a new planet to start a new historically accurate colony? :beam:

Pontius Pilate

03-16-2009, 02:23

That, I bet, is why the show was so widely viewed. Is it normal for HBO to make such material? After watching the series, I supposed there was considerable outrage after its release, but I did not find anything especially notable.

yes, alot of HBO's shows do contain alot of adult material. they can put up almost anything they want because they aren't cable. also if you like HBO Rome, you should also check out the "Tudors" on Showtime, it is very similiar to Rome.

I hope this thread doesn't turn into bashing HBO's Rome, because it was pretty historically accurate and my favorite show of all time. also, weren't the Romans very "sexual active" back then as the show portrays?

A Very Super Market

03-16-2009, 02:25

Yeah, the Romans were less than moral in their sexual attitude.

AP, your fear of porn-dependant humans is rather misplaced. Rome was cancelled mainly due to not enough ratings and too high production costs.

Βελισάριος

03-16-2009, 03:16

THIS. IS. CARTHAGE!!!

Baaaahahaha-cough-cough ROFLMAOTICOAPAD.
For those of you not yet initiated in the refined at of internet abbreviations that means: rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off till I choke on a pretzel and die.

I wanted to say that, but you were faster.

Seriously, though. Depending on how you look at it, it's not that bad.
Sure, it's beyond ridiculous from a historical perspective, but you have to see the bright side. At least this way History (sic) Channel can make enough money to sponsor more historical shows... if they do decide to do that, eventually- which I hope they will.

Also, this way some of those pimpled teenagers who think Leonidas was "kewl" in 300 might actually take a keen interest in (the real) history and study it... eventually ending up enslaved in the EB (II) world like some of the rest of us.

So... it's all good.

And, personally, I loved 300. Amazing on all counts. Frank Miller deserves my respect (though that's mostly for his Batman comics), but even 300. The graphic novel was a little more historical than the movie. But my point here is that Miller was one of the few "mainstream" producers and graphic-novelists who understood what a "hero" was supposed to be, all Jerry Bruckenheimer movies notwithstanding.
Of course the movie was going to be "artistic", what did you expect? And a bit of Hollywood was -sadly- unavoidable, but overall it was great... and much more historically accurate than I expected it to be (although, admittedly, my expectations were considerably low... I honestly thought that, apart from 300 Spartans and some Persians there would've been nothing of history in there). Even the famous "This is Sparta!" was fairly accurate (and great)... although the "punch line" for that one was supposed to be "there are plenty of earth and water down there [the well]" when Leonidas kills the Persian emissary, but hey... they had to add something of their own, right?

But Hannibal looking like some blood-thirsty barbarian out of a D&D video-game/God of War is just... L:laugh4:L

Aemilius Paulus

03-16-2009, 04:02

yes, alot of HBO's shows do contain alot of adult material. they can put up almost anything they want because they aren't cable. also if you like HBO Rome, you should also check out the "Tudors" on Showtime, it is very similiar to Rome.
HBO is not cable?? The heck? Oh well, I never watched cable anyway. I do not watch TV either, so I suppose I will just have to trust you. Yes, I have been recommended to watch that Tudor thing. But I will not, as the HBO Rome was the last thing I watched before my self imposed ban on all moves and shows and such. I realised that basically all flicks today are stupid and senseless, with even the older, better films not able to compare to books. So I quit watching anything coming off a television set at all.

weren't the Romans very "sexual active" back then as the show portrays?
Yeah, well everyone is. People are always surprised about the statistics on sexual activity. Prostitution, teen intercourse, adultery, and premarital encounters are always more frequent than we perceive them to be, as is the incidence of "unusual" sexual behaviour. Heck, has anyone ever heard of Kinsey and his research? In the 1950's, no less.

Oh, and yes, Romans did have a more liberal attitude to sex. Ours is largely influenced by Christianity, so quite a bit of earlier cultures d less strict moral codes on this matter. Here (http://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-household.html)is a splendid source on Roman sexuality (actually, it is a marvellous website for anything regarding Romans).

Ibrahim

03-16-2009, 04:13

And, personally, I loved 300. Amazing on all counts. Frank Miller deserves my respect (though that's mostly for his Batman comics). The graphic novel was a little more historical than the movie. But my point here is that Miller was one of the few "mainstream" producers and graphic-novelists who understood what a "hero" was supposed to be, all Jerry Bruckenheimer movies notwithstanding.
Of course the movie was going to be "artistic", what did you expect?

I beg to differ on a point:

1-the batman series did start out cool, but the remainder was worthy of an allmighty panning..you noticed that he gets worse over time? for example, I still cannot get over that "I'm the Goddamn Batman" part from the second issue...Batman should never say this-he just...doesn't sound right...:wall: and the whole comic was a microcosm of either a mental degeneration, or a showcase of Wahnsinn...

for all you who are confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=limHbPo5MFA&feature=related

check it out.

check out the dialogue under the video too.

Gabeed

03-16-2009, 05:50

I've largely stopped watching the History Channel. I'm tired of hearing about the Freemasons, secret societies, and reports of Atlantis near Japan. I loathe it when they have some show called "The True Dragon Emperor," just because The Mummy 3 came out. I have no interest in the history of cheese, or any of that other mundane crap, often about American Industrialization. This Battles BC show looks awful. Honestly, the best part of the History Channel might be the WWII crap that they've beaten us over the head with since the beginning of time.
But my final realization is that the History Channel is not reserved for historians at all. Once in awhile, I'll tune in to a show about the Battle of Qadesh or an Egyptian tomb which is fantastic for any historian, but most shows are clearly for the common layman who just wants to watch something briefly, muse "that's interesting," and forget about it.

Macilrille

03-16-2009, 08:25

AP, you need to get out more ;-)

Or perhaps it is just us Danes who see nothing wrong in depicting that part of history/life as it is. Sex is one of the most important themes in any person's life, surpassed by love- but there is lots of that in Rome too, mostly tainted by politics and hatred though and not much ending happily, but it is there. There is hatred, another powerful motivator, and if you know the factors that killed the Res Publica Romana it is truly excellent, for it depicts them all.

Aurgelmir

03-16-2009, 10:03

So what your saying is that you want to lead a colony of history buffs to a new planet to start a new historically accurate colony? :beam:

wuhahahaha that made my day:laugh4:

I hate it when people trample upon the flaws of humanity....(nerds)....the only word i can think off

delablake

03-16-2009, 12:38

Usually I like the History Channel...but that 300 rip-off I can't stomach:
Hannibal baring his teeth, with body-builder muscels and blue contact lenses?
Really sad :(((

Aurgelmir

03-16-2009, 13:03

Usually I like the History Channel...but that 300 rip-off I can't stomach:
Hannibal baring his teeth, with body-builder muscels and blue contact lenses?
Really sad :(((

Yeah its like watching a 50-cent video under influence on narcotics lol

And thats really a shame,the footage on itself and the edeting work where not bad,actually quiet good...but why in Brennus name don't they use equipment...what they historially used,like the roman armor's...or the NO armor of hannicent.

No prob when they try to get more audience with good budget productions.But pls...you have the money to make this,why using ribbed cuirass,when you only have to check a book or 2 to see.....hej it looked like this.....
There historians must allready know that.

I really like the technical side of movie/making,camara work,eding,musical composition and go on...
Despite the good animations,i can't watch a docu with such a nice budget and handling the hannibal timeframe...to see how they fuck up when it comes to equipment....And i'm not start again to talk about the next Mr.Universe..he should cast himself in the next terminator movie

Africanvs

03-16-2009, 15:03

My favorite part of ROME -- I own both seasons by the way -- was that it was human, and yes part of being human is having sex. Most of that goes on in our private lives, behind closed doors, but ROME took us behind those doors, and into the lives of these people. Sure, some of it was probably to get few million more viewers, but sex is a big part of life, and as a few people have already said, they didn't have the religious qualms about it that people do today. Anyone who has been in one of the many brothels in the ruins of Pompeii knows this. The other thing I loved about it, is it gave human reasons for major world events. Like the part "How Titus Pullo brought down the Republic." I mean who is to say it didn't happen that way? I think as history buffs, we know often times what happened, or at least what happened according to archeology and what sources we have, but we don't know why they happened. Sometimes the humanity becomes lost in historical facts. I always love historical dramas like Alexander, or ROME, because they are human. Even 300 had human elements in it. Battles B.C. is simply crap. It isn't accurate, it isn't human, it's simply a cheap knock-off of the 300 template designed to grab viewers with a hollywoodesque blood bath. And by the way, the blood effects suck.

SwissBarbar

03-16-2009, 15:41

ROME = awesome
300 = cool
Battles BC = crap

Fluvius Camillus

03-16-2009, 21:24

Ugh. Do not even get me started. Now this thread is going to move on from History Channel bashing to HBO bashing...

Anyway, HBO is quite honest. No one takes them for an educational channel. I really fail to see why they so painstakingly attempted to make HBO Rome so accurate. There is really no point to it. Anyway, the show had ten million "average" people watching it and a couple of thousand of history nerds. Even if the show cut the historical accuracy, the nerd would still stay. Why? Because, remember all that sex?

Which brings me to the next point. That whole series felt more like a porn movie than anything else. Seriously, what did it not have?? It had all the possible fantasies and fetishes: small goateed fat men sex, incest sex, sadomasochistic sex, lesbian sex, gay sex, "normal" sex, sex/nudity centimetres away from child pornography, casual sex, intimate sex, sex with prostitutes, sex in clothing, sex without clothing, sex in armour, etc, etc, etc.... I loved the series, but I wished for a censored edition. If anything, the series was a testament to the benefits of censorship. I found out more about coitus from that series than I had ever known before and more that I ever wanted to find out. If I could only have been warned.

That, I bet, is why the show was so widely viewed. Is it normal for HBO to make such material? After watching the series, I supposed there was considerable outrage after its release, but I did not find anything especially notable.

Now, I wonder how legal was my post. I was only discussing a TV series that pertains to EB...

What? Rome was one of the most awesome (and with some effort towards realism) tv-series ever. Sure you can get furious by seeing a tv channel who has an educative function sell itself out for ratings. But come on, this serie was great, perfect characters, I could identify a lot of characters with people I know (no, the people I know are not murderers nor have sex every hour), I mean their personalities were awesome. The cunning of Atia, the extremely smart octavian, vulgair but also cunning Marc Anthony, and I can go on and on.

Perhaps this serie was not historical enough, but come on, once in your life have fun instead of pursuing realism, this show at least portrays a Rome a lot better than the now extremely commercialized History channel. No I am not the nerd you mention who watches it for the sex, I love the characters, the fights were between realistic and 300. Also the humour! Every great fan can never forget how erastes fulmen smashes a jar against his servant's head to show how far he can go, or the random remarks of mark anthony, or Pullo's excuse how Evander dissappeared.

Censor? Blasphemy! The thing I hate most, especially on television are those lame scrambles, vagueness, beeps or other American :furious3:, that thank the heavens does not exist in Europe! (nothing against America, I just pity them that the government uses censor there).

Maybe people watched it because it was a porn movie for them, well I'm not one of those, I enjoyed ALL aspects of this excellent show! I bougth both dvd boxes right away when they came out!

Not trying to offend anyone!

Your's sincerely,

~Fluvius Camillus

P.S. If this is in any way against a rule, I will remove this as soon as I notice it.:2thumbsup:

ROME = awesome
300 = cool
Battles BC = crap

100% Agreed!

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

03-16-2009, 21:47

I agree with you, Fluvius Camillus! I remember a quote of somebody who said:

"For Americans sex is an obsession, for all the rest of the world it's a fact."

Africanvs

03-16-2009, 22:09

"For Americans sex is an obsession, for all the rest of the world it's a fact."

Sure why not make broad, sweeping, and stereotypical generalizations.

antisocialmunky

03-16-2009, 22:20

Well its not really false for large portions of America. Its just part of many American world views because of historical factors. The sex sells strategy is not really unique to America though but the American media tends to use it too much because its the easy way to make a buck because it combines sex with the 'taboo' card. I dunno the rest of the world is more overtly sexual but in America the issue is danced around.

Macilrille

03-16-2009, 22:35

No lover of American "culture", but I have nothing against enlightened Americans, in fact I find them to be amongst the most enlightened people in the world, so let us not degrade into America-bashing (which we have not, but are nearing IMO).

I claim to be a Medieval Danish historian first, but a Roman historian second and with good rights since I wrote my Ba paper on it. There are faults in Rome, but not that many and all the actual facts that only nerds know are there as well (I wrote a post about the fall of the republic a month or so ago, look there). And it is DAMN good presentation of those facts, personally I believe such shows will make some of its viewers interested enough to go and read books...

And the sex, as I said before and others have as well, sex is important to most people and there are things much "worse" than depicted in Rome going on between consenting adults this very moment, some of us probably enjoy such at times looking statistically at it. So let us not get too heated up about it. Depictions of life will include depictions of sex and Romans were as obsessed by it as we are.

antisocialmunky

03-16-2009, 22:39

I live in America, I thought it was a fair critique.

Macilrille

03-16-2009, 22:49

It is a general warning ASM, not pointing a finger at you ;-)

Aemilius Paulus

03-16-2009, 23:13

It is true Americans are supposedly conservative about sex, and that they are outraged when it is showed at their children, but honestly, Americans are hypocrites. They love sex. The American kids make me sick. All they talk about generally is girls and fornication. I am an asexual myself. I am not interested in females, but nor am I gay. I do not approve of society's obsession with sex. It is damaging.

There is nothing wrong with sex, or having it, or watching material about it, but HBO Rome was not just an accurate depiction of sex. It was a porn flick designed to appeal to the sex-hungry males whose nervous system centres around their genitals. HBO Rome did not show realistic sex. It did not show it for the sake of realism or just for the sake of showing sex. Normally, sex is never so appealing. The women are never always so beautiful, nor do they have impeccably shaved legs and pubic area. I highly doubt Roman women did that. Face it, the series was history diluted in porn to make it palatable for public. If Rome sexual content was about realism, then why is it that all the women involved in the nude scenes were young and fairly attractive? Why did they not feature any sexual content with older people? Why? Because it was not about realism. It was about pornography.

Everyone seems to be obsessed with sex. Americans are not frank about it, and they prefer hypocrisy. Europeans are more open and they admit it. That does not give either the moral high ground. Sex and food are the most animalistic urges we have. To show such level of interest in them for supposedly such higher-order beings as we are fond of calling themselves is absolutely inappropriate. Looks like we aren't much different from animals after all...

antisocialmunky

03-16-2009, 23:42

I agree with you about American kids and people in general being obsessed with sex and can appreciate your view but I don't understand why you've decided to segway this thread to a 'sex in modern culture' through the 'lack of realism of ancient sex on HBO' from the original topic of 'bashing History Channel as retarded mindwank.'

Besides, this is HBO: a seperate non-cable channel that along with Showtime are notorious for the skin flicks they show at night. Criticizing HBO about explicit sex is like King Lear yelling into the storm.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

03-17-2009, 00:14

I didn't want to bash America, sorry. :embarassed:

I was so amazed about Aemilius Paulus' reaction on the sex depicted in Rome. I thought it somehow "typically American again." I reduced it to what seems to be a typically American habit from a European point of view: being so hypocritical and prudish etc. "I don't want to have sex before I marry, I think it's better to wait..." seems totally awkward to us, like e. g. the case of Sarah Palin's daughter and what a scandal it was that she was pregnant; and the Jackson woman (intentionally) letting slip her tits out and the reaction it provoked among the US media (few seconds delay in live shows); etc. For us it is part of the really, really weird American folklore.

Of course I figure that Americans want to have sex like every one else wants. I'd want to know why they have so much problems with it. Why is it such an issue? Does it have something to do with the pilgrims? :huh:

It a (rather sad) fact that much of this prudishness has arrived here in Europe as well. Some ten years ago, it was absolutely normal to have high-quality nudity in most movies as well as in commercials. For example a deodorant was a long time advertised with a big-busted (natural! all natural over here) woman having a shower on some tropical island. The epitome was a prime time commercial for wood varnish that featured a totally naked couple doing the "rider" (dunno what it's called in English). The man looked at the wooden ceiling and could not concentrate on the woman because all he could think of was the varnish of the ceiling... Was rather awkward as well I must admit. ;) Nowadays sexuality in German tv has moved to the night hours and has degenerated greatly. It is reduced to telephone-sex advertisement with really low end women featuring moaning and fake masturbation. Other sex contents are naked girls supposedly doing sports or faked home videos.

Oh, and back on topic, I'd sacrifice every second of ahistorical 300-style combat for ahistorical porn-depiction if either one of these is necessary to attract viewers.

P.S. Another interesting thing might be the treatment of prostitution. In the US, you can get incarcerated for visiting a prostitute, whereas in Germany you can get incarcerated sued for not paying her. :D

Aemilius Paulus

03-17-2009, 00:22

of Sarah Palin's daughter and what a scandal it was that she was pregnant; and the Jackson woman (intentionally) letting slip her tits out and the reaction it provoked among the US media (few seconds delay in live shows); etc. For us it is part of the really, really weird American folklore.
Same here. I loathe all those sexual scandals. I also tolerate adultery among politicians. It is their business. Just because mayor Kilpartick, governor Spitzer, or President Clinton had affairs with other women, it does not mean they are shoddy politicians. People should just stay out of that.

What I am against is injecting blatant, hard-core pornography into mainstream television. That is simply moral decay.

Remember, I am not an American. I am a Russian. I share none of their views on sex. And I am also an asexual, which might perhaps explain some of my rather unusual stances on this.

Africanvs

03-17-2009, 00:37

I didn't want to bash America, sorry. :embarrassed:

I was so amazed about Aemilius Paulus' reaction on the sex depicted in Rome. I thought it somehow "typically American again.", I reduced it to what seems to be an typically American habit from a European point of view: being so hypocritical and prudish etc. "I don't want to have sex before I marry, I think it's better to wait..." seems totally awkward to us, like e. g. the case of Sarah Palin's daughter and what a scandal it was that she was pregnant; and the Jackson woman (intentionally) letting slip her tits out and the reaction it provoked among the US media (few seconds delay in live shows); etc. For us it is part of the really, really weird American folklore.

Of course I figure that Americans want to have sex like every one else wants. I'd want to know why they have so much problems with it. Why is it such an issue? Does it have something to do with the pilgrims? :huh:

As an American, and I am by no means the voice of America, but I would say there is a big difference between what many American people are, and what America is portrayed as by our media. For example, everyone I know who saw Janet Jackson's breast fall out during the super bowl just figured it was one of those funny little moments you know? But of course, the media had to play it, replay it, make a huge deal out of it, etc. We have our hardliner conservatives who freak out if they show a breast on TV, our debauched porn addicts, our sexual liberals, etc. I think a lot of the conservative sexual attitude in this country does, in a way, stem from our puritan roots. I've done a fair bit of traveling myself, and I find the same type of thing practically everywhere I go. Americans are typically more conservative when it comes to sex than say Norway, or Denmark, but we are far less conservative than say Iraq, or Afghanistan. I have heard that the places with the biggest sex trades like pornography and prostitution, are typically places with a more conservative outlook toward sex. Thailand for example has a large sex trade and are sexually conservative people generally speaking. My own views of sex are pretty liberal. I don't giggle or point if I see nudity, such as on a nude beach in Europe, but I wouldn't be comfortable having sex in public for all to see either. I think everyone's view of sex depends on the society and value system they grow up with, for the most part. I think the general American opinion is that it is something to be shared between people in private. Of course there are sex-obsessed people of all ages running around. I have seen the same people in Germany, Australia, Pakistan, Mexico, Portugal, Italy, etc. In the end it's one of those human elements that I just have to shake my head at and say, "who knows these things?" You tell me why some people are depraved and others are prudes, and I'll tell you how to travel at the speed of light. But in the end the end this is one of those issues that most people seem to have made up their mind about, and no matter what I say, I'm not likely to change anyone's views on the matter. So I say we just agree to differ, and not let this thread degenerate into a bash session on Americans, or Europeans, or anyone. (The previous statement is not directed at anyone in particular.) But I assure you, there is no U.S. and them. I guarantee yo that if something that is done in the United States bothers a person who lives in Russia, or France, it probably bothers a lot of Americans living in the United States as well. We must remember that everyone is an individual, and try not to divide humanity into nations with borders, with specific cultures, and specific points of view. We now, more than ever, are in new worlds. Witness the power of the information age where we can have conversations with people on the other side of the world, and share viewpoints practically instantaneously. OK, this is getting long, so I digress.

Edit: @ Aemilius Paulus

Same here. I loathe all those sexual scandals. I also tolerate adultery among politicians. It is their business. Just because mayor Kilpartick, governor Spitzer, or President Clinton had affairs with other women, it does not mean they are shoddy politicians. People should just stay out of that.

What I am against is injecting blatant, hard-core pornography into mainstream television. That is simply moral decay.

Remember, I am not an American. I am a Russian. I share none of their views on sex. And I am also an asexual, which might perhaps explain some of my rather unusual stances on this.

I agree with you 100% on the Clinton thing, but remember that in America we have party politics, and Americans seem to love a good scandal for entertainment purposes. The big problem with the Clinton thing is that he tried to lie about it. If he had just said, yep I did it, I would like to think it wouldn't have been near as big of a deal. This is one of those American hypocrisies, and believe me I am not saying we don't have them, in that everyone knows politicians lie, but the public just doesn't want to catch them lying, know what I mean? I know, ridiculous. There is a reason I do not vote or participate in American politics. As far as the sex in ROME, please try to remember that in Ancient Rome, things were MUCH worse than this, and in the series the sexual debauchery helped identify characters. Lucius Vorenus was a conservative man. He never took a prostitute, except for in the end after his wife was dead and he was swimming in depression. Attia used sex to get what she wanted, like when she got the horse in the first episode, or slept with Tymon to make sure he would do her dirty work, but with Antony, she really did love him. Antony had sex with anyone he could, because that is historically how he was. How else do you think it was so easy for Cleopatra to seduce him? Pullo was a soldier, and as a person who was in the Marines myself, I can tell you that that is how soldiers are,and I don't mean just American ones. I have served beside Brits, Germans, Thai, and Australians as well who are just the same. Octavian was a bit kinky, but then it helped to illustrate his character as well as a person who is a bit out of touch with humanity. So I would say there was no sexual act in the series that was there just for the sake of having it there. Could the story have been told without it, yes. But in my humble opinion, it wouldn't have been near as good, and with the easy access to pornography on the Internet, if I really wanted some, it's not hard to find. ROME was not pornography, I believe it was the best thing I have ever seen on the period, and the only thing that really made me feel what it was like to live during that time.

desert

03-17-2009, 00:41

The moral decay argument is one of the most overused in history. Get over it.

Also, the problem with Spitzer was that he lied like a mofo and possibly spent taxpayers' money on prostitutes.

Aemilius Paulus

03-17-2009, 00:56

The moral decay argument is one of the most overused in history. Get over it.

Also, the problem with Spitzer was that he lied like a mofo and possibly spent taxpayers' money on prostitutes.
Not true. He was an incredibly honest man. His reputation before the incident was the cleanest in this country. Analysts pondered on the idea of him running for President in the near future. His only fault was that he was impulsive. He knew, 100%, that he was going to be caught. He used to be the person catching such solicitors of prostitution and breaking up the prostitution rings. He was aware of all the techniques that were employed on him in order to provide surveillance. And he still did it.

Such a shame this happened in America. The bloke had perfect future ahead of him... His only negative action was his involvement with the prostitution ring and the following cover-ups he attempted.

The moral decay argument is one of the most overused in history. Get over it.
Meh, it is, but perhaps because it is so often the decisive factor? Most of the world's empires fell partially and/or largely to moral decay. People become pampered, decadent and indolent, which is when some other country takes over. Romans no longer wanted to serve in the Army on the eve of the Empire. Neither did the Chinese at various times. The two paid for it. Many large empires and civilisations fell because of the decadence of the ruling class which was toppled by leaner, hungrier, and more desperate newcomers.

How mcuh longer US wills stay a world power with its populace in such state? Not much longer... And if US was actually under the threat of invasion, as most great nations in history were, then it would already be gone. Seriously, can you imagine today's Americans driving off invaders? Considering the 64-67% obesity rate in US??

mlc82

03-17-2009, 01:05

How in the world can anyone call the sex scenes in HBO's Rome "Hard Core Pornography"? They were hardly any more explicit than what you can see in an R rated (in the US) movie...

desert

03-17-2009, 01:06

How mcuh longer US wills stay a world power with its populace in such state? Not much longer... And if US was actually under the threat of invasion, as most great nations in history were, then it would already be gone. Seriously, can you imagine today's Americans driving off invaders? Considering the 64-67% obesity rate in US??

You should know the answer to this very well.

Stavay strana ogromnoya, stavay na smertny boy, and all that.
And the obesity rate isn't that high. You are including overweight people in that figure. Only a third of the population is really obese.

antisocialmunky

03-17-2009, 01:07

I'm actually watching the Hannibal Battles BC rerun right now and I have to say, they like blew all their CG budget on the intro. For the most part it looks quite tacky and it strikes me rather odd that ancient battles took place in twilight and the dead of night. :-\ Does anyone know if the same gorup of dolts did the battle of Thermopylae 'docu-drama-tainment-thing?'

I wish they made more seasons of Dogfights.

desert

03-17-2009, 01:12

Hey, are there any streams of it? I don't have the time to catch it on TV.

Africanvs

03-17-2009, 01:18

No, you have to buy it if you want it legally. As far as Aemilius Paulus, I'm starting to think he's mad at America because they won the cold war. :P Just kidding Aemilius, but you do rather thinly disguise your disdain for the U.S. Ah well, we're used to it.

mlc82

03-17-2009, 01:27

What little I've seen so far has only confirmed to me that this show is a stunning exercise in retardation. From the horrific breakdown of Hannibal's troops, to all the Romans being decked out in bronze cuirasses like EB Camillan Triarii, and the especially award winning big, buff, dual falcata wielding black man as Hannibal.

This makes "300" look like a documentary by comparison so far.

desert

03-17-2009, 01:57

Ibrahim

03-17-2009, 02:16

On-topic once again:

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/343.jpg
Hannibal: WTF is this ****!?

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/3434.jpg
"Always look on the briiight side of life!"

ahhh heck!!

they have really puched the envelope of what s acceptable in a historical documentary..

*sound of rumaging in closet. temporary silence, then sound of dead weight falling then being tugged violently*

Africanvs

03-17-2009, 02:19

On-topic once again:

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/343.jpg
Hannibal: WTF is this ****!?

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/3434.jpg
"Always look on the briiight side of life!"

Haha! Those are great. It's true, a picture really is worth a thousand words. Notice that even the guy on the cross has ripped abs? I wonder if when he was doing those crunches in the gym he was thinking to himself, "10 more reps, I have to look good for my Crucifixion!"

A Very Super Market

03-17-2009, 02:35

Maybe a prisoner?

Honestly, I won't bother judging anything the History Channel excretes anymore. I don't care if they are operating under the pretense of history, the battle scenes would be just as interesting if they weren't so over-the-top out of proportion.

Aemilius Paulus

03-17-2009, 02:48

Hey, are there any streams of it? I don't have the time to catch it on TV.
Wait a bit and they will appear on various Chinese sites such as Tudou, 56, etc. You can watch just about anything there, from the all the Simpsons/HBO Rome episodes to all of the recent Hollywood films. The only minus is low video quality. I do not mind it, however.

Aemilius Paulus

03-17-2009, 03:00

As far as Aemilius Paulus, I'm starting to think he's mad at America because they won the cold war. :P Just kidding Aemilius, but you do rather thinly disguise your disdain for the U.S. Ah well, we're used to it.
:laugh4::laugh4:

:yes:

Of course you are right. How can two enemies like each other? Even now, Putin hates America, and it shows.

Actually, I dislike the US populace in general, but I actually like the country alone. It is a great country indeed, with millions of faults, but still better, considering other countries have billions of faults. And much bad that US does around the world is justified by my Machiavellian attitudes that dictate that once you have power, you must abuse it.

antisocialmunky

03-17-2009, 03:06

You abuse your power to keep your power.:-p Its how being the big fish in the pond works. You operate as a rogue state and do what you have to do. However you can be a total bastard about it like Sparta was or atleast try to keep the fascade of your moral high ground and don't look for a fight but be ready for a fight all the time like Athens did.

desert

03-17-2009, 03:07

Eh, that won't be necessary, AP. :sweatdrop:

The Fuzz

03-17-2009, 03:09

Jesus. Christ.

*cries*

This show makes me so sad.

Aemilius Paulus

03-17-2009, 03:12

You abuse your power to keep your power.:-p Its how being the big fish in the pond works. You operate as a rogue state and do what you have to do. However you can be a total bastard about it like Sparta was or atleast try to keep some of your morale high ground like Athens did.
No actually, my idea on the abuse of power is as follows: every other nation who has held power, abused it, so once you obtain power, you must abuse it as well as to not fall behind and to trump your own national interests, deriving some use from the power.

Eh, that won't be necessary, AP. :sweatdrop:
What are you talking about? Sorry, I do not understand.

desert

03-17-2009, 03:30

Nothing, nothing. :juggle2:

SwissBarbar

03-17-2009, 08:08

You should know the answer to this very well.

Stavay strana ogromnoya, stavay na smertny boy, and all that.
And the obesity rate isn't that high. You are including overweight people in that figure. Only a third of the population is really obese.

Alone the word "only" in consensus with "a third of the population" and "overweight" made my day. Thank you :2thumbsup:

A Very Super Market

03-17-2009, 16:58

Helvetia...? Oh, SWISSbarbar.

Currently, obesity in the US is about to be considered the number one cause of premature death, surpassing smoking. That is incredible.

SwissBarbar

03-17-2009, 17:13

well, i guess it's not only that way in the USA but in many european countires too. I'm young and more or less lithe and lissom, but if I don't watch out I'm going to run to beer belly too :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Belisarius12

03-17-2009, 17:45

that is not history this is madness wtf i mean hitory is madness but this make it fantasy like it really is a scandal

SwissBarbar

03-17-2009, 17:55

madness equals history in the making, if you didn't realize yet

Ibrahim

03-17-2009, 18:01

that is not history this is madness wtf

madness? THIS IS THS!!
*kicks Belisarius12 into bottomless well*

sorry, I know this is an old one, but I couldn't resist.:embarassed:

A Very Super Market

03-17-2009, 18:16

I was a well? HTF did they get water out of it if they kept kicking people down there?

Africanvs

03-17-2009, 18:24

mlc82

03-17-2009, 18:36

By the way, did anyone catch the last episode of Battles B.C.? I believe the latest installment was David: Giant Slayer!!!!! After last week's fiasco I skipped it and played EB. Just curious if anyone had any reports on it. Making fun of this show seems to be quite fun.

If they're going to call David v Goliath real history, can we also get Achilles vs Hector and maybe Davy Crockett vs the Bear when he was only 3?

*goofy folk song lyrics* "killed him a bur, when he was only 3!"

Ardri

03-17-2009, 19:45

If they're going to call David v Goliath real history, can we also get Achilles vs Hector and maybe Davy Crockett vs the Bear when he was only 3?I am not going to touch this other than to say I disagree with you.

On topic of the history channel, I am now 24 and I remember getting up on Saturday mornings when I was little and watching shows such as Our Century, World at War, and so many other shows that were actually based around history, however, I guess it was about 10 years ago the mainstream media started to dub it the "hitler channel" because of their focus on WWII and actual history. The history channel didn't fit in with liberalized main stream media and they took a beating for it, so what did they do? They joined in on liberalizing their shows. Before you never saw stuff like: Battle BC, The History of Sex, The XY Factor, Ax Men, Monster Quest (which is the most ludacris idea for a show I can think of, they NEVER even find anything). All in all these shows aren't designed to educate people on history like the older programming was, the history channel has become a channel meant solely as entertainment and they don't care about facts or history...it is the history channel in name only.

Fluvius Camillus

03-17-2009, 20:01

I am not going to touch this other than to say I disagree with you.

On topic of the history channel, I am now 24 and I remember getting up on Saturday mornings when I was little and watching shows such as Our Century, World at War, and so many other shows that were actually based around history, however, I guess it was about 10 years ago the mainstream media started to dub it the "hitler channel" because of their focus on WWII and actual history. The history channel didn't fit in with liberalized main stream media and they took a beating for it, so what did they do? They joined in on liberalizing their shows. Before you never saw stuff like: Battle BC, The History of Sex, The XY Factor, Ax Men, Monster Quest (which is the most ludacris idea for a show I can think of, they NEVER even find anything). All in all these shows aren't designed to educate people on history like the older programming was, the history channel has become a channel meant solely as entertainment and they don't care about facts or history...it is the history channel in name only.

I always ask myself how much Ice road truckers covers history...

Ibrahim

03-17-2009, 20:30

I was a well? HTF did they get water out of it if they kept kicking people down there?

its just known as "bi'r" by me, which is arabic for well. I can't find any better

@Ardri: the news media is not "liberalized", no more than rush limbaugh is mentally competent. Its more a hodge podge of differing views, with FOX on one end, and MSNBC* on the other; all others fit in the middle. But it is true: the news took advantage of the History channels seriousness to make hyping sensations, to cause a quick buck to come out of their ends, and forcing THS to become the crapbox it is today. so in fact, the news media is not "liberalized media", but "e culo" media, since they only get their ideas from one place...:clown:

EDIT: In other words, life is rendered crap due to the greed of media who..I mean giants who want to make a quick buck, regardless of what most people want (or ven a sizeable section)

@Fluvius Camillus: of course it relates history! It relates the history of a bunch of Canadians who curse, swear, and fall into freezing lakes, all within the past present:idea2:

oh, wait, nevermind.

*IIRC. Its been a while.

Ardri

03-17-2009, 20:41

@Ardri: the news media is not "liberalized", no more than rush limbaugh is mentally competent. Its more a hodge podge of differing views, with FOX on one end, and MSNBC* on the other; all others fit in the middle. But it is true: the news took advantage of the History channels seriousness to make hyping sensations, to cause a quick buck to come out of their ends, and forcing THS to become the crapbox it is today. so in fact, the news media is not "liberalized media", but "e culo" media, since they only get their ideas from one place...
I wasn't trying to implicate the entire main stream media as being liberal, which I can see how it can clearly come across that way. What I should have said is that the part of the main stream media that was on the more liberal side made the majority of sensational claims which you mentioned. Hope that clears up what I was trying to say. I am not some ultra conservative conspiracy theorist and for the record I can't watch CNN or Fox News without being annoyed.

mlc82

03-17-2009, 20:42

I am not going to touch this other than to say I disagree with you.

I should rephrase that statement as "verifiable" instead of "real".

Ibrahim

03-17-2009, 20:46

I wasn't trying to implicate the entire main stream media as being liberal, which I can see how it can clearly come across that way. What I should have said is that the part of the main stream media that was on the more liberal side made the majority of sensational claims which you mentioned. Hope that clears up what I was trying to say. I am not some ultra conservative conspiracy theorist and for the record I can't watch CNN or Fox News without being annoyed.

no, I understand. i just want to point that out, for clarification's sake.

I'm jus pointing out why a news media tries to do this: money

Ardri

03-17-2009, 20:53

I'm jus pointing out why a news media tries to do this: moneyThis is just too true and really is a shame that the decision makers at the history channel decided to change their baseline programming to so much junk in response to wanting to placate other sources and also increase their bottom line. The history channel really use to be one the best channels on television and one that you could sit down and enjoy a show while actually learning a bit of history as well. I would be interested to see how their ratings as a network have faired since they made such drastic changes to their programming, as judging by this thread, the majority of intelligent informed viewers can no longer put up with the junk they now try and push off on their viewers as "history."

Africanvs

03-17-2009, 21:02

This is just too true and really is a shame that the decision makers at the history channel decided to change their baseline programming to so much junk in response to wanting to placate other sources and also increase their bottom line. The history channel really use to be one the best channels on television and one that you could sit down and enjoy a show while actually learning a bit of history as well. I would be interested to see how their ratings as a network have faired since they made such drastic changes to their programming, as judging by this thread, the majority of intelligent informed viewers can no longer put up with the junk they now try and push off on their viewers as "history."

Intelligent and informed viewers are the minority. Besides, every TV network is owned by mega-corporations interested in the bottom line. News media, various agendas. TV is nothing more than entertainment orchestrated to get you to watch so you can see advertisements, and then hopefully buy their crap. That and to keep you completely blind to what really goes on in the world.

Ardri

03-17-2009, 21:07

Intelligent and informed viewers are the minority. Besides, every TV network is owned by mega-corporations interested in the bottom line. News media, various agendas. TV is nothing more than entertainment orchestrated to get you to watch so you can see advertisements, and then hopefully buy their crap. That and to keep you completely blind to what really goes on in the world.Not much to add to that, pretty much sums it up in a nutshell right there.

Titus Magnus

03-17-2009, 21:22

Yes, I agree that the show's visuals are very very bad (i.e. hannibal marching on an elephant naked) but, the history is not too far off,so don't reject it based on its visuals. It's not to the caliber of Barbarians,Engineering an Empire, but there is some entertainment value here, and remember they do need to "dumb" it down a bit to attract more viewers. I'll keep watching.

P.S. waiting for Battles B.C.: Guagamela

Centurio Nixalsverdrus

03-17-2009, 21:43

If they're going to call David v Goliath real history, can we also get Achilles vs Hector and maybe Davy Crockett vs the Bear when he was only 3?

*goofy folk song lyrics* "killed him a bur, when he was only 3!"
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Perhaps we could make a wish list.

- Siegfried vs. the Lindwurm
- the Nibelungen vs. the Huns
- Beowulf vs. Grendel
- Don Quijote vs. the Windmills
- ...

A Very Super Market

03-17-2009, 21:50

You sir, have made my day.

Lysimachos

03-17-2009, 21:52

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Perhaps we could make a wish list.

- Siegfried vs. the Lindwurm
- the Nibelungen vs. the Huns
- Beowulf vs. Grendel
- Don Quijote vs. the Windmills
- ...

Oh, there recently was that movie about Beowulf and considering what people try to sell as history, I would say that it was about as truthful and accurate as unedited live coverage. :book:

SwissBarbar

03-17-2009, 22:02

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Perhaps we could make a wish list.

- Siegfried vs. the Lindwurm
- the Nibelungen vs. the Huns
- Beowulf vs. Grendel
- Don Quijote vs. the Windmills
- ...

:laugh3: :laugh3: :laugh3: :laugh3:

Where do you see this david-thing on the homepage? :inquisitive:

Rilder

03-17-2009, 22:09

Where do you see this david-thing on the homepage? :inquisitive:

David Vs Goliath was last nights show.

SwissBarbar

03-17-2009, 22:14

ah, shame, I wish I had seen "THIS IS BETLEHEM"

Ibrahim

03-17-2009, 22:15

the epic fights of History:

1-romano-persian wars
2-the easternfront
3-Arab conquests
4-Alexander's conquests
5-Cyrus' conquests

all are prissy and devoid of epicness..

there is only the Don Quixote vs. the Windmills fight..

way to go C.Nixalsverdus:laugh4::laugh4:

Publius Aelius Hadrianus

03-17-2009, 22:58

Ibrahim

03-18-2009, 00:51

good fights.

for me also julio caesar conquest of Gaul

And Napoleon...

yeah, I know I left out a few-they just came out the fastest..

Rilder

03-18-2009, 01:13

ah, shame, I wish I had seen "THIS IS BETLEHEM"

It was more Isrealite Mafia. :laugh4:

Ibrahim

03-18-2009, 01:41

It was more Isrealite Mafia. :laugh4:

so you mean more like this?:

Godfather: "peeple sayy we are cwel, we mass muyde, we loot, we kill, we are evil; but really its just buysness. buysness is poysenal":clown:

soldiers: "yes don Davi!"

note: this is just a satire, and does not refelct the beliefs of the writer...

desert

03-18-2009, 01:59

Isn't that more of a Brooklyn accent than a Jewish accent(?)?

A Very Super Market

03-18-2009, 02:06

Doy, thats vat they ah zuppOsed te sound lihke!

desert

03-18-2009, 02:08

But you're doing a Yiddish accent. That's different.

Ibrahim

03-18-2009, 02:44

Isn't that more of a Brooklyn accent than a Jewish accent(?)?

well, he said it was more mafia like, so I figured I'd do a brooklyn or Italian-American Accent...makes more sense. Its from the Godfather, if you remember, that don was difficult to comprehend because of his accent.

heck, the whole thing is a Godfather spoof..:clown:

desert

03-18-2009, 02:49

Sorry, never saw it. :embarassed:

Ibrahim

03-18-2009, 02:51

Sorry, never saw it. :embarassed:

nah, its Ok.

my jokes are usually hard to understand anyways...need to simplify jokes(online ones):wall:

EDIT: darn it! my jokes always make people in RL throw fits of laughter. why no luck online? :shame:

Aemilius Paulus

03-18-2009, 02:54

Sorry, never saw it. :embarassed:
You should be sorry. One of the last great films released into this world by Hollywood.

desert

03-18-2009, 02:59

Well, at least I know what it is. :laugh4:

antisocialmunky

03-18-2009, 03:50

I for one would like to see cowboys fighting Nazis riding Dinosaurs.

A Very Super Market

03-18-2009, 04:22

Well, there was that Nazi Snow Zombies movie somebody mentioned.

Ibrahim

03-18-2009, 05:33

I for one would like to see cowboys fighting Nazis riding Dinosaurs.

no you do not:

http://www.thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/linkara/at4w/3252-superman-at-earths-end

its not the same, but the priciple should illuminate.

Olaf Blackeyes

03-18-2009, 05:36

Did someone say Nazi snow zombies?
Cuz i gots some!!!
MWWHAAAA!!!!!!!
https://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr133/Maurl/1235939863679.jpg
Also an interesting fun fact: Did you know that Nazis have a thing for anime?

Starforge

03-18-2009, 06:01

Seeing the program in the guide, I wandered in to see if it was any good or not.

Utter crap - I think I lasted a couple of minutes.

Most of my objections have been well stated already so I won't rehash. I do have one question in case there is anyone out there who's actually in or considering film school or working in the media:

Why the hell can't something be made that's factually accurate while still entertaining?

It just seems to me that whoever is producing this crap decides that their audience consists of, basically, video game obsessed 14 year old males with ADHD who would lose interest if not shown history in game or comic book form. Most sci-fi, fantasy, and fiction movies put out by Hollywood that aren't comedy, date movie, or adult porn seem to follow the same guidelines.

Then again - at 44 I guess I'm not the target audience :yes:

It's almost like the people producing this garbage have nothing but contempt for the material they've been told to work with. How else can you explain the flagrant bastardization of the material?

Olaf Blackeyes

03-18-2009, 06:05

Maybe the guys doing the show are 14yr olds :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Ibrahim

03-18-2009, 06:05

Starforge

03-18-2009, 06:09

Maybe the guys doing the show are 14yr olds :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

You might be on to something! :laugh4:

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

03-18-2009, 06:47

This thread was off topic to begin with and has now gone off that topic. Time to close this one.