Begins tonight on HBO, 9pm EST. Just letting you know :balloon2:
Printable View
Begins tonight on HBO, 9pm EST. Just letting you know :balloon2:
Great news, been looking forward to it :2thumbsup:
Great news!!!! I hope we can get a torrent ou emule fast to see it in Europe...
You better remove that post, I don't think they condone that sort of thing.
most networks allow you to download their shows for free now, but perhaps not HBO since its a premium channel. ABC allows people to download Lost, for instance.
Only if you are in america I think. All others must wait or [deleted].Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Foot
I was more worried with the forum mods, not really about the networks.
I was at a scholarly panel on the show at the APA conference last week. It was pretty interesting and had a really large crowd (the largest I saw at the whole conference as far as I can remember). A really good paper on Cleopatra and the fan outrage at the way she is depicted. The respondent at the end was way off on a number of things though - talking about how the show cannot be compared with movies with Cleopatra (and other things) since it's clearly just television (no commercials, the channel clearly a movie channel and with their own programming that is made for people who watch HBO and the movies there, BBC cooperation, letterboxing, no really famous actors, and with the surround sound and huge screens so many people have these days I would argue that all her talk about the show as "television" instead of "cinema" was quite off base).
I sort of like it, its fresh, at least. There's nothing to suggest Cleopatra wasnt a drugged-out opiate monster :) lol.. I mean its certainly possible, if not plausible, with the depravity of Ptloemaic egypt at the time.
I really like the show mostly for its sets, costumes, and attention to religious observances. Very nice touch. Not so much for its attention to a historical timeline per se..
One speaker who was present on the set for a few visits, emphasized what she thought was the attention to detail as much as the attention to realism. There were the "there is no such thing as realism" comments of course. :grin: Some speakers and comments were appreciative that they put so much detail into the sets/costumes/etc., but some still didn't seem to be impressed much, saying that there is a lot more information/details released to the public by HBO marketing that trumpets how many extras, craftsmen, etc. was done to provide a high level of detail - and that something like "detailism" is achieved instead of "realism". Whatever. I look at other efforts like that Cleopatra miniseries with Dalton and Zane and I am appreciative of their efforts. There were some interesting comments about how it is all clearly still told from a male point of view - that the women fit into stereotypes and the dialogue/interactions between the female characters are more like dialogue/interactions between women as a man would imagine it than as it really should be. Probably some truth to that, but the audience is probably aimed more at males than females too, since it comes on Sunday nights on HBO along with the Sopranos. That doesn't really bother me. There was one paper too on problems with the depiction of Roman military equipment, but that was the one I had to miss (had to see a friend's paper in another panel at that moment).
So I heard. My DVR is warming up to record it, gonna be gone when it's on. The previews of this season look good.
Show's gotta be one of the most detailed show's about the romans I've ever come across. Even during their small 1 minute battle scene on the first show they have the romans in loraca segmanta and even had them switching front lines every 30 seconds.
What I particularly enjoyed about the first season was that although it did not follow the correct timeline very strictly it felt like I was watching actual Romans in their lives and their city. The atmosphere was spot on, and the creators made a good job of showing that the values of the time could differ radically from what we would consider acceptable today, but fitted in the context of the time; the murder of a slave by Pullo and lack of punishment for instance.
Does anyone know when this is arrivin on Screens in the UK ive been trying to find out for a while but BBCs website is most UNhelpful
Not sure, it was on HBO so, could be quite awhile. They do have the 1st season DVD's out though.Quote:
Originally Posted by spirit_of_rob
There's some good, some bad. They have the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in the forum, there's a woman at a Mithraic ceremony, which was absolute cobblers, so I'm told, missed that bit. Then Caesar gets murdered in the Senate Hall, there are other problems, such as Octavius and his sister.
As to the military equipment, shields, helmets (from Trajan collum) and breaches were all ringing alarm bells for me but it could have been worse.
As far as the Character's went while I didn't like the way some of the actors looked (there is no excuse for not getting someone who looks like Cicero or Caesar) I thought that the male characters were well written from the point of view of what we know about them.
It was a good effort but the failure of the writers and producers to properly research, or selectively reseach, what they were making is unforgivable.
Two examples are pulling the helmets from Trajan's collum when any historian or archeaologist or historian worth his salt will tell you they are debased and well out of the time period and also the "A man to all women and a woman to all men" comment about Caesar being held up as a boast when it was actually an insult.
There was a whole hoo-ha in the British press, there in a myth in America that we edited out the sex from the first two episodes, the Beeb, deciding "we" knew it all edited out the history so that the first hour was basically soft-core porn.
Of course I agree about the equipment mishaps but I think overall its a very good production. As far as the characters, their Pompey is about spot-on if you ask me :)
I call for save the skepticism and enjoy the entertainment. It could have easily not existed at all :) Anyway, I love the show and am happy it promotes corruption "real life" instead of romanticizing it like most other movies (and other productions) of the time period.
I like the show a lot too and I am waiting for the next season today to beguin. I downloaded all the 12 episodes of the first season after I saw it on tv.
A question to all EB friends. Which one was your favorite episode of the first season? Mine was the one of Caesar triumph. I think the triumph was well depicted.
Also in the first episode of season 1. Do the Romans really fought that way, changing front ranks for the ones in the back? And what you think about the Celtic equipment in the show? I really liked the helmet of Vercingetorix.
Thanks =)
See I would like the show if I saw it alone. I rented the darn thing, and watched it with my mom and dad, I counted 5 sex scenes in one episode. :embarassed:
It was the most akward cr@piest time ever. Unless I get HBO and watch it by myself there is no way I'm gonna see it.:embarassed:
EDIT: I'm sure they fought that way, but I dont know about the whisle the centurion used. They fought defensivly in order to maintain formation and take advantage of their large scutums. Ever since then, I tried that tactic and no barbarian could beat me (most of the time).
I was never much able to get into the story line of the show. Many characters seem stilted and it seems like HBO often throws sex in where it doesn't belong just to spice things up. I don't think there are any characters who are truly well cast, but luckily only one or two are poorly cast. Caesar ought to be more calculating and brilliant than he seems and Augustus *shudders* goes from being a spoiled brat who beats his slaves to a writer's convenience at an alarming speed. I still remember the first time I saw him whip that out (the first episode) when he clubs his captor to death and proceeds to explain impatiently to his rescuers all about Caesar's secret Eagle plan to lure Pompey into the attack. :dizzy2: Come on! I know Augustus was no fool but am I really meant to believe that Caesar's political cunning was transparent to all but this 8-year-old? No kid is that smart or that well informed and that is the sort of silly, flat characterization that bugs me in a show.
Augustus=smart guy who reveals the intricacies of all the plots without trying. Pompey=old, dumb guy who only serves to stumble around with a troubled look on and then die.
Cleopatra=crack-wh*#% who seduces Caesar. All too simple! Why can't there be depth of character?
The realism is only superficial (2nd century Romans, smelly Gauls, Rome full of hot women who spend their time plotting against each other naked in the bath) and their immature obsession with including as much soft-core porn as possible simply ruins the show for me.
sorry about that rant :sweatdrop: , I get kinda aggressive when I feel that people treat this show as if it were super-realistic. It's not. It's just unrealistic in a new, refreshing (to some) way. :wall:
the triumph scene looked pretty but was essentially inaccurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator
Dont worry was very informative and what you say about certain characters is true, but dude dont get so angry. That is unhealthy :yes:
What about Celtic equipment in the show? The helmet of Vercingetorix and the funeral rites depicted in the serie?
Thanks
You mean that Cleopatra wasn't really a druged out, short, Winnona Rider-esc, only mildly attractive, easily manipulated, idiot? :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
My problem with the series is they keep needlessly pointing out, "Look Romans are weird!" (All the sex, blood rituals, eating field mice and testicals, ect.)
Also, did I just miss it or did they not include Caesar failing to stand for the Senators during the Triumph? Seems an important thing to leave out...
I generally liked the first series, and thought that Caesar (Ciaran Hinds) in particular was fantastic.Cleopatra was boring and pitifully cast, Pompey was treated as a fool, which annoyed me a little. I also think Pollo looks about as unroman as I can imagine someone to be.
Pollu's the Legionary, right? Well he looks more Roman than the Centurian. The sex really offended me because the Romans were so up-tight about it in reality. Pompey should have been a man of HUGE presence and charisma, not to mention nobility. Caesar should have been bald by the end of the series, not to mention they totally skipped over the epilepsy.
no, they included the epilepsy in two episodes i can think of.
I just watched it and it makes me sad just like last season... waiting next week always pains me. Multidirectional hostilities always make me happy. Temporary alliances and the like. Good times.
I watched 24 instead. Im catching the re-run at midnight.
I was trying to enjoy it at the time, and not be too nitpicky. :grin: The only thing that seemed to stand out as strange to me was their continual portrayal of Cicero as the absolute lowest pond-scum.
what are you, TA, some kind of Pompean scum? lol
I like the series a lot. And if the relative attention to detail inspires a few thousand kids to go out and learn more about the real history of the times, then it has done a great service. Compared to most of the TV/Hollywood baloney, this series at least tries to depict the people and the mores of Late Republican Rome as something different, instead of the usual "everyone throughout history thinks and acts just like 21st century Americans".
Well there is that, it doesn't pander to modern political or social mores, it is about the collapse of the Republic.
Zak: Ave, Imperator Cicero!
The sex offended you because it wasnt accurate or it offended you because it was sex?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
I've never heard the Romans were sexually up-tight...
It offended me because I thought it was gratuitus.
Caesar, Pompey and Mark Antony were all riddiculed for being amerous, Mark Antony and Caesar were further jeered at for being gay. Roman matrons were expected to lie there respectfully and do nothing during the act, otherwise they were whores.
Giving in to sexual urges was un-manly and therefore un-Roman.
Sex sells. And, hey, everybody knows the Romans were a bunch of debauched horny pervs... right ? ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
I can just see the marketing guys' eyes start to glitter at the mere thought of all the gratuitious pr0n that could be put in to improve the ratings and sex up the image advertising...
An excellent series.
I dont think the sex was/is gratuitous really. At all. Infact it just seems perfectly normal.
Just cause theres some boobies flying about...
Well I have to say I thought the first episode was rather well done. Octavian is a spoiled little prat of course but I paticularly like his cunning and intellectualism. Im currently reading the new biography "Augustus" actually.
One thing I do not understand, who was the old man, Im assuming a priest of sorts, certainly not a pontiff-- who was tending to Vorenus in the alleyway? what was up with that? He asked him to "awaken him". Im not familliar at all.. or maybe ive forgotten something.
I greatly enjoyed the first season as well....despite its inaccuracies. I thought it was pretty well done given the fact that most movies/shows tend to "Hollywoodize" everything as opposed to showing them as they are/were.
My biggest complaint about season 1 was the overall lack of battle scenes. I wish they would shown more for the battle/seige of Alesia, and shown some battle scenes for Pharsalus, the seige and battle that took place in Egypt, the battle of Thapsus, and the final battle of Munda.
I have not yet watched the 1st episode of season 2 that aired last night. I am waiting to finish rewatching season one (am currently on episode 8 or 9). My DVR is set to record it though. (Gotta love the DVR) I, also, watched 24 instead of Rome. Hopefully I will get to watch that first episode of season 2 before the end of the week.
Zaknafien.... Ever watched the movie Augustus starring Peter O'Toole that came out in 2003? Not sure how accurate it is though. I haven't done a lot of reading on Augustus yet. Anyway, I thought it was pretty good all things considered. For you or anyone else that is interested here is a link to the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340529/
Maybe in the Republic circa 140 BC, but if the ruins of Pompeii are any indication, that certainly wasn't the case shortly after Caesar's time and it's doubtful it was the case DURING his time either. The Romans produced a rather prolific collection of erotic art, and it certainly wasn't confined to bordellos and whore houses. By Caesar's time there was a large population of powerless slaves who, as pretty well documented, were used as objects for satiating sexual desire without a second thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Octavian ended up banishing his own daughter because she basically slept with everyone in Rome.
Octavian himself had tons of mistresses.
So, I'm not really sure where you get the idea that the depiction in the series is that far off-base.