Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"The Six Wives of Henry VIII", a BBC TV production from the 1970s; classic British acting and scripts - and an excellent TV drama.

How'd it compare to the Tudors?

280px-TudorsPromo4-2.jpg
 
How'd it compare to the Tudors?

Image

The original series was lot less flamboyant, and had a much more limited budget (so sets etc. were a lot less impressive - something I didn't notice at the time when I first saw the series as a kid; to the modern eye, it may look a bit drab in parts).

It also boasted better acting, much better (more historically accurate and far more nuanced) scripts; as an historian by profession, I like something which claims to be history to be more or less historically accurate. Otherwise, it is fiction, or a creative re-interpretation - not that I have a problem with fiction, but please don't class it as history.

Above all, it had a fantastic cast of classical British actors, in fact, more realistic looking actors (the cast of the Tudors were unbelievably good-looking; for an idea of what the real people looked like take a look at Hans Holbein's stunning portraits of most of the main players of the era - even at the time, Holbein was recognised as someone who could capture a true likeness), which, for me, made the whole thing a lot more credible. And, in the original, the violence and graphic sex scenes of the more modern version are obviously absent. Having said that, while explicitly showing little, it does convey a wonderful sense of what must have been the tensions and suppressed violence and sexuality of the era amidst the elegant gallantries of courtly life.

Keith Michell as Henry VIII is simply superb, and does a stunning job of playing a role where he starts out as a gently-mannered, almost deferential, well-educated, proto-Renaissance prince of 18, slim, fit and attractive, and gradually, over the six episodes of the series, transforms into the bloated, capricious, monstrous, obese, and vindictive tyrant the man became in reality. All of the queens are very well played, and the actors playing the roles of Thomas Cromwell, Archbishop Cranmer and the Duke of Norfolk are also especially good.
 
The original series was lot less flamboyant, and had a much more limited budget (so sets etc. were a lot less impressive - something I didn't notice at the time when I first saw the series as a kid; to the modern eye, it may look a bit drab in parts).

It also boasted better acting, much better (more historically accurate and far more nuanced) scripts; as an historian by profession, I like something which claims to be history to be more or less historically accurate. Otherwise, it is fiction, or a creative re-interpretation - not that I have a problem with fiction, but please don't class it as history.

Above all, it had a fantastic cast of classical British actors, in fact, more realistic looking actors (the cast of the Tudors were unbelievably good-looking; for an idea of what the real people looked like take a look at Hans Holbein's stunning portraits of most of the main players of the era - even at the time, Holbein was recognised as someone who could capture a true likeness), which, for me, made the whole thing a lot more credible. And, in the original, the violence and graphic sex scenes of the more modern version are obviously absent. Having said that, while explicitly showing little, it does convey a wonderful sense of what must have been the tensions and suppressed violence and sexuality of the era amidst the elegant gallantries of courtly life.

Keith Michell as Henry VIII is simply superb, and does a stunning job of playing a role where he starts out as a gently-mannered, almost deferential, well-educated, proto-Renaissance prince of 18, slim, fit and attractive, and gradually, over the six episodes of the series, transforms into the bloated, capricious, monstrous, obese, and vindictive tyrant the man became in reality. All of the queens are very well played, and the actors playing the roles of Thomas Cromwell, Archbishop Cranmer and the Duke of Norfolk are also especially good.

My wife is a English history buff and was constantly telling me how inaccurate the Tudors was. :)
 
My wife is a English history buff and was constantly telling me how inaccurate the Tudors was. :)

It was, (very inaccurate), and was an excellent example of the old trope that if the facts don't fit the narrative need for entertainment, feel free to change the facts. Anyway, I agree with her. It was entertainment (and terrific entertainment) but it was not history. However, if you like Tudor history (and I do), the original BBC series is well worth watching.
 
I just watched a French film called The city of lost children.

It was creepy in places and funny yet well made with a Steampunk theme in the background, and Ron Pearlman has a very convincing French accent if you don't mind reading subtitles then I would recommend it.
 

Attachments

  • LostChildren.jpg
    LostChildren.jpg
    58.8 KB · Views: 83
I'm watching "Waterworld" right now, I know it's cr*p but there's nothing else worth watching tonight.
 
I saw Pixar's new movie Brave with the family and it was fun. It wasn't what I expected from the previews, but it was a great kids movie and entertaining for adults. :)
 
I saw Pixar's new movie Brave with the family and it was fun. It wasn't what I expected from the previews, but it was a great kids movie and entertaining for adults. :)

Agreed - they did make it seem like it was going to be about something else. The fight at the end was a little much for them, though. Other than that they enjoyed it - they especially liked the triplets. :D

We also saw Madagascar this weekend. Nothing spectacular, but the kids liked it and it was a perfect way to spend a rainy day.
 
Finally got around to watching Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows last night. Very entertaining.
 
Just finished Midnight Express..one hell of a movie! Found it by accident because of the Giorgio Moroder soundtrack.
This will definitely haunt me for a while and ranks with Le Trou way above all the other prison-break movies imo. Highly recommended.

The contemporary Sherlock wasn't made for me I think..although a big fan of RDjr...I'm more the Rathbone/Bruce type.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
Brave- This movie lifted me up and then with the plot twist crashed me down. Such potential wasted. It would have been nice if spoiler>> she had done something substantial with her bow and had not spent half the movie trying to figure out how to undo the spell she put on her mother. <<end spoiler.

MV5BMzgwODk3ODA1NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjU3NjQ0Nw@@._V1._SY317_CR0,0,214,317_.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just finished the extended versions of Stieg Larsson's "Dragon Tattoo Trilogy" over the past two and a half days. It had been a while since I read the books, but I think the movies did a really good job overall. The books were great if you can get through the first 100 pages, and the movies were excellent, too.

On the lighter side, I caught "Get Smart" with Steve Carrel. I was never a huge fan of the tv series, but I'd seen enough to catch some of the self references. Ridiculous movie, but fun anyway.
 
Enjoying Island of The Lost Souls, the new HD restauration of the uncut version. True Beauty!
 
Saw Deer Hunter for the first time last week. Was disappointed. Think it's overrated. :(

Me,too. Highly overrated..in fact I found it downright bad/insulting. Only good scene is when DeNiro and Walken have their first "gamble" as prisoners.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.