Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spoilers What's on TV?
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why don't you ask them to broadcast it? This is very well-made, intelligent and interesting TV.
Just started watching Africa on Netflix. Only on episode 1 of 6 and the cinematography is absolutely stunning.
Rome Season 1, Episode 1- The competition for leadership between best friends Julius Caesar and Pompey Magnus begins, as soldiers Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pollo look for Caesar's stolen Eagle during his governorship of Gaul (Western Europe). As good as I remembered. 
Rome Season 1, Episode 1- The competition for leadership between best friends Julius Caesar and Pompey Magnus begins, as soldiers Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pollo look for Caesar's stolen Eagle during his governorship of Gaul (Western Europe). As good as I remembered.
Do you really think that they were 'best friends'?
Pompey was wealthy, and militarily very competent. My suspicion is that Caesar had encouraged the marriage of his daughter to Pompey in order to bind him closely, but, as for friends, let alone 'best friends', I confess to harbouring some doubts.
[doublepost=1463316848][/doublepost]
Sounds fascinating. Who made it?
Don't go critical on me, lol.
This is how in the series, Pompey described Caesar to his political associates, before he undermined him in the Senate and even with this legion. Whatever relationship there was, this story shows a turning point. After Pompey's wife dues in childbirth, Caesar also tries to set him up with his nease (I think that's her relationship). You may just have to watch it. This article Quo Vadis, HBO? praises the series overall while trashing the representation of Cleopatra.
Last edited:
The new season Silicon Valley is excellent, they're doing a great job of introducing new complications that are all so perfectly absurd, but so on point with SV culture.
Plus ... horses!
Plus ... horses!
Don't go critical on me, lol.
Well, I understand 1) the actual, real history, 2) the flexibility permitted by dramatic licence, and 3) yes, the unfortunate tendency in US adaptations of stories to rearrange facts to suit the needs of a story and that this is not always in conformity with known facts.
No, @Huntn; I don't see myself succumbing to the dubious delights of Roman history as mediated by the needs - dramatic, ratings - of US TV networks.
But I don't want to fight!
I found an article that discussed the inaccuracies in I, Claudius. And both the Rome articles I've linked, praise the series while pointing out it's short comings. It was a joint US-BBC production, at least half a gold standard.
The key is taking into consideration what is being watched, especially when it involves dialog and reading between the lines, such as the role of Livia (I,Claudius).Regarding Rome, this Wiki articles says:
There are numerous inaccuracies in the series' representation of various historical events and personages. Co-creator Bruno Heller has said: "We try to balance between what people expect from previous portrayals and a naturalistic approach ... This series is much more about how the psychology of the characters affects history than simply following the history as we know it".[53] Series Historical Consultant Jonathan Stamp also notes that the show aims for "authenticity" rather than "accuracy".[5][54][55] The filmmakers stressed that they wanted to portray a more accurate picture of Rome, a gritty and realistic city as opposed to what they call the "Hollyrome" presentation that audiences are used to from other films, with "cleanliness and marble and togas that looked pressed."[56]
And this:
As others have mentioned, the atmosphere was probably very close. The broad sweep of historical events is also very accurate, with the exception of the huge compression of time between about 42 BCE and 31 BCE.
The question becomes how important are the inaccuracies to the telling and enjoyment of the story. I'd say that for Rome, the Cleopatra aspect is a serious blow to accuracy. The only real way you can judge this is watching it or just dismiss and criticize it based on your prejudices. Seriously, no hard feelings on my part, relax.... I'll let you have the last word if you insist.
But I don't want to fight!
I found an article that discussed the inaccuracies in I, Claudius. And both the Rome articles I've linked, praise the series while pointing out it's short comings. It was a joint US-BBC production, at least half a gold standard.
Regarding Rome, this Wiki articles says:
There are numerous inaccuracies in the series' representation of various historical events and personages. Co-creator Bruno Heller has said: "We try to balance between what people expect from previous portrayals and a naturalistic approach ... This series is much more about how the psychology of the characters affects history than simply following the history as we know it".[53] Series Historical Consultant Jonathan Stamp also notes that the show aims for "authenticity" rather than "accuracy".[5][54][55] The filmmakers stressed that they wanted to portray a more accurate picture of Rome, a gritty and realistic city as opposed to what they call the "Hollyrome" presentation that audiences are used to from other films, with "cleanliness and marble and togas that looked pressed."[56]
And this:
As others have mentioned, the atmosphere was probably very close. The broad sweep of historical events is also very accurate, with the exception of the huge compression of time between about 42 BCE and 31 BCE.
The question becomes how important are the inaccuracies to the telling and enjoyment of the story. I'd say that for Rome, the Cleopatra aspect is a serious blow to accuracy. The only real way you can judge this is watching it or just dismiss and criticize it based on your prejudices. Seriously, no hard feelings on my part, relax.... I'll let you have the last word if you insist.
Interesting distinction between 'accuracy' and 'authenticity'.
Actually, I have nothing against 'authenticity' - it can add hugely to the sense of textural verisimilitude in a story.
And, likewise, - while 'I, Claudius' is not, of course, history, it is an intelligent reading of how and why events occurred. The thing with 'I, Claudius' was that the sequence of events, the timelines, the characters, the basic facts - were not traduced. Everything happened when it was supposed to happen, and in the right order. Thus, it got the historical basis, the ones about which there is rarely much argument isn serious history, the what (what happened), the who (who did it or to whom was it done), the when, the where - they are not tampered with for the sake of storytelling, or entertainment.
However, the debate over interpretation - (- such as how nasty was Livia, how clueless or responsible was Augustus) - the old why and how stuff - can, of course, be subject to some criticism in I, Claudius.
My problem with much US historical drama is that they find the reality too complicated - or, that they think the audience will find the reality too complicated - and therefore take shortcuts, - with character, with time - conflating individuals, and compressing time - which actually make a nonsense of the real historical story.
Personally, even with the needs of entertainment in mind, I don't think this is necessary. The real story can be told in an engaging and interesting manner, one which will compel the attention of an audience. For example, Game of Thrones doesn't do this; it expects the audience to follow a complex story with a vast cast of characters.
So, if a TV series says 'this is how we think history should have happened', well, I will accept that as a stance that is far more intellectually preferable to one that attempts to pass off as history a series of short cuts that make the true story an awful lot harder to understand. We can have both 'authenticity', and a credible degree of 'accuracy'.
@SandboxGeneral after watching the first episode of 'Africa', David Attenborough has done a fantastic job! Will watch second episode later today.
I finished the series earlier today and thought the whole thing was marvelous.
I told my sister about it and she's at home watching it right now.
I found I, Claudius on Amazon Prime (free for Prime members). Will report back!
I've watched the first few episodes now, and I'm definitely enjoying it!
I've now put this to the top of my 'next to watch' list. Thanks!
Watching last nights episode of 12 Monkeys. I've been keeping up with the series though I barely find the storyline compelling or intriguing. Especially since the arc changed this seasonn. But I continue to watch it and have it on more as background while I'm doing other things.
I started watching it in the first season but fell behind fairly quickly and never got back to it. Thought about getting back to it when season 2 started recently, but haven't found the time to do that either. Perhaps it might not be worth the effort/investment after all.
I always thought the story was better compressed as a movie instead of a TV series with endless trips back in time trying to fix things.
Season 13's end of NCIS was very well acted and portrayed. What I don't like is the fact they killed Ziva off screen and went with the dead lover, but had a child together route to write Tony off the show. It's so cliche and over done, it weakens Cote's exit, and does take the focus off of Michael's exit a bit because now a part of the fanbase is enraged over the killing of Ziva.
They should have given him his own team, had enough of Gibbs treatment of him, etc. Be a bit more original especially since they had the whole freaking season to lay the foundation of Michael's exit. Unlike Cote's exit, they knew before the season that 13 would be Michael's last. Instead we got the sudden departure route via got a kid, mom is dead, have to leave dangerous job to take care of kid route. Bah..... So cheap.....
And I hope they don't pull the Ziva faked her death, went into hiding BS if CBS/Cote make up and want to write her back into the story. Yeah we never got a body, wasn't even confirmed if they recovered a body so the door is very much open for that reentry story, but, this isn't Game of Thrones. You killed her off, and as much as I hate it, she needs to stay dead.
They should have given him his own team, had enough of Gibbs treatment of him, etc. Be a bit more original especially since they had the whole freaking season to lay the foundation of Michael's exit. Unlike Cote's exit, they knew before the season that 13 would be Michael's last. Instead we got the sudden departure route via got a kid, mom is dead, have to leave dangerous job to take care of kid route. Bah..... So cheap.....
And I hope they don't pull the Ziva faked her death, went into hiding BS if CBS/Cote make up and want to write her back into the story. Yeah we never got a body, wasn't even confirmed if they recovered a body so the door is very much open for that reentry story, but, this isn't Game of Thrones. You killed her off, and as much as I hate it, she needs to stay dead.
@quagmire, long time no see. You been busy flying the friendly skys?
Haha.... A bit sort of speak. Just mostly lurking than posting though.
Terrific and thought provoking programmes on BBC2; David Attenborough (hadn't realised that it was on - caught it by accident) a wonderful programme on the sort of strange creatures that can manufacture and use light to hunt, hide, and see by, followed by the always excellent Mary Beard, with the fourth (and final) episode of 'Ultimate Rome'.
Rome Season 1, Episode 1- The competition for leadership between best friends Julius Caesar and Pompey Magnus begins, as soldiers Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pollo look for Caesar's stolen Eagle during his governorship of Gaul (Western Europe). As good as I remembered.
I watched the first episode. It was decent, but I don't really think that I would have liked it. Loved the actors though. Especially Ray Stevenson. Thought that he was amazing as Isaak Sirko in Dexter.
Also, what's the relationship between Pullo and Vorenus in this show? I heard that they were best friends. I studied the mini-episode of the Gallic Wars by Caesar that focuses on these two, and they are shown as feirce rivals who had endless disputes, but end up working together in battle.