Lanista Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 http://scifiwire.com/2009/07/how-tvs-new-spartacus-wil.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Tapert said that if the historical facts didn't fit the story they were trying to tell, they threw it out, believing that the "average punter, as they say in New Zealand," wouldn't have a problem with it. This is hardly a surprise, considering that he did the same thing with Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess. DeKnight called it "bending" history, saying that it had to be done. "But we try not to break it." Late breaking news! Tapert has just signed on Ted Raimi to play a comic-relief character named "Joxerius" for the new Spartacus series. Joxerius will be Spartacus' side-kick, and will speak a foreign tongue somewhat reminiscent of Jar-Jar Binks. When Tapert was questioned as to why he felt a need to include his business partner's talentless little brother in yet another production, his reply was: "Joxer was an integral part of Xena and I feel that Ted will bring the same delicate balance of humor and pathos to Spartacus that he did for Xena. Screw the fans that hated him. Full steam ahead!" -- Nephele, your roving reporter who makes up the news as we suspect it to happen anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 What a total crock of s**t!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 I did not like Xena or Hercules series so I guess I'll hate this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why should one be annoyed? We are talking Mr Tapert here; even within fiction, "accuracy" has never been his expertise area. Actually, I think it's good news; a parodical fictional depiction of the Roman Republic on TV seems like a good way to stimulate the general public curiosity on the real stuff. QUOTE (SIC): "Obviously, the producers were pretty happy to take on a topic that didn't actually have a lot of facts to stick to". ???????????????????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus silanus Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) Why should one be annoyed? We are talking Mr Tapert here; even within fiction, "accuracy" has never been his expertise area. Actually, I think it's good news; a parodical fictional depiction of the Roman Republic on TV seems like a good way to stimulate the general public curiosity on the real stuff. QUOTE (SIC): "Obviously, the producers were pretty happy to take on a topic that didn't actually have a lot of facts to stick to". ???????????????????? Bearing in mind my comments in the other thread about the Kubrick film, I guess that I may be one that could be expected to be annoyed, but I agree with you here: why should I? I've no doubt that this effort is complete and utter hogwash, but the difference is that Tapert's does not begin to enter the realms of serious historical drama. I was under the impression that Xena and Hercules were made for children and would expect this to be so far removed from anything resembling quality and value that it will not live long enough in the memory to matter at all. Edited July 31, 2009 by marcus silanus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 There will probably be scantily clad and impressively endowed (both real and/or "enhanced") women throughout, in addition to well defined men... so depending on one's definition of entertainment, there will be some who will be pleased. Unfortunately, the show will likely be a sounding board for how horrible the Romans were and how great Spartacus and his dream of freedom for everyone was (despite the obvious un-truths about either side of that statement) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Needs aliens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Please remember that in an extremely distorted way, the Roman Republic has already been depicted in Mr Tapert's XENA with a "Caesar", a "Crassus", a "Pompey, a "Brutus" and even a "Boadicea". Believe me, "accuracy" can't get any worse. Despite the undisputed popularity of the series and the expected appearance of scantily clad women, I don't think that even the most naive Xena fans took that for history, in the same way that Star Trek has never been used as a textbook of physics. Edited August 3, 2009 by sylla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maty Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Actually he's got a point - there is not a lot known about Spartacus. The Romans did not talk about him much for the same reason a street gangster does not tell about the time he got whupped by some geek girl from the right side of the tracks. Some of the best detail we get is incidental stuff while (for example) Plutarch is telling the life of Crassus. That said, I can see at least three things wrong with the top picture shown in the article, and anyone who describes '300' as 'a liberating experience' is definitely someone to fear. But, if it gets people into ancient history there's always forums like this to put them right - but first they have to have their imaginations fired up, and if this, or even (gulp) 300 does the trick then I'm all for it. (I also get the feeling that the Romans would have loved 'Xenia warrior princess' if someone had presented it to them in pantomime form, especially with real blood and extra nudity. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Actually he's got a point - there is not a lot known about Spartacus. The Romans did not talk about him much for the same reason a street gangster does not tell about the time he got whupped by some geek girl from the right side of the tracks. Some of the best detail we get is incidental stuff while (for example) Plutarch is telling the life of Crassus. Well, my personal impression is that Plutarch, Appian, Orosius, Frontinus, Sallust, Eutropius, Florus, Velleius, Cicero, Augustine, Pliny and Livy (among others) reported a a pretty lot of incidental stuff for the producers to stick to. BTW, check out the trailer; there is indeed extra nudity and blood. Edited August 4, 2009 by sylla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulvia Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 "I said, 'Do you know anything about history?'" he said. "He said no. And I said, 'Good, g-ddamn it, because I don't care about it.'" Oh, THAT'S a great approach to making a historically based series. You can't bend history if you don't know what you're bending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanista Posted August 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Why should one be annoyed? I tend to agree, but many historians often wail and gnash their teeth at this sort of thing. Personally, I don't worry about the facts too much in these things - never let the facts get in the way of a good story is the mantra and, in some cases, why not? Lots of people love Braveheart (including the Academy) which is as far from the facts as you can get without including ninjas. Nah - it's all good for me. I'm fan, what can I tell ya... Cheers Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelia Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I must admit there were times I didn't mind watching Hercules or Xena on TV. I just saw them for what they were: 1 hour or so of silly, slightly amusing entertainment. There are days when you're in the mood for just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I must admit there were times I didn't mind watching Hercules or Xena on TV. I just saw them for what they were: 1 hour or so of silly, slightly amusing entertainment. There are days when you're in the mood for just that. I liked Xena too. At least, the earlier seasons. Before Joxer. My point being (as I'd mentioned earlier): It's not a matter of whether or not fictionalized history can be enjoyed for its own merit -- it can be enjoyed. It's a matter of whether or not the creative minds behind the fiction can pull it off. For me, Xena went downhill the day that nepotism won out over talent in the Raimi/Tapert entertainment dynasty. I have no great expectations for Tapert's latest undertaking. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.