Ursus Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 http://www.sho.com/site/announcements/060120tudors.do I am looking forward to this. Since it's not Roman history, I don't care if it is more soap opera than history. Should be a lot of fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 http://www.sho.com/site/announcements/060120tudors.do I am looking forward to this. Since it's not Roman history, I don't care if it is more soap opera than history. Should be a lot of fun. As its Showtime - creators of 'Queer as Folk' and 'The L Word' - I expect the entire cast to be gorgeous. Even Anne of Cleves will have some redeeming qualities. The storylines won't matter, as long as everyone looks right. Expect Henry VIII to have slimmed down remarkably for this, folks! BTW Ursus - the link wouldn't load for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Henry 8 was very athletic as a young man. The Ray Winstone, Helena Bonham Carter 'Henry VIII' was watchable but the attitudes of the characters were far too modern. H B C's Anne Bolyn was like some kind of early modern girl power person! Sean Bean was excellent though as Robert Aske. I cannot access the above link. It says its intended for USA only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted February 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Sorry about the American-centric link. I had no idea. Oh, well. And yes, Augusta, I can verify the female cast are lovelies. When it comes to males I am no judge, but they seem athletic and virile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Henry 8 was very athletic as a young man. The Ray Winstone, Helena Bonham Carter 'Henry VIII' was watchable but the attitudes of the characters were far too modern. H B C's Anne Bolyn was like some kind of early modern girl power person! Sean Bean was excellent though as Robert Aske. Yes, I know Hal was quite something in his younger days, Paul - I was just being my usual facetious self I didn't see the Ray Winstone version (which I'm sorry about because I'm a fan of Helena) but I did see The Other Boleyn Girl a couple of years ago, which took great liberties with history, and had Mary and Anne talking to the camera as though making a video diary! Didn't like that at all - despite the very decent acting abilities of the cast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 (edited) I really enjoyed the Other Bolyn Girl. Especially Jared Harris' (son of Richard) portrayal of Henry. I know that physically he was too small (sorry, I'm a pedant) but he was cultured and totally different to the stereotypical Henry 8 with the brash back slapping antics that seem always to be part of the actors preferred style of portrayal. I'll run a copy off and bring it to York in April. Edit. Of Winston. Bonham Carter. Not The Other Bolyn Girl. Edited February 20, 2007 by spittle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2007 This is on Showtime tonight. Can't wait - it looks good. Obviously intended as Showtime's response to HBO's "Rome." The previews suggest politics and sex against nice background sets. And if there are any historical innacuracies, I'm too poorly schooled in this era of history to know or care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 This is on Showtime tonight. Can't wait - it looks good. Obviously intended as Showtime's response to HBO's "Rome." The previews suggest politics and sex against nice background sets. And if there are any historical innacuracies, I'm too poorly schooled in this era of history to know or care. Any updates on this Ursus? What was your overall impression? I note that the BBC have commissioned the series for broadcast over here at some stage this year, so I'd be glad of some pointers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 It's good for what it is. Great costumes and scenery. Intrigue and sex. It is watchable. I can't comment on the historical veracity. I watch it purely for entertainment and it is adequate on that level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 It's good for what it is. Great costumes and scenery. Intrigue and sex. It is watchable. I can't comment on the historical veracity. I watch it purely for entertainment and it is adequate on that level. Same here, as I've been watching it, too. It's an entertaining costume drama, and I like Sam Neill in the role of Cardinal Wolsey. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 I've also been enjoying it immensely. Jeremy Northam as Sir Thomas More is a real treat. I hated Utopia, but I seem to like everyone played by Jeremy Northam--his Thomas More is much more interesting so far than the more buffoonish one from A Man for all Seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 I've also been enjoying it immensely. Jeremy Northam as Sir Thomas More is a real treat. I hated Utopia, but I seem to like everyone played by Jeremy Northam--his Thomas More is much more interesting so far than the more buffoonish one from A Man for all Seasons. Yes, absolutely agreed -- Jeremy Northam is a superb Thomas More in this series. So far, he seems to come across as a more convincing voice of conscience for Henry. As for Utopia, I actually quite liked it, although I'll admit that I read it when I was very young and at the time entranced with the concept of utopian societies and communal living (I actually toyed with the idea of spending a summer on a kibbutz). One thing I did then and still do find interesting in More's Utopia, was More's concept of winning a war -- which seemed to me to be delightfully Machiavellian for such a man as More. If I'm recalling correctly, More proposed that the invading nation first send agents into the enemy nation, and these agents would post notices throughout the enemy nation offering monetary awards for the leaders of said nation. The idea being that the people of the enemy nation would turn against their own leaders to make an easy buck, and thus the invading nation might have a bloodless victory. Am I remembering this bit from Utopia correctly? And, isn't this pretty much what the U.S. had hoped to accomplish, by initially putting a price on Osama bin Laden's head? -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 It's an entertaining costume drama, and I like Sam Neill in the role of Cardinal Wolsey. Sam Neill is wonderful! He has so much more talent than was manifest in that insipid "Jurassic Park" film. I think the acting all around is wonderful. My one exception is the guy that played the Duke of Buckingham. It seemed a bit two dimensional. All in all I think this show is shaping up to be better than HBO's "Rome." The acting is better across the board. The sets and scenery look better. The writing is more fast paced. And, for me at least, the women are better looking and more likely to remove their clothing. The details of this era are fuzzy to me, but the show does seem to follow the general historical outline as I know it. In that sense I think it is also superior to "Rome" and the liberties that show took. Apparently the show has been picked up for a second season. Wonderful. Now ... I want to see a prequel set during the War of the Roses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 All in all I think this show is shaping up to be better than HBO's "Rome." The acting is better across the board. The sets and scenery look better. The writing is more fast paced. And, for me at least, the women are better looking and more likely to remove their clothing. Heresy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 (edited) To those who have seen it - what timescale are we on? Has it begun with Henry VII, or has it started in the reign of Henry VIII? ETA: I should add that this was the first period of history I ever fell in love with - aged 7. Edited April 22, 2007 by The Augusta 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.