Ursus Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 http://www.aboutjamesfrain.com/tudors.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I've just started watching the 2nd season on DVD. Yes, this season does seem to have resolved a lot of the historical inaccuracies of the previous season, as Henry's composite sister Margaret seems to be gone (thank goodness). At least, as of episode four (which is what I'm up to now). But what this season may have gained in historical accuracy is lost in annoying schmaltz and BS on the character of Thomas More. At least Season One depicted Thomas More as something less than the lovable "saint" that most people take him for -- as Chancellor his principles didn't include any compunctions against burning live, human beings at the stake. Which he did with gusto. But now Season Two attempts to emotionally manipulate us into feeling sorry for poor, gentle, kindly, humane, principled family man, Thomas More. The man that the Catholic Church later canonized (like Mother Teresa). I had thought that The Tudors was leaning in Season One towards debunking somewhat this warm, fuzzy image of More, but the series seems to have taken a step backwards in Season Two. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 I just finished season 3 on DVD. I think every season loses a bit in quality. For one thing, semi-important characters are just written off with no explanation. The Duke of Norfolk from Season 1 and the ArchBishop of Canteberry from Season 2 just disappear. For another thing, the series can't make up its mind whether it wants to be about sex or history. Season 1 was about sex, Season 2 was about history, Season 3 seems to try to straddle the line. Still, I can watch it, compared to most things on American TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 I liked this show because it did not try to make someone look very good or bad like most do. Like other historical shows it has a problem with the passing of time so when the first 2 wifes were gone together with other important people it lost it's main characters. The title, the name of a dynasty, should mean more then that sexually deranged Henri VII and his commitment problems. It should have been about his remarkable father and it must be about the reigns of all his children, not only about his youngest daughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 It should have been about his remarkable father and it must be about the reigns of all his children, not only about his youngest daughter. ...as should all accounts of the Tudors. Schoolchildren in the UK get taught a lot about 'Fat Henry' and his excesses, and the reign of Elizabeth, but little else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 It's amazing that I've reached series 3 and I still haven't gotten round to watching this show. Anymore series in the pipeline? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 It's amazing that I've reached series 3 and I still haven't gotten round to watching this show. Anymore series in the pipeline? There will be a 4th and final season for the Tudors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Thanks for the info Ursus! In my previous post I shopuld have said that they've reached series 3 not I've. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGolomb Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 My wife and I are enjoying the show, but it's not as visually rich as Rome and it's bothering me a bit. Each scene feels like a set, and every external shot feels digitized. We're not quite done with Season 1, but I love Sam Neil...will be sorry to see him go. :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I picked up the DVD for Season 3 today, and watched the first episode tonight. So far I'm enjoying this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted March 1, 2010 Report Share Posted March 1, 2010 I watched the first two episodes of the last season on a promotion CD. It's going down hill. Every season, minor characters from previous seasons disappear without in-story explanation, making their contributions meaningless. Meanwhile, new minor characters are introduced. The new minor characters of this season don't do anything for me. Some of the acting even seems a bit wooden. The major characters are also losing their luster. King Henry, the Duke of Suffolk, the Ambassador from the Holy Roman Empire - as they age I just don't feel like I care anymore. The King's youthful queen brings a certain playful sexuality to the series, but of course it won't be long before she is executed. I think the star of the show so far is the Princess Mary and how she is maturing. But in the sum of things ... meh. 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.