New Series- Rome-

It's a shame they had to cut it after two seasons, but given the true-life historical trajectories of the key players, I'm not sure they could have kept it going much longer without turning it into a soap opera (or rather, having us realize it had kind of been one all along). They kind of painted themselves into a corner with their astronomical production values, too.

I guess it's better that it went out on a high note, because at $80 a pop, I would've been pretty bent out of shape about buying the collections after the show had reached shark-jumping status.
 
I've been a fan since they first came out.

Despite some historical problems, they managed to do better than most shows, and the acting and production values are top notch.
 
This series took it to a whole 'nother level for me with the arena scene with Titus Pullo.

You can nitpick the historical accuracy, but I take it as entertainment, almost like an alternate history at parts.

I'm a big fan of John Milius' work (IIRC he produces) as a whole.
 
Go BBC! (And HBO)

I loved Rome so much. I thought the first series was better than the second, but that was probably because I'm quite into my Caesar. Casting was brilliant, plot was brilliant, sex scenes were.... interesting - it was all bloody good!

Also, I nearly wet myself when I worked out that the assistant guy in Casino Royale was Brutus. "Look out M, he'll stab you!"
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
You can nitpick the historical accuracy, but I take it as entertainment, almost like an alternate history at parts.
Click to expand...

As a part-time historian, historical accuracy is quite important to me.

Besides, I thought that NMA was all about nit-picking :P.
 
rcorporon said:
Cimmerian Nights said:
You can nitpick the historical accuracy, but I take it as entertainment, almost like an alternate history at parts.
Click to expand...

As a part-time historian, historical accuracy is quite important to me.

Besides, I thought that NMA was all about nit-picking :P.
Click to expand...

Historian eh?! Any areas of specialty?


On another note after watching the credits for each episode... I'm pretty sure if your last name ended with an "o" or "i" you could have been in this program. :P
 
Hello fellow historian!

Historical accuracy was actually why I quit watching Rome. Now, not because it wasn't as historically accurate as I wanted. No, it was because once I watched the first some episodes I found out that my knowledge of ancient history had become rusty, so I went back to reading up on my Greece and Roman history. I kind of forgot about the series...

And I don't like to specialize, yet. Well, most of what I've done comes around to the late middle ages and that's probably what I'll finish my study with. But I've also done some courses on Soviet history. The way the Soviet Union handled its minorities is just too damn interesting. And some other courses on the matter of states and nations, Tilly, Hobsbawm, Gellner, that kind of stuff. And I'll probably make a sidestep this year with some philosophy courses.
 
Call me a graphics whore, but this series (much like I, Claudius before it) would've benefited tremendously from a bigger budget. It's been a year since I watched Rome but I basically remember every battle being completely glossed over. It was like they walked out of a tent to go meet the enemy, cut, and walk back into the tent and went from there. Some epic 'Braveheart' style battle scenes could've only helped.

Rome also could've benefitted from a madcap Caligula type story arc (not of the Bob Guccione variety, for the sake of good taste). I love the idea of some all-powerfull guy who's totally out of his impulsive gourd, surrounded by rational people who have to humor him out of fear for their lives. Comedy ensues...
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
Call me a graphics whore, but this series (much like I, Claudius before it) would've benefited tremendously from a bigger budget. It's been a year since I watched Rome but I basically remember every battle being completely glossed over. It was like they walked out of a tent to go meet the enemy, cut, and walk back into the tent and went from there. Some epic 'Braveheart' style battle scenes could've only helped.

Rome also could've benefitted from a madcap Caligula type story arc (not of the Bob Guccione variety, for the sake of good taste). I love the idea of some all-powerfull guy who's totally out of his impulsive gourd, surrounded by rational people who have to humor him out of fear for their lives. Comedy ensues...
Click to expand...

The budget for Season 1 was $100 million. How much bigger do you want?

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9044681/
 
$100M hardly gets you a good looking movie anymore, let alone 10 hours of a miniseries.

Like I said, the battle scenes, if you want to call them that were nonexistant. IIRC
It's kind of odd being that most of the story revolves around war, from the players at the top to the soldiers at the bottom, without ever actually showing it take place.
The story would play out as to what happened after, and I'd be left thinking "OK I'll have to take your word for it because I didn't see a goddman thing."
It's pretty obvious that sets were few and economically used. It gets kind of tired when the only outside area shown is the same part of the forum over and over again.
I'm not saying it was cheap, costumes, interiors etc. were well done. And obviously this is a TV show and not a Hollywood blockbuster. But like I said battles were totally glossed over - obviously due to lack of funds.
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
$100M hardly gets you a good looking movie anymore, let alone 10 hours of a miniseries.

Like I said, the battle scenes, if you want to call them that were nonexistant. IIRC
It's kind of odd being that most of the story revolves around war, from the players at the top to the soldiers at the bottom, without ever actually showing it take place.
The story would play out as to what happened after, and I'd be left thinking "OK I'll have to take your word for it because I didn't see a goddman thing."
It's pretty obvious that sets were few and economically used. It gets kind of tired when the only outside area shown is the same part of the forum over and over again.
I'm not saying it was cheap, costumes, interiors etc. were well done. And obviously this is a TV show and not a Hollywood blockbuster. But like I said battles were totally glossed over - obviously due to lack of funds.
Click to expand...

I think that the battles were glossed over because the battles themselves were not important. Rome was about the politics of the time, and the characters. You can't develop characters or push the plot forward while showing 10 to 15 mins of combat footage.

The battles themselves, and the tactics used, weren't vital to the story, only who won. The show was able to keep the viewer informed about the events going on, without getting bogged down in blood and guts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top