Slightly off topic - Rome the TV series

[Coldcall]

I have almost watched the whole first series of Rome. I was wondering what others thought of it?

Last night i watched the part where Pullo gets sentenced to death and then defeats all the Gladiators with Vorenus coming to his aid at the end. Bloody gory- which kind of took me by surprise because up until now i thought it was pretty tame except for the sexy titillation. I found it a bit ridiculous that Pullo is ready to die without putting up a fight until the Gladiators start insulting the 13th. I had to laugh when Pullo looks up and says "no dont insult the 13th" :-) Then when he and Vorenus massacre every gladiator they just dissapear and leave???? Thats a bit silly. Would the Guards really have allowed them to just walk out of there? Anyways i had just eaten dinner when the huge fight takes place and almost puked when Vorenus drives the shaft of that mace-like weapon down through the big ugly gladiator. That was quite sick :-)

Also i dont like how they have portrayed Ceasar. First it makes no sense that he in fact payed Erastus to have Pullo murder one of his critics since Ceasar refused to murder his enemies in revenge after his victory. If Ceasar did not murder the rest of the senators who were against him, even leaving Pompeys sons alive then why would he murder some old loudmouth who was criticising him? That makes no sense.

They also dont explain properly why Pompey left Rome to Ceasar. The fact is that ceasar was hugely popular with the people and most of the legions and hence they would not fight against him and the 13th. Ceasar was the people choice and the series does not portray this properly.

Also the senators who are supposedly trying to protect the republic were more corrupt than Ceasar and again the series does not portray this accurately.

Other than that its pretty good. A bit too much silly sexual stuff and there are some improvisations which are not factual. Did a young Augustus have relations with his sister? I have never seen that written anywhere so where did that come from. I think unless its true its quite insulting to the memory of Augustus who for better or worse expanded Roman empire to its greatest size and power.

I wish these historical dramas would just stick to the facts.

[dvk901]

Octavian (Augustus) was adopted....I didn't realize he even had a sister, and have never heard such a thing.

[pseudocaesar]

Octavian (Augustus) was adopted....I didn't realize he even had a sister, and have never heard such a thing.

Octavia actually married Marc Antony, in season 2 of Rome they actually have this happen which i thought was nifty. I love how they portrayed Octavian, both actors nailed him.

[Atticus]

although not always accurate or historically correct, i liked the first season. the actor who played ceasar was really convincing as were most of the others. for a (american) drama series (of european history) it was't bad, but rather good.

but!

the second season is absolute rubbish! they tried to implement too much in a too short time period, resolting in succession of unclear events (definitely for(american) people who know nothing of roman history).

and what's the deal with that cousin or whatever of timon? he has no input in the story at all!

also, the battle of philippi (between octavian/ marcus antonius and brutus/cassius) was completely wrong!
first of all, the battle in the series was fought in a desert. there is/was no desert in southeast macedon. it might have been a somewhat sandy location, but there must of been some vegetation (trees, buches, grasses,...) and there was a swamp nearby. octavian even tried to build a dam in the swamp to outflank his opponents but none of that was shown in the series.
secondly, the battle of philippi were actually two battles.
and last, brutus, seeing that he has lost the battle (and his friend cassius in the firts battle), put off his armour and walks into the advancing octavian legionairs who stab him to death. what really happened is, seeing that he lost the battle, brutus fled with 4 legions into the hills but realizing all was lost and a humiliating death was nearby if captured by octavian or marcus antonius, he committed suicide.

i don't understand why the first series was really good and the second series so terrible, not even slightly less good but significantly worse. they used a lot of money to make the series so it would be as accurate as possible. if they stated it would be a 'historically correct' dramatisation of the (known and well documentated) past, how is it possible they made such stupid/big mistakes?

[Octavius-Augustus]

I read a review of 'Rome' before watching some actual episodes. It said that it was 'based on historical knowledge of the era' and is 'historically accurate'. From what I've seen, it's not bad, there have been worse attempts to recreate Roman life and events of the era, but it's anything but historically correct. I may watch some more just to see where it goes, but I'm pretty sure all Roman fans will be disappointed.

[century x]

I'am a roman fan and I liked it. I mean how accurate do people want. The creators got things wrong here and there but it can pass a a very accurate show.

I believe one of the inaccurices is in ceasars writings it says Pullo was a centurion and all. But they don't potray his as one. Just a soldier.

The show should of had more battles. I wanted to see the siege of Alesia. That wholw battle but hell I think that will be asking for to much.

I was disappointed when they cancelled the show. Two seasons is not enough.

[Ephialtes The Dog]

I liked it.

[Nordmann]

It wasn't bad for a TV drama series, there's certainly been worse, but there were some rather annoying historical inaccuracies which let it down. The Legionaries could have been more accurately portrayed, as it is their equipment is "dramatised" and not overly accurate, the shields look more like riveted metal plates than Republic Scuta, and where are the Montefortino helmets which should have been worn in that era of the Republic?

It seems to me that they skipped historical accuracy in favour of cheap props, which is what they end up looking like; odd that the series ended up costing $100,000,000 when these were obviously knocked up in a Hollywood style workshop! Then again the sets were rather lavish, much better than we've previously seen from historical dramas.

Overall it's not bad, but it could certainly have been better and much more detailed. I would have personally liked to have seen more battle sequences, some of the major battles of this time were barely represented, which again was frustrating.

I prefer watching "Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire", it's part drama and part documentary, making for an interesting watch to those interested in such things. They have also managed to accurately represent Republican era troops and equipment, unlike "Rome". If you haven't seen it, check it out, Amazon UK have the 6 Episode DVD for £10.48. Sadly I can't find it on Amazon, so shipping costs would be a consideration for buyers outside Europe.

[Dayman]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=56088

I gotta say it's an amazing show, it's accurate to a point, but its amazing on its own.

[Brusilov]

They also dont explain properly why Pompey left Rome to Ceasar. The fact is that ceasar was hugely popular with the people and most of the legions and hence they would not fight against him and the 13th. Ceasar was the people choice and the series does not portray this properly.

I wish these historical dramas would just stick to the facts.

I am fairly sure that in the series they explained that Pompey simply didn't have the legions to match Caesar. I think that is fairly accurate. Despite Pompey's claim that all he had to do was 'stamp his feet and legions would spring up'. It takes time to train new legions.

The people would not fight the legions that would be left to other legions. Caesar had gambled a lot of money in order to get the support of the plebs.

A historical drama that sticks to the facts is called a docu-drama.

With the brutal scenes - how else do you think fighting would be with swords etc?

I also read somewhere that both Pullo and Vorenus were centurians in Caeser's army.

Given that these things happened so long ago who knows what is factual or not. Don't forget history is often re-written, usually by the eventual victors.


I'd suggest that you have a look at the TV series: "Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0864944/

It was shown on the BBC a year or so ago. It's available on DVD - I missed the first episode about Nero.


Edited:Nordman beat me to it.....

[frankus]

I don't think you must look at it as if it was a documentaire.. but more like a roman era soap it is pretty historical correct.

[Nordmann]

What? Rome? In some aspects yes, in others no.

[rory o'kane]

i really enjoyed it. it wasn't all correct ( you can't have everything though), and to be honest, i liked it. it was compelling, it was full of blood and guts, and it just really got across the FEEL of the Roman world (or at least how i imagine it to be!).

[ptg]

Personally, I loved it. I have both series on DVD and am just finishing watching the whole series again.

Sure, there are innacuracies - mostly done to keep a good dramatical flow I feel. However, in many details they are spot on - impressively so. As an amatuer historian I can appreciate the lenghts they have gone to; their research shows. Of course there are moments one winces too, but these are rare and as I said mostly due to artistic licence.

I particularly liked they way they interweave the exploits of Vorenus and Pullo into the grand story of the fall of the Republic and rise of Empire. It adds a personal touch that draws you even further into the action. And yes, the characters are based on real Centurions in Caesers Gallic Campaign. They were both Centurions, however (Pullo is a legionary in ROME) and they were bitter rivals in real life.

As a side note, Caeser in his writings points out that they once saved each other's lives in real life, illustrating that behind their rivalry was in fact mutual respect and that such rivalry was actually a benefit to the Legion, which of course came first.

[Lost In Transition]

Well, I finally watched the first season of Rome at the recommendation of a friend. Frankly, I wasn't impressed at all. And the thing is I know HBO can produce a good series because they produced The Sopranos, one of the greatest television series of all time. But this time, I felt they were way off the mark.

I can forgive the historical inaccuracies, which even I recognized (and I'm no great scholar of Roman history) because they were nowhere near as bad as those in Kingdom of Heaven or King Arthur.

I can even forgive (with a little more difficulty) the horrid and illogical
emphasis on sex and sex and more sex. I'm no prude but, geeze, if you're going to use sex and incest, at least make it a relevant part of the plot line.

What I can't forgive is the horrid scripts that read like badly written comic books and acting so wooden and forced that I'm actually embarrassed for the participants, not to mention plot developments that were simply stupid and asinine. There is a reason the Sopranos went on for years and this show was cancelled after the second season.

But you can buy both seasons on Amazon for around $140.00. That's a lot of money that I can put to much better use.

[HMonk]

i really enjoyed it. it wasn't all correct ( you can't have everything though), and to be honest, i liked it. it was compelling, it was full of blood and guts, and it just really got across the FEEL of the Roman world (or at least how i imagine it to be!).

I agree, it was ok and I think they portrayed roman life as well as anyone

[cherryfunk]

I wish these historical dramas would just stick to the facts.

You can't really 'stick to the facts' when you're dramatizing a story this complicated -- the story has to be shaped and tweaked to fit into the structure you're writing to. To actually play out the entire Civil War would take dozens of episodes and cost several fortunes -- and be totally unintelligible to the average viewer. I'm reading Goldsworthy's Caesar bio right now, and even though I've been studying ancient history all my life the complexities of the Republic's politics are nearly incomprehensible to me. A Tribune of the People can veto a Consul's legislation, as long as the skies are not cloudy, no flocks of birds can be seen flying in a northwesterly direction, it's not a Tuesday afternoon, and he can breath clearly through both nostrils. I'm barely exaggerating.

You simply can't stick to the facts when you dramatize this stuff.

The first season of 'Rome' is immensely entertaining and the best depiction of life in ancient Rome I've ever seen on film. I own it and watch my favorite episodes frequently. The level of detail in the production design is simply staggering.

However, I think they really screwed up with the second season. The guy playing the adult Octavian creeps me out, the scripts are sub-par, and the Vorenus storyline becomes idiotic... too bad. I think they rushed it.

Instead of the second season, buy or rent this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074006/

What I can't forgive is the horrid scripts that read like badly written comic books and acting so wooden and forced that I'm actually embarrassed for the participants

I think you were watching a different show, LiT. Ciaran Hind's Caesar and Purefoy's Antony are riveting. Pompey, Cato, Cicero... I can't think of a single bad performance in the entire first season. It's a true tour de force.

[Juggernaut]

What I can't forgive is the horrid scripts that read like badly written comic books and acting so wooden and forced that I'm actually embarrassed for the participants, not to mention plot developments that were simply stupid and asinine.

Then we must have seen a different show.
HBO's Rome was many things, but "bad acting" and "bad scripts" wasn't one of them.

There is a reason the Sopranos went on for years and this show was cancelled after the second season.

Yep.
It's called "production cost".

[Basch]

The series was good, it wasn't historically accurate in many sense but, its a show and it was entertaining, which in the end is what really matters to me. lol

I don't like how they portrayed Caesar in the series but, I did like how the actor played him. Anyways the show was really good, but I really like the bbc series. I saw all the episodes on stage6, but since it got canceled I can't post them all. I did however get the Caesar one which is my fav one, I don't know if its against the rules or not, sorry if it is but heres a link to the episode.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6261293b...0617973&rank=2

[Coldcall]

Thanks for all the comments guys. I watched the last episode of the first series last night when Ceasar gets it. Ya its pretty good though i felt the plot to distract Vorenus was a bit over the top.

That Servialla is a right nasty piece of work. I also think the idea that she kind of brainwashed Brutus into helping murder Ceasar is highly dramatic.

I felt sorry for Attia for the frist time in the whole series :-)

I agree that this is alot like a soap opera. It has a feeling of being like a stage play. And i wish they had done a few more set battles of Ceasars as the series never really relates what a military genius Ceasar was.