Wow. I've just watched the first of the above series.
Campaign history, battle scenes and Bettany Hughes looking like a goddess.
What more could you ask for ? I can die happy now...
(and seven more episodes to go...)
Sigh
Phil
She's a big girl.
Certainly makes a change to get TV history fronted by someone who can speak with authority and it's not about the Tudors.
HOWEVER .......here's our Betany speaking authoritatively about Rome and Carthage, with an 'expert' on the Roman military, and there in 202BC are reasonably authentic looking Carthaginians fighting Romans in lorica segmentata and really rather advanced looking Gallic helmets. At 15 years old I knew that lorica segmentata only appeared in the early years of the first century AD, that Julius Caesar's legions fought in Gallic style mail and that the Roman legionaries in the Carthaginian Wars wore either small chest plates or, if they were wealthy, mail. That the main form of head protection was the montefortino helmet or the Etruscan-Corinthian. Why, fifty years later, in a supposedly factual programme is the general public still being fed this Hollywood impression of the Romans, when dozens of books, and some previous TV programmes, have attempted to correct this view? Do the producers think Joe Public will have a massive cardiac arrest when he discovers that the Romans did not wear lorica segmentata from 756BC to 476AD. See also my thread on TV and History.
PS - can't wait for a programme on the 45 showing screaming, bekilted, sword and targe swinging Highlanders fighting camo uniformed, fritz-helmeted, Tommies with machine guns.
You're forgetting the general audience, the majority watching won't know or care what a lorica segmentata was. They don't make these programmes for nerds like us.
My opinion of Ms Hughes' scholarship is undeminished.
Proving the old saying "That Rome wasn't built in a day".
I think I've watched four of the series now....(Last one, was Augustus manipulating his way to power, and all the plotting that was behind that.)
Thoroughly enjoyed them all.
Cheers - Phil
Sounds like its worth watching, not that I expect to see it on TV down here unless its on at 4am....might impinge too much on "reality TV" shows that TVNZ seems to love airing in primetime :o
Well, how utterly Patrician! The Plebs don't know any better so who cares. Let them continue to wallow in their ignorance. Know your place!
Oooh.....There's a bitterness there, Andy. ;) :)
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: SV52 on 19 November 2017, 11:58:10 PM
You're forgetting the general audience, the majority watching won't know or care what a lorica segmentata was. They don't make these programmes for nerds like us.
I'm sure many won't. But they will recognise the classic Roman look, even if they don't know the name. But that is even more reason to show them in the appropriate armour for the era, because then it will make some people go, why are those Romans in mail, I thought they were normally in plate armour with big shoulders. And might then do a bit more digging around to find out more.
But by simply going with the stereotype of Roman Soldier then it doesn't help anyone, other than the guy tasked with getting images and film clips together.
Personally I notice this kind of thing most in WWII documentaries where any clip of tanks moving forward from any point in the war will be used to illustrate a battle, even if its from the opposite end of the war. A lot of it smacks of laziness and ignorance by the production team. And the shame is that the visual impact has a huge influence on the watchers, so getting it wrong just reinforces errors, so that the next production builds on the mistakes of the earlier ones.
There is the phrase standing on the shoulders of giants, to represent scientific progress, I'm not sure what the equivalent is for sloppy copying of preceding TV shows.
Quote from: Leman on 20 November 2017, 07:53:19 AM
Well, how utterly Patrician! The Plebs don't know any better so who cares. Let them continue to wallow in their ignorance. Know your place!
Quite. Par for the course, mind :/
Surely if you go to the trouble of putting an actual history program on, then go to the trouble of getting re-enactors in, and make sire one side is authentic then why bugger up the others?!
I presume someone in production/accounts said "Romans are all alike aren't they? That metal armour made of strips? We're not paying for a different set of Roman soldiers every episode, bung 'em all in the lobster outfit!". I'm not fussed myself, as I can watch it it and think "that's wrong, cheapskates!", but it's really annoying - if you didn't know, given the very authoritative presentation and production values you'd think it accurate.
Quote from: LemanPS - can't wait for a programme on the 45 showing screaming, bekilted, sword and targe swinging Highlanders fighting camo uniformed, fritz-helmeted, Tommies with machine guns.
That'll be the Mel Gibson variant, with said Tommies routinely behaving like the SS!
PS: I did enjoy the rest of the content, although Jules the C seems a very decent chap, nobly sacrificing all he holds dear for vast wealth and power, the poor soul.
;D ;D ;D Some amusing asides there.
Must admit that I'm enjoying it.
The one that I haven't bothered to look at, so far, is the 'Spartacus' series.
I just have the feeling that that's going to be 'sexed up'.
Cheers - Phil
Phil, Ian McShane described Game of Thrones (which he had a small part in) as "tits and dragons."
By that standard, Spartacus is "tits and gladiators." Much gore, nudity, ahistorical action and considerable "politicking" by the lanistas.
All that said, I rather enjoyed it, in a "switch off your brain and just go along for the ride" sort of way.
;D ;D ;D
Thanks, Mike. :)
When I get the chance to watch 'something historical'.......I like to believe (HAH !!) that I've actually learned something.....Though goodness knows if I ever really do..... That's compared to the knowledge that most of the forum have compared to Mr Thicky, here.
For example....I used to think that I had a reasonable 'knowledge' regarding the second World War.....I know completely differently now. X_X X_X X_X
I DO enjoy 'switch your brain off, and go with the flow' 'fiction' films.....But for me....that's just entertainment. ;)
Cheers - Phil
Which is exactly how it should be. I like nothing more than a historical romp for entertainment. It's when its purporting to educate and inform, but gets it wrong, that I find irritating, as often it is unnecessary with a little research and care.
I'm totally with you on that, Andy !
I feel that I have gleaned SOME knowledge from some of the historical 'progs'/series that I've watched over the past two or three years.....Which has basically shown me that some of the figures from the past haven't been quite as 'great' as I'd previously thought......They were just vile and/or very lucky.
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Techno on 20 November 2017, 03:29:11 PM
The one that I haven't bothered to look at, so far, is the 'Spartacus' series.
The Spartacus series have obviously been made by someone who's seen Gladiator, Rome (the BBC series from a few years back) and 300 (this . . . is . . . SPARTA!) and thought "Hey, what happens if we combine all of these?".
It's comic-book fantasy at best. Brainless fun, with added nudity & CGI'd blood.
Cheers, M.
It is definitely irritating when they make mistakes that could be
rectified with a little more care. Don't they usually employ
experts to advise on this ? However, I expect the end result
is always a compromise between expert advice and budget
allowance / time.
For me, the bottom line is that I would always rather have the
chance to see an army in action (as this can be a source of
inspiration), even if there are issues which could/should be fixed.
Phil
Lindybeige did a mini-rant on the role of expert advisors in films based on his discussions with a few and apparently the compromise is almost entirely towards budget / time / artistic ...
So how come a simple pectoral plate and montefortino helmet is more expensive than lorica segmentata and gallic helmet? At least they got the oval shields right(ish).
'Cos there's lots of people re-enact or do programmes/films on the Empire, so there's loads of kit floating about and more being made relatively cheaply but no one actually does any for the Republic (or very few), so it's more expensive and you can't just "borrow" the IXth Legion Re-enactment Brigade for the crowd scenes?
I suspect the producers and money men also "know" what they expect a "proper" Roman soldier to look like, so we're having those thank you very much!
Except about five years ago the BBC did and I remember how refreshing it was to see Roman legionaries from the second century BC actually looking like they were from the second century BC. This was a great series but at the time I was unable to watch all the programmes or record them. This was docudrama as it should be done (in fact iirc each programme was a self-contained drama). I would love to get hold of this series on DVD or Bluray but cannot remember what it was called. Anybody able to help me out with this?
That wasn't "Rome" with the Beeb in conjunction with HBO, I guess? From memory that was all "tits and segmentata" :D
A (very) quick web search doesn't turn anything else up as likely from Auntie - no memory at all of actors, writers etc?
Edit -
Ah ha, would it be this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome:_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_an_Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome:_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_an_Empire) ?
The few piccies of early episodes suggest they might have proper kit...
Many thanks for that - that's the one and only £7 on Amazon Prime, so have ordered one. :-bd
Spot on, let us know if it's any good!
Quote from: toxicpixie on 22 November 2017, 12:23:51 PM
That wasn't "Rome" with the Beeb in conjunction with HBO, I guess? From memory that was all "tits and segmentata" :D
Actually, no it wasn't. Lots of 'tits and bits' but not a lorica segmentata in sight! And it was tremendous fun, with excellent performances from Ciaran Hinds as Julius Caesar, Kenneth Cranham as Pompey, James Purefoy as Mark Antony and Max Perkins as the young Octavian. Brilliant atmosphere, one of the few series of its type which made it clear that Rome was a strange and alien place, with weird and unfamiliar beliefs and practices, and not merely Surbiton in fancy dress.
And what is the highlight of our TV today? "I'm a non-entity, Rescue my Career!"
Mollinary
Mollinary
..... plus Keven McKidd as Vorenus and Ray Stevenson as Pullo (who, in real life, was also a Centurion - Caesar's Gallic Wars). :)
I only managed bits of episodes here and there. I must have caught all the fleshy bits and missed the fighting :D
Am I thinking of "Spartacus"? I barely got thru half an episode, the sepia tone filming and uncanny valley photography was a bit much!
Isn't the current "historical" highlight "Bromans", where a bunch of gym muscled beefcake accompanied by spray tanned beauties pretend to be gladiators in a contest of total Roman authentic "I'm a Strictly Bake Off Batchelor Looking for Love Got Talent Factor" proportions?
Quote from: toxicpixie on 22 November 2017, 01:42:38 PM
I only managed bits of episodes here and there. I must have caught all the fleshy bits and missed the fighting :D
What there was of the fighting was very well done, from Caesar in Gaul to Pharsalus and Philippi.
I particularly liked the centurions' use of the whistle to control the legionaries in the din of battle, although I'm not sure how authentic it was. I did enjoy Rome though; Spartacus however only grabbed my attention for half an episode.
Quote from: Leman on 22 November 2017, 03:33:59 PM
Spartacus however only grabbed my attention for half an episode.
I only made a quarter - my wife less than 5 minutes.
The guy with the whistle wasn't a referee then?
Plebs is good too! ;)
'Rome' was good (at least the first series - don't remember watching a second?).
'Rome: The Rise and Fall of and Empire' was a bit dull I thought, other than the Nero episode. Michael Sheen was good in that.
'Spartacus' is just rubbish, but strangely watchable, if only to see just how far they'll go. At least John Hannah and Lucy Lawless looked like they were enjoying themselves.
To get back to the OP, not seen the Bettany Hughes programme. I really don't like a documentary if it includes dramatized bits - they're generally rubbish and spoil it for me.
Simon Schama and his 'History of Britain' remain my highpoint for history programmes, although I 've seen few good things on BBC 4 recently.
Cheers, M.
Quote from: mollinary on 22 November 2017, 01:22:42 PM
made it clear that Rome was a strange and alien place, with weird and unfamiliar beliefs and practices, and not merely Surbiton in fancy dress.
I lived in Surbiton for 15 years, it's pretty weird. Bedsits and brothels with a growing number of Hipster types.
cheers
Ian
I could watch this just for the lovely curvaceous Bettany Hughes
>>I could watch this just for the lovely curvaceous Bettany Hughes
Amen...
Not really my type. I prefer the goth historian.
Quote from: Leman on 24 December 2017, 01:31:17 PM
Not really my type. I prefer the goth historian.
Yes she is quite lovely too!
Dr Jana Ramirez
(http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/resources/images/4306512.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)
Dr Kate Williams
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjOwxmFeK85iV2y9JvyVwHn-Q6CFB9g9hA8B99L0tjVh6xO6WKRA)
Dr Alice Roberts
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW_LNTNRjcsPeHsbuzSDZatqzseUUyQYkPYgHpHiI65BgkQoV3zA)
And Mrs Orcs wonders why I like history Documentaries :D :D
She's probably guessed...