Options
The Tudors. BBC2
lea27
Posts: 11,426 Forum Member
✭✭
Hi anyone watched the first episode of this new series? was very good i thought, look forward to future episodes.
one question, spoiler if you havent already watched it
who was the person that was killed at the french court at the beginning supposed to be? Was that that he was Henry's uncle but wasnt aware that he had any.
one question, spoiler if you havent already watched it
who was the person that was killed at the french court at the beginning supposed to be? Was that that he was Henry's uncle but wasnt aware that he had any.
0
Comments
http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=11&broadcastType=1&jspLocation=/jsp/tv_listings_search.jsp&jspError=/jsp/error.jsp&searchString=the%20tudors
http://bmtv.blogspot.com/2007/10/men-in-tights.html
Yes he was the king's uncle.
Excellent, I caught the last 10 mins or so before QI started, looked like it was worth watching. I'll be sure to catch the repeat.
Thanks for the info.
I shall be watching it in the week when I have the time.
Not to mention the mass of historical inaccuracies and the poor choice of the actor who plays Henry. Good grief - Henry was never a bean pole - even in his younger days!
What was his name then? after the show i looked up on the internet and it said that both of Henry's parents were only surviving children! havent even heard of an embassador that was killed in Italy.
Yes, the first time ever that Henry VIII is ever have known to have slipped into an Irish accent!
Henry VIII was 6' 2" and although he was not fat until his 20s he was 'athletic' as you say. He also famously had strawberry blonde/red hair, the most iconic aspect of Tudor family colouring - it is unimaginable that Elizabeth I would be played as a brunette or Queen Victoria as a 5'10" supermodel, so why Henry is so badly physically cast I don't know. They should have cast the likes of Hugh Jackman. JRM is so wrong physically for the role as to be laughable.
And JRM cannot act well enough to compensate for the tosh of the script or the huge historical inaccuracies - Sam Neil certainly can. Catherine was 2 years his senior, not old enough to be his mother. The clothes are wrong. Even the interior lighting has clearly been put together by someone trained in California - warm, orange Spanish evening light never beamed through the windows of English evenings.
What annoys me about this is it is on BBC2, if it were on Channel 5 I'd say great. But I expect the BBC first of all to make its own historical drama and do it brilliantly with top writing and production talent and to inform and educate and not mislead . Loads of kids will see this and 'learn' a load of misinformation.
The 'Camelot' style jousting scene was too clean and Hollywood also.
Seems to be made more for an American audience.
Acting was good, but its obvious there’s a poor director. I was disappointed.. didn’t have the British grit about it. Wasn’t produced by a British company also, which probably accounted for the Glossy feel.
I was looking forward to it, hope its better next week.
Actually, Catharine did have a sense of humour and enjoyed all the balls and masques etc. Henry was delighted with her - until she failed to give him a male heir. I think she had about 12/13 pregnancies which resulted in one daughter. It was her "failure" to produce healthy children which seemed to turn her more and more towards religion. Henry himself was actually a very religious man and the Pope gave him the title "Defender of the Faith"...........somewhat ironic as Henry later turned away from Rome!:D
"This treaty will change European history forever. It will be the first time humanist principles have been applied......etc etc."
"And what about you, my daughter Anne Boleyn?"
I think it was made perfectly clear from the very beginning of marketing the drama that it would not be an accurate historical 'period' drama. It's more of a quazi-historical set-up
In fact there was a programme on Radio 4 last night in which a commentator said she hoped viewers wouldn't get bogged down in that aspect.
However I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would - it all seemed a bit disjointed, poorly written, and the sex-scenes (though very nice to watch
Still, a semi-nude Jonathan Rhys Myers is not something I'm going to turn off!
Thank you!
I suppose they covered up the disjointed scenes and script by uncovering all the ladies' breasts instead :rolleyes:. At least they're real ones and not inflated Hollywood-style ones, I suppose.
That particular feature, I must admit, made me slightly annoyed with it after we were 'treated' to the sight of three different lots of full-on shagging scenes in this one opening episode. It may be a good ploy to get certain viewers interested, but it doesn't work for me, and maybe a lot of others too. I'm just so glad my daughter wasn't watching it with me as I'm sure that wouldn't be taught in the school curriculum
I'll try it again next week, but if it carries on being light on history and more about who shags who....then I'll give up.
I wondered exactly the same when I saw it. My knowledge of carriage history isn't great, but it looks like they borrowed it from a nearby Jane Austen adaptation set.
That was awful, even among some other poor dialogue that really stood out. There's probably dozens of scriptwriters or contributers getting paid thousands each and that's the best way they thought to introduce the character?!!
I'm torn with this, the story is such a good one, but the script can be shockingly bad at times.
I also find the casting of Meyers as the king ridiculous, he and his cronies (Brandon, Compton etc) look like some RADA-trained boy-band.
I have watched on a few episodes and can tell you the sex scenes do die down a little and aren't as graphic in later episodes (good news for some, bad for others i guess:D). As has been mentioned it obvious titilation to draw in viewers, I remember the first episode of Rome being similar
as commented on before, straight away i thought Henry not having red hair, c'mon thats easy to dye someones hair or get a natural red-head, immediately thought, what else is going to be inaccurate.
still cant figure out who the uncle was supposed to be?! not aware that he had any uncles, and loked up on internet and cant find an uncle either!
I don't think they've professed to make a historically accurate documentary. This is a tv series designed for entertainment. And boy, did it entertain!
Bring me JRM and his pomegranate immediately!