I love it when the Tunbridge letter-writers soil themsleves in fury
The drama is very explicit, and it's been quite honest about it from the start.
A Tunbridge letter-writer?....I'm just an ordinary woman that wants to watch something entertaining about a historical subject that I like, but I do NOT want to have to see such explicit scenes in a supposed drama :eek: .
People who want to see that type of 'entertainment' should go out and rent it in the sleaze section .:cool:
I agree that the sex was abit OTT, and the dialogue is pretty awful... but then I've often ended up enjoying programmes with dire scripts and clunky narrative progressions
And I don't agree about JRM being poor casting - he could be cast as a door-post or a banister and I would still tune in - he's grrrr!
Interesting analogy. His acting is certainly wooden enough to be compared to both. His body reminds me of a broomstick handle for some obscure reason.;)
Interesting analogy. His acting is certainly wooden enough to be compared to both. His body reminds me of a broomstick handle for some obscure reason.;)
- I suspect a certain part of his anatomy is very much like a broomstick handle - only thicker
I assume you won't be watching the rest of it then?
Damn right!
I remember when there used to be some really well made dramas. Now though everything is:
"adapted for a modern audience"
which means
"dumbed down with some sex and nudity thrown in".
Wondered why the costumes were completely wrong? Yep, the costume designer thought that period dress would look odd to the "modern viewer". Great. :rolleyes:
And, as I said, I don't know what my reaction as a viewer is supposed to be to a sex scene in this type of thing. Am I supposed to be aroused? Amused? Sad? Excited?
And, as a heterosexual male, what viewing pleasure am I to get from a drawn out shot of some bloke's naked arse?
"Modern" tosh. ANYONE can write in explicit sex, it takes skill to write a compelling drama.
Wondered why the costumes were completelywrong? Yep, the costume designer thought that period dress would look odd to the "modern viewer". Great. :rolleyes:
In fact the costumes I saw on the BBC website clips were more of the era of Elizabeth I than early Tudor. Of course, with an US audience to appeal to, the production values can't be expected to be top class.
And, as I said, I don't know what my reaction as a viewer is supposed to be to a sex scene in this type of thing. Am I supposed to be aroused? Amused? Sad? Excited?
And, as a heterosexual male, what viewing pleasure am I to get from a drawn out shot of some bloke's naked arse?
"Modern" tosh. ANYONE can write in explicit sex, it takes skill to write a compelling drama.
Personally, the sex scenes wouldn't have bothered me, but if you feel personally it distracted from the story, or devalued it, I think that's fair comment.
I watched it and thought it was ok. History interests me but I'm aware it's only a drama. Yeah sex was a bit obvious but doesn't offend me in any way, it's only sex after all.
I think I'll have to fight not to compare it to Rome though which was such a fantastic series. Plus the Tudor costumes don't float my boat as much
I also thought the fella who played the Duke of Buckingham might have made a good Henry.
Of course, with an US audience to appeal to, the production values can't be expected to be top class.
A nonsense comment, since American audiences are used to better production values in their television programmes than the UK television industry can afford.
Anyway, I'm reading lots of swipes at Americans for The Tudors (a favourite pastime among many here) when somebody already pointed out that The Tudors isn't an American show. It is a Canadian-Irish co-production and America had nothing to do with making it. The show was sold to broadcasters in different countries (BBC in the UK, CBC in Canada, and Showtime in the US) and it simply ended up being shown in America first because the BBC and CBC wanted to hold it till the autumn.
A nonsense comment, since American audiences are used to better production values in their television programmes than the UK television industry can afford.
I agree it was a nonsense comment - why deliberately make a show bad?! But it's really only the top 20% of shows in any national industry that have outstanding production values, the US included. Every country's domestic industry makes plenty of standardless garbage, it's just we rarely see the worst of it imported over here, unless you go looking for it on obscure digital channels. It's only when you travel somewhere that you realise what their tv networks are really like.
I find all the anti-Americanism to be a little childish, but it is, in part, a reaction to the "we're so superior" attitude that some US posters seem to broadcast. I wish both sides would give it a rest, stop taking sides and treat art as art, not sport.
Anyway, as I said, I think the people making The Tudors set out to make a Rome-a-like but fell short in every respect. Which leaves the question - why have the BBC done more to promote The Tudors than they did Rome season 2?
A nonsense comment, since American audiences are used to better production values in their television programmes than the UK television industry can afford.
Anyway, I'm reading lots of swipes at Americans for The Tudors (a favourite pastime among many here) when somebody already pointed out that The Tudors isn't an American show. It is a Canadian-Irish co-production and America had nothing to do with making it. The show was sold to broadcasters in different countries (BBC in the UK, CBC in Canada, and Showtime in the US) and it simply ended up being shown in America first because the BBC and CBC wanted to hold it till the autumn.
Are they all as rude, dismissive and picky as you on your side of the pond?
If you don't like the opinions of the British on here I'd respectfully advise you not to read them.
US audiences can't be expected to be as au fait with Britsh history as we are here, so I doubt their expectations of a series like this are as high as ours.
Are they all as rude, dismissive and picky as you on your side of the pond?
If you don't like the opinions of the British on here I'd respectfully advise you not to read them.
US audiences can't be expected to be as au fait with Britsh history as we are here, so I doubt their expectations of a series like this are as high as ours.
Is my opinion all right with you?
I think the poster's point was quite acceptable after your across-the-board denigration of his/her fellow Americans.
Comments
A Tunbridge letter-writer?....I'm just an ordinary woman that wants to watch something entertaining about a historical subject that I like, but I do NOT want to have to see such explicit scenes in a supposed drama :eek: .
People who want to see that type of 'entertainment' should go out and rent it in the sleaze section .:cool:
Interesting analogy. His acting is certainly wooden enough to be compared to both. His body reminds me of a broomstick handle for some obscure reason.;)
And you didn't even watch it either :eek: :eek:
Fair point about 'moaning', I won't say I haven't done it
Absolutely - I realised that, so please see my edited post ^.
Also, I gave my reasons for not watching it too, but it doesn't stop me saying any historically inaccurate drama is bad.
I just knew someone would lower the tone of the discussion!:p:D
Damn right!
I remember when there used to be some really well made dramas. Now though everything is:
"adapted for a modern audience"
which means
"dumbed down with some sex and nudity thrown in".
Wondered why the costumes were completely wrong? Yep, the costume designer thought that period dress would look odd to the "modern viewer". Great. :rolleyes:
And, as I said, I don't know what my reaction as a viewer is supposed to be to a sex scene in this type of thing. Am I supposed to be aroused? Amused? Sad? Excited?
And, as a heterosexual male, what viewing pleasure am I to get from a drawn out shot of some bloke's naked arse?
"Modern" tosh. ANYONE can write in explicit sex, it takes skill to write a compelling drama.
I'm only making it more in-keeping with the spirit of the programme
It was what it was. It's not going to appear on the curriculum as part of the history syllabus but it entertained me on a Friday night.
I've been fascinated by Henry and Anne since Keith Michell and Doroty Tutin so actually looking forward to the next episode.
(I'd recommend a read of Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII by Karen Lindsey)
Fair enough.
In fact the costumes I saw on the BBC website clips were more of the era of Elizabeth I than early Tudor. Of course, with an US audience to appeal to, the production values can't be expected to be top class.
Personally, the sex scenes wouldn't have bothered me, but if you feel personally it distracted from the story, or devalued it, I think that's fair comment.
Precisely.
I'm sure some women and a lot of gay men wouldn't concur.
I think you need the Martin Chuzzlewit BBC box-set, or some other stuffy BBC period adaptation.
Each to their own I guess.
Nice review here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2162994?nav=tap3
Even to an American it's tripe then?
That's all I need to know!
Now, that`s what I`d call a highly accurate review!:D
Good, witty review, and for the most part true - still liked the drama though!
De gustibus non est disputandum and all that.
I think I'll have to fight not to compare it to Rome though which was such a fantastic series. Plus the Tudor costumes don't float my boat as much
I also thought the fella who played the Duke of Buckingham might have made a good Henry.
A nonsense comment, since American audiences are used to better production values in their television programmes than the UK television industry can afford.
Anyway, I'm reading lots of swipes at Americans for The Tudors (a favourite pastime among many here) when somebody already pointed out that The Tudors isn't an American show. It is a Canadian-Irish co-production and America had nothing to do with making it. The show was sold to broadcasters in different countries (BBC in the UK, CBC in Canada, and Showtime in the US) and it simply ended up being shown in America first because the BBC and CBC wanted to hold it till the autumn.
I agree it was a nonsense comment - why deliberately make a show bad?! But it's really only the top 20% of shows in any national industry that have outstanding production values, the US included. Every country's domestic industry makes plenty of standardless garbage, it's just we rarely see the worst of it imported over here, unless you go looking for it on obscure digital channels. It's only when you travel somewhere that you realise what their tv networks are really like.
I find all the anti-Americanism to be a little childish, but it is, in part, a reaction to the "we're so superior" attitude that some US posters seem to broadcast. I wish both sides would give it a rest, stop taking sides and treat art as art, not sport.
Anyway, as I said, I think the people making The Tudors set out to make a Rome-a-like but fell short in every respect. Which leaves the question - why have the BBC done more to promote The Tudors than they did Rome season 2?
Are they all as rude, dismissive and picky as you on your side of the pond?
If you don't like the opinions of the British on here I'd respectfully advise you not to read them.
US audiences can't be expected to be as au fait with Britsh history as we are here, so I doubt their expectations of a series like this are as high as ours.
Is my opinion all right with you?
I think the poster's point was quite acceptable after your across-the-board denigration of his/her fellow Americans.