StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Did anyone else catch the premiere?

Fantastic production values, obviously, and uncensored since it's HBO. It was kinda obvious that they did some of the stuff (bull sacrifice, the full-frontal, the soldier drawing a penis) mainly because they coul, but that's not bad.

It looks like they're following both the historical characters and a couple of fictional ones, which is good because some dramatic tension evaporates when you're dealing only with historical characters because you know nothing too crazy will happen.

The plot moved really quick...wasn't actually much of a plot in the pilot, just introducing all the characters and setting up the political drama. I have a feeling that if you tried to watch it without a familiarity with Roman history you'd be a bit lost.

So not much to judge on. Battle in the beginning was a little disappointing. Looks like it has potentional, and since HBO makes good stuff I'll keep watching. Plus it's a nice segue into I, Claudius, and with HBO's budget they can actually show some spectacular stuff other than white marble columns. I just wish they'd do some big thing about the end of the empire or the Aurelian's restoration or something.

Oh, and when did everyone in the film and television industry get together and decide that the way to represent ancient Romans was with British accents? At least since I, Claudius....

I now have a sudden urge to play Rome: Total War....

I watched it. I actually thought it was a bit slow at times and couldn't really get fully into it. But it was still enjoyable and it built most of the characters nicely. (I took classics throughout high school so I know a bit about Roman history. And my sister could always fill me in with all her books on the subject)

I hope it does build up into being something as good as I, Claudius. I'm looking forward to next week despite my little complaints.

The two soldiers looking for the eagle seemed to have good chemisty together. And the young man playing Octavian made me want to bitch slap him.

Side note, it was nice to see James Purefoy (Marc Antony) I rather enjoy him as an actor.

What kept nagging me is how they kept referring to the kid as "Octavian" when he should have been known as "Octavius" or "Octavy" if they wanted to Englishize his name.

Other than that, I thought it was nice.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:What kept nagging me is how they kept referring to the kid as "Octavian" when he should have been known as "Octavius" or "Octavy" if they wanted to Englishize his name.

Other than that, I thought it was nice.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Octavian is the traditional Anglicization of Octavianus. And it's no different than Anglicizing Marcus Antonius to Mark Antony or Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus to Pompey the Great. Or if you want to get into less well known Romans, Publius Vergilius Maro to Virgil, Publius Ovidius Naso to Ovid, Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus to Tertullian, Gaius Sallustius Crispus to Sallust, Titus Livius to Livy, Quintus Horatius Flaccus to Horace, Lucius Sergius Catilina to Catiline, etc. etc.. Some names simply have traditional Anglicized forms that are so long established they are the recognized forms of these names and likely will always remain so. Octavian is one of these. And in fact, changing Octavianus to Octavius instead of Octavian would not make sense, since Octavius is another Latin name. There are some names in Latin that are similar, but distinct forms (e.g. Victor and Victorius, or Septimus and Septimius). And Octavy sounds silly.

Perinquus wrote:

fgalkin wrote:What kept nagging me is how they kept referring to the kid as "Octavian" when he should have been known as "Octavius" or "Octavy" if they wanted to Englishize his name.

Other than that, I thought it was nice.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Octavian is the traditional Anglicization of Octavianus. And it's no different than Anglicizing Marcus Antonius to Mark Antony or Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus to Pompey the Great.

Yes, but it's not an Anglicization problem, it's a historical error. Octavian was not called "Octavian" until he became Caesar's successor and changed his name to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Before that, he was known as Gaius Octavius Thurinus. So, it is wrong to call him "Octavian" because that is an Anglicization of Octavianus, not Octavius.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:Yes, but it's not an Anglicization problem, it's a historical error. Octavian was not called "Octavian" until he became Caesar's successor and changed his name to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Before that, he was known as Gaius Octavius Thurinus. So, it is wrong to call him "Octavian" because that is an Anglicization of Octavianus, not Octavius.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

This may be an oversight, but more likely (since they have a historical advisor) is done merely for simplicity's sake, so as not to confuse an audience of mostly people who have no great knowledge of Roman history -- especially of such esoteric, and frankly minor details.

HBO's Rome? Try BBC, it's a BBC project which they teamed up with HBO to do since they wanted to match the style and epic scale of Gladiator. The idea is it's meant to be a more gritty version of I, Claudius depicting how the real empire was.

Incidentally, there is no such thing as a British accent!

No, HBO provided the vast majority of the funding and publicitiy, therefore it is HBO's Rome.

So? It was originally a BBC project, British actors, SFX and backing. Trust me, the funding means shit when it comes down to that (Band Of Brothers was the same being an HBO/BBC co-production and I note many supposed Discovery dramas like Supervolcano being stated as solely made by Discovery when it was a BBC project and out here far earlier). There are many films that were funded by other nations such as Alien or The Fifth Element, yet they were British and French respectively. I read about all this in The Times and look forward to it being shown here when they have a slot for it.

Ergo, it is HBO/BBC's Rome.

HemlockGrey wrote:No, HBO provided the vast majority of the funding and publicitiy, therefore it is HBO's Rome.

I didn't realise the BBC was well recognised in the US by your average hillbilly allowing them to publicise anything.

They probably aren't, which is why the Discovery Channel promotes certain shows abroad, as do A&E or similar channels. The Hornblower series of TV movies was shown by A&E in the US and Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? was promoted by another group under licence. In the UK, Rome will be released by the BBC while HBO does it in the US as they did with Band Of Bros.. But it is a co-production given neither group had the money to fully fund such a venture (HBO is more specialised for drama productions while the BBC has to fund a lot more stuff so can't devote as much hard cash to any single project that way). The fact that the serial isn't on now because of a load of new programmes doing the run as it is attests to that. I hope Spooks season 4 comes out sooner to be honest.

I liked it a lot. It was nothing but set up, so it'll be interesting to see where it goes, but yeah, I like it.

Wow, Titus Pullo really did bring down the Republic.

Anyways, I thought the gratuitous sex was a little over the top, making it look like some late night film on Skinemax, but aside from that, the episode was quite good.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I'm fairly sold on this series. Hell, I don't mind some good T&A at that, so I'm intruged.

I wonder what will happen when Lucius Vorenus finds out that little infant he was told was his grandaughter really is Niobe's child, just as he first suspected.

Didn't catch the premier, but they showed episode 1 before 2, so no harm done. I very much enjoyed it, I think I'll continue watching.

fgalkin wrote:Anyways, I thought the gratuitous sex was a little over the top.

I was a little surprised by it, myself. I don't think any of those scenes were really necessary, but I guess it's for the shock value or something. Even so, good show indeed.

I really liked the second episode. All the great men bicker and argue, but Titus Pullo and his drunken barfight forces their hands....

InnocentBystander wrote:Didn't catch the premier, but they showed episode 1 before 2, so no harm done. I very much enjoyed it, I think I'll continue watching.

fgalkin wrote:Anyways, I thought the gratuitous sex was a little over the top.

I was a little surprised by it, myself. I don't think any of those scenes were really necessary, but I guess it's for the shock value or something. Even so, good show indeed.

The intent behind this, I think, is more than merely being provocative. They are trying to show that Roman society was far less prudish about sex than ours, which it was. If you walk around Pompeii, you will see phallic symbols displyed prominently on streets, lewd art, and so on. Roman public toilets were unisex, and consisted of a long bench over a trench, with numerous holes in it that people sat on. Roman society simply didn't have the taboos about nudity and sex that we have. They are trying to show that this society predates Judeo-Christian notions of sex and morality. Atia is amoral and promiscuous even by their standards, but the prostitutes servicing customers in full view of other people, nude actresses on stage... these were things that really happened back then.

Latest episode was great, I simply cream over intrigue like that, good stuff.

I loved the whole deal with the treasury. Great episode.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Pullo gotta be lovin life right now - he's got a girl AND all the money in Rome. I can't wait to see how it comes back to bite him the ass.

I think the episodes are really starting to pick up.

Pullo just got that cart away in time but you know he won't be able to keep it.

I really enjoy Atia, I think she's one of the better written characters right now.

Off topic-really, but I found this tidbit from the IMDB messagfe boards hilarious. It comes from the Rome forum on IMDB.

+http://imdb.com/title/tt0384766/board/nest/25275856

by - Mac_Tom (Mon Aug 29 2005 08:38:04 )

Pre-christian society was disgusting if you ask me.

However, I didn't find the cornyness that I found in shows like Caesar with Jermy Sisto I think it was. That had extemely corny parts.

Since the romans are pagens, they believe the planets to be gods, that in itself is quite corny to me. However, I think they handled it quite well in making sure that it wasn't.

and

by - Mac_Tom (Mon Aug 29 2005 08:47:34 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
I'm a christian, catholic to be precise. I'm not a witch/wizard. I don't believe in the supernatural or that magic mumbo jumbo.

by - Mac_Tom (Mon Aug 29 2005 13:41:54 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
You should know that Christianity was started way before the dark ages. Islam was the religion that contributed greatly to the dark ages. The muslims sacked cities across the entire middle east and burned them all to the ground during the 600-700's.

You should be thankful europe became christian and not muslim. It was the christians that defended europe for over a thousand years from islamic expansion.


Although I know you atheists are cultured, famous atheists include Joeseph Stalin, Mao Tsedung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Ill.

Those are only the famous ones, I imagine the less famous ones are quite jealous that these godless men have managed to kill over 100 million people put together. Also, I find it also amazing that they all lived together in the same time period. 1 generation, 100 million

I laughed.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You should know that Christianity was started way before the dark ages. Islam was the religion that contributed greatly to the dark ages. The muslims sacked cities across the entire middle east and burned them all to the ground during the 600-700's.

Has he ever heard of the Crusades?

You should be thankful europe became christian and not muslim. It was the christians that defended europe for over a thousand years from islamic expansion.

After trying to expand by killing and plundering the islamic lands

Although I know you atheists are cultured, famous atheists include Joeseph Stalin, Mao Tsedung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Ill.

And Hitler was a christian.

Those are only the famous ones, I imagine the less famous ones are quite jealous that these godless men have managed to kill over 100 million people put together. Also, I find it also amazing that they all lived together in the same time period. 1 generation, 100 million

? Did someone post a reply to his stupidity?

It's really amazing how your average citizen in america thinks of any religion older than christianity as "paganism" and any later as heretics or evil.

Pre-christian society was disgusting if you ask me.

And mostof Christianities history is burrning, ignorance and blood-libel if you ask me. (No offence to any religous members of the board with more than one working brain-cell)

Since the romans are pagens, they believe the planets to be gods, that in itself is quite corny to me. However, I think they handled it quite well in making sure that it wasn't.

In short: HaHaHaHaaaaaaaaaaa.
I hope this show comes over here quickly, I love ancient history especially Rome of Claudius's or Caesar's time.

Ha, Quintus Pompey was pwned by Pullo!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin