Rome. Season One: *Discuss* (1 Viewer)

[Jesse Blacklow]

I can't say I'm hooked, but these first two episodes have me interested. I'm willing to overlook some of the historical mistakes (I've got "I, Claudius" for a closer adherence to the subjects), as long as it isn't just to make it "Sopranos B.C."

I know I'm not alone in this (see the TWOP recap for more), but I'll be damned if Polly Walker's Atia isn't a dead ringer for Melinda Clarke's Julie Cooper from "The O.C." Same looks, same scheming outlook on life, same petulant overpriveleged children, she's even from the Julii family (and her nickname in the recaps above is Julii Cooper ). Except for the penchant to get naked, which is more the fault of the networks, the two are eerily similar. I wonder if Walker based her character on Clarke's performance.

 

[JonZ]

Atia was great in Episode 3.

 

[Quentin]

Nice job on that exposition and explanation, Joe. My brother and I watched and both asked at the same time, "Why is Caesar a consul?" we didn't remember the details of the political situation (thanks for the recap), but we were puzzled over the change, and after your faux exposition I'm even more puzzled. It wouldn't be difficult at all to do it correctly. And, making him consul adds nothing dramatically.

Strange.

 

[ScottH]

Sure it does...it magnifies the drama of the Caesar/Pompey conflict.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Right. And the next time somebody does a TV movie about Harry Truman's show-down with Doug MacArthur, I hope they make MacArthur Vice President or Co-President, to magnify the drama.

How does this maginfy anything? A rebellious governor at the head of an Army ish't dramatic enough for you? That they were political allies joined by Pompey's marriage to Caesar's late daughter Julia and are about to become enemies doesn't make the coflict "big" enough? Making Caesar consul is gilding the lily. It compromises accuracy without any corresponding gain to the drama. It is cheap, lazy writing and shows contempt for the audience.

Regards,

Joe

 

[ScottH]

Hmmm...I might watch that...

Joe, since you are someone that obviously knows much more about the real history than I, I understand your frustrations. For me personally, it's not an issue. The only advice I can offer you is to not tune in anymore. I don't know about you, but I watch TV to be entertained, and obviously you are not getting anything out of it other than frustration.

 

[Robert A. Willis Jr.]

Well, I am enjoying the series as historical fiction. Something like Horatio Hornblower. It is good entertainment.

 

[PhilipG]

Hollywood has been rewriting history for years - it doesn't stop me enjoying movies like Braveheart, U571 etc.

Frankly, I'd much rather the show was historically accurate - it's not a difficult thing to do, as Joe rightly pointed out. However, as long as the show is entertaining, and it gets some of the audience more interested in the actual history, I don't care so much.

 

[Mikah Cerucco]

There's usually a countdown from the moment someone expresses issues with factual accuracy until someone says, "It's not a documentary." There's a big gray area between documentary and not resembling the facts at all. Basically factually accurate falls somewhere in there.

If I did a movie of the MJ trial and showed his whole family there at all points supporting him, that'd be factually inaccurate, but still support the point that his family supported him. It'd be acceptable dramatic license.

If I did a movie about the OJ trial and threw in something about Nicole Brown Simpson hiring hitmen to kill OJ, that's not acceptable dramatic license. It changes the story I'm supposed to be telling.

If the events you're basing your story on are boring, maybe you need to focus on a different story. I accept the reality that content creators often feel no responsibliity to present a basically factual representation, but that doesn't mean those who care about such things should ignore the desire for that sense of responsibility to exist. From the Earth To The Moon isn't a documentary, but it sure does try present historical events with basic factual accuracy while keeping it interesting. The drama is in the events, and it's up to the talent to bring it out.

I can understand folks enjoying Rome regardless, but I don't understand the need to dismiss the viewpoints of those who don't share the same enjoyment for what are valid reasons. There's certainly room for appreciation-only threads, but I think threads benefit from discussions that include a variety of opinions. Certainly bashing gets a bit old after awhile, but I don't see that a few posts pointing out historical inaccuracies meets that standard.

Joe's probably the best person to determine when his pain threshhold reaches the point where he should stop watching the show. As it is, watching (combined with his knowledge of historical events) allows him to make informed commentary on how the story is presented. To me, that's a valuable resource.

 

[ScottH]

Mikah, I don't think anyone is dismissing Joe's (or anyone else's) viewpoints. We are all merely expressing our opinions of whether the story being historically accurate matters to us with regard to viewing pleasure. Some of us are effected negatively by it, some of us our not. I even stated earlier, perhaps if I knew more about the history of it, it would bother me, but as it stands now, I'm just enjoying the show for what it is.

 

[Ralph Summa]

I enjoyed the first two episodes. Some incredible scenery and sets. The dialogue was a little forced, but that often happens early in a series when a writer is trying to give background information through dialogue. To me the credits to me seemed a little Carnivale-esque and didn't affect me one way or another,a nd for the record I have been oogling Polly Walker since Patriot Games!

Even as someone with a History degree I won't let my viewing pleasure be diminished because of the historical inaccuracies. Much like I can't let the historical inaccuracies of Braveheart keep me thinking that it is one of the best movies of the last quarter century.

 

[Yee-Ming]

I've only watched ep 1 so far (curiously, this thread hasn't thrown any spoilers at me for eps 2 & 3), but just thought I'd chime in and say I agree with Joe here. When dealing with historic characters, especially those that loom as large as Caesar did, IMHO significant historic facts should be correctly dealt with. The MacArthur comparison is as good as any. Another example I might venture would be if, for the alleged purpose of simplifying matters along the lines of composite characters, they merged the Apollo 15 and 16 missions in From The Earth To The Moon. Which of course they didn't.

As Joe's noted, making Caesar consul added absolutely nothing dramatically. He was in reality proconsul, certainly a big cheese in the scheme of things. If anything (maybe this is developed in eps 2 & 3), by making him consul right now, how do you move forward and deal with the problem of Caesar's motivation, to avoid (in his view unwarranted and even illegal) prosecution? Historically consuls were immune during their term of office, if he's still consul he's still immune, unless the producers/writers threw that "little fact" out as well? Consuls would also have no problem entering Rome and retaining imperium (as opposed to proconsuls; for that matter consuls weren't supposed to leave Rome in the first place), so again another historic fact (or two?) gets dumped.

I would venture to say that as far as dramatic licence is concerned, they can certainly explore whether Caesar was a brilliant and virtuous man just trying to do the right thing for Rome (as Colleen McCullough portrays him in her books), or a megalomaniac trying to grab and hold onto as much personal power as possible (as the likes of Cato and Cicero indeed did historically). But when you start messing with the underlying political scheme, well, that's almost like if they'd turned Costner's Special Assistant in Thirteen Days into a Cabinet Secretary, or RFK into Vice-President or Prime Minister rather than Attorney-General -- no one disputes that they had influence over JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but there's no need to mess with their actual titles simply to make things "more dramatic".

 

[Richard Travale]

They do cover this in ep3.

 

[Quentin]

I thought Eps. 3 was pretty disappointing. I hope this gets a lot more compelling pretty fast.

 

[Alex F]

I thought Episode 3 was the best one yet. The characters are coming through nicely. I love the stuff with the Senate. Great acting all around.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Plebes and patricians, we have another season.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Not sure how you mean they covered this (I've watched ep 3 now), unless you're referring to ep 2's motion where they purported to say that Caesar's term had ended, he was directed to lay down his command and return to Rome to face prosecution etc. I'd have to defer to Joe on this (not sure of the details), but I would have thought, even if you accept he was an incumbent consul, that his term would only end upon its expiry with the election of the new consuls and the new consuls taking over, otherwise there would be an interregnum; alternatively it means the Senate proactively impeached him and removed him from office, which again I suspect was not possible if consuls were immune from prosecution during their term of office, since by removing him they would arguably have prosecuted him.

Sorry to sound like a naysayer, certainly I am enjoying the show as a dramatization, but these little historical inaccuracies are a little niggling.

Another minor point, which follows from Jesse's announcement: they never seem to use the term "patricians" in the show, using instead the more generic "aristocrats", although they seem happy to use the opposite "plebians" and "plebs". Seems strange to use one term but not the other; I don't think "plebian" is more widely known or used than "patrician" today.

 

[Justin Bauer]

I don't know if this has been posted, but HBO has renewed ROME for a second season.

Check out the news section at Rome's section at hbo.com.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Two posts above yours and about 3 hours earlier.

Regards,

Joe

 

[PhilipG]

I rather enjoyed episode 3. The Latin graffiti was an amusing touch - "Atia amat omnes" (however shouldn't that have been "Atia omnes amat"? Where's John Cleese when you need him?! ).

Methinks though that those two Roman soldiers are perhaps a little bit too successful. So far this series they have
1. Retrieved a stolen Roman Eagle;
2. Rescued an historically-important Roman;
3. Saved the life of Marc Anthony;
4. Intercepted and recovered a large portion of Rome's treasury.

Maybe in a future episode one of them will lend a knife to Brutus...