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

[Sebastien S]

It took me about 3 episodes to really start liking "The Sopranos".

 

[Justin Bauer]

This review of the first 6 episodes should tell hopefully help some people stick with the show for several episodes.

It was just what I was expecting when I heard about the retool.

 

[Quentin]

Sounds like I'll need to give it 6 episodes and make my decision to stay or not. No problem.

 

[JonZ]

Episode 2 was pretty good, better than the first.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

I saw a little more of the first episode before the tape got screwed up. (Arrgh!) I'm less impressed than I was. They've totally misrepresented the political situation that Caesar found himself in, for no reason I can detect, and thereby falsify the motives of all the major players. Oh, and when did this become "Doogie Caesar, Future Augusus"?

Caesar was not consul in 50 or 49 BCE, much less Pompey's co-consul. The whole crisis of 49 was due to the fact that Caesar was not consul and held no other office. His enemies were determined to prosecute him for actions he had taken 10 years earlier when he actually was consul. Under Roman law a man could not be prosecuted for public actions while he held any office that conferred imperium, which included proconsular duty as governor of a province. ("In the place of teh consul") A general who wasn't a governor also had imperium within limits set by the senate. But in all cases such a general would lose his imperium (and with it his immunity) the moment he crossed the official boundry of the city of Rome.

Caesar's plan was to pass directly from his governorship to a second term as consul, which would make it impossible for his enemies to take him to court and give him a year in Rome to retroactively legalize his previous acts, rebuild alliances and secure himself against his foe's next move. But he not only couldn't enter Rome to campaign for votes (not that he would need to, his election by a landslide would have been a foregone conclusion) he also couldn't enter the city to declare his candidacy - as required by law. (Our word "candidate", by the way, derives from the blidingly white toga candida that men wore when they declared that they were pursuing a given office.) Indeed, it is likely that under the terms of his commission he could not even leave his province without immediately losing his imperium and making himself liable to arrest.

So Caesar petitioned the Senate to allow him to stand for consul in absentia, a request that had been granted almost as a matter of course for other generals in the field. (Those encamped on the Field of Mars, for instance, awaiting their Triumph, the traditional parade to celebrate the victory over a foreign enemy. They also could not enter the city without losing their imperium and command of their army until the day of the triumph itself, when by a special dispensation they could enter the city still in command of their army for the duration of the parade.)

The Senate refused. They further refused to either change the date of the election or the date when Caesar's governship was due to end, and ordered him to return to Rome, thus ensuring that he would return to the status of a privatus before the election. His enemies in the house were determined to destroy him, to leave him open to prosecution, strip him of his wealth and lands and if possible send him into exile. It was to avoid this that Caesar chose civil war rather than surrender and personal and political extinction.

None of which would have happened if he'd been the f*@#$ing consul in the first place How the hell anyone who'd ever read a history book or a biography of Caesar can depict him as consul before he left Gaul is beyond me. This does not bode well for the rest of the series.

Regards,

Joe

 

[TravisR]

While I'm sure it's annoying to people who know alot (or even a little) about the history of Rome, HBO isn't making a documentary. They're taking real people from history and using them to tell a story

 

[todd s]

They really seemed to turn that one Centurian (the one who came home to his wife) into a real arse. That kinda of caught me off-guard.

 

[Justin Bauer]

Well, Joe's problems with the series have stuck out to me, but they do not bother me that much. I was more upset when Pompey used his "consular veto" in the first episode, but I still think this will be the best Ancient Roman series outside of I, Claudius.

 

[Justin Bauer]

just wanted to let you all know that episode 3 is up on ON demand right now as apart of the free preview week. I am about to start it.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Travis:

Sorry, I don't buy the "they're not doing a documentary" excuse for getting major historical facts wrong. If you're going to do historical drama you owe a minimal degree of respect to the actual history. If you're depicting people who actually lived you should be bound, in the main, by the agreed upon facts of their lives. Of course in a drama there has to be room for dramatic license to make complex issues clear to the audience and for dramatic structure. But the fundamentals should be left untouched.

Historians have the luxury of saying, "The sources differ as to whether or not Caesar himself was preent at that meeting", the dramatist doesn't. If he or she is going to depict that meeting a decision has to be made - is Caesar there or not? That is fair and reasonable. In the Broadway play and later film 1776, the writers had too many Congressman to deal with - too many characters for the audience to keep straight, too many bodies to fit on the average theater stage. So they combined some characters, giving speeches that Samuel Adams is recorded as giving to his cousin John, for instance. The major change they made was making the vote on the text of the Declaration of Independence also the vote to separate from England. In fact the Congress passed a resolution calling for independence first, and dealt with the matter of the wording of the Declartion later. Dramatically this would have made the fate of the founding document an afterthought and anti-climax, so it made sense to do what they did.

But that isn't the kind of change that the writers on Rome are making. It is as if someone did a mini-series about the Civil War era and secession and showed Abraham Lincoln campaigning on a pro-slavery platform. At that point they've entirely falsified the motivation for everything that follows, and for no comprehensible reason. Would you have any confidence in the rest of the story they told?

If you're not going to be bound by actual history, why do a historical drama at all? If you just want to do a period piece take an incident involving no particular historical figures or major events and plop it down in some ill-defined period of Roman history and have fun with the togas and the intrigue. But if you're going to do historical drama, then you shouldn't ignore the actual events and motivations, especially when what you have substituted for reality in no way improves the drama or the story telling. That's just being careless or lazy and I don't think much of careless and lazy writers.

Regards,

Joe

 

[TravisR]

I don't want to be argumentative but apparently the people behind the show don't agree with you and just feel that they are telling a story. I'm not saying that that view is right or wrong but it seems like it must be the way they're going about making the show.

The one question I have is if you didn't know the facts about Roman history, would you enjoy the show? If I knew about Roman history, I'm sure things would make me chuckle and say "Yeah, right" but it wouldn't bother me that much.

 

[RobertW]

it was probably just deemed too difficult to get all that across without a lot of boring exposition, and without confusing the audience. so they took a few liberties in plotting to get the major story across in a more straightforward, easily understood manner.

 

[Robert A. Willis Jr.]

Too bad that this will be the only "history" regarding Rome that many people will get. Talk about distorted views!

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

INT. CAESAR'S TENT, GAUL

MARC ANTONY:
Caesar, a letter from the senate!

CAESAR:
Read it.

ANTONY:
They have refused your request to declare your candidacy for consul in absnetia. They say you must present yourself in person in Rome like every other candidate. And they've changed the date for the elections. Jupiter! Caesar they've arranged it so that your term as governor will be up and you'll have to give up command of the army before you can become consul again. Those bastards!

CAESAR:
You mean that bastard. This is all Cato's doing. You're too young to remember, but he's been waiting ten years for this. He knows that if I can't pass directly from governor to consul he can prosecute me for the so-called "illegal acts" of my first consulship. But if I can be elected before I return to Rome he can't touch me. And my colleague as consul this time won't be Cato's toady. I'll be able to have the reforms of ten years ago declared valid, and I'll be able to make more. That's what Cato and his friends fear, change of any kind.

***************

INT. CATO'S HOUSE. ROME. THE OPTIMATES MEET.

CATO
We cannot allow Caesar to be elected consul for next year before he even returns to Rome. Our only chance to destroy him is to force him into a position where he's out of office long enough for me to prosecute him for the crimes he committed as consul the first time. We must strip him of his fortune and send him into exile. Otherwise he'll destroy Rome. You all know it. First he'll make himself consul illegally, then he'll make himself king!

***********************

Hmmm... you're right. It couldn't possibly be explained in a reasonable amount of time. What was I thinking?

(Like the crap they are doing doesn't require exposition, and like it doesn't involve more work because now they have to invent motivations instead of using the real ones.)

Regards,

Joe

 

[Mikah Cerucco]

I think I fit that description. If those who are familiar with the history aren't too put off with the liberties being taken in this depiction, I hope you continue to post your thoughts. I also hope you won't be put off by folks in this thread who enjoy it regardless. It'd be nice if you continued to post your comments about the liberties being taken. I like being entertained, but I like being informed as well. No I'm not going to go out and grab books and immerse myself in Roman history. I don't have the time and motivation to do that. But if you're willing to point out some things here and there that don't hold up, I'm certainly willing to read and learn from them.

BTW, I've never been a fan of creative license. I feel if you're going to cover something real that happened, you should cover it accurately. But that's just not the world we live in.

 

[JonZ]

"just wanted to let you all know that episode 3 is up on ON demand right now as apart of the free preview week. I am about to start it"

Thanks for that. I watched it last night - but now we have to wait 2 weeks for a new episode.


Deadwood has taken liberties with real life people and situations as well. I dont know the details of historic Rome and am enjoying the series. I find the time period fascinating.

Joe,if you can stomach the series, please keep commenting.

 

[Raasean Asaad]

I hope we can get more comments to show the contrast between Rome: The Series and Rome: The History. incidentaly also on InDemand are the episodes with commentaries, has anyone ever seen that before on a miniseries?

 

[TravisR]

Yeah, that's gotta be a first. HBO is pulling out all the stops to make the show a hit. Alot of publicity, free preview weekend, putting new episodes on On Demand first, commentaries. If the show doesn't make it, you can't say that they didn'y try

 

[Sam Favate]

Saw the second episode and thought it was also very good. I think that staying on top of this show is a must though -- seems like if you miss one episode, you're screwed.

 

[ScottH]

I'm with Travis...what they ended up doing for the show sounds a hell of a lot more interesting than what Joe claims actually happened. I could care less about the history of it...just give me a good story. Just my humble opinion...I can see why someone would be annoyed if they were expecting more of a documentary.

On a more important note...am I understanding this right, in the 4th episode, we are actually gonna see different actors playing certain characters than we saw in the first three episodes?