The Shrine

Now, at this time I have only the first season, but my God was it ever a blast! It revolves around Henry viii, England's most famous tyrant. To describe his character: it would be all of the ambition of Rome's Caesar and Octavian, but none of the morals. He holds all the power, but behind him are the people competing for his favour, including Cardinal Wolsley who runs England in Henry's name, and everyone else at court who is working against him including nobles pimping out their daughters to the King, Catholics who love to purify the region of Luther's followers by fire, among others.

Henry himself is placed with his royal contemporaries all young themselves including Frances of France and Emperor Charles of the Hapsburg Empire (Holy Roman Empire, Spain, and other notable states including the beginnings of the New Woeld recently discovered, and being plundered by Cortez). There is also the Church to consider as well among the powers of Europe. Henry who is unhappily wed to Catherine of Aragon wants out of his marriage so he can father an heir with a younger woman is constantly at odds with the Church who doesn't want to grant a divorce; mostly because it would invoke the wrath of the Emperor (Catherine's nephew) who probably would have no problem smashing Italy.

I mentioned Rome earlier, this show is better done overall, but not as fun in some areas (no Pullo and Vorenus or Marc Antony). Just if you like Rome you will like this a lot. The conspiracies are MUCH more interesting. Season 2 is out as well, I am getting it after Christmas (if I don't get it for Christmas).

Watch it with a girl.

Tudors rather sucks. Henry himself is so young and impertinent I just wanna strangle him with his own royal cape, and all of the characters are fleeting and two-dimensional. There's nobody really there to identify with, because within three episodes, somebody important is likely dead.

Also, it seems the script writers are incapable of creating scene bridges, so they just fill in the gaps in the story with mindless fucking. Rome this is not.

Ive seen the first season and it kept my interest. I liked it well enough to rent the 2nd season when it comes out, which i think is January. The only thing that bothers me is that Anne Boleyn was supposedly not that hot and won Henry over with wit and charm. The Anne in the show just oozes with sex.

I might have liked Rome better only because it was historical fiction and not a show trying to be historically accurate. It bothers me when things arent correct when you tackle topics like this.

Tudors isn't trying to be historcally accurate. I think the first clue is that Henry himself doesn't physically resemble Henry viii, followed by his real sisters being replaced by a fictional one based off of a combination. Also they cover a very long period of time in what seems shorter, and events are out of sequence. Though if that isn't enough Michael Hirst does explicitly state his work is a dramatic historical fictional, not accurate history in both interviews and commentary on the dvds. He was creating a work that would be viewed as entertaining by the audience, but acknowledged that the critics who only want to see accurate history will probably critisize the differences in his work to reality. I felt Hirst has very successfully done what he set out to do.

I like Rome a lot too, it's one of my favourites, but I liked the Tudors season 1 more than either season of Rome. Speaking of Rome, I have heard rumours of a possible high budget film in the works based on the series. I really wish they'd pick it up again, even if in a future dynasty like the rise of Constantine; the 4th Century Roman Empire was my favourite era.

I want the Rome people to do something unexpected--like, the courts of the Khans in China or the Islamic Empire (maybe Emperor Akbar, in Mughal India).

Rome showed me that there's a great deal of good possibility for historical dramas, but we seem to only want to focus on Henry the VIII or Cesar. There ARE other stories out there!

I would take the court of King Charles II of England, the 1660's, a decade that made the 1960s look as tame as a kitten. There is a Jonny Depp film called the Libertine which takes place in the 70's which I likes a lot, but the 60's was a more interesting decade by far.

Dexter is, in fact, the best show ever so let's just knock any confusion of that out right now.

/that is all

You guys might enjoy the old movies Becket and The Lion in Winter. They're both about King Henry II of England. The Lion in Winter in particular is fantastically witty and has performances from Pete O'Toole, Katharine Hepburn, Timothy Dalton and a young Anthony Hopkins.

Legend of The Seeker wrote:Tudors isn't trying to be historcally accurate.

The intro implies the opposite.

SineSwiper wrote:

Legend of The Seeker wrote:Tudors isn't trying to be historcally accurate.

The intro implies the opposite.

Take what you want out of the intro, it was not intended as an accurate account.

Link

''Showtime commissioned me to write an entertainment, a soap opera, and not history,'' said Mr. Hirst, taking a break in an office at Ardmore Studios, near Dublin. ''And we wanted people to watch it.''

Also, my other qualm with the show is that Henry seems UTTERLY incapable of leading his country (believably). When he's actually doing serious Kingly stuff, it makes me think of President Bush trying to be presidential. It's like he's REALLY trying, but he's just too stupid to figure it out on his own.

Only four episodes in to season one, but liking it so far.