HBO\'s "Rome" to present more realistic look at the

[Tarbicus]

This is an interesting statement:
Quote:
But they (the Romans) had an ancestral fear of kings, similar to the American fear to a degree -- pride in their liberty," says Heller, noting there are parallels to modern politics that can be read into the story lines.


I have this preverse vision of George Bush II in musculata and pteruges.

So long as he doesn't walk into the Senate wearing a red suit.....

Could get messy. :wink:

[Neuraleanus]

:wink: would Bush have to worry about that. And, considering how ihis approval ratings have been going, perhaps he should worry.

[Niedel]

Then I saw the leather segmentata and that just about killed it for me.

Didn't see any leather segmentata, only leather muscle cuirasses and pretty ok-looking hamata.

[A_Volpe]

I was reading a review in USA Today recently and even one of the Producers (director?) said blatantly that it was all about getting people to watch and "not about period costumes"

Arrogant Jerk.

if he'd realize in his infinite wisdom, if he'd done 5 minutes of research and spent a little of the Big Budget on better costuming, he'd get the respect and the RATINGS of those of us who are just too picky about the period costumes, of lack therof. Why would you turn your back on even more people to tune in and watch. Don't those sacred ratings numbers translate into more money in thier inflated pockets? Or at least more [directing] opportunities to further your reputation?

I mean really, they worked so hard on making the sets look authenic and all, it could have taken an ounce more effort to work on the costuming.

But I suppose in the end, it looks like it's still a vast improvement over "Empire" or "King Authur"...The untold true story of peeing on your leg and telling you it's raining. Gag me with a spoon.

I'm eagerly awaiting to give it a shot....er...stab?

[Bill Altimari]

[b]Can anyone tell us who the historical consultant, Jonathan Stamp, is? All I can determine is that he's co-authored some publications on the pyramids. In light of the fact that Britain and America are knee-deep in classicists--even ones who know how to speak before a camera--a consultant with such thin bona fides is a bit of a puzzle. I've also read that he appeared at an HBO press conference where he justified the use of "shocking" details (others would perhaps use different adjectives) and said that the team went "to enormous lengths to make those kind of details authentic.â€ÂÂ

[Tarbicus]

Can anyone tell us who the historical consultant, Jonathan Stamp, is?

[url:1a16c46w]http://www.hbo.com/rome/cast/crew/jonathan_stamp.html[/url]

His career at the BBC was spent within its History Department where he produced, wrote and directed more than twenty documentaries, at least half of which were related to the classical world, and particularly, to the world of ancient Rome. During the course of making these documentaries he continued to work and travel widely across the Mediterranean. For the purposes of research on these projects he was, and remains, affiliated to the British School at Rome, one of the world's premier academic centres for Roman studies.

Cheers.

[Bill Altimari]

Thanks, Tarbicus. That settles that. He's a multi-award-winning TV writer/director with a fine Classical education but no refereed publications on the subject, at least as far as we can tell. Fair enough, but that's not the impression conveyed in the HBO documentary. "Historical consultant" usually does not mean a career BBC person, and "affiliated" with the British School at Rome is vague enough to mean anything. This is a co-production with the BBC, so Mr. Stamp is not a "consultant" at all but an in-house employee. He is certainly not an outside arbiter of historical verisimilitude, as implied. I'm looking forward to seeing the first episode, but the whole build-up to it smacks of smoke and mirrors. Very unfortunate when one considers how much real energy has clearly been put into it by a lot of dedicated people, most especially John Milius, as rousing a storyteller as there is today. The PR people would have been well advised to heed the advice of cowboy sage Texas Bix Bender, who once remarked, "When a job speaks for itself, don't interrupt."

[Tarbicus]

Here's his resume at IMDB, which we use to check people out. I wasn't saying one way or the other, but I'm still looking forward to seeing the show.

[url:1h3eozzd]http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1469203/[/url]

Cheers.

[Bill Altimari]

I am, too!

Best,
Bill

[Neuraleanus]

Just got done viewing the first episode of HBO Rome. This is going to be a great show. I can't wait for the next episode. The armour wasn't bad. The hamata looked good and the helmets vaguely resemble Montefortinos (ok, I squinted a bit).

:?: However, there is one thing that I haven't seen before, what is with the centurios and the whistles? From where did they get that? Did the Romans even have whistles? Ok, they're using British actors, but should the roman battle tactics be anything like WWI, British Sargents blowing a whistle indicating to their men to go over the top?

[Gordak]

Being very new to the hobby of roman reenacting, and a novice in the feild of general roman study, I dont think my opinion means much...

But, ill give it anyway.

Despite outragously bad clothing, the tiny crooked battle scene at the start, and the questionable "lost eagle" bit.

I LOVED IT!

I know there were issues... But none the less, I was on the edge of my seat for the whole 51 minutes!

Please post your opinions!
-Gordak

[john m roberts]

Saw it last night. Since this is a military site, I'll start with the soldier stuff. The legionaries looked better than the officers. The helmets looked like some old illustrations I've seen based on Trajan's Column, with that odd rim going all around the bowl. At least it's reasonably Italic looking. I think the designers figured that the vast bulk of the audience has never seen a Montefortino and might not think they're seeing Romans. No problem with the tininess of the battle. Think of Omaha Beach as depicted in "The Big Red One" as opposed to "Saving Private Ryan." If you don't have the budget for a huge battle scene, it's best to focus on a small part of the battle. I thought they did a creditable job of showing that the Romans had a method of swapping fresh men for tired ones every few minutes during the fighting, and that they didn't go for individual heroics. The stolen eagle thing was just an excuse for the two soldier characters to bond and become acquainted with young Octavian. Incidentally, he should have been called "Octavius." He didn't become "Octavian" until he was adopted in Caesar's will, but doubtless the writers didn't want to confuse the audience with Roman naming practices.

In the Senate, I was right about them using a semicircular seating arrangement to pan across the senators and show their factions. I never read that Cato wore a black toga but it made him stand out. It is attested that he wore a toga without a tunic, though, because he insisted that that was how the ancestors dressed. He went barefoot for the same reason.

I doubt that Atia was such a wheel in Julian affairs, but they needed a Livia-type character so the story wouldn't be so male-focussed.

The depiction of the city was great and I hope we get to see lots more of it.

The animated grafitti and mosaics in the credits was clever.

More later.

[Niedel]

All in all, I liked it, even if it didn't live up to the hype (yet). But according to TV critics, it's getting better. Liked to see hamatas a LOT. Finally!!! I was a little disappointed that Alesia is already over, it would have been so cool to see this incredible siege/battle recreated for once (besides the Jeremy Sisto "Caesar" a few years ago and the incredibly bad French "Druids/Vercingetorix"). Time will tell, but I still have high hopes for this. At the very least, it's going to be entertaining.

[John M McDermott]

It was about 10% history and 90% Hollywood. For some real history about the period, read the recently published, "Swords Against the Senate".

Any similarity between the Roman republic and the American republic should be viewed very carefully. The framers of the American Constitution were acutely aware of the weaknesses of the Roman republic and strove mightily to avoid them. There are few, if any, parallels between the Roman republic and the present day American republic.

Bush is not Caesar and should not be viewed as a Caesar. The closest thing we had to Caesar was Franklin Roosevelt who ruled for almost 16 years, intimidated the Supreme Court, kept the American people almost completely in the dark, played shamelessly to the "common people" and made damned sure we got into a global war. He is warmly remembered by practically everybody.

[Theodosius the Great]

Haven't seen it, but this supposedly pre-Augustan city of Rome doesn't look like a "city of brick" :wink: