Rome 2nd season review

"Bad sex, it is said, is still pretty good, insofar as it is preferable to no sex at all. Unfortunately one cannot say the same thing about bad history. One spends too long in anticipation and preparation; the actual event proceeds rather clumsily; and when the climax (such as it is) finally arrives, one gets the sense it was hardly worth it. I do not mean to suggest that I am UNRV's resident expert on bad sex, but after watching the 2nd season of "Rome" I know a thing or two about bad history. The problem with "Rome" is precisely that its sex is better than its history and left me feeling like a dirty whore for watching it."...

http://www.unrv.com/hbo-rome-second-season-review.php

I really enjoyed your review, Ursus. It expressed pretty much every opinion of the series that I have so far had difficulty putting into words for fear of blowing a history geek gasket.

I felt dirty too....

"Bad sex, it is said, is still pretty good, insofar as it is preferable to no sex at all. Unfortunately one cannot say the same thing about bad history.

http://www.unrv.com/hbo-rome-second-season-review.php

Although I enjoyed your review, I thought it was a little bit harsh. The second season of the series was obviously negatively impacted by budget constraints and a rushed schedule. The series had to balance popular appeal with historical accuracy. In some areas they failed, but in many other areas they were very successful.

I agree that the criminal underworld subplot was too much.

However, any series that mentions Regium (modern day Reggio Emilia, where my cousins live), the Battle of Mutina (near modern day Modena, Reggio Emilia

I had seen both series recently on DVD. The fact that I watched them without a break between the series, in continuation, made me feel less a diference between the series. My view was that from a good start the series went downhill in a constant manner. It can also be blaimed on getting use with the spectacular sets that felt breathtaking in the beginning.

The actors were very good, but as the plot progressed the best were eliminated (Caesar, Cicero, Brutus) while the unconvincing Octavian played a greater role. With less political carachters the plots focused too much on the unhistorical sidelines (Atia - Servilia, the jews, Vorenus and Pullo etc ) while other new important carachters were barely scatched (Agrippa, Maecena, Cassius)

"Bad sex, it is said, is still pretty good, insofar as it is preferable to no sex at all. Unfortunately one cannot say the same thing about bad history. One spends too long in anticipation and preparation; the actual event proceeds rather clumsily; and when the climax (such as it is) finally arrives, one gets the sense it was hardly worth it. I do not mean to suggest that I am UNRV's resident expert on bad sex, but after watching the 2nd season of "Rome" I know a thing or two about bad history. The problem with "Rome" is precisely that its sex is better than its history and left me feeling like a dirty whore for watching it."...

 

 

http://www.unrv.com/hbo-rome-second-season-review.php

The 2nd season bombed because they really strayed from the historical script. You don't need to deviate with the Julio-Claudians, they were a soap opera unto themselves. Graves knew this, and only fine tuned fictionally certain nuances. His book's been in print since the 30's.

The writers cut corners and credibility at every twist and turn in the 2nd season. And the real problem started in the 1st season by bringing in Atia, actually an unkown figure to us historically aside from her being the mother of Octavia, as a key figure. Once that was done the Julio-Claudian soap opera toppled and the writers started painting themselves into all kinds of corners from which they were forced to concoct all kinds of inaccuracies to stay afloat.

Oh, RE sex and such. Sex, togas and sandals go with action and the sword. The Battle of Philippi was a joke and an insult to the Roman Army. Since when did legionaries march into combat like zombies out of Romero's Dawn of the Dead?