Hbo Rome Second Season

[quote name='Julia C

[quote name='Julia C

finally finished watching all 12 episodes of Rome and all i can scream is...MORE!!! season2starts in march and i think thats too far away. will definintely watch it bu i wish it were closer. HBO, u guys are awesome and forgiven all past transgressions for this.

it will be good to see the rise of octavian, from the boy to the man that became Augustus, cant wait!

[quote name='Julia C

I keep encountering all this criticism from the lack of battle scenes in the series. There are two main reasons why battles were not shown:

1) the budget of the show was already a whopping 100 million dollars, which nearly killed the chances for a second season after poor early ratings. Luckily, the fan base spread enough by the end, and was loyal enough, that things seem to be progressing and I've heard that they are in production now (which actually means precious little. "Production" could be two executives meeting for lunch...)

Battle scenes generally require two to six weeks of intense training of dedicated extras (you'll need about 50 men willing to give up their day jobs, armor, swords, shields, etc, for each, plus horses, plus food for these men, per diem, etc), the hiring of safety personel and choreographers (in high deman with the influx of action movies), and a great while to shoot all the angles (there is a lot of debate about film rates per minute, but a good estimate is about 70 dollars per minute, not including cast and crew pay). Borrow a friend's camcorder and see how long it takes to film a short thirty second combat sequence that looks realistic and you'll see just how difficult that is, how many angles, etc. Now add effects people for gore, etc. You're talking about another few weeks of shooting. A short battle will cost a studio a few million bucks.

This is why the History Channel is looking very seriously into video games for battle reenactments (Rome Total War and I'm sure we'll see a Medieval Total War II History Channel series (at least I hope so!)).

and 2) There is a long (two and half thousand years or so) debate over drama vs spectacle. Which is more important, the war or the effects of the war? The swinging of the sword, or the impact those swings will have on the lives of the people who swung (or didnt swing) them?

The real action, in terms of human drama and story, occurs before and after the clashing of swords. HBO's Rome was different from other historical epics in that it wasnt an action film that glorified war, but a dramatic series that told the many sides of a conflict whose human and historical repercussions were far more dramatic than watching a man sink to his knees after being run through with a sword.

Also, a note on CGI: computer graphics, unless done flawlessly, always scream low budget because it just doesnt look right. The battle of Minas Tirith is an example, and Peter Jackson had a huge budget and one of the best CGI firms in the world. And they took months putting those scenes together. And they still looked phony.

I for one would love to have seen more of the Roman war machine, a la that opening scene of the first episode on a grander scale, but it's not practical and so much of the other production values would have to be skimped on that it simply wouldnt be worth it. Add another 100 million, a few month-long production delays, and kiss shows like Carnivale and Six Feet Under goodbye.

The question is then, why try to show the battles at all?

If you cannot afford to do them well, have them happen off-stage.

Caesar's tent, with his servants or staff officers during a Alesia; Pompeius' during Pharsalus; could tell us a lot more through dialogue than a half-baked attempt to visualise it. Stay in Rome and focus on the politics, while fighting goes on in Gaul or Greece.

Yet the script kept setting up the battles, and an expectation that we would see them.

There is a mismatch here.

The recent Hannibal on TV had its faults, but it was better than ROME on the bit set-piece battles IMHO.

Phil

Hannibal? do you mean THAT Hannibal?! OMG! i want to see it! why do i live in Italy????!!!

I watched Rome too, but it was a cut version and i'm very disappointed. Anyway, i lvoe it! ^^

Last week, the HBO CEO announced that the 10 episodes planned for Season 2 (under production in Rome right now) will be aired in Jan 2007 and will be the last season, as it is too "expensive" and some other reasons, notably that they are filming in a "foreign country".

Anyway, let's hope that Season 2 exceeds Season 1 and while I would like the series to continue, it's going to be wishful thinking as HBO doesn't seem too committed to this project. I think that if "Rome" had the following of the "Sopranos", we would see five seasons, possibly more, as there's enough history. Just the period from Tiberius to Nero can provide more than enough material. Of course, this would also be incredibly expensive, as the imperial sets would have to be grander, more lavish than the Republican ones, where you can get away with stark, grimy sets.

Apparently (according to the Sunday Times) HBO and the BBC are toying with the idea of remaking I Claudius. If this is to take place, wouldn

Apparently (according to the Sunday Times) HBO and the BBC are toying with the idea of remaking I Claudius. If this is to take place, wouldn

Best if PBS re-runs the black and white original series. Who needs inane, insipid and insane commercials?

I really must save up the cash to buy the DVDs (there are DVDs out now, aren't there?) Curse my sub-basic cable!

I don't think computer graphics are any good for movies, unless they are animated movies. I've rarely seen it done well, and if it is there are usually actors, only the environment or something is computer. I'm with Phil here, I'd rather have no battles (which would be slightly disappointing) than poorly done battles (which would effectively ruin the whole movie).

I really must save up the cash to buy the DVDs (there are DVDs out now, aren't there?) Curse my sub-basic cable!

 

I don't think computer graphics are any good for movies, unless they are animated movies. I've rarely seen it done well, and if it is there are usually actors, only the environment or something is computer. I'm with Phil here, I'd rather have no battles (which would be slightly disappointing) than poorly done battles (which would effectively ruin the whole movie).

To the blazes with the battles! If Derek Jacoby and the Brian who paled Augustus and the lady who played Livia aren't in it , it will be worthless.

The BBC series, "I Claudius" was in colour. Korda's aborted fim was in B&W.

It is on dvd and superb.

I can see the logic that HBO and BBC might have had as they considered a third series of "Rome" and then thought, but that's "I CLAVDIVS " territory!

On the other hand, if they remake it using the old script - why bother?

If it's a new script will it be any good? Or even as good? If it matches the "Pride and Prejudice" of 10 years ago it might have merit - but it's a huge risk.

A few years ago ITV remade "The Forsyte Saga" (subject of a BBC series from the 60s which garnered many awards and is much remembered). The new series was well-cast, it had location filming not studio sets, lavish budget - but it fell flat. They did a second series and no more.

The 70s "I Claudius" was arch, camp, over the top, funny, shocking, perverse, idiosyncratic, taut, brilliantly acted, directed and designed, and wholly novel. TV has changed since then. What addedd value, other than modern TV technique can be brought to the subject?

As far as names are concerned, those someone was grasping for a few posts back were:

Brian Blessed as Augustus

Sian Phillips as Livia

Derek Jacobi was, of course, Claudius himself.

George Baker was Tiberius.

Patrick Stewart (Jean Luc Picard of Startrek to a younger generation) was Sejanus.

It wears well on dvd. If you want a different take on the same period, try "The Caesars" (B&W ITV drama series in six parts from the 70s) with Andre Morell as Tiberius, Freddie Jones as Claudius, Barrie Ingham was Sejanus. To me, that series is at times like watching a documentary of real events, it has that "feel" and immediacy, and is superbly acted. It focuses more on the politics - not least of Tiberius - and less on the scandal and Livia as villainess. She comes across as a proud, annoying but non-homicidal lady. I am undecided, but it might even have the edge on "I Claudius".

Phil