The Tudors are back!

I think I mentioned, it's b/c of ratings. Not everyone is, you know, as intellectual as you. :rolleyes: After all, we can't all be as creative as John Waters or as talented as Divine. :eek:

I'm actually kind of shocked by this comment. If you know anything about the history of King Henry, there is no need to embellish or use creative license on anything! It's one of the juiciest and scandalous times in history. ITA - why embellish it? The truth is better than anything Hollywood could come up with.
 
I'm actually kind of shocked by this comment. If you know anything about the history of King Henry, there is no need to embellish or use creative license on anything! It's one of the juiciest and scandalous times in history. ITA - why embellish it? The truth is better than anything Hollywood could come up with.

What exactly are the embellishments that have everyone so disillusioned by the show? Other than wardrobe & physical appearance that is (which is the only REAL criticism I've heard so far), & those inaccuracies are completely understandable. It's tough enough watching styles in shows & movies from the 80s, much less from the 16th c.
 
Well, I just found the 2nd season at my library. I put it on hold. :eek:

One BBC version of Henry featured Anne as a much more sympathetic character. The Tudors Anne, on the other hand, is one woman I don't think I'll miss too much.
 
And just because I mentioned liking John Waters films on this forum when films were being discussed and my avatar is of Divine (I think there are some gals out there who are in on the private joke ;)), doesn't mean that they encompass my entire being. (ahhh, if only!)

Dang, TeTe! Now all along I thought your entire being encompassed guys with damaged members not being able to get into heaven...shucks! ;)
 
What exactly are the embellishments that have everyone so disillusioned by the show? Other than wardrobe & physical appearance that is (which is the only REAL criticism I've heard so far), & those inaccuracies are completely understandable. It's tough enough watching styles in shows & movies from the 80s, much less from the 16th c.

Anybody? Nobody?

Lori, reserve your judgement on this Anne until the end of season 2. ;)
 
Here's a website that mentions a few of the inaccuracies:

http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/The+Tudors+Historical+Inaccuracies?t=anon

I've never watched it, but had heard early on that they had gotten most of the Popes wrong. That seems pretty easy to research. But, then again, as you say Laura, you aren't watching it for its historical merit, and that's fine. For me, personally, there wasn't much else to attract me to it.

Quite honestly, I got interested in the Tudors through another inaccurate piece of fiction, Anne of the Thousand Days, when I was about 12. I was so intrigued with it that I just kept reading more and more about the Tudors, first Henry and his wives; then Elizabeth I; and then, going the other direction and learning more about Henry's ancestors. Hardly intellectual, just youthful curiosity. I'm sure that many who watch this show have been inclined to do the same and are seeking out the historical facts, which is pretty cool.

Oh, and here's something that I think that all of us can enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdgy1J7cKJU
 
I've never watched it, but had heard early on that they had gotten most of the Popes wrong.

OMG! You've never watched it, yet you've decided you don't like it b/c of its historical inaccuracies? Wow.

Yes Kathryn.......err Catherine.........thanks for catching my typo.:D
 
OMG! You've never watched it, yet you've decided you don't like it b/c of its historical inaccuracies? Wow.

Yes Kathryn.......err Catherine.........thanks for catching my typo.:D

Well, I saw the previews and read about it, and, yeah, if I'm going to watch a show about some of my favorite historical figures, I want accuracy.
 
Well, I saw the previews and read about it, and, yeah, if I'm going to watch a show about some of my favorite historical figures, I want accuracy.

Huh. I've always been taught not to judge anything or anyone by what others say, but to see/read/hear firsthand before I decide to trash it, esp. to those who like it.
 
I never trashed it, I just stated a fact: it's not historically accurate. It has never claimed to be. You said yourself that you knew it wasn't because you read that a producer had said that 50% of it is "artistic license."

Maybe the previews are inaccurate and it's not what it seems, but from everything I've heard about it and even read on this forum, they're doing a good job of marketing it for what it is: a guilty pleasure. That's why there is a parody about it depicting Churchill as a young man with bulging muscles and a six-pack. Non-accurate historical soft porn is just not my thing. Again, nothing personal.
 
I think I mentioned, it's b/c of ratings. Not everyone is, you know, as intellectual as you. :rolleyes: After all, we can't all be as creative as John Waters or as talented as Divine. :eek:

TeTe critiques the the show (or the preview anyway) and LauraMax critiques TeTe (and John Waters). Nothing personal of course. ;)
 
TeTe critiques the the show (or the preview anyway) and LauraMax critiques TeTe (and John Waters). Nothing personal of course. ;)

OK Beavs, would it make you feel better if I said "I took it personally b/c someone busted into a postive & enthusiastic thread to infuse it with negativity?" How is that? More accurate for you? ;)

TeTe, I find it quite incomprehensible that you decided you didn't like any show based on secondhand knowledge. I rarely, if ever, pay attention to reviews b/c critics get it wrong so much of the time.

Funny how you admit it, and yet you can't admit that it's an incredibly poor and specious basis for an opinion. Even funnier that someone is actually defending you for that. :eek:

Edit: "Non-accurate historical soft porn is just not my thing." That is one of the funniest things I've ever read, considering it came from someone who has an actress who ate dog poo on camera in her avatar! I guest soft poo is better than soft porn...........
 
Last edited:
OK Beavs, would it make you feel better if I said "I took it personally b/c someone busted into a postive & enthusiastic thread to infuse it with negativity?" How is that? More accurate for you? ;)
Actually, the word ironic comes to mind. Or is it tiresome....;)
 
OK Beavs, would it make you feel better if I said "I took it personally b/c someone busted into a postive & enthusiastic thread to infuse it with negativity?" How is that? More accurate for you? ;)

TeTe, I find it quite incomprehensible that you decided you didn't like any show based on secondhand knowledge. I rarely, if ever, pay attention to reviews b/c critics get it wrong so much of the time.

Funny how you admit it, and yet you can't admit that it's an incredibly poor and specious basis for an opinion. Even funnier that someone is actually defending you for that. :eek:

So what you're saying is that you never...EVER...see or not see/read a movie/TV show/book based on a review from others (professional critic or not)?

I think it's pretty funny that you're telling TeTe that she's wrong for having HER opinion. (I'd insert a rolly-eye smiley here, but I think they've become woefully overused).
 
So what you're saying is that never...EVER...see or not see/read a movie/TV show/book based on a review from others (professional critic or not)?

I think it's pretty funny that you're telling TeTe that she's wrong for having HER opinion. (I'd insert a rolly-eye smiley here, but I think they've become woefully overused).

No, what I'm saying if there's something in which I'm interested, I don't pay attention to negative reviews.

I think it's rather funny that you don't seem to have any interest whatsoever in the show, but felt the need to jump in to add yet another negative comment.

Beavs, if it's so tiresome, why are you still reading, much less responding?

Maybe you two are the Robin Hood of wannabe critics? :rolleyes: (the eye rolling will never be "woefully overused" for me, since there are so many "dolts" in the world)
 
Again, with the Divine. And, BTW, he was an actor, not an actress. I like John Waters films and you don't. So? What do soft porn and John Waters gross-out scenes have to do with one another? Apples and oranges.

Why would I waste my time watching a TELEVISION SHOW about a subject that I love, when the marketing tools of its producers (trailers & previews) and the reviews and comments (even positive ones made on this forum) lead me to believe that I would not be interested?

Oh, and as for this line: OK Beavs, would it make you feel better if I said "I took it personally b/c someone busted into a postive & enthusiastic thread to infuse it with negativity?" How is that? More accurate for you?"

You have GOT to be kidding! http://www.thecathenation.com/forum/showthread.php?t=253213
 
Last edited:
Well, I saw the previews and read about it, and, yeah, if I'm going to watch a show about some of my favorite historical figures, I want accuracy.

I have the same thing with one of my favorite figures, Wild Bill Hickok. His entire life was fascinating yet every flick seems to feel the need to throw in all kinds of extraneous/fictional BS that IMO actually takes away from the intensity of his life.

Now, Annie Oakley is another story. She was boring as hell 'cept for the shootin' and her story always benefits from a little sexing up. :p

Sparrow
 

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top