Jump to content

[SPOILERS] Black Sails - Season 4 on the Horizon.


Arkash

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to think if there's a better period/fantasy type show on TV right now...

I think Soderbergh's the Knick certainly has potential to be as good, although after Black Sails second season the Knick will have to bring its A-game.

 

Peaky Blinders is not as good, but I'd rank it just below the Black Sails/ The Knick tier. Vikings could have been in the PB tier if it hadn't had such an awful third season.

 

EDIT: I'm currently not watching it, but I have heard great things about the Americans. So if that show is eligible, it might be up there.

 

 

Outlander?  Or at worst at least as good?

:lol: Good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Soderbergh's the Knick certainly has potential to be as good, although after Black Sails second season the Knick will have to bring its A-game.

 

Peaky Blinders is not as good, but I'd rank it just below the Black Sails/ The Knick tier. Vikings could have been in the PB tier if it hadn't had such an awful third season.

 

EDIT: I'm currently not watching it, but I have heard great things about the Americans. So if that show is eligible, it might be up there.

 

:lol: Good one.

 

The Americans is good and incredibly consistent but still not as good as Black Sails IMO. It's above Vikings. Although any show set before the present being the definition of historical drama is a pretty large net to cast (even if it is techically true). I usually look at it in terms of technology/discovery so modern is anything from after World War I until the 90s (which is just an arbitrary thing based on I know the 90s). Guns fit in well with the Black Sails era.

Vikings I'd put on the very edge of "ancient" so can be compared to Rome to some extent as things didn't really advance a great deal over that period. I think things like technology do affect how the stories play out - it's hard to be tough pre guns without being physically strong and skilled in a weapon (although Rome shows politicians can still be dangerous). Early guns even the playing field a little bit but not entirely. Then there's cars, mobile phones etc. They all change the tone a lot.

 

 

 

Black sails (1715), Turn (1777) and Outlander (1743) are all set in the same era/century so it's fair game to compare those 3. I haven't seen all shows in their entirety except for BS, and I'd say quality order is BS, O, T.  I guess shows on teh French revolution and napoleonic wars would also fit in my "era" too.

 

But it's all just arbitrary labels. If I look at them just as TV shows Black Sails is still my favourite show currently on air (although sense8 while less slick is sticking in my mind more than anything else at the moment)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of good period pieces.

Peaky Blinders is at least as good as Black Sails, if not way better in some ways.

I'd put Vikings in the very low spot.

 

But the question included period + fantasy, and Peaky Blinders doesn't do fantasy.  It's a splendid series.

 

The one season I've watched so far of Black Sails is -- iffy, particularly historically.

 

Vikings, season 3 was a huge disappointment in most aspects -- and it does have sort of fantasy elements.

 

Ripper Street so far is as good historically speaking as both Peaky Blinders and Outlander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But the question included period + fantasy, and Peaky Blinders doesn't do fantasy.  It's a splendid series.

 

The one season I've watched so far of Black Sails is -- iffy, particularly historically.

 

Vikings, season 3 was a huge disappointment in most aspects -- and it does have sort of fantasy elements.

 

Ripper Street so far is as good historically speaking as both Peaky Blinders and Outlander.

 

In terms of history most "history" shows are pretty iffy - it's pretty hard to stick to what happens when and remain dramatic (although they should probably try listening to Dan Carlin/Mike Duncan for examples of how you can present history linearly and it still feels fresh/unpredicatable). But then there's always the need for some creative drama. Plus in actual history they can easily say "not much happened for 6 years" while it's harder to do a time-jump or 6 seasons of "not much happened" (insert snark on a show that seemed to do that). TV viewers also hate changes in cast be that because they have to age or because the "event" actually involved  several different people/generations. While it's cool in reality for the protagonist to be a different protagonist from the inciting incident (The whole Punic Wars) it's not so cool in a dramatic story. It's why shows like John Adams deliberately look for people who fit into an entire era. Finally there's usually a lot more people involved in historical events than is manageable for a TV show.

 

It's also worth keeping in mind that none of us has a blueprint for how people thought/behaved in pre-live recorded history. We just have biographies/autobiographies and histories and they all have their own POV and agendas and often they conflict or bizarrely omit what seems like key information. Not that that excuses the "facts" eg "so and so died/did this on.."  Or if the USA intervened in the Wars of the Roses. Or a coal powered ship appeared in Black Sails.

 

Ultimately I give shows a lot of leeway with this sort of thing and tend to agree with the general idea of "Don't let facts get in the way of a good story". There's always going to be the odd pet peeve of mine for something that means a lot to me but if I really want things to be historically accurate I'll ditch the drama aspect and just go read/watch a good history/documentary.

 

Zorral - have you seen season 3 of Ripper Street? I've yet to watch it but I've found the first two seasons to be very solid TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But the question included period + fantasy, and Peaky Blinders doesn't do fantasy.  It's a splendid series.

And how does Black Sails include fantasy?

The plus was meant as an "or" not an "and".

But we agree on Peaky Blinders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess "fiction" is a better term than "fantasy" for Black Sails but it is useful for including shows that have a sci-fi element (outlander) or GOT which is like a distorted medieval history. It's why the labels get a bit vague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand.

Every show is a fiction.

 

LOL. Good point. I meant it in terms of being based on non-fictional events but with added fictional elements eg most of the pirates in Black Sails existed but Long John Silver and Captain Flint are just characters from books. Whereas "Tudors" could be considered to be less fictional in that the majority of characters were real people (although some were amalgamations). Fiction could also be elements that are made up to fit in with historical events.

 

But yes, it's all fiction and some elements of "history" may well be fiction too - especially the ones that are won by people with an interest in editing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Peaky Blinders is all fiction in that case.

The real Peaky Blinders were supposed to be a kids gang. I doubt they have anything in common with the Gipsy adult organization we see in the show. All characters are fictional.

At least, in Black Sails, you get some historical pirates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In terms of history most "history" shows are pretty iffy - it's pretty hard to stick to what happens when and remain dramatic (although they should probably try listening to Dan Carlin/Mike Duncan for examples of how you can present history linearly and it still feels fresh/unpredicatable). But then there's always the need for some creative drama. Plus in actual history they can easily say "not much happened for 6 years" while it's harder to do a time-jump or 6 seasons of "not much happened" (insert snark on a show that seemed to do that). TV viewers also hate changes in cast be that because they have to age or because the "event" actually involved  several different people/generations. While it's cool in reality for the protagonist to be a different protagonist from the inciting incident (The whole Punic Wars) it's not so cool in a dramatic story. It's why shows like John Adams deliberately look for people who fit into an entire era. Finally there's usually a lot more people involved in historical events than is manageable for a TV show.

 

It's also worth keeping in mind that none of us has a blueprint for how people thought/behaved in pre-live recorded history. We just have biographies/autobiographies and histories and they all have their own POV and agendas and often they conflict or bizarrely omit what seems like key information. Not that that excuses the "facts" eg "so and so died/did this on.."  Or if the USA intervened in the Wars of the Roses. Or a coal powered ship appeared in Black Sails.

 

Ultimately I give shows a lot of leeway with this sort of thing and tend to agree with the general idea of "Don't let facts get in the way of a good story". There's always going to be the odd pet peeve of mine for something that means a lot to me but if I really want things to be historically accurate I'll ditch the drama aspect and just go read/watch a good history/documentary.

 

Zorral - have you seen season 3 of Ripper Street? I've yet to watch it but I've found the first two seasons to be very solid TV.

 

Yes. In one of these topics I mentioned that to my ears Ripper Street is the most complete heir to the influence of Deadwood and its way with language, both of them from the same era though one's the American frontier and the other the capital of the largest empire to date (unless the brief Mongol empire was larger?).  Both of them drawing so clearly on the language and cadences of the King James Bible and Jacobean melodramas.

 

Justified's language, equally ornate, is however, more personal, more local and more specifically American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how does Black Sails include fantasy?

The plus was meant as an "or" not an "and".

But we agree on Peaky Blinders.

 

The character of Silver in season 1 draws a great deal of the actor's portrayal from the fantasy character of Jack Sparrow, while not having anything in common with the Silver character in Treasure Island, really..  Don't know if that continued in season 2, since I haven't seen it yet.  That's what I meant.  Also that Nassau -- not like the geography or history of the historical Nassau either.  Not that it matters for a series like this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes. In one of these topics I mentioned that to my ears Ripper Street is the most complete heir to the influence of Deadwood and its way with language, both of them from the same era though one's the American frontier and the other the capital of the largest empire to date (unless the brief Mongol empire was larger?). 

Nope, British Empire at its height was larger than the Mongolian Empire.

 

 

 

 Don't know if that continued in season 2, since I haven't seen it yet. 

 

If I were you, I would rectify such a grave mistake as soon as possible :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, British Empire at its height was larger than the Mongolian Empire.

 

 

If I were you, I would rectify such a grave mistake as soon as possible :P

 

Honey -- there's only so much television I can do.  :)  I have work, which also involves a lot of research, travel and professional socializing, and there are other obligations too.  So I'll just wait until netflix makes it available on dvd.  Also this way I continue to have things to look forward to.  However, thank you for your concern!   :cheers:   I'll just keep on relying upon the kindness of strangers to keep me informed.  :cool4:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mongols were the largest contiguous empire. 

 

I think that's right. Britain never had Russia or China and it never had all of North America (US was just 13 colonies on the east at the time). It really was a naval/trading empire at heart but that obviously allowed it to control most of the world as well.

The interesting thing with land empires is that they are also probably concentrated on "islands" of strategic importance too as opposed to all that land being Mongol (or whoever). The flipside is if you place the sea surrounding an island/port as British and the empire suddenly becomes more impressive again.

 

The Mongols were totally kickass though given their technological advantage (bows/horseriding) weren't as vast as say guns/cannon vs spears. It's sort of why I wish "Marco Polo" was actually "the Khans".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mongols were the largest contiguous empire. 

Yes, indeed they were. The British Empire was still larger though. Here's a map. The difference wasn't very big. The British Empire at its height was 33,700,000 km2 and the Mongol Empire at its height was 33,000,000 km².

 

 

The Mongols were totally kickass though given their technological advantage (bows/horseriding) weren't as vast as say guns/cannon vs spears. It's sort of why I wish "Marco Polo" was actually "the Khans".

A show about Temujin and his generals, in particular Subutai would be great. The Mongol empire was obviously started by a couple of the most brilliant commanders in world history. Although, even more than guns, I think the greatest British advantage was continuity of state. They didn't have to go back to elect a new Khan whenever the old one died, nor were they as susceptible to violent power struggles. That is something that can't be said of most of their opponents. The weapons is of course a nice bonus, but if you were to pitch me like the British Army led by Wellington in 1815 vs. Mongol hordes let by Temujin, I think I would put my money on the Mongols. Their casualties would be much heavier, but in the end their sublime mobility and strategic and tactical brilliance would win out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed they were. The British Empire was still larger though. Here's a map. The difference wasn't very big. The British Empire at its height was 33,700,000 km2 and the Mongol Empire at its height was 33,000,000 km².

 

 

A show about Temujin and his generals, in particular Subutai would be great. The Mongol empire was obviously started by a couple of the most brilliant commanders in world history. Although, even more than guns, I think the greatest British advantage was continuity of state. They didn't have to go back to elect a new Khan whenever the old one died, nor were they as susceptible to violent power struggles. That is something that can't be said of most of their opponents. The weapons is of course a nice bonus, but if you were to pitch me like the British Army led by Wellington in 1815 vs. Mongol hordes let by Temujin, I think I would put my money on the Mongols. Their casualties would be much heavier, but in the end their sublime mobility and strategic and tactical brilliance would win out.

 

Isn't contiguous "single land mass"? That's how the mongols win, even if it isn't largest area. They were a landlocked empire whereas Britain had land on all the continents.

 

Good points on the empires respective strengths and weaknesses. It makes you wonder how scary an empire with the tactical clout and stability would be. I guess Rome had that although it seemed to be constantly devouring itselg it kept on running for a long time.

 

Was Subatai the one who went on a "scouting" mission and somehow managed to invade his way across russia and eastern europe only to retreat because his mission was to scout, not conquer? Their tactics were just beyond  any other cultures at the point and Genghis policy of rewarding talent over family was probably part of the reason. Funny how well military gets along when it's a meritocracy (revolution France being another good example)

 

I guess the British Empire was as much an agressive trade empire as it was an aggressive conquering one. That probably helped with the stability. That and the fact that after the civil war they were better at swapping out Royal heads of state without much bloodshed. Unless you were a Jacobite. Not splitting your territories amongst your children is always a good way of maintaining an empire too!

 

I guess we see elements of business vs military in Black Sails. It seems a lot of the pirates long term goals is to become commercially viable so that the empire accepts them. It seems like the military only has a real issue if you are costing them money.

 

On a cruise for history spoilers I can't wait to see who will get to play Woodes Rogers and when he will debut. Main addition to season 4 perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...