Troy on BBC/Netflix

[Astromech]

13 hours ago, Zorral said:

Well, I've liked this series very much.  It isn't the Iliad, by the way, though it takes material - inspiration from it as well as other sources.

Didn't you also like Taboo?  I may give it a try, but it has been sinking to the bottom of my possible viewing list. I rewatched the first season of Rome and am kind of jonesing for something set in antiquity. I wish there was a wider selection available.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, Astromech said:

Didn't you also like Taboo?  I may give it a try, but it has been sinking to the bottom of my possible viewing list. I rewatched the first season of Rome and am kind of jonesing for something set in antiquity. I wish there was a wider selection available.

Antiquity is tricky but we seem to be well served with shows from 700s to 19th century these days.

If you liked Rome I think deadwood is worth a shot just because deadwood was originally going to be set around the fall of the republic but mulch had to change the setting when he discovered hbo were already making a show about Rome. Basically the idea was about order from chaos and how people of dubious reputation could inadvertently/self sevingly create order.

I mention this fairly often but it still bugs me how TV only ever seems to cover the one era of Rome. Although there's brittania I guess.

Cleopatra is being developed by a creator from black sails but that's still the same era. 

I Claudius was being developed as a remake at one point but seems to have died.

There might be some Japanese or Chinese shows covering their side of antiquity?

 

[Astromech]

7 minutes ago, red snow said:

Antiquity is tricky but we seem to be well served with shows from 700s to 19th century these days.

If you liked Rome I think deadwood is worth a shot just because deadwood was originally going to be set around the fall of the republic but mulch had to change the setting when he discovered hbo were already making a show about Rome. Basically the idea was about order from chaos and how people of dubious reputation could inadvertently/self sevingly create order.

I mention this fairly often but it still bugs me how TV only ever seems to cover the one era of Rome. Although there's brittania I guess.

Cleopatra is being developed by a creator from black sails but that's still the same era. 

I Claudius was being developed as a remake at one point but seems to have died.

There might be some Japanese or Chinese shows covering their side of antiquity?

 

Funny you should mention that time period since I just started a Smithsonian Channel documentary Europe's Last Warrior Kings about 1066 and the three contenders to the crown after Edward the Confessor's death. https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/europes-last-warrior-kings/prelude-to-war/1004829/3448619?an=history

Deadwood is excellent.

This is the first mention I've seen of Cleopatra. I'll have to keep my eyes peeled for that. Now that you mention I, Claudius, perhaps I should watch the BBC production from the 70s.

I could always try Spartacus again. I watched the first episode but wasn't impressed enough to continue.

[Corvinus85]

15 minutes ago, Astromech said:

I could always try Spartacus again. I watched the first episode but wasn't impressed enough to continue.

You may have heard this before, but Spartacus gets much better as it progresses. I say the first 3 episodes in season 1 are clunky, with the first one down right abysmal, but after that it picks up.

[Astromech]

9 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

You may have heard this before, but Spartacus gets much better as it progresses. I say the first 3 episodes in season 1 are clunky, with the first one down right abysmal, but after that it picks up.

Yeah, that first one is fairly terrible. I hear it gets better but haven't given it a chance. Hard since there are so many quality series now.

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Astromech said:

Didn't you also like Taboo?  I may give it a try, but it has been sinking to the bottom of my possible viewing list. I rewatched the first season of Rome and am kind of jonesing for something set in antiquity. I wish there was a wider selection available.

I did like Taboo, very much, expecting to dislike it as much as so many had said they disliked it.  I found an entirely different program than the one they saw. 

Re, the bolded, O! so do I!

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Astromech said:

Yeah, that first one is fairly terrible. I hear it gets better but haven't given it a chance. Hard since there are so many quality series now.

Ya, once Xena Warrior Princess shows up the entire thing begins to sizzle.  But those first eps were so bad, particularly the first one - 3 as mentioned, I gave up for years after quitting about half way through the first episode.

My current favorite remains Ertugruel: Resurrection, the 13th century, with the tribe that helps found the Ottoman coalition squeezed by Crusaders, Seljuk kingdoms and the Mongols.

 

 

[Astromech]

I was also debating giving Marco Polo a shot. I hear both good and bad things about it.

[red snow]

2 hours ago, Astromech said:

I was also debating giving Marco Polo a shot. I hear both good and bad things about it.

season 1 was ok and my general impression was it should have been called "Kublai Khan/the khans" and it would have been much better. It never quite knows whether it wants to be "rome" or "Da vinci's Demons".

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

I did like Taboo, very much, expecting to dislike it as much as so many had said they disliked it.  I found an entirely different program than the one they saw. 

Re, the bolded, O! so do I!

It was addictive nonsense trash but I agree there was something strangely compelling about it in hindsight. Probably entirely down to Hardy, his hat stroll and his melodic voice. I think he may have been hypnotising viewers.

I forgot about spartacus ("shame upon be present!") - definitely worth sticking through the first few episodes as it develops into a fun OTT rollercoaster.

 

[Zorral]

20 hours ago, red snow said:

It was addictive nonsense trash but I agree there was something strangely compelling about it in hindsight. Probably entirely down to Hardy, his hat stroll and his melodic voice. I think he may have been hypnotising viewers.

 

 

For me it was the combination of the history involved, from Africa, to the John Company, the War of 1812 (my favorite war, so to speak in terms of history) and that era of the US.  Andrew Jackson and the endless frontier are coming soon, babee.

But particularly I was impressed with how much the writers knew of Kongo religion and culture, which explains how Delaney knows everything -- he's been initiated and those who have died know everything -- and he's died many times. The division between life and death, the Kalunga line, is water.  Water imagery, submersion and emergence, drowning -- run in wide imagistic themes throughout every episode.  Taboo's writers did a really fine job on every level.  That the viewers were too impatient to notice really isn't their fault. There was a whole lot to see on other levels.  Which the BBC Real Player audience growth in leaps and bounds via word of mouth showed.  That the print media didn't like Taboo because it didn't get it, was fully refuted by what happened with the audience for Taboo via streaming.  Thus Taboo got a second season, yay!

Also the entire cast was spectacularly good -- always with the exception of Oona Chaplin.  Perhaps that is just me, but everything about her on screen irritate and annoys. I hope she stays drowned.

[Liver and Onions]

On 4/16/2018 at 2:06 PM, Astromech said:

Damn, I was looking forward to watching this series once I resub to Netflix. Not so much anymore.

Heck, I'd recommend giving it a try, at least the first episode. I have my complaints, but there are good things, too. It does have a realistic, gritty feel to it. If you're not invested in Paris and Helen's relationship by the end of the first episode, you'll know whether or not the rest of the series is for you.

[red snow]

8 minutes ago, Liver and Onions said:

Heck, I'd recommend giving it a try, at least the first episode. I have my complaints, but there are good things, too. It does have a realistic, gritty feel to it. If you're not invested in Paris and Helen's relationship by the end of the first episode, you'll know whether or not the rest of the series is for you.

I just wouldn't put it at the top of any watch lists. It's pretty good for a hangover or ill watching though and that isn't too harsh a dig - some shows fit that level of attention/effort quite well.

[red snow]

Finished the last two episodes in "tired from saturday night" mode. I don't think they were as bad as some felt but I guess that depends how you felt about the earlier episodes.

By far the worst aspect was their decision to turn Helen into a traitor when she could have so easily avoided it all. Given the amount of shit they've endured for her and Paris - an earlier admission from her could have saved a lot of grief. So a bit crappy how they ultimately lay all the blame on her (although I guess they blamed the whole war on her too) with a peppering of stupidity and naivety from the trojans eg "this wooden horse looks cool" and "let's have the greek hostage have free run of the palace - nothing could go wrong there".

It was also a shame the actor playing Achilles had a wobble in his last episode. I don't know if he was uncomortable in a chariot but he lost all his majesty with the "Where is Priam" line. He did look a bit more menacing with his killing of virtually everyone in his path though.

Odysseus managed some great anguished staring off into the distance and his final act in ending Troy was pretty dark and surprised they didn't shy away from it.

I think one thing the show could have done more of was establish why everyone does what Agememnon asks - even when he is being petty and generally idiotic. A reminder of how powerful he is would help explain why Odysseus and to a lesser extent, Achilles (who never really took orders) were his minions. Because his general behaviour appeared to be that of a weak person with a lot of power rather than a strong person who created his own. Given the show sets out with the premise that Menelaus is the weaker sibling and that Agememnon was the one who got things done and won duels - I never felt that Agememnon was a physical threat to anyone besides those who couldn't defend themselves. Maybe I missed something and Agememnon was supposed to be way passed his prime - a bit like King Robert in GOT.

The show was ok with occasional hints it could have been a lot better but the pacing was a bit chaotic (too long in lots of parts and far too quick in the places you wished they'd linger) and some odd choices were taken with characters and behaviour.

[Isis]

8 minutes ago, red snow said:

 

By far the worst aspect was their decision to turn Helen into a traitor when she could have so easily avoided it all. Given the amount of shit they've endured for her and Paris - an earlier admission from her could have saved a lot of grief. So a bit crappy how they ultimately lay all the blame on her (although I guess they blamed the whole war on her too) with a peppering of stupidity and naivety from the trojans eg "this wooden horse looks cool" and "let's have the greek hostage have free run of the palace - nothing could go wrong there".

This definitely made zero sense to me. I mean, even if you thought you'd won a war as if you would just let an enemy prisoner have free run of your city with immediate effect?!

[red snow]

58 minutes ago, Isis said:

This definitely made zero sense to me. I mean, even if you thought you'd won a war as if you would just let an enemy prisoner have free run of your city with immediate effect?!

They didn't need the horse when the Trojans just take in random Greeks. Also weird how they were cool with partying with him as if they hadn't just ended a several year war with the Greeks.

[Isis]

I think at that point I was a little over the whole thing by then (I mean, I did shout at the TV a few times 'why is that dude just wandering around?' but I was mostly over it). Kinda makes it look like the Trojans knew very little about war... and yet I guess they did actually otherwise how did they survive such a long siege (plus some battles)?

[red snow]

7 hours ago, Isis said:

I think at that point I was a little over the whole thing by then (I mean, I did shout at the TV a few times 'why is that dude just wandering around?' but I was mostly over it). Kinda makes it look like the Trojans knew very little about war... and yet I guess they did actually otherwise how did they survive such a long siege (plus some battles)?

That or they are far too keen to switch from war mode to party mode! It was a stunning contrast to the guy they beat and whipped to shreds in order to find where "A BLOODY GREEK MIGHT BE WANDERING AROUND THE PALACE" to inviting one to a party 20 minutes later.

But yeah, I guess we just had to roll with it at that point.

[Liver and Onions]

16 hours ago, red snow said:

I think one thing the show could have done more of was establish why everyone does what Agememnon asks - even when he is being petty and generally idiotic. A reminder of how powerful he is would help explain why Odysseus and to a lesser extent, Achilles (who never really took orders) were his minions. Because his general behaviour appeared to be that of a weak person with a lot of power rather than a strong person who created his own. Given the show sets out with the premise that Menelaus is the weaker sibling and that Agememnon was the one who got things done and won duels - I never felt that Agememnon was a physical threat to anyone besides those who couldn't defend themselves. Maybe I missed something and Agememnon was supposed to be way passed his prime - a bit like King Robert in GOT.

The show was ok with occasional hints it could have been a lot better but the pacing was a bit chaotic (too long in lots of parts and far too quick in the places you wished they'd linger) and some odd choices were taken with characters and behaviour.

 I agree that we could have used more backstory for the Greek chiefs. If I recall, Helen's dad (stepdad, because isn't she Zeus' daughter?) marries her to Menelaus precisely because Menelaus' brother is so powerful (and, one presumes, already married- and isn't Clytemnestra Helen's sister?) So Agamemnon is pretty much first among equals... because... well, the show doesn't really say. 

I definitely agree with your view on the pacing. I felt like I blinked, and then Patroclus and Hector were both dead. 

[Corvinus85]

18 hours ago, red snow said:

I think one thing the show could have done more of was establish why everyone does what Agememnon asks - even when he is being petty and generally idiotic. A reminder of how powerful he is would help explain why Odysseus and to a lesser extent, Achilles (who never really took orders) were his minions. Because his general behaviour appeared to be that of a weak person with a lot of power rather than a strong person who created his own. Given the show sets out with the premise that Menelaus is the weaker sibling and that Agememnon was the one who got things done and won duels - I never felt that Agememnon was a physical threat to anyone besides those who couldn't defend themselves. Maybe I missed something and Agememnon was supposed to be way passed his prime - a bit like King Robert in GOT.

The show was ok with occasional hints it could have been a lot better but the pacing was a bit chaotic (too long in lots of parts and far too quick in the places you wished they'd linger) and some odd choices were taken with characters and behaviour.

Only watched 3 episodes so far, but I frowned when it was revealed that Achilles was part of that contest that Agammenon won. I though Achilles was #1, no contest.

I definitely would have wanted to hear that Helen was married off by her dad simply for an alliance with the most powerful king in Greece.

[red snow]

5 hours ago, Corvinus said:

Only watched 3 episodes so far, but I frowned when it was revealed that Achilles was part of that contest that Agammenon won. I though Achilles was #1, no contest.

I definitely would have wanted to hear that Helen was married off by her dad simply for an alliance with the most powerful king in Greece.

Surrely Agamemnon would have had to have ordered Achilles not to win (which could have added another reason for the rift between the two) yet still take part as I can't imagine Achilles taking part in anything if he wasn't going to win.

7 hours ago, Liver and Onions said:

 I agree that we could have used more backstory for the Greek chiefs. If I recall, Helen's dad (stepdad, because isn't she Zeus' daughter?) marries her to Menelaus precisely because Menelaus' brother is so powerful (and, one presumes, already married- and isn't Clytemnestra Helen's sister?) So Agamemnon is pretty much first among equals... because... well, the show doesn't really say. 

I definitely agree with your view on the pacing. I felt like I blinked, and then Patroclus and Hector were both dead. 

And little things like that would have helped. In the show all they had to do was show that Agamemnon had the largest army so that while the Achilles and the myrmidons were vital they tipped the balance not dominated things. Or some hint that Aga was a strong enough leader to bind the alliance.