|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Maybe this has been brought up before, but how HBO could let the greatest show on television slide so drastically in quality from Season One to Season Two is still beyond my comprehension. The production values and scripts took a nosedive. The idea to reverse the personalities of Titus and Lucius in Season 2 ended up being a bad one.
The show took on a cheaper look, the sets, photography, amount of extras, etc. And Polly Walker, God bless her, went from sexy to matronly. Ah, what could have been. Well at least we have that most incredible Season 1 which ranks with any show ever on the tube!
|
Posts:
8
Registered:
2/20/09
|
|
(41 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 20, 2009 11:47 PM
|
|
I thought Season Two was way more intelligent and intense.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,559
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(40 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 9, 2009 8:41 PM
|
> Speaking of Constantine, Here is his arch, the
> largest still standing in Rome.
>
> Arch
> of Constatine
>
> Which of course he had built after he had a vision
> Kind
> of like this
>
> and had his men paint the sign of the cross (or
> something like that) on their shields which of course
> won him the battle and made him the first Christian
> Emperor and a Saint in the Greek Orthodox church,
> (but not to the Roman Catholics, maybe they never
> forgave him for moving the center of power East),
Hey, he was a clever guy. Do not forget that the sign of the cross was also indicative of the worship of Mithra (where the symbol mainly came from). But there are many versions of this He supposedly saw an apparition with Chi-Rho (indicating Christ) and the Greek statement "En touto Nika" (with this you conquer).
> I digress. It is well known that much of the statues
> and art on the Arch of Constantine came from earlier
> monuments raised by earlier Roman emperors. My
> questions isHad these monuments gone into disrepair
> so the loss of this art was not important, or were
> these monuments removed because their locations were
> no longer important, or did Constantine simply go
> around defacing and stealing from previous monuments
> because he didn't give a damnand wanted all that
> stuff for himself?
Both are correct. Rome had undergone a substantial renovation by Diocletian and thus, there may have been lots of art laying around. In addition, there were monuments that had "superfluous art" that could be removed and installed in his arch. But he was hardly the only Roman emperor guilty of this. Removing heads from statues and substituting them with those of the latest emperor was a common practice. There was a lot of recycling going on. In fact, this recycling was going on well until the 18th century.
|
|
|
Posts:
667
Registered:
8/19/08
|
|
(39 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 5, 2009 10:53 PM
|
uhhhmmm
Money?????
Ratings
--
Now we know the real reason Michael Phelps eats 10,000 calories a day.....
|
|
|
Posts:
1,101
Registered:
12/13/04
|
|
(38 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 5, 2009 10:51 PM
|
Speaking of Constantine, Here is his arch, the largest still standing in Rome.
Arch of Constatine
Which of course he had built after he had a vision Kind of like this
and had his men paint the sign of the cross (or something like that) on their shields which of course won him the battle and made him the first Christian Emperor and a Saint in the Greek Orthodox church, (but not to the Roman Catholics, maybe they never forgave him for moving the center of power East), but I digress. It is well known that much of the statues and art on the Arch of Constantine came from earlier monuments raised by earlier Roman emperors. My questions isHad these monuments gone into disrepair so the loss of this art was not important, or were these monuments removed because their locations were no longer important, or did Constantine simply go around defacing and stealing from previous monuments because he didn't give a damnand wanted all that stuff for himself?
--
" "A Man must have a Code" The Bunk
"Its what a war is. Once you in it you in it." Slim Charles
"That Halibut is good enough for Jehovah!!! " Mathias, Son of Deuteronomy of Gath
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
2/3/09
|
|
(37 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 3, 2009 9:58 PM
|
Thanks there in forum is great 
|
|
|
Posts:
663
Registered:
9/6/05
|
|
(36 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 3, 2009 8:54 PM
|
Sorry for the messed up post! Here was my original. My computer's acting up.
ribarche: Welcome to ROME. We have many friendly folks here. Please do not apologize for your English. We are pleased to have you join us. Enjoy the boards!
--
Fortune favors the bold.
|
|
|
Posts:
663
Registered:
9/6/05
|
|
(35 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 3, 2009 8:51 PM
|
> Hello everybody ! I was there 1 time . I live in
> Serbia and love this serial and Roman impery ! Live
> in city where is born imperator Constantin ! Nis !
> There is many interestig places from roman history !
> Sorry for my bad english ! 
--
Fortune favors the bold.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,559
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(34 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 3, 2009 6:18 PM
|
> I agree with you that it is subjective to a degree.
> But in WH I think it is so important to the mood of
> the story and the effect of events that Kathy and
> Heathcliff be perceived as tempestuous and hot
> blooded, gypsy like in looks, that they are
> intrinsically one person in all ways to a
> supernatural length, and that they are regal and
> haughty in their self-designation as rulers of the
> moors. That is how I see the lovers.
I would not call somebody who dies because of unrequited love "tempestuous". Moody would be a better word. Anyway, I hear you. Now, if we can connect Rome to the Bronte sisters, we may be able to use this forum for its original purposes!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
2/3/09
|
|
(33 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 3, 2009 6:08 PM
|
|
Hello everybody ! I was there 1 time . I live in Serbia and love this serial and Roman impery ! Live in city where is born imperator Constantin ! Nis ! There is many interestig places from roman history ! Sorry for my bad english !
|
|
|
Posts:
141
Registered:
6/8/08
|
|
(32 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 3, 2009 10:30 AM
|
>
> Well, for my 2 cents in, I would have liked Keira
> Knightly to play Cathy. And, to be honest,
> everybody attributes different characteristics to the
> protagonists of a novel based on one's own memories
> and preferences. On the other hand, Keira Knightly
> is just too feisty to play Kathy.
I agree with you that it is subjective to a degree. But in WH I think it is so important to the mood of the story and the effect of events that Kathy and Heathcliff be perceived as tempestuous and hot blooded, gypsy like in looks, that they are intrinsically one person in all ways to a supernatural length, and that they are regal and haughty in their self-designation as rulers of the moors. That is how I see the lovers.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,559
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(31 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 2, 2009 2:10 PM
|
> > PatricianPat wrote:
> > >... "I can only hope that they did not have
> > anemic looking actresses play Cathy as they are
> won't
> > to do in movies lately."
> >
> > Charlotte Riley is anything but anemic as
> > Cathy.
> >
> > --
> > I, Beagle CMXIV, am the author of this
> post;
> > opinions expressed are my own.
>
> That's good to hear, Beagle. When I picture somebody
> like Cathy who has thrived on and loved the moors and
> all the harshness surrounding, I don't picture a
> Keira Knightly who looks like a good wind would blow
> her over. Heather does thrive on the moor and it is
> beautiful and hearty.
Well, for my 2 cents in, I would have liked Keira Knightly to play Cathy. And, to be honest, everybody attributes different characteristics to the protagonists of a novel based on one's own memories and preferences. On the other hand, Keira Knightly is just too feisty to play Kathy.
|
|
|
Posts:
663
Registered:
9/6/05
|
|
(30 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 1, 2009 3:24 PM
|
Pat-Pat: Great to see you back! Welcome!
--
Fortune favors the bold.
|
|
|
Posts:
141
Registered:
6/8/08
|
|
(29 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 1, 2009 1:01 PM
|
> PatricianPat wrote:
> >... "I can only hope that they did not have
> anemic looking actresses play Cathy as they are won't
> to do in movies lately."
>
> Charlotte Riley is anything but anemic as
> Cathy.
>
> --
> I, Beagle CMXIV, am the author of this post;
> opinions expressed are my own.
That's good to hear, Beagle. When I picture somebody like Cathy who has thrived on and loved the moors and all the harshness surrounding, I don't picture a Keira Knightly who looks like a good wind would blow her over. Heather does thrive on the moor and it is beautiful and hearty.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(28 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 1, 2009 12:56 PM
|
PatricianPat wrote:
>... "I can only hope that they did not have anemic looking actresses play Cathy as they are won't to do in movies lately."
Charlotte Riley is anything but anemic as Cathy.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV, am the author of this post; opinions expressed are my own.
|
|
|
Posts:
141
Registered:
6/8/08
|
|
(27 of 41)
Re: What went wrong with 'Rome?'
Feb 1, 2009 12:53 PM
|
>
> Of course! Isn't this the stuff that tragedies are
> made of? If Kathy did not care for Heathcliff, it
> would have been the end of the story. It would have
> been a case of a hollow revenge.
You were discussing if the story is male centric. I am saying that in the beginning the Earnshaws were the antagonists and Heathcliff the protagonist. Later, the positions would switch. And yes, all tragedies (and most stories) are made of these. But for one misspoken word, or one faulty deed we would all be sitting around picking lint out of our navels. So I suppose you could say that the Earnshaws were only the set-up for the real story and as Heathcliff is the antagonist it becomes male centric, but I would disagree.
As for GWTW, I would say the war is the antagonist. The main difference between GWTW and WH is that the propelling force in GWTW is out of the main characters control, in WH the propelling forces are the main characters.
Both have estates that figure prominently into the story, and the estates are firmly embedded in the hearts of the fiery female characters. One male is an amiable rogue with an underlying sense of fair play and self-assurance (Butler), and the other is a dark, introverted brooder with a need to prove his power over those who have stolen what he valued from him, his kingdom and his Queen, so to speak. I don't see much similarity in the two novels.
I don't see either as male centric. Even with female authors. And I see much more character resemblance in Rebecca by Daphne DuMaurier with WH than GWTW. And not only is the antagonist a female, she is never seen.
>
> > Like putting fuel to a smoldering fire. What I
> like
> > about Wuthering Heights is the different levels
> that
> > passion can inhabit from love to obsession and
> > revenge. The moodiness and other worldliness of
> the
> > atmosphere and the personalities and the moors.
> I did
> > not see the latest incarnations of Wuthering
> Heights.
> > I can only hope that they did not have anemic
> looking
> > actresses play Cathy as they are won't to do in
> > movies lately.
>
> The latest production suffered the same problems as
> the earlier ones. The acting was good but the time
> allotted to the story was just too short (2 hours) to
> bring out a story running through decades. In
> addition, the TV based production did not do justice
> to the surrounding environment, as it is the
> landscape which is also the protagonist in the story.
--
Edited by PatricianPat at 02/01/2009 9:54 AM PST
|
|
|
|
|
