Amph is the hbo series rome any good?

i am interested in watching it but if it sucks i do not want to watch it.

jello? aren't you an expert of rome?

 

this show is like number 37 on the list of shows i should get around to watching. i'm too lazy to type the whole list but number 1 is the wire and number 2 is breaking bad. so you get an idea for how behind i am.

 

It's a fantastic show, despite the fact that its portrayal of several historical figures is rather off. Augustus during the second season, I'm looking at you. Also, they took Augustus's historical daughter and put all of her life choices into his sister, which is 100% historically wrong. Basically they change the personas of several historical figures, but are able to reasonably portray Roman life (considering its an HBO program), and the original characters within it are great.

Also, the protagonist is Ray Stevenson.

 

its pretty fantastic.

 

THIRTEENTH!

 

I love that Iello had to call him Marcus Antonius and not "Marc Antony".

It's a great show, @AAAAAAH. The only thing that would make it better would be some Robocops.

 

I enjoyed the first season better than the second.

That was my introduction to HBO shows and I rewatched it recently. I'd say it was good, though rent it or borrow it first so you're not dropping much money on it in case you don't like it.

There are only 2 seasons...20 episodes. Less than a day's worth of watching.

 

The first season is good, the second season is not. Watch the first season, enjoy the finale and don't bother watching the second season.

 

I wouldn't say the second season isn't good... but no, it's definitely not as good as the first season. I actually thought their older version of Augustus wasn't nearly as good or interesting. But yeah, I don't actually know tons of the history but I watched a lot of it with Jello so he was sure to point things out I like the distinction of authentic v. accurate. I agree with Jay that it's not the job of a show to teach you history. But it's still really interesting to see a historical period or society portrayed in a reasonable realistic way. I enjoyed it.

Pullo's definitely the best part, though I think some of the stuff that's with original characters is dramatically the most compelling. But the historical figures are pretty fascinating.

 

I adored it.

 

I only watched the first season because it seemed like it was gonna jump the shark in the second but it was awesome.

 

Yeah, the second season was handicapped A) by the fact that the show got canned, requiring them to wrap it up in the second season, and B) because consequently, the second season covers the better part of 14 years, so the timeline is a bit wonky. And the portrayal of Augustus during the second season is just atrocious. Even if you have a distaste for his methods during the civil wars, he wasn't a psychotic individual. I think I'd agree with Jello's characterization of the show as "authentic", rather than necessarily "accurate". IIRC they also get some Latin pronunciations wrong ("v" is pronounced as "w", dammit!). But yeah, it's still a great show. And I haven't even mentioned Stevenson's opposite number yet, Kevin McKidd.


Greatest bromance of all time.

 

So it's true what the makers said in the commentary? Time to time a guy behind the formation would blow a whistle and the first row moved back to get refreshment and the second row starts fighting, all refreshed? I didn't doubt them but it sounds cool nevertheless.

Even cooler thing which I read from a real history book is that the Greek before Alexander the Great and his father often met their adversary (quite often other Greeks) before the battle, walked around to find a good spot for the battle (wide open space without ditches), and brought their troops there. Then they just attacked each other.

 

I think the Hannibal-Scipio meeting is credible (even with Livy as the source) because Hannibal no doubt wanted to sue for peace rather than risk it all on a battle where his army was now composed mostly of scrubs and Rome finally had the cavalry advantage.

 

Gotta get going on those drug shows!

 

How much does the show actually take place in the city, as opposed to different regions or provinces? That's what I'd actually watch it for.

 

I heard that sets from this series were reused in Doctor Who for that episode were the Doctor and Donna Noble visit Pompeii the day before the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, which isn't that surprising, as HBO co-produced Rome with the BBC, and they were probably looking to get a return on their investment.

 

All of Rome was good. Every bit of it. But yeah, the first season was killer. Second season was not quite to that level. Still, terrific show. I hope they get around to making that movie someday.

Sauntaero
How much does the show actually take place in the city, as opposed to different regions or provinces? That's what I'd actually watch it for.

They do go to Egypt for the second season. But most of the show is still in Rome.

 

Worth it for the eye candy.

 

As for the battle scenes, the soldiers more than likely would have rotated at the barked orders from their centurion if there was a lull in the fighting or something like that. In Roman heavy infantry formations, the men were spaced a lot wider than you'd think (definitely not shoulder to shoulder), so in clashing with an enemy force, second and probably even third ranks were in combat at the same time the front rank was engaged.

In short, the battle scenes look cool and are another of the things that make the show unique as far as film depictions of the Roman Republic / Empire.

I'd put it at the top of that list of yours

 

About half and half, really. There's a bevy of scenes within Roma herself, but much of it also takes place in the provinces, since the protagonists are a pair of legionaries.

 

thanks e'erbody. authentic as opposed to accurate is good enough for me. i will look for a good deal and scoop it up, just like i do with poops.

jello, i think you should add "expert of rome" to your title. nay, i DEMAND it.