|
|
 |
|
Reply
| |
WHY WHY WHY do they bother with it???  They just REFUSE to get it right! All they have to do is open ONE book....just ONE! That Showtime series that we love to hate LOL you know, the soap opera Tudors, their website for the show is chock full of the CORRECT history, so they DID open a book....they just apparently used it to prop open the door of the Bad Costumes Room or something once they were done with it. Even Anne of the Thousand Days, which generally gets kudos just because Genvieve Bujold was so good in it (& at least the costumes were nice), is pretty inaccurate for the most part. I am tired of being continually disappointed when I see a historical film because (as Melanie mentioned about TOBG) all I do is shake my fist at the screen & mutter about how this that & the other ain't right. Methinks it might be better to be stoopid & know naught because then at least I could enjoy em LOL What irks me the most is there is NEVER any disclaimers that they HAVE taken gross liberties. I like nothing better than to see an author's afterword at the end of a historical novel outlining that this that & the other wasn't quite historcally accurate to better suit my plot, but here's what REALLY happened. Methinks history movies ought to have such things roll right at the START before they even begin the credits just so people KNOW. Because, let's face it peeps, we're weird LOL We know far more than the average bear about all sorts of history, not merely the Tudors.....tis why AMT is set up with boards for different eras. But the average peep who snored thru their US History & Government class & thinks history is boring doesn't know anything & they think this IS what really happened when it's a far cry from it. I cringed when I saw the commentary in England when The Tudors made it across the pond....they were all condescending & rolling their eyes going o we must dumb down & sex up the history for the rude Americans to swallow a dose  I just wanted to tap on my monitor & go psssst over here looky no no we ain't all stoopid like that, tis just the movie peeps LOL Hollywood sensationalizes EVERYTHING to the point where I rarely even plonk down my $20 for a movie ticket & popcorn anymore, anyway. Methinks they must be desperate that peeps are just waiting for it to go to DVD so they can save money on it & be comfy watching. Most peeps DO wait for the DVD nowadays. I bet someday in the not-too-distant future movie theatres will go the way of drive-ins & be poof begoned & there will just be a Hollywood channel or sumfin. |
|
 First
Previous
2-14 of 14
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
And another thing! The people in the row behind, never fails, there is someone attempting to explain what's going on, on the screen to someone they are with. The one explaining knows nothing cause you, as a Tudor fanatic, know what is right, what is wrong and why certain things are happening. But it is a movie theater and you are supposed to be QUIET so as the person who knows you say nothing! I have no problem with people going to a movie for pure cinematic enjoyment but please don't explain something you know nothing about. "Is there a Historian in the house?" "I am having difficulty understanding this film?" LOL. Tudorgalusa |
|
Reply
| |
Lol, I know, my Mum hates watching anything historical with me cos I have to get on my soapbox and be all like "that sooo didn't happen like that" and "No way! He wasn't even in the country at the time!" (etc, ad nauseaum).  I didn't see "The Tudors"; I started watching but I think I got half-way through the first episode before I had to switch off, incensed. It was just soft porn, basically. They could have used any subject, the historical aspect was incidental to the sex. I think it's unfair for critics to say it was dumbed down for American audiences; yes, it was most certainly dumbed down, but for audiences on both sides of the pond. I just looked up this article on it, I didn't realise quite how bad it was. LMAO at the radiator and tape measure! Like the comments by Alison Weir at the bottom; if she's anything like me they would have had to drag her away shouting "And another thing, they didn't have springs in those days!"  Suffice to say, I won't be bothering with "The Other Boleyn Girl". |
|
Reply
| |
That's the very article I read & was getting all huffy over the peeps' commentary & I submitted a nice rebuttal saying all the Americans ain't stoopid but the Daily Mail wouldn't put it in prolly because I was one |
|
Reply
| |
Greensleeves, you said "Even Anne of the Thousand Days, which generally gets kudos just because Genvieve Bujold was so good in it (& at least the costumes were nice), is pretty inaccurate for the most part. " Pretty inaccurate for the most part???? I think not...it was pretty darn close to the truth, especially compared to most other films. |
|
Reply
| |
I agree. For the most part AOTD was pretty close to the truth. TOBG is absolutely attrocious! Usually I even buy the DVD's that are off, like the first Elizabeth film with Cate Blanchett, just for my collection. But TOBG maybe not. I was so horrified while sitting in the theater. There are much better films to be watched than this one. Tudorgalusa |
|
Reply
| |
Fiction people, fiction! LOL |
|
Reply
| |
I KNOW it is fiction, but the general stupidity of people ever fails to horrorify me! One of my very good friends (I love her dearly) said I spoiled the end for her as I was saying that they could have at least used Anne's speech at her beheading, and she screeched at me that I had "spoiled the ending for her"! What?!?!?! Spoiled the end? There is only ONE ending for Anne. Death! She said she was hoping they lived happily ever after. I said "Hello, he had SIX wives and she was number TWO, what did she think would happen"???? Heaven save me from these people!!! Melanie |
|
Reply
| |
Lol I sympathise, my friends are the same. A lot of them don't have the slightest clue who Henry VIII was or the story of his wives. Seriously. I'm just so glad I've got you guys to talk to  As for AOTD, I thought it was quite a mixed bag. To start with, it was quite good; I liked Genvieve Bujold's portrayal and Richard Burton wasn't great but I've seen worse. It was also fairly historical accurate. But one of the things that ruined it for me was having Henry turn up at Anne's trial. I understand that there has to be some dramatic license, but as is so often seems to be the case with this sort of thing, the truth is far more interesting. Henry and Anne were at a joust, Henry suddenly got up and left, and Anne never saw him again. I think that is far more chilling and dramatic than the slanging match at court in AOTD. As I say, I know certain things need to be changed, in the interests of brevity and because we just don't know exactly what happened in some cases, but it annoys me when they change the story for no good reason  |
|
Reply
| |
Right-o, Muckypup, that's the bit about AOTD I didn't like, how they basically destroyed the ending bits by mucking around with the trial & then having Henry come see Anne in the Tower as well. Henry basically turned his back on her & pretended she didn't exist before she was even dead. Cromwell would've moved heaven & earth to keep Henry from seeing Anne one last time, & probably did, just like Catherine Howard was kept from him. Henry's temperament was capricious & mercurial, & he couldn't be counted upon to follow through if the victim got close enough to plead for his goodness & mercy. Like I mentioned before, there wasn't even a coffin prepared for Anne, so was she even really meant to be executed at all? Did Cromwell convince Henry otherwise? Though I did like the line they gave Anne in AOTD of "My Elizabeth shall be queen, & my blood shall be well spent". Gives ya goosebumps. OMG @ Melanie's friend.....I thunk peeps AT LEAST KNEW he had 6 wives & killed 2 of them!  Apparently not if they go into the theatre thinking it's going to be Pretty Woman in period costumes LOL "I want the fairytale....." |
|
Reply
| |
Very good point! Surprised that she sank? You can always hope the story changes!!! My friends haven't the slightest clue about the Tudor period. But of course we are the Americans that the "Tudors" was dumbed down for. LOL. I think the average person sees the names of Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johannsen and immediately think chic flic. What most people thought the TOBG was really about I couldn't say. I know the audience I was a part of was mostly young high school girls and young couples. Only a few older couples and lone older women like me. I wish I could have interviewed some of them before and after the movie. Tudorgalusa |
|
Reply
| |
The girls wanted to go see it because A) it starred 2 way kewl actresses & B) The Tudors has made them all think English history is way kewl & like, totally hot ROFL The boys let the girls drag them to it because A) it starred 2 way kewl & like, totally hot actresses in low-cut dresses B) they're hoping they'll be rewarded for sitting through a chick flick & the girls will later on make like Mary Boleyn showing Henry what she learned from Foxnose Francois in The Tudors |
|
|
First
Previous
2-14 of 14
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Coming Soon
