The Tudors - Showtime's answer to HBO's Rome?

[philosophie_en_rose]

Someone recommended the Tudors to me, as I enjoyed most of HBO's prematurely cancelled series Rome. Rome was a shameless show, full of drama and betrayal and humor. Atia was a cross between Edina Monsoon and Lady MacBeth. It was a little too violent for my sensibilities, but it was an overall qualitly show.

In contrast, the Tudors seems to be rather humorless. I've only seen parts of the episodes sent to me, but it does not appear to have anything in common with Rome but naked breasts.

Has anyone seen the Tudors? If so, what do you think of it?

[bleedingheart]

1. loved Rome...didn't like the Tudors much

I liked Rome because I felt it was a bit more realistic...men did have possession over their wives and people lived short and sometimes horrid lives...and the scandals...well they mirrored pretty much what did happen.

i loved I Claudius when it appeared on PBS but I won't pay for it on DVD because I heard the quality was poor...

As for the Tudors....not enough character development...Catherine of Aragon was the daugther of Isabella of Spain and Ferdinand of Aragon...she was a princess of the newly united Spain...She had a lot more spirit than they showed in this mini series...and Henry is portrayed as a bit of a jock who just lets his ministers rule......while the real Henry was quite athletic...he was also an intelligent fellow...he was originally intended for the church...if his brother had lived

overall...not horrid but not my favorite...

[philosophie_en_rose]

2. I agree so far.

It seems like an interesting premise. Though Rome was sometimes brutal, it didn't waste time on characters that weren't interesting.

You're right about the character development on the Tudors. The characters seem flat. And Jonathan Rhys Meyers was a terrible choice to play Henry. He's simply rehashing his whiny brat sociopath from Gormenghast, which was a miniseries that I also did not like.