PDA

View Full Version : Spartacus: Blood and Sex!!!



Worf101
01-06-2011, 09:42 PM
I loved HBO's late, great series "Rome" it was informative, funny, epic and filmed in Italy. I for one was sad to see it's passing. A couple of years ago the Starz premium cable network put forth their own sand and sandles series "Spartacus: Blood and Sand". Those not familiar with the storay, Spartacus was a warrior from the land of Thrace who somehow wound up a slave in ancient rome. While training or fighting as a Gladiator he led a slave rebellion that threatened Rome to the point that 3 Legions were required to put it down once and for all. Thousands of captured slaves were crucified afterwards.

Well, other than the name of the title character, his country of origin, and the fact that there's some Gladiators involved, the original program from Starz bears little resemblence to the historical saga. Spartacus the series is all Blood Gore and massive amounts of sex. The blood and teeth and instestines are 90 percent CGI as are all the props, sets and everything else. The violience is straight out of "300" and is even more stylized. What not is the sex, sex and more sex, man-woman, man-man, orgies, exhibitions, girl-girl, you name it, it's here!

It's like the old series "The Wild Wild West" in that the sex and violence seem to be on a timer. You can time your 3 minute egg by the show. Still, I find it engrossing. The actors, all english (as usual in Roman period pieces) are good if not great. The stories are engaging and.... the bodies are beautiful!!!!!! The men are buff, the babes are beautiful and there's full monty for everyone!!!!

I'd recommend it. Not for kids though. Have our cousins cross the pond got this yet?

Worf

Worf101
01-06-2011, 09:42 PM
I loved HBO's late, great series "Rome" it was informative, funny, epic and filmed in Italy. I for one was sad to see it's passing. A couple of years ago the Starz premium cable network put forth their own sand and sandles series "Spartacus: Blood and Sand". Those not familiar with the storay, Spartacus was a warrior from the land of Thrace who somehow wound up a slave in ancient rome. While training or fighting as a Gladiator he led a slave rebellion that threatened Rome to the point that 3 Legions were required to put it down once and for all. Thousands of captured slaves were crucified afterwards.

Well, other than the name of the title character, his country of origin, and the fact that there's some Gladiators involved, the original program from Starz bears little resemblence to the historical saga. Spartacus the series is all Blood Gore and massive amounts of sex. The blood and teeth and instestines are 90 percent CGI as are all the props, sets and everything else. The violience is straight out of "300" and is even more stylized. What not is the sex, sex and more sex, man-woman, man-man, orgies, exhibitions, girl-girl, you name it, it's here!

It's like the old series "The Wild Wild West" in that the sex and violence seem to be on a timer. You can time your 3 minute egg by the show. Still, I find it engrossing. The actors, all english (as usual in Roman period pieces) are good if not great. The stories are engaging and.... the bodies are beautiful!!!!!! The men are buff, the babes are beautiful and there's full monty for everyone!!!!

I'd recommend it. Not for kids though. Have our cousins cross the pond got this yet?

Worf

danjama
01-06-2011, 09:50 PM
I haven't seen it but plan on seeing it. There is a lot of hype around it in my shop (dvd/cd shop).

I loved Rome SO MUCH, so i'm really anticipating this.

R_Target
01-06-2011, 09:51 PM
Blood and sex......and bluescreen. I'll wait for a new season of Party Down.

GoToAway
01-06-2011, 10:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Worf101:
girl-girl </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sold.

Deedsundone
01-07-2011, 07:23 AM
Ive seen the first season and its ok,although,the tv channel that show it over here (Sweden ) have cut out the most violent scenes.Didnt find it to be to much sex either,but maybe they cut out that too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

huggy87
01-07-2011, 10:38 AM
What I loved about 'Rome' was their genuine attempt at authenticity. The little details like Antony's 'Oil bath', the male character's lack of modern compassion (a very roman trait), and the buying and selling of slaves like cattle by the protagonists. I hate it when shows portray a historic period and try to impose our own morals on their time. Rome certainly was no charlatan.

Worf101
01-07-2011, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
What I loved about 'Rome' was their genuine attempt at authenticity. The little details like Antony's 'Oil bath', the male character's lack of modern compassion (a very roman trait), and the buying and selling of slaves like cattle by the protagonists. I hate it when shows portray a historic period and try to impose our own morals on their time. Rome certainly was no charlatan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well this program makes Rome look like a Sunday School Social. In Spartacus the line between slave and gladiator, gladiator and free citizen is starkly drawn. A slave, even a pampered one, is still a slave. The show is pretty rugged in that regard.

Worf

BillyTheKid_22
01-07-2011, 01:21 PM
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs462.snc3/25412_363991244893_62615819893_3452953_2895855_n.j pg

Urufu_Shinjiro
01-07-2011, 02:11 PM
Wow, that actually passed Apples approval process?!

Bearcat99
01-07-2011, 09:00 PM
I liked Rome as well.. Haven't see Spartacus yet.. Rome ws pretty good though... The sets .. the costumes.. even the dialog.. granted it was in English.. but it was good.. they alsdo tried to stay historical in the overall framework which was nice.

Airmail109
01-07-2011, 09:02 PM
All I remember about Rome were the t**s.

Lots of them....all nice and bouncey.

Sillius_Sodus
01-08-2011, 01:10 AM
'Rome' was avery entertaining series and the producers went to great lengths to ensure realism, i.e. when making the costumes out of the same type of fabric used at the time, some episodes required close to 3000 costumes!

It was also a very expensive production, apparently around 20 mil per episode. They did take few liberties when it came to history (hard not to I suppose). For example, in the final episode when Octavian returns to Rome as Emperor, his mother Atia is there to greet him when in fact she had been long dead by that time.

Still, it was a great series and it was a shame it only ran for two seasons.

BillyTheKid_22
01-08-2011, 05:29 AM
Last Night, I watched Spartacus: Blood and Sand movie and Starz in Black! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jarink
01-08-2011, 11:01 AM
I got the DVD for Christmas, but haven't had a chance to watch it yet. I guess I'll have to make the time now!

kimosabi79
01-08-2011, 12:33 PM
I like this series. Kinda 300-ish and lots of slowmo. Oh, and ****.

Worf101
01-08-2011, 07:20 PM
There have been a couple of bad side effects to my whole family watching this series.

The ole lady USED to be a kind, gentle soul who crys out in horror when I swerve to hit squirrels on the street. Two nights ago she sat right next to me screaming at the top of her lungs... "GET UP SPARTACUS!!! CUT OFF HIS HEAD!!! CUT OFF HIS HEAD!!!" I'm not kidding.

My son, he's 17 and loves the show for "other" reasons... You could boil eggs on the steam rising from his forehead.... Tsk tsk tsk...

Worf

LEBillfish
01-09-2011, 08:49 AM
Well, though a bit off topic for a moment to make a point...

HBO series have for the most part been rather good, the most recent "Treme" was a real nice surprise.....Yet by far my favorite was Deadwood, with a close second Rome. Regarding Deadwood, the bits that impressed me most was how they spoke with an obviously classical education vocabulary, yet then would toss in the most vulgar of terms at the right times showing pure "habit" of lower classes. The second aspect was how women or more to the point the ceiling experts were talked to and treated.....In both cases very, very real and really made the show for me.

Rome came in a very close second however. Obviously epic in its scenes, the classes truly defined to the n'th degree. On the one hand you'd see a twisted yet strict morality, yet on the other it not even considered as though bluntly ignorant of such concepts....Further, slaves were treated as objects as they are real life...yet really never given too much thought past that you'd give a doormat or table. It serves its purpose, and past that you don't think about it....lastly the language was balanced, cursing only when appropriate.

Spartacus however leaves me rather flat however. Oh I get the 300 stylized fights, and who doesn't like all the beefcake......However, slaves are paid way too much mind as affecting everything, there is way way too much "I live for the areana and the gladiator code of brothers" nonsense, yet most of all as the series progressed the cursing has gone way over the top as though being all too desperate to impress upon you their vulgarity or power like some 13 year old boy would do. All the scheming is childish at best with nothing clever about it.......and in the end it smacks of Bevis and ******** writing the screenplay.

So, take it for what it is worth I suppose. Lots of sweaty, oiled, hunky men wrestling nekkid.....

K2

GoToAway
01-09-2011, 08:59 AM
I wasn't a huge fan of Rome. It wasn't bad... but it could have been much better.

My favorite part, however, was the little "joke" the writers put in for anyone that had actually read Caesar's Commentaries.

Messaschnitzel
01-09-2011, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Regarding Deadwood, the bits that impressed me most was how they spoke with an obviously classical education vocabulary, yet then would toss in the most vulgar of terms at the right times showing pure "habit" of lower classes. The second aspect was how women or more to the point the ceiling experts were talked to and treated.....In both cases very, very real and really made the show for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I read, the way that the actors constantly cursed in Deadwood was artistic license on the part of the writers:

Quote:

Use of profanity

From its debut, Deadwood has drawn attention for its use of extremely explicit, modern profanity, especially among the more coarse characters. It is a deliberate anachronism on the part of the creator with a twofold intent. Milch has explained in several interviews that the characters were originally intended to use period slang and swear words. Such words, however, were based heavily on the era's deep religious roots and tended to be more blasphemous than scatological. Instead of being shockingly crude (in keeping with the tone of a frontier mining camp), the results sounded downright comical. As one commentator put it " if you put words like 'goldarn' into the mouths of the characters on 'Deadwood', they'd all wind up sounding like Yosemite Sam."

Instead, it was decided that the show would use current profanity in order for the words to have the same impact on modern audiences as the blasphemous ones did back in the 1870s. In fact, in early episodes, the character of Mr. Wu seems to know only three words of English the mangled name of one character ("Swedgin"), "San Francisco", and his favorite derogatory term for those whom he dislikes, "c*cksucka". Wu is also fond of the Cantonese derogatory term "gweilo" which he applies to the camp's white males.

The other intent in regards to the frequency of the swearing was to signal to the audience the lawlessness of the camp in much the same way that the original inhabitants used it to show that they were living outside the bounds of "civil society."

The issue of the authenticity of Deadwood's dialogue has even been alluded to in the show itself. Early in the second season, E.B. Farnum has fleeced Mr. Wolcott of $9,900, and Farnum tries to console the geologist:

EB: Some ancient Italian maxim fits our situation, whose particulars escape me.
Wolcott: Is the gist that Im sh*t outta luck?
EB: Did they speak that way then?

The word "f*ck" was said 43 times in the first hour of the show. It has also been reported that the series had a total count of 2,980 "f*cks" and an average of 1.56 utterances of "f*ck" per minute of footage."

Deadwood (TV series) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadwood_(TV_series))

For whatever it's worth: I had a conversation with Thomas P. Lowry back in the 1990s, (co-author of 'The Attack on Taranto: Blueprint for Pearl Harbor') whose son is a friend of mine. He also wrote several books about life during the Civil War that deal with such topics such as 'The Story the Soldiers Wouldn't Tell: Sex in the Civil War', 'Tarnished Scalpels: The Court-Martials of Fifty Union Surgeons', 'The Civil War Bawdy Houses of Washington, D.C.: Including a Map of Their Former Locations and a Reprint of the Souvenir Sporting Guide for the Chicago, Illinois, G.A.R. 1895, Reunion' and others. I thought that since he had more of an idea of everyday life in the U.S. during the mid 19th century than the average person, I asked him about whether they spoke the same way they wrote back then. He answered by asking the question of whether I spoke the same way I wrote on an informal everyday basis. At least in my case, the answer is no. "When I write, I make a resolute attempt to the best of my limited scholastic abilities to employ the proper and correct grammar, and to give it a quick overview afterwards to ensure that I used the correct spelling." This however is not how I would actually say it out loud. I would probably say "If I write something, I make sure I use the right grammar and see if I misspelled the words or not because I don't want it to look bad." In my opinion, I would think that given the average education level of folks in the Old West, they didn't tend to speak in that manner as is depicted in the show. I still have My grandmother's Mcguffey Reader that belonged to her during her time in elementary school back in the 1880s -90s, and there's only enough information in the book to learn basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills. Given that she had the average 1-8 grade education in the typical one-room schoolhouse back then she certainly didn't speak in an eloquent manner such as the style that was used in 'Deadwood'.

I fully realize that this doesn't prove that common folks such as the ones that inhabited the West in the 19th century didn't speak in an eloquent manner in their everyday conversations back then in exactly the same way that their letters were written, but it could be that they saved that sort of prose for official speeches and everyday written correspondence that is extant today. Anyway, it's a topic to possibly consider. (and argue about.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif)

BillyTheKid_22
01-09-2011, 03:43 PM
Deadwood DvD! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/graphics/news3/Deadwood_Complete_int.jpg

LEBillfish
01-09-2011, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
........... Anyway, it's a topic to possibly consider. (and argue about.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you miss the point and I would disagree with your statements.....Fact of the matter is past "quotes" in period articles (which may have been edited as well for vulgar content), we don't have accurate examples of speech from any era or culture not candidly recorded....Yet we do/did have some examples to draw assumptions by.

People in their 80's+ now speak much different then those say in their 30's today...Much of that difference comes in the form of the availability of media, and how over time our own vocabulary expands, shrinks, is replaced by other cultures vocabularies, and in kind reduced in that it is acceptable in many circles to dumb down if you will to not appear to be showing off. In the end you tend to get a "Newspeak" (think 1984) sort of general vocabulary as spoken....however...

What if the only access most have to language comes in the form of elementary education, the written word (newspapers and books), and then your very tiny community (remember, travelers and visitors were rare, it was a big deal to travel 30 miles)........What you end up with is a very limited vocabulary to start with, then to simply be able to express yourself fully, not eloquently, yet simply express a thought you expanded your vocabulary with the limited written word....also to sound more intelligent and/or powerful, and then finally added to it further with slang or pidgin to have a common ground to speak to all with in a varied culture community made up of visitors, immigrants and travelers.....Ending up with a full vocabulary.

The option you pose is, everyone except the most highly educated would basically grunt and use the 500 or so words originally taught to them.......Well, people are basically parrots, they'll repeat that which impresses them or others.

So I myself can easily see where classical education turns of phrase would be mixed in with common vulgarities, and that might even include Latin.

Frankly there are very few new words....and the old ones at hand were much more eloquent then those commonly used today.

K2

Messaschnitzel
01-10-2011, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
........... Anyway, it's a topic to possibly consider. (and argue about.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you miss the point and I would disagree with your statements.....Fact of the matter is past "quotes" in period articles (which may have been edited as well for vulgar content), we don't have accurate examples of speech from any era or culture not candidly recorded....Yet we do/did have some examples to draw assumptions by.

People in their 80's+ now speak much different then those say in their 30's today...Much of that difference comes in the form of the availability of media, and how over time our own vocabulary expands, shrinks, is replaced by other cultures vocabularies, and in kind reduced in that it is acceptable in many circles to dumb down if you will to not appear to be showing off. In the end you tend to get a "Newspeak" (think 1984) sort of general vocabulary as spoken....however...

What if the only access most have to language comes in the form of elementary education, the written word (newspapers and books), and then your very tiny community (remember, travelers and visitors were rare, it was a big deal to travel 30 miles)........What you end up with is a very limited vocabulary to start with, then to simply be able to express yourself fully, not eloquently, yet simply express a thought you expanded your vocabulary with the limited written word....also to sound more intelligent and/or powerful, and then finally added to it further with slang or pidgin to have a common ground to speak to all with in a varied culture community made up of visitors, immigrants and travelers.....Ending up with a full vocabulary.

The option you pose is, everyone except the most highly educated would basically grunt and use the 500 or so words originally taught to them.......Well, people are basically parrots, they'll repeat that which impresses them or others.

So I myself can easily see where classical education turns of phrase would be mixed in with common vulgarities, and that might even include Latin.

Frankly there are very few new words....and the old ones at hand were much more eloquent then those commonly used today.

K2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that maybe what I didn't convey was that folks back then probably had separate manners of speaking, one informal manner for their family and friends, and another for business, etc. I grew up witnessing the older adults doing this very thing. I had an elderly uncle who was married to one of my mom's older sisters who was an attorney and former mayor of a suburb of Houston. He was in his late eighties around 1970 (he was close to my grandmother's age. If she were alive today she'd be 131 years old) and still working, and he and the other professionals he associated with or had business with definitely had two different manners depending on whom they were speaking to. Remember how 'Atticus Finch' spoke? My uncle would speak in a similar manner while in a professional capacity when he was either on the phone, or had someone come to his house for business where he had put in an office when he was getting on in years. His other manner of speaking to his family and friends wasn't in that same polite and formal manner, but was informal with joking, contracted words, and not anywhere near the amount of careful enunciation used. I also had these old grumpy 'battleaxe' elementary school teachers who would speak in that same professional public voice in front of the class, but would occasionally hear the teachers talking informally amongst themselves in the same way my uncle did in private. Some of these same teachers were already getting on in years when they taught my older sisters and brothers when they were in school in the 1940s - 50s. On the other hand, the folks I knew and relatives I had who had limited education and were around the same age as my uncle definitely didn't speak like my uncle and his well educated associates.

Again, I realize that this is all anecdotal evidence, but looking at it from a point of view where I witnessed it happening not occasionally, but on a regular basis while listening and interacting with folks who were at least born around the era that the show is based, I still wonder how accurately depicted is a cowtown such as Deadwood where having folks with what I would assume to be a limited education speaking in the same manner as their more educated counterparts is correct?

TheGrunch
01-10-2011, 11:11 AM
I think it's an interesting point. My friend and I had a very long argument with some history graduates about what we can actually learn as historians about a culture. Basically the point that we'd talked about between ourselves that we ended up talking to them about was how little we *actually* know about historical culture. If we were all to disappear now and all that was left was a bunch of news websites like the Daily Mail, CNN and Fox, and a bunch of documentaries about peoples' families (only the most grotesquely dysfunctional ones, of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) or something like that, what the hell would someone who found all these think about our society? Admittedly that is an extreme example and we have reams more information to go with regarding even dark ages Europe, but tentatively apply this idea to the amount of documentary evidence we have about the past, which you can pretty much say is decreasing the further back you go (with some delightful and interesting exceptions), and you really begin to wonder how much we could ever learn about how people actually talked to each other and what they really believed even a couple of hundred years ago. Everyday life is rather elusive in terms of being captured in documentary evidence.
Needless to say the history graduates were having none of this because they felt their newly-gained credentials were being threatened in some way, and spent most of their time dancing round actually addressing any of our points. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Messaschnitzel
01-10-2011, 12:14 PM
Hey Grunch, that reminds me when I read a humorous article in Smithsonian Magazine where IIRC, it was supposed that several residential blocks were excavated 1,000 years from now. The civilization that these dwellings belonged to was obviously communal in nature, given the fact that each home was in such proximity with each other, and that each home contained a large ceramic bowl with a lid on it where evidently some sort of gruel type soup was pumped in from a location that was connected via a system of pipes. All one had to do was push the handle and food would come up into the bowl, (using some sort of pressure system) and scoop out what amount was desired. The lid was there to prevent dust and foreign debris from getting in the bowl. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TheGrunch
01-10-2011, 12:31 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif They even had napkins in convenient rolls nearby.