Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
11:55 am
August 12, 2009
Offline
I can sort`ve understand why they changed Wosley`s death scenes. The real Wolsey died of complications following bouts of dysentry, and that`ll never look good on T.V!
*dies laughing* Yep, it would be hard to make that “sexy” – and nothing must come in the way of the sexy!
Regarding Anne's portrayal, one inaccuracy that didn't bother me was not blindfolding her on the scaffold. So much of acting is nonverbal and Natalie Dormer did a very good job of conveying Anne's “alluring” eyes (wrong color or not), so it would have gutted the emotional impact of that scene if we couldn't see her eyes and expressions. And of course we wouldn't have had that very effective “falling head” shot – eyes open but blank, and slight look of surprise on her face.
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
1:56 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Hmmm….Wolsey dying of dysentry or slashing his throat…much prefer the latter to be depicted on TV!!
I agree with you, Impish_Impulse, about the Natalie Dormer execution scene. It definitely has impact because of her eyes. Such a moving scene – however many times I see it I still cry.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
2:27 pm
December 8, 2009
Offline
Natalie Dormer did such an amazing job in the last two episodes on series two. But that final scene, and the way she kept looking over her shoulder (as the real Anne was reported to have done), was so moving. Genevieve Bujold will never be replaced as the ultimate Anne Boleyn (for me, at any rate), but Natalie Dormer comes pretty close.
Be daly prove you shalle me fynde,nTo be to you bothe lovyng and kynde,
5:50 pm
December 8, 2009
Offline
The following quote is taken directly from the episode guide that came with the series three DVD boxset of the Tudors (for episode 8, the season finale):
\”As Henry presses for an end to his new marraige, a new sexual conquest emerges – young prostitute Katherine Howard\”.
Thats right, you all read correctly; \”young prostitute\”!$*@ I`ve had enough of this ludicrous show now. Its` gratuitous, adds nothing to the story line and is grossly insulting to young, naive (and exploited) girl who died a terrible death and in no position to defend herself. Pity.
Be daly prove you shalle me fynde,nTo be to you bothe lovyng and kynde,
5:40 am
August 12, 2009
Offline
I agree. There's absolutely no point to it. It's ludricrous to imply Henry VIII (unknowingly) married a prostitute and made her queen. It's not just a slap in the face of KH, but devalues all his other wives as well. Arrgghh! Why does the show insist on inserting senseless inaccuracies whilst ignoring some of the true and truly interesting things that happened in this era?
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
1:49 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Hi Hannah,
“As Henry presses for an end to his new marraige, a new sexual conquest emerges – young prostitute Katherine Howard”.
Wow, what a stupid and offensive description (theirs, not yours!). I can only assume that it was written by some enthusiastic but clueless copywriter who was employed by Showtime to write the DVD descriptions but you would think that they would check what was written!
I don't think that Catherine was portrayed as a prostitute in Season 3 but I don't think she would have been such a temptress. It was obvious from her seduction techniques that she was \”experienced\” and while that may have been acceptable in a mistress I'm sure that Henry would not have accepted this in a wife. He wanted a sexually attractive wife but she needed to be pure too.
I think the real Catherine has been misrepresented. I think she was a young woman who had had a difficult upbringing and who had behaved like any girl in her situation. I think she had some kind of relationship with her music tutor, but that it didn't go \”all the way\”, and I feel that she saw herself as married to Francis Dereham because they had made that commitment and consummated it. I think that Catherine's relationship with Culpeper went no further than secret assignations and flirtation (as Starkey says in \”Six Wives\”). I think they were in love but that Catherine did not commit adultery. However, it could be said that she was a bigamist if she was in fact married to Dereham. None of this makes Catherine the \”prostitute\” or temptress of The Tudors, more a girl who was trying her best to cope in a position far beyond her comprehension.
I am so disappointed that Showtime and Michael Hirst allowed that stupid comment to be made. It is offensive to Catherine's memory, afterall, she was a real person and not just a product of fiction.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
4:27 pm
September 13, 2009
Offline
Katherine Howard a prostitute?!!!! It's amazing how low people will stoop for the sake of entertainment. I don't mind little inaccuracies and things being added or taken out here and there. The purpose of the show is to entertain, not educate. But this is going too far.
When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
5:06 pm
December 8, 2009
Offline
Hi Guys,
I`m not so sure that this is just a mistake. I`ve been watching on-line interviews with Michael Hirst in which he talks about Katherine Howard, and what a \”stupid, foolish\” girl she was. He really dislikes her, and makes no attempt to disguise that fact. Its` discoloured the way he has chosen to write her character. Also, taken in the context of episode 8 series 3, and that \”brothel\” she was found in and the scene with the ring. It`s all completely unneccesary.
Be daly prove you shalle me fynde,nTo be to you bothe lovyng and kynde,
1:33 pm
February 25, 2010
Offline
******* SPOILER FOR SEASON 3****************
Where is Thomas Cranmer? He is Archbishop of Cantebury by Season 3! The is no Cranmer!!! 
Huge inaccuracy.
I also would like to know where Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk is. Missing him as well!
Mary Louisa
2:14 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
Exactly, where was Norfolk?!!! He had such a huge role in not just elevating Catherine Howard to the throne but Anne too, that to see him totally airbrushed from the story is disappointing to say the least.
Thomas Howard was such a wily old dog that the makers of the Tudors could've had a real field day with his character!!!!
4:14 pm
August 12, 2009
Offline
I read that the actor playing Norfolk bailed, and instead of recasting (as they did when the first actress portraying Jane Seymour was replaced between Seasons 2 and 3), they just had other characters 'pick up the slack' by doing things that were historically connected to Norfolk instead.
I also heard that the actor playing Cranmer wanted out as well, so there is yet another very important character that they've simply dropped without comment. I think both characters were important enough that they should have been recast. It's sloppy.
PS – Hannah, I'm with you about that scene where Henry meets Katherine Howard. He holds out his ring for her to kiss, and she practically (pardon me for saying it) fellates it. And he's supposed to be devastated later because he was so sure she was a complete innocent?!? His 'rose without a thorn'? Give me a break, Hirst!
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
6:53 pm
June 20, 2009
Offline
yeah.. that scene was a bit far-fetched. and the whole prostitute thing, now i'm all for artistic license, but come on! she wasn't a wh*re…
Let not my enemies sit as my jury
9:18 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
I didn't know that about the actors playing Norfolk and Cranmer, but if that was the case then they totally should've recast the roles. It seems far too many important people are missing from Henry's court. It's just not the same!
And to turn Catherine Howard into some kind of prostitute was just wrong. Michael Hirst may not have liked Catherine personally but to treat her in that way is just insulting to the viewers.
1:12 am
December 30, 2009
Offline
If you understand that the series is entertainment with a historical theme, then the fact that a few historical characters are missing is no real problem.
Basically the programme is a series of modern love and sex stories but has been put into a historical setting with pretty costumes and based around real people, whose lives have been transplanted into the 21st century with 21st century motivations. 
2:54 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
I'm all for artistic licence and using history as inspiration and changing story lines but the trouble comes when people believe it is true. HIrst has been quoted as saying that the majority of “The Tudors” is fact, so people may well believe that Catherine Howard was like that and that the Duke of Norfolk suddenly disappeared and had no role in the Pilgrimage of Grace whatsoever. It's like fiction when authors present themselves as historians, draw on real historical sources etc. and then make a huge change or twist, we then get people believing things like Anne Boleyn committed murder, George Boleyn was homosexual, Elizabeth I got pregnant by Seymour… and people are convinced that these are true facts. The lines between fact and fiction are blurred and we seem to have to constantly fight against such myths and falsehoods.
By the way, I'm not against “The Tudors” or historical fction whatsoever, that would make me a complete hypocrite, but I think I'd like to see authors and directors etc. make it clear where they have deviated from fact. Perhaps Hirst could bring out a book called something like “The Truth Behind The Tudors”, or perhaps we should!!
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
5:01 am
January 27, 2010
Offline
It is good entertainment, which is why it was made after all. And for us, a.k.a. people who realise the extent of the liberties being taken, we can say to ourselves “okay, this is totally fiction but it makes for good TV”. What concerns me is that people who watch it on a whim or because they like the actors will believe everything they see and not know any better. There's enough ignorance in the world as it is. However saying that, if watching the show prompts someone to go and read a book about Tudor history to find out the truth then that's great. To sum up, I do like 'The Tudors' but I have it in perspective.
On a side note, I find Hans Matheson hard to take as Cranmer because I first saw him playing the Earl of Essex in 'The Virgin Queen'. The roles could not be more different!
11:44 am
January 9, 2010
Offline
Ah, I knew I'd seen 'Cranmer' in something else and it was really bugging me because for the life of me I couldn't remember what, so thanks for pointing that out Beth!
Artistic license in a movie or TV series is fine up to a point, but surely with the Tudors fact is stranger than fiction! That's partly why I love the period so much! I mean, Henry VIII, you couldn't make him up, could you?!
6:09 am
January 27, 2010
Offline
Bella44 said:
I mean, Henry VIII, you couldn't make him up, could you?!
Nicely put, Bella! 🙂
6:09 pm
March 8, 2010
Offline
Hello!
I've been lurking for a while but wanted to add to this thread 🙂 I have been fascinated by medieval and Renaissance English history since I was a child, and avoided watching The Tudors for a long time because of the reported inaccuracies.
A friend lent me Season One, and my husband and I have been watching it with surprising enjoyment, for the most part! It's not as well-written as Rome, but is still a lot of fun, and many of the mistakes or errors are easily overlooked.
The anachronisms and errors are sometimes puzzling to me, though, because parts of the series are so beautifully and carefully done. There's been a great deal of research and a great deal of money has been spent on costumes and sets. (I loved the rendition of the Field of the Cloth of Gold, for example). Some of the errors are amusing, others are more infuriating to me!
1. I hate, hate, hate the Margaret Tudor storyline. Complete fabrication. Why was this added? The very idea of Henry's unmarried sister being left alone on board a ship with a young man is nuts. And because Margaret hasn't married James of Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots will shortly be lacking a grandmother 🙂
2. The costumes. Dear lord, some of them are so bad. It's clearly not that the designers don't know how to design an accurate Tudor costume, because many of the costumes are fabulous. But then we get the really, really crazy women's costumes with off the shoulder bodices which drive me nuts. The costumes for the masque (the white lycra corsets with the ruffs) were insane 🙂 The unbound hair is a little OTT, too! I guess they're sexing the whole thing up, but it looks pretty silly to me.
3. My husband and I have a little drinking game going: every time a 19th century carriage appears, pretending to be a 16th century carriage, we take a slug 🙂
4. While I was pleasantly surprised to see Thomas Tallis included, why did they have to mess with his sexuality? There were plenty of fascinating real Tudor-era gays and bisexuals that I don't understand why they had to homosexualize Tallis.
5. The Duke of Buckingham, who did, indeed, have a very good claim to the throne, was played by an actor with a northern accent. Buckingham was born in Wales and lived in Gloucestershire. That was a little odd. But what really distressed me was the way the actor was asked to play Buckingham's execution. Here's a nobleman and a warrior going to his death for compassing the murder of the King. There is no way I can imagine such a man snivelling, crying and begging, and having to be held down. He would have gone with dignity, stoicism and pride.
6. Henry could not have been given a copy of Macchiavelli's The Prince around 1521, of course, because it wasn't published until the 1530s.
Well, that's it for me, I'm watching episode 4 at the moment, so I'm sure there's more to come!
3:05 pm
January 27, 2010
Offline
Hi dangerousmezzo,
I totally agree with you about the costumes! For the most part they haven't improved on the traditional Tudor shape, especially for the women. The movie of 'The Other Boleyn Girl' successfully managed to make its costumes sexy (Anne's green dress springs to mind) but they were still essentially Tudor and, I think, more attractive than the costumes in 'The Tudors'. As for the men, Mark Smeaton in particular, they all look as if they would fit nicely into an Elizabethan drama!
The combining of Mary and Margaret is also something that really bugs me! It's not like the audience would have trouble understanding that Henry had two sisters instead of one!
