Author Topic: Tutankhamun. (Read 8655 times)

wigginhall · « **Reply #50 on:** October 17, 2016, 04:55:44 PM »

A recent example that got some people hopping about was Victoria (in the ITV production) being in love with Lord Melbourne, not true, say some people. So what? Hint: it's not a documentary.

Nearly Sane · « **Reply #51 on:** October 17, 2016, 04:58:01 PM »

Quote from: Anchorman on October 17, 2016, 04:54:27 PM

The show was billed as a historical drama, NS. 'Hysterical', might have been a better word.

Historical drama simply means a drama that can be tied in with some history. They bill Poldark as historical drama. The key word is drama.

wigginhall · « **Reply #52 on:** October 17, 2016, 05:03:41 PM »

FFS, it's not a documentary, no more than 'Lawrence of Arabia', also full of inaccuracies. I give up.

Enki · « **Reply #53 on:** October 17, 2016, 05:32:04 PM »

Quote from: wigginhall on October 17, 2016, 05:03:41 PM

FFS, it's not a documentary, no more than 'Lawrence of Arabia', also full of inaccuracies. I give up.

I agree. I haven't seen this, so I cannot actually comment on it. However, Shakespeare's Macbeth, as has already been said, is full of historical inaccuracies but, to my mind, remains moving and powerful drama.

wigginhall · « **Reply #54 on:** October 17, 2016, 05:51:09 PM »

I think a lot of historical novelists do a lot of research and pride themselves on their accuracy, for example, Hilary Mantel (Wolf Hall). But she has to fill in a lot of stuff, for example, conversations and meetings, where there is no record. The TV version did get criticized to a degree, e.g. Thomas More was shown as something of a villain, whereas everyone remembers Paul Scofield's beatific version in 'A Man for all Seasons'.

But the Tudors do attract a lot of writers, and for some reason, people get very upset about some portrayals, how dare you show Anne Boleyn as a scheming Protestant bitch, she was a nice girl, and Henry was a knob.

Nearly Sane · « **Reply #55 on:** October 17, 2016, 05:57:04 PM »

As I have asked before, how should I see the history of Catiline, which I would love to see a drama of.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catiline

Walt Zingmatilder · « **Reply #56 on:** October 17, 2016, 06:08:22 PM »

Quote from: Nearly Sane on October 17, 2016, 10:33:14 AM

I'm still scarred by the memory of The Cleopatras.

Infamy, Infamy.....they've all got it infamy!

Anchorman · « **Reply #57 on:** October 17, 2016, 09:19:59 PM »

Quote from: I can't believe it's not Vlad. on October 17, 2016, 06:08:22 PM

Infamy, Infamy.....they've all got it infamy!

...........which was infinately better than 'The Cleopatras'...........

Anchorman · « **Reply #58 on:** November 06, 2016, 10:33:10 PM »

I should have watched 'Planet Earth 2', but, out of morbid curiosity. I endured tonight's final part. I wish I hadn't bothered.

trippymonkey · « **Reply #59 on:** November 06, 2016, 11:14:35 PM »

Sir David was on BEEB 1 an hour earlier than Tut anyway DOH ?!?!!??

jeremyp · « **Reply #60 on:** November 06, 2016, 11:20:29 PM »

Quote from: Anchorman on October 17, 2016, 01:46:37 PM

Nope.
In Writing Macbeth, he was ignoring the facts in order to crawl to James VI.
Political sycophancy.
The Brummie bard couldn't even remember the name of Macbeth's queen - Gruoch - who acted as regent while Macbeth went to Rome.
And he conveniently glossed over the fact that Macbeth was suceeded, not by Malcolm, but by Lulach.
That means his idea of truth bears no relation to the reality.

I don't think there was ever any pretence that Macbeth was based on fact. It's fiction that just happens to use the name of a real King.

jeremyp · « **Reply #61 on:** November 06, 2016, 11:41:20 PM »

Quote from: wigginhall on October 17, 2016, 05:51:09 PM

The TV version did get criticized to a degree, e.g. Thomas More was shown as something of a villain, whereas everyone remembers Paul Scofield's beatific version in 'A Man for all Seasons'.

In that case, the TV version was faithful to the book. Thomas More was something of a villain in the book.So who has the correct version of Thomas More? Hillary Mantel or Robert Bolt? The answer is probably neither, so, according to Maeght, both Wolfe Hall and A Man for all Seasons must be consigned to the rubbish bin.

Maeght · « **Reply #62 on:** November 07, 2016, 07:56:51 AM »

Quote from: jeremyp on November 06, 2016, 11:41:20 PM

In that case, the TV version was faithful to the book. Thomas More was something of a villain in the book.So who has the correct version of Thomas More? Hillary Mantel or Robert Bolt? The answer is probably neither, so, according to Maeght, both Wolfe Hall and A Man for all Seasons must be consigned to the rubbish bin.

A gross misrepresentation of what I said. Has it been niggling you all this time? Really?

jeremyp · « **Reply #63 on:** November 07, 2016, 07:58:41 AM »

Quote from: Maeght on November 07, 2016, 07:56:51 AM

A gross misrepresentation of what I said. Has it been niggling you all this time? Really?

Ahem

Quote

In my view a story about an actual historical figure should not misrepresent the facts about that individual.

Maeght · « **Reply #64 on:** November 07, 2016, 08:03:26 AM »

Quote from: jeremyp on November 07, 2016, 07:58:41 AM

Ahem

Which no where says they should be consigned to the dustbin. I was expressing my personal taste about misrepresentation of facts about historical figures and situations. You may not agree - and this has clearly been niggling you for sometime which is pretty sad really. Nothing better to think about?

jeremyp · « **Reply #65 on:** November 07, 2016, 08:09:02 AM »

Quote from: Maeght on November 07, 2016, 08:03:26 AM

Which no where says they should be consigned to the dustbin.

What, in your view, should happen to drama that misrepresents the facts then?

Quote

You may not agree - and this has clearly been niggling you for sometime which is pretty sad really.

What makes you think it's "niggling" me?

Clearly my criticism of your opinion is niggling you to make you react the way you have done.

Maeght · « **Reply #66 on:** November 07, 2016, 08:41:08 AM »

Quote from: jeremyp on November 07, 2016, 08:09:02 AM

What, in your view, should happen to drama that misrepresents the facts then?

Nothing - other than not being enjoyed by me.

Quote

What makes you think it's "niggling" me?

Because you made a point aimed at me when I was no longer involved in the discussion harking back to a point made sometime back.

Quote

Clearly my criticism of your opinion is niggling you to make you react the way you have done.

I wouldn't have responded if you hadn't made the post which was aimed at me and misrepresented what I had said sometime back in the discussion. I was irritated originally that you and others leapt onto a passing comment and tried to make it some intellectual debate, hence my dropping out of the thread. You bringing it back up suggests it has stayed in your mind.

There is a growing trend on here of certain posters trying to make every discussion into some battle of logic and intellect, which makes it a very tiresome place at times.

Anchorman · « **Reply #67 on:** November 07, 2016, 09:05:52 AM »

Quote from: trippymonkey on November 06, 2016, 11:14:35 PM

Sir David was on BEEB 1 an hour earlier than Tut anyway DOH ?!?!!??

Yep.....OI was elsewhere, though - Sunday and all that.
I should have watched PE2 on Iplayer at nine instead of shouting at the ITV station.

Udayana · « **Reply #68 on:** November 07, 2016, 11:32:23 AM »

lol. Glad I noticed your earlier comments and avoided the whole thing

News:

Author Topic: Tutankhamun. (Read 8655 times)