Historical Dramas?

>Raul Shit

Attached: 5F94DF6B-5D90-4FC4-A0CE-D8B30A9F3BBC.jpg (2560x1920, 1.39M)

I agree with what you're saying which is why I've given up completely on modern TV and movies and am concentrating on the older stuff.

Insider knowledge, wanna know why the BBC does this? Because it has to to sell to America. America is where BBC makes most of its additional money now so diversifies to make sure it sells to USA.

>implying dr who is marketed toward americans

Attached: 1503859118724.webm (854x480, 1.71M)

NuWho is one of their biggest exports.

[citation needed[

>Asks for recs
>spergs out like an underage Yea Forumstard when someone gives a rec
Fuck off, you don't even know a single thing about the series, dumbfuck.
also, there's a board for this, newfag.

Your recs are trash idiot. Also clearly you can't read, because nowhere did the OP ask for recs.

He didn't recommend it. I did.
>Why hasn't there been a single good historical drama since Rome?
>Wolf Hall is good.
I disproved his false claim. Obviously none of you have seen the show since you are sperging like a 12 year old idiot.

>I disproved his false claim
Hey moron, mindlessly claiming the contrary is not the same as "disproving a false claim".

This is why idiots like you can't be listened to; you don't even understand how to use the english language properly.

I gave an example of a good historical drama. Which means that his claim was false. There was also the John Adams miniseries in 2008. Another good historical drama. His claim is stupid and factually incorrect.

>I gave an example of a good historical drama
Good, only according to you. That's not quite the same as "disproving a false claim" you utterly braindead idiot. Did your mother drop you as a baby?

Yes according to me the claim is disproven, unless you have seen the show you have no business talking about whether the claim was disproven. Also it's not only me but many people since the show is quite highly regarded. The claim is false that's quite an objective statement since it's completely idiotic. The definition of historical drama can be stretched very thin and lot of shows can fit within that description. I did disprove it by providing an example of a TV show which is good. Of course what's good is subjective but in general the show is well regarded therefore i did provide a counterpoint to his claim and effectively disproved his claim it since it's idiotic and incorrect. There are many shows that could be labeled as historical dramas since Rome that are good.

Attached: 1562876316636.jpg (375x211, 27K)

And what of good Solonius

Attached: 405955-solonius_large.jpg (300x450, 27K)

>I gave an example of a good historical drama. Which means that his claim was false
You are so stupid it's funny.

Attached: e09.png (645x729, 69K)

And what of bad Solonius?

Attached: 1562250287728.png (350x389, 237K)

How is Elizabeth R?

The Borgias?

Sharpe is pretty good, but not really a drama

tfw no more Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo adventures, it hurts bros

Triggered to the 10th degree, how embarrassing, you got dabbed on by two randoms on Yea Forums

Wolf Hall was incredible

>imagine writing all that shit and still being wrong

Attached: 1475582196586.jpg (491x713, 64K)

is this good, like accurate good? cause I've just been watching docus, reading up shit about rome lately. Never been interested in history till now. The stories during those times is like a good version of GoT.

henry isn't as central to it, Thomas Cromwell doesn't usually feature as much in stories

I put a Tardis on my tinder profile and started getting mad nerd pussy

>Never been interested in history till now

Attached: 1508695652016.png (403x448, 53K)

It's not accurate. It's authentic. It's not a history book in tv show format. It's entertainment. But it's really good entertainment.

What went wrong with the BBC?

There were quite a few of them around that time. It's an in and out thing. Right now we're in the age of capeshit. Sooner or later though we'll start seeing these pop back up as people get tired of whatever is popular at the moment.

What lies beneath your feet?

Attached: 9F874780-4755-450A-8ED7-83678FE4EFB2.jpg (500x281, 26K)

Edward the King >>>>> Elizabeth R

this.
Wolf Hall is fucking incredible
better than Rome

good solonius

Attached: solonius.jpg (299x168, 6K)

The two principal characters were mentioned by Caesar in one of his writings, but that's where it ends for them. It's based on historical events (obviously), but romanticized in many ways. The look of the setting has been considered one of the more accurate depictions of Rome.

All in all, it's a great show that wasn't given the chance it deserved. They were told it was going to be cancelled at the end of season 1, so they had to time warp season 2 to close the story up. Some of the people who worked on it are pissy about it, especially considering the success of Game of Thrones, which Kevin McKidd thinks stole their thunder.

For me it's Cossutius

Attached: Cossutius.jpg (321x350, 11K)

r u ok?

>Every fucking day. Every single fucking day when i come home this little faggot just sits there and gives me this stupid look on his face. What should i do about him? Ideas?

>muh accuracy
What absolute horseshit. You don't care about accuracy at all. You just don't like seeing black people etc represented, ever.

Did you watch Atlanta, or Insecure, two of the very best recent tv shows, featuring all black casts? Or Rami about Muslims? Or Better Things or My Brilliant Friend
or Mildred Pierce about women? I highly doubt it.

'Accuracy' is a total excuse. Those shows are 'accurate' to their own worlds and what they're about. You're just utterly disinterested because of the subject matter and the fact that they're actually good quality doesn't matter to you.

Attached: elmo.jpg (1024x1536, 222K)

is it worth picking up?

>these shows are (((accurate)))

holy shit

How are they not?

Why do all Roman films or shows have Celto-Germans from Britannia playing the Roman patricians?

Because nobody wants to look at swarthy italians.

>It's the Americans fault!
Is that why you look the other way at rape gangs too? America's fault?

Attached: 1501707793032.png (800x3857, 1.74M)

Ramy actually seems nice, thanks user I'll check that out some time.

Do, it's very good

COSSUTIUS!

Attached: 1562910822955.jpg (1366x768, 143K)

It's one of my favorite shows. If you like historical pieces, and like Rome in general, you will probably like the show. Few on Yea Forums have anything to bad to say about it. They might say there are better shows, but that's probably it.

>Spare me the modern BBC's modernized garbage

But Wolf Hall was very good. As was Taboo.

maybe because they keep blackwashing history?

What a cunt.

What are you talking about?

The last kingdom

shit like
and joan arc
and isabel
and a dozen others
not just bbc

I didn't mention any of those shows though, and I definitely didn't say or suggest that they are accurate.

I'm sold. Looking up where to watch it now

>The BBC is unfit to make historical dramas while they're putting ideology above accuracy.
you responded with
>Those shows are 'accurate' to their own worlds and what they're about.
eat shit, pal

bump for interest
my mother was watching that on Netflix, looked like a ridiculous melodrama. sets and costumes looked good tho

>muh accuracy
>What absolute horseshit. You don't care about accuracy at all. You just don't like seeing black people etc represented, ever.
>Did you watch Atlanta, or Insecure, two of the very best recent tv shows, featuring all black casts? Or Rami about Muslims? Or Better Things or My Brilliant Friend
or Mildred Pierce about women? I highly doubt it.
>'Accuracy' is a total excuse. Those shows are 'accurate' to their own worlds and what they're about. You're just utterly disinterested because of the subject matter and the fact that they're actually good quality doesn't matter to you.

Directly after listing a bunch of things, when I say 'those things', I am clearly referring to the things which I have just listed. Is English your first language?

Did you also think I was referring to 'Joan of Arc', and 'Isabel', when I said:

>You're just utterly disinterested because of the subject matter and the fact that they're actually good quality doesn't matter to you.

That doesn't even make any sense, as you're complaining that 'they' have ruined historical dramas for you, which you are specifically interested in. So saying that you're disinterested in the subject matter of 'joan of arc' and 'isabel' makes no sense. And I have just referred to a couple of shows as being 'two of the very best recent tv shows' so when I then say 'good quality', it is clearly referring to them and not 'joan of arc' and 'isabel'.

Good. It's worth the watch. Also consider at the time that it was the most expensive tv show ever produced, something like 140 million was spent on the sets and filming locations, which is crazy for when it was made. Unfortunately, that also lead to its downfall, because HBO had the thought that making 1 show for 140 million wasn't as cost effective as making 10 shows for 140 million that might bring in the same, or even more, revenue. This was, however, proved extremely wrong as soon as Game of Thrones hit the scene, so it's kind of ironic really. If made today, Rome would have been given its chance and profited on it, no doubt. If there's anything to appreciate about what Game of Thrones did, it at least opened up on the road for future historical dramas.

Come on lad. We'd remember Game of Thrones just as fondly if it'd been cancelled after one season. Rome could quite easily have shit the bed if it continued, infact it did. People blame that on having to rush the plot, but really, the dynamic between Titus Pullo and Vorenus was better in forming, young octavian was 100 times more interesting and did we really want to see timon the horsefucker gallavanting in jeruselim?

Maximilian was a low budget miniseries back in 2016, it was very well produced and the acting was great too.

Anyone watched that medici tv series? does it have any history stuff or is it mostly just fiction? all i know that sean bean is in it.

Rome is only shit on because it was rushed, but that wasn't the fault of the writers, it was HBO when they pulled the plug. Main difference between GoT and Rome is that Rome had its entire story already written out and ready to go, they talked about what they had planned for 5 or so seasons, and it'd be hard to fuck up a story that's based entirely on historical events. GoT, however, ran out of GRRM material halfway through, and a bunch of new age shitters had to take over and fill in the blanks, and they clearly weren't good writers. Other than that, I'd also say a big difference was the timeframe it was made, as the shit hadn't quite hit the fan yet on the political spectrum when Rome was being made, so the chances that it would have fallen to modern day tropes is lessened.

I also happened to like the Pullo/Vorenus dynamic. It only feels weird because of how rushed season 2 was and their character development was severely cut. It might not have been noticeable really if their characters didn't pull a complete 180 in personality as they had initially written. They could have done better with that, but it's easily one of the best bromances in tv.

>Rome is only shit on because it was rushed
I just gave 3 criticisms of ongoing rome, S2, and hypothetical future series, which have nothing to do with that.

Did you even fucking read my post?

>it'd be hard to fuck up a story that's based entirely on historical events
wow, you are really really really stupid.
>Just pick some of history bro, wa la, magically good screenplay.

>as the shit hadn't quite hit the fan yet on the political spectrum when Rome was being made
I'm not even going to bother engaging with you any further. Don't even reply to this. Just fuck off back to /pol/ you dumbcunt boomer. You don't even like tv.

Attached: 391d726bf045901a89d153913b5fcfdc.jpg (1280x1920, 349K)

>Niggabel
no thanks

lol?

Vikings and Last Kingdom

spectacular post user