There seems to be a tendency in making "historical" television shows that excessive cursing and full frontal male and female nudity equates to "authenticity". "Rome", as a perfect example, had massive amounts of f-bombs and the like, yet managed to balance it out with a very well developed script and adherence to historical sources and events, making it very accurate in its portrayal of the way events were perceived by contemporaries and modern historians. One can never get 100% accuracy, so certain elements are always sacrificed on the altar of entertainment. A fact that can be easily accepted if it's done properly. Deadwood took the cursing a bit too far for my taste, but I suppose people of that era had less class. Spartacus: Blood and Sand, takes it to a ridiculous level. Not because of the frequency but because of the way it is incorporated into the extremely wooden dialogue, which frankly tries much too hard to be "authentic". There are good elements in it, though. Lucy Lawless and John Hannah are well cast and fight to elevate the bad writing to something more acceptable. Whitfield is not horrible but not a vision either.
The main problem with this particular show lies in what came before it. I have seen those who state that you cannot compare this to "Rome" even though it has obviously been spawned by a wish to create a show of equal quality, much like many writes attempted to create the new "Lost", which never really succeeded. "Spartacus" tries to combine the intrigues and well-written script of "Rome" with the macho images and fighting from "300", yet the graphics department on this show were either not very talented, ill-instructed or poorly funded. Or maybe even all three because the CGI is horrible. It looks like the cinematics of computer games from the mid-1990s and while they looked awesome then, now, they look old-fashioned and less realistic. Additionally, it hurts itself by drawing inspiration from "300", which was really, really, really bad. I mean super horrible. The constant slow motion fight scenes and super-buffed and oiled men gets old really fast.
Bottom line is, that "Spartacus" had the potential for being fantastic. Had they brought in more inspiration from "Rome" and the original "Spartacus", with Kirk Douglas, instead of letting itself be diluted with the unmitigated crap that excretes from "300", it could have brought us a great spectacle, which would have been utterly enjoyed. Instead, you find yourself waiting for it to end, so you can move on to better things. Ducktales, perhaps.
The main problem with this particular show lies in what came before it. I have seen those who state that you cannot compare this to "Rome" even though it has obviously been spawned by a wish to create a show of equal quality, much like many writes attempted to create the new "Lost", which never really succeeded. "Spartacus" tries to combine the intrigues and well-written script of "Rome" with the macho images and fighting from "300", yet the graphics department on this show were either not very talented, ill-instructed or poorly funded. Or maybe even all three because the CGI is horrible. It looks like the cinematics of computer games from the mid-1990s and while they looked awesome then, now, they look old-fashioned and less realistic. Additionally, it hurts itself by drawing inspiration from "300", which was really, really, really bad. I mean super horrible. The constant slow motion fight scenes and super-buffed and oiled men gets old really fast.
Bottom line is, that "Spartacus" had the potential for being fantastic. Had they brought in more inspiration from "Rome" and the original "Spartacus", with Kirk Douglas, instead of letting itself be diluted with the unmitigated crap that excretes from "300", it could have brought us a great spectacle, which would have been utterly enjoyed. Instead, you find yourself waiting for it to end, so you can move on to better things. Ducktales, perhaps.
Tell Your Friends