The Tudors TV Show - The Tudors Television Show - Yahoo! TV

The historical inaccuracies are really absurd. I really could not believe they mixed up Henry's sisters. Margaret married into Scotland and was the mother of Mary Queen of Scots, the cousin whom Elizabeth I had executed. Henry's younger sister Mary married an aging King in France and then married her love, Charles Brandon, when the old King Died. I did wonder where that young French king who signed the treaty came from, because the King of France at that time was elderly. Then I realized--there was no such signing. These are only a few sins againts truth.
For cryingoutloud. This is not arcane stuff. These are basic facts any high school student, or anyone who had a read a Tudor coffee table book should know. Someone said they like the "adultness". Adult? Adolescent more like it. You mean sex, sex and more sex? Not the conversation, thoughts, psychology? Just more and more soft porn?
A remarkably and truly adult film was A Man for all Seasons. I recognized it as adult even when I was sixteen.
Except for Queen Catherine, most of the females look like they should be in some B movie.
Meyers doesn't look like Henry and is too brooding for the young King, who was actually pretty hale and hearty before he was sickened by venereal disease. And yes, Anne Boleyn's physical appearance, including dark eyes, was part of the story. Looks do matter in many stories--they can be an intrinsic part, which is why I absolutely hate when they cast a drastically different type for a person whose looks are well known.

I have seen only Episodes 1 to 4, but thus far this series has been a disappointment for me. My rating is actually a 2.5 rather than a 3, but then I have to give the creators some credit for attempting to bring one of the most interesting periods in English history (and a personal favourite of mine) to life. I just wish that "recreating" history didn't have to mean reinventing it. Don't get me wrong. I am willing to bend a little with respect to some inaccuracies because I realize that the primary objective is not so much to educate but to entertain. That said, I cannot help but be troubled by the thought that viewers of this series may mistake all of what they are seeing as factual. This is the same problem I had with the movie "Elizabeth" that starred Cate Blanchett, which (no surprise!) was also the handiwork of Michael Hirst. I think both should come with disclaimers - something to the effect of "What you are about to see is for your viewing enjoyment and is not intended to be an accurate portrayal of historical persons and events". This way when one sees such things as in Episode 4 when Henry VIII's sister Margaret (who is actually modelled after his younger sister Mary) suffocating her elderly husband (who was actually the King of France and not Portugal) with a pillow, one might stop short of believing that one of Henry VIII's sisters was a murderer.
My other issues are with respect to casting and costuming. My biggest disappointment has been the casting of Anne Boleyn. The actress (Natalie Dormer) possesses neither the physical attributes nor the personality that attracted Henry VIII to her character according to what we know. While not a great beauty, Anne Boleyn caught the King's attention because she was so different from the other women at court at the time with her exotic dark complexion and "fine" eyes (so dark they were almost black according to contemporaries). She was also quick-witted, vivacious and prided herself on her French mannerisms (both she and her sister, Mary, were raised for many years in France). All of this has been completely overlooked in favour of what I'm not sure. As for Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, I appreciate his acting abilities and have enjoyed his performances in other films. However, he simply does not do justice to his character either. Henry VIII was larger than life. A testament to male virility, he towered well over many of his contemporaries. Even if he had not been king, he was the type of man who would have commanded admiration and respect. For this reason, I (and others I know who watch the series) think that Steven Waddington, who plays the Duke of Buckingham in the show, would have made a much more interesting and convincing Henry. The rest of the casting is passable. I have to say that Sam Neill's portrayal as Cardinal Wolsey is beginning to win me over because I wasn't initially impressed with his casting in this role either (perhaps there's still hope for Dormer and Meyers to prove me wrong, but I doubt it). Now for costuming. Recreating historic costuming is a particular hobby of mine. I will say that the show does well on several fronts. My only peeve is that I would like to have seen more attention paid to the headwear for the women. I haven't seen a single headdress on any of the women that would have been worn at that time except for the occasional French Hood (or what they have attempted to pass off as a French Hood). Speaking of which, the French Hood was introduced at the English court by none other than Anne Boleyn and yet, you seldom see her wearing one. I would also like to know where they found the inspiration for some of Queen Katherine's headgear - Wizards and Warriors perhaps? No, I would really like to know if they are doing the research or simply dreaming them up. What I know about that period is that the Gabled Hood was worn by Queen Katherine and as a result, it was the most common headdress worn by noble women in England at that time. To date I have yet to see a Gabled Hood on any of the actresses. In fact, what I have noticed the women wearing are hats and hoods from the Elizabethan period which are completely out of context considering that Elizabeth I hasn't been born yet! On the other hand, I think the show has done a great job of capturing the overall look and feel of the Tudor period..
Now some may think that much of what I've said is purely nit-picking and won't matter to the majority of people who watch this show. My answer to this is yes, I'm sure you're right. My point is that I don't see what the creators of the show thought to gain by not portraying the people and events more truthfully. If it's all about the sex, then that doesn't make sense either because sexual escapades and political maneuverings were a part of the Tudor era which is why it's such a fascinating period to study. So to sum it up, my opinion of the show is that while it succeeds on some levels, where it fails are in areas that I simply cannot overlook. This is probably a case of where ignorance would have been bliss for then I could have appreciated the show for what it is - a primetime soap opera loosely based on period history.

I too, have a BA in history and I LOVE the two episodes of the Tudors I have seen. So what if Katherine (it was originally spelled with a K instead of the English spelling)of Aragon's hair was a different color? Hasn't anyone noticed Anne Boleyn's eyes are blue when really they were black? One is supposed to get caught up in the lives, the loves, the intrigues....and I am. Relax and enjoy.

I have found the Tudors to be a gripping drama, rich with luxurious sets and costumes. The acting is top notch as well, but I am apalled however, by the historical innacuracies. One of my great ancestors Hans Holbein the Younger was a court painter for Henry VIII, and my fascination for this time period has never been quenched. I am always digging up something new.

I don't think the directors really thought this storyline through, and even though it is popular and compelling to watch, I doubt the producers will be able to sustain a false storyline for very long. I will give this season a chance, but I may ditch watching it all together.