Showtime's "The Borgias"

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnnykins said:
The “history” in The Tudors is too often unnecessarily plainly wrong. E.g., Henry’s older sister Margaret married the King of Scotland who was young and virile. Hence, Mary Queen of Scot’s claim to the throne. Henry’s younger sister Mary, who does not exist in the series, married the King of France, not Portugal, who was old. It was through her that Lady Jane Grey, through Mary’s second marriage, claimed the throne. Those errors are only the most glaring and unnecessary. Indeed they are puzzling.
Click to expand...
I did notice these. I also wonder why they had Cardinal Wosley kill himself, whereas he real life he died of illness. I guess dying from sickness is less “exciting” than killing oneself. But really, it’s unnecessary to depict him killing himself. 🤷
Henry wanted a legitimate son because his father had fought a civil war, The War of the Roses, to become King and no woman had successfully reigned in England in her own right. The Empress Matilda (aka Maud), daughter and heir of Henry I, claimed the throne but a civil war started and her cousin Stephen of Blois held the throne with Matilda more an historical footnote. Granted HVIII “wanted” Anne - but he really wanted a son to try to head off civil war.
Click to expand...
Regarding this, I know that is the main reason he divorced Katherine. That, and he believed that his lack-of-a-son was due to God’s punishment for, supposedly, marrying his deceased brother’s wife. They depicted that in The Tudors very nicely, I think.
 
I saw the Tudors and as someone who read widely about them I agree that show was not very historically true. Henry actually had 2 sisters. One who divorced almost as many times as he did and another who ran off with her brothers best friend after her elderly first husband the King of France died. They kind of blended the two into one and cut out the best parts of the story which really annoyed me. Back to the Borgias. I know only a little about them and what I do know is from fictionalized novels and a TV miniseries that was on cable in the 90s so I don’t know how true to the real story it was.
 
The Tudors was actually pretty good for what it was: a fictionalized account of Henry VIII. They had to make him attractive because no one wants to watch a fat Henry VIII covorting around the kingdom.

I was actually surprised at how well the show treated the Church and the priesthood as well. It was favorable to them and usually respectful as well, especially in regards to Thomas More.

The thing about the Borgias to understand is that the Church at that time was very different than it is no; it was corrupt and very political. And by Church I’m referring to the hierarchy, and not the spiritual nature of it.

With that said, the Borgias is a very well made show (complete with the required Showtime sex and nudity of course) and you should give it a look. It takes a few episodes to get going, though, so be patient.
 
The Tudors was actually pretty good for what it was: a fictionalized account of Henry VIII. They had to make him attractive because no one wants to watch a fat Henry VIII covorting around the kingdom.

I was actually surprised at how well the show treated the Church and the priesthood as well. It was favorable to them and usually respectful as well, especially in regards to Thomas More.

The thing about the Borgias to understand is that the Church at that time was very different than it is no; it was corrupt and very political. And by Church I’m referring to the hierarchy, and not the spiritual nature of it.

With that said, the Borgias is a very well made show (complete with the required Showtime sex and nudity of course) and you should give it a look. It takes a few episodes to get going, though, so be patient.
 
The chair with a hole in it to see if the Pope is male, is fiction. Just thought I’d put that out there for those who may not know.
 
I have to say I tried watching in and thought the sex scenes were to much. I would of been mortified if my husband came in when the priest was giving the girl oral sex. I don’t think they need to emphasize that.
 
Yes, that is the unfortunate thing about many of these shows, they overuse the sex, and it actually serves a negative purpose. Rather than shocking the audience, or advancing the storylines, it only serves to disgust the audience and make them uncomfortable.
 
I was excited to find it on my Netflix becuase that part of history interests me, and disappointed to see the scenes and how graphic they are 😦
 
Magister102 said:
Yes, that is the unfortunate thing about many of these shows, they overuse the sex, and it actually serves a negative purpose. Rather than shocking the audience, or advancing the storylines, it only serves to disgust the audience and make them uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
That is a valid opinion.

But…
Showtime did give it an expanded second season.

In defense of a really good show, Pope Alexander’s family did not suffer from being overly pious in regards to sexual morality.

And it is such a nice alterative to whatever CSI (or police drama) is on.
 
Don’t the sex scenes count as pornography under the Catechism’s definition (simulated sex is included in the definition) and therefore gravely sinful?
 
porthos11 said:
Don’t the sex scenes count as pornography under the Catechism’s definition (simulated sex is included in the definition) and therefore gravely sinful?
Click to expand...
And, I would add, nothing prevents us from skipping to the next scene of the DVD (or turning-off the TV for a few moments).

For myself, I am much more disturbed by the level of violence shown on prime-time network television (and basic cable) than by a few moments of “simulated sex” on premium networks.

But that is neither here nor there for most American audiences.

:rolleyes:
 
petitfleur said:
I was excited to find it on my Netflix becuase that part of history interests me, and disappointed to see the scenes and how graphic they are 😦
Click to expand...
Well, we’re talking about the Borgias. These times weren’t the moral pinnacle of the Papacy! 😉
 
Marchmain1987 said:
And, I would add, nothing prevents us from skipping to the next scene of the DVD (or turning-off the TV for a few moments).

For myself, I am much more disturbed by the level of violence shown on prime-time network television (and basic cable) than by a few moments of “simulated sex” on premium networks.

But that is neither here nor there for most American audiences.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
): I love violence. I admit it. I have my limits though… and sometimes I think they just go too far.
 
I thought the show Borgias was ok, somewhat off alittle historically but I dont think that was the intended story line for the series. Got to remember its coming from the entertainment world. Sure wouldn’t buy it!

The Tudors was pretty decent I thought. Good history. Too bad they ended it
 
What are we to think of the t.v. series “The Borgias.” First of all is it historically accurate? second of all is it anti-Catholic? Third should any decent Catholic actually watch it?
 
It’s more anti-Borgia than anti-Church. It does a great job of immersing us in the context of the period. I recommend it.
 
The_Scott said:
It’s more anti-Borgia than anti-Church. It does a great job of immersing us in the context of the period. I recommend it.
Click to expand...
Well… good because i’m both pro-Church, and anti-Borgia! I’ll have to check it out.👍
 
I must admit, I have become increasingly interested in the show as well. And in turn, it’s gotten me interested in the Rodrigo Borgia and how is papal reign is viewed amongst Catholic historians and apologists.

Anyone know what their views are on this?
 
I love the show. I am partway through the first season. I recommend it highly, although naturally, the historicity is at times suspect.
 
Just watch out for the sexual content in some scenes. Over all it’s a good series!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top