Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Some of the best stuff isn't the sex and fighting actually but the scheming and manipulative characters that fill the stories. I found it genuinely very good viewing far beyond just getting a look at Lucy Lawless, though she is pretty fine I think most would agree. It certainly went beyond my expectations though there is a lot of sex and violence. It's not Shakespeare, but it is entertaining.

You must be easily impressed, Spartacus does not really have a coherent plot, it has the character development of an episode of Green Acres. If anything the characters cardboard cutouts moving through a panoply of sex and blood pretending to be a historical drama.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I'm guessing some people either have a problem with the amount of sex or want to make out they are all grown up and above that sort of thing. Actually, there's plenty of interesting plotting and characters to enjoy in the series.

I don't mind blood or sex, I do mind horrible writing and padding episodes with slow motion bloodbaths and random orgies. I don't want to watch 300 and the Matrix's special needs child dressed up and presented in the form of a Beatrix Potter book.

Dice Monkey wrote:You must be easily impressed, Spartacus does not really have a coherent plot

Are we watching the same series?

I don't think we are.

Melissia wrote:

Dice Monkey wrote:You must be easily impressed, Spartacus does not really have a coherent plot

Are we watching the same series?

I don't think we are.

Yes we are I bought the DVD on recommendation of several people at work. I watched it thought it was mediocre at best, got into this same argument watched it again and realized mediocre was much to kind a rating to give it.

3 lines

sex or fight

3 lines

sex or fight

ad infinitum



Not my cup of tea, sorry.

Dice Monkey wrote:Depends on what you like. If you are a 13 year old boy who wants lots of "secks and bewbies" and gratuitous slow motion blood spatter than Spartacus is for you. If you are over 15 and want a show about Rome with good acting, coherent, well written story, and excellent characters to go with your sex and violence then you should watch HBO's much superior Rome.

Dice Monkey wrote:If you want "Secks, Bewbies, Blood, and slow motion to save on writers" then Spartacus Blood and Sand

Dice Monkey wrote:You must be easily impressed, Spartacus does not really have a coherent plot, it has the character development of an episode of Green Acres. If anything the characters cardboard cutouts moving through a panoply of sex and blood pretending to be a historical drama.

Dice Monkey wrote:I don't mind blood or sex, I do mind horrible writing and padding episodes with slow motion bloodbaths and random orgies. I don't want to watch 300 and the Matrix's special needs child dressed up and presented in the form of a Beatrix Potter book.

Dice Monkey wrote:Not my cup of tea, sorry.

Yeah bro, I think we get that. How many pages do you plan to spend reinforcing to everyone they shouldn't like things you don't like, FFS?

Dice Monkey wrote:You must be easily impressed, Spartacus does not really have a coherent plot, it has the character development of an episode of Green Acres. If anything the characters cardboard cutouts moving through a panoply of sex and blood pretending to be a historical drama.

You don't make any sense. I mean, I get that you don't like the show, nothing wrong with that. It's that your criticism makes no sense in terms of the show it is, or the show it sets out to be.

It'd be like complaining that Blade Runner didn't have enough unicorns. It's kind of right in that there's really only one unicorn, but at the same time it's silly because only the very strangest of people would sit there during a movie about technology of the future challenging our ideas of humanity and self wanting there to be more unicorns, and it's even sillier because really, having one unicorn in that kind of movie is kind of incredible. Spartacus is remarkably strong on characterisation, considering at the end of the day it is just a sword and sandals hackfest.

More bizarre is your claim that plot isn't coherent - the show contains a very simple tale of betrayal, revelation and revenge. It's simply told, exactly as you'd expect of a production that put story first and foremost. It'd be like if you said the problem with 300 hundred was that it was the plot was incoherent. For all the weaknesses of either, I'd really worry about anyone who came out thinking 'I just couldn't follow what was happening'.

You've basically taken the two points the series was strongest on and complained about them, a very strange thing to do in a show which otherwise has a large number of weaknesses (vast historical inaccuracies, very low ambitions, awkward dialogue, cheesy slo-mo in too many fights). Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have an opinion. It's just that when the reasons you don't like something are as poorly understood and articulated as you've managed here, perhaps you should consider not sharing that opinion with anyone else.

I loved it. One of the things I liked most was the language. By that I don't mean all the swearing. The writers actually put the sentences together much like the latin sentences would come out. There's no word for 'yes', so they say 'I would have it so'. The characterisation was fairly strong, everyone (as said by the above) has motives and their own personalities. You get very few "Gladiator A and B's"

Its alright...

Sub-par acting/casting is bouyed with full frontal nudity and sex scenes... the gladatorial bouts are overshadowed by the former.

Ouze wrote:
Yeah bro, I think we get that. How many pages do you plan to spend reinforcing to everyone they shouldn't like things you don't like, FFS?

When people stop trying to present it as anything more than mindless schlock.

sebster wrote:You don't make any sense. I mean, I get that you don't like the show, nothing wrong with that. It's that your criticism makes no sense in terms of the show it is, or the show it sets out to be.

When the story can do without half the characters there is a hell of a lot wrong with it.

AvatarForm wrote:Its alright...

Sub-par acting/casting is bouyed with full frontal nudity and sex scenes... the gladatorial bouts are overshadowed by the former.

This

I get that you hate the series.

I get it. No really, I do.

I don't care.

You're almost to the point of spam right now-- could you just drop it already, or am I going to just have to put you on ignore because you have nothing to say that's worth reading?

Dice Monkey wrote:
When the story can do without half the characters there is a hell of a lot wrong with it.

I am having trouble thinking of a story that would not be able to go on without half of its characters.


Spartacus: Blood and Sand was an entertaining, Rome-flavored romp through bedroom and battleground. Sometimes, that is all you need at the end of the day.

Dice Monkey wrote:When the story can do without half the characters there is a hell of a lot wrong with it.

Most stories can do without half their characters. Smaller budget productions of Hamlet have cut away half the cast and the plot and told the bare bones story quite well.

If there's a criticism of Spartacus, it's that (because the focus was entirely on telling one story) there were few subplots resolved independantly of the main plot, no greater exploration of the world outside of the betrayal and revenge plot. Spartacus would suffer far more than most for losing half its cast, which means you could have criticised the show for having too narrow a focus or too direct a plot, but instead you tried to claim the opposite.

It's becoming clear you either watched very little of the show, or have little idea how to think about a TV show to figure out its actual failings. Either way, it's probably a good time for you to reconsider whether anyone could get anything from your opinions.

Spartacus: Blood & Sand was absolutely terrible...




... for the first four episodes...




... after which it became a fantastic show that grew its story and it's characters really well to an exceptionally satisfying conclusion.

Yes, the gratuitous swearing is really jarring, especially at first. They seem to be swearing just for the sake of swearing at some points, but other than that the rest is fine. The prequel mini-series, Gods of the Arena, was great, and I cannot wait for Dustin Claire to return as Gannicus in the second season.

It's a real shame that Andy Wittfield passed away. He played Spartacus really well. Hopefully the new guy will be just as good.

H.B.M.C. wrote: and I cannot wait for Dustin Claire to return as Gannicus in the second season.

It's a real shame that Andy Wittfield passed away. He played Spartacus really well. Hopefully the new guy will be just as good.

Stoked. I didn't know Gannicus was returning. It does suck about Andy Whitfield, I think he would have had a lot of good stuff ahead of him.