Hacker Cinema
The Tudors
2007 · TV series · 55 min episodes · 4 seasons
Created by Michael Hirst
The Tudors is a history-based drama series following the young, vibrant King Henry VIII, a competitive and lustful monarch who navigates the intrigues of the English court and the human heart with equal vigor and justifiable suspicion.
3 positive1 negative4 neutralfrom 8 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
8 comments on Hacker News
Sam Neill had a great & prolific career; particularly appreciated his role as Cardinal Thomas Wolsey on The Tudors
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000554/
Good question, Like you mentioned, Sean Bean(very well known from goldeneye and LOTR), Lena Hedley was known for her terminator work, Peter Dinklage(Elf, Nip/Tuck), and lets not forget Natalie Dormer(playing Anne Boylen on the tudors, a popular TV series a few years before GOT). Basically if you watched popular scifi/historical shows/movies these characters(some) were well known.
I wish the title had not been edited from its original: "Everyone is Beautiful and No One is Horny." It captures so much better the essence of this rambling incomprehensible thesis that action movies have many beautiful people not having any sex. Alternate title: "Everyone drives cars in cities and no one is seen parking." To use his example, Starship Trooper is an action movie with satirical subtext, it is not served by having more horny people bang. Every narrative has to be edited to GET TO THE POINT. And then he leans on this faulty premise to criticize a bunch of weirdly unrelated stuff, movies made after the 90s, the cluttered interiors, McMansions, swoles, BMIs and 9/11. What?
There's plenty of beautiful naked people having sex on screen, uncomfortably many. Where has this writer been? The Tudors, anachronistic boobs and asses and fornicating beautiful people since 2007. This formula was so successful it's repeated in Games of Thrones, the trope so commonly employed it earned the moniker of "sexposition", naked people banging + dialogue = sex + exposition. It's also repeated in Versailles, Outlander, and from what I've seen of ep.1 Bridgerton. There's also plenty of beautiful people having sex, or at least demonstrating their horny-ness in RomComs, Sleeping With Other People comes to mind. Somehow I don't think the author was the audience for any of the above. He's complaining that there's not enough horny people in the movies he is watching.
> To be fair, they are never portrayed in a very realistic way. Or at least not in a way in which you care about the characters dying on screen.
I'm not sure I agree. Usually they are not, but perhaps you might re-watch Saving Private Ryan. It's not the only gory war movie, but it does a remarkable job of showcasing horrific things we humans do to each other. The knife fight scene is especially disturbing.
"The Tudors" also had some pretty cruel punishments, though often it's not carried off on-screen. Even when the people being tortured are not protagonists, it's hard not to empathize in the "oh god that's just not right" way.
You make a good point though about there still being terrible things going on in other parts of the globe.
The problem with Netflix is the problem with a lot of companies: the customers are taken for granted.
If you have a Netflix account, look at reviews of The Black Tower or The Tudors. For weeks they've been broken -- out-of-sync audio/video on The Black Tower, mislabeled episodes of The Tudors season 2, I guess Whale Wars was also mislabeled (http://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/i74kw/after_a_few_completely_out_of_order_seasons_of/). Use the standard form to notify Netflix of the problem or even complain directly into the reviews... you might as well talk to a brick wall. Same thing if you're upset that they constantly wait until right before a series is about to be pulled from instant streaming to post a notice.
None of that would take any significant investment to fix, just a commitment to deliver an excellent customer experience. It's obviously not the reason why the stock price halved itself lately but I feel it demonstrates the sort of lazy arrogance towards the customer experience (as does the Quikster saga) that will ill serve the company when it faces some real competition over the next couple of years.
(I did keep my 2 DVD + streaming plan through the rate increase though.)
It's done manually, when the iPlayer was new there was talk of this being done, that you can rent servers in every exchange. BBC are really relaxed about piracy (in comparison to others) so this might not be common.
Too hard to work out what should be cached. Should BBC send the latest episode of Eastenders, Hustle, Tudors etc to every ISP before it's up for download? (Yes) Should Youtube try to guess which of its popular videos will be in demand next week? (No) Should Steam send out its new games? (Yes) You have to pick services where there aren't too many options, the iPlayer and Steam together have less than 2k items, and have a fairly predictable future demand.
Yep, we got rid of it about 8 months ago. All of the programming we watch is, for the most part, available on the public TV stations (NBC, ABC, etc.), or on Hulu. I set up a Windows Media Center PC to DVR our shows on broadcast TV, although we could just as easily rely on Hulu if we were willing to wait a day or two to see the shows. We also have Netflix.
We are also serial Pay Per View watchers, but now that $5/movie is going to either Playstation Network or Xbox Live/Zune, depending on which TV we want to watch it on, for about the same price. We have also been known on occasion to pay for TV series on iTunes (such as Tudors) that aren't available anywhere else.
For sports, we have ESPN3, which is also coming to Xbox Live shortly.
We are a 2 income household making a 6-figure income, so it is most decidedly not that we can't afford it -- it is simply that we got tired of paying for something so worthless.
What would get us to come back? Reasonable, a la carte channel ordering. I would, for example, shell out $2 or $3 per month for Bravo and a half dozen other stations that feature content we actually watched. But we had 300 channels and I didn't watch 297 of them -- why should I pay for them?
Also, I've never understood why everything isn't just available on-demand (like Hulu). If I have access to Bravo, I should be able to see any already-shown episode of Top Chef that I want, without having "recorded" it -- that should just be part of the subscription. Live TV should only be used if you want to watch sports, or the premier of an episode. Makes no sense not to provide this and make your customers happier.
Yeh, definitely fiction is not to be considered factually conclusive or anything. But The Tudors was great for light information about Tudor life, The Da Vinci code was insightful in terms of classical history.
The idea is that if stuff sparks your interest you can always go read into it in more depth. Otherwise you have at least a baseline; I have absolutely no interest in the Tudors, really, but the TV series means I could at least try to have a worthwhile conversation with a Tudor history buff :)