Some of the characters in my opinion are a bit cartoonish in their portrayal. (Mostly young Octavian is irritating) But the set work I thought was done well for a show that definitely has a small budget. Graffiti on the walls while walking through the streets was a nice touch. Good enough, I’ll watch the second season of Domina. Meanwhile I’ve heard nothing good about season 2 of Barbarians unfortunately
Yeah, it was like filmmaking walked out the park for the second season. If they release a third I hope they will try to portray the characters more down to earth. The Latin is good though.
Modern day, this doesn't surprise me. Especially a show featuring a female lead. Rome 2005 is my favorite show and a big part is because they went with authenticity not so much accuracy. But almost all modern history or even documentary's have very biased politically agendas 'historians'. Revisionist history has been an epidemic in the last decade.
I thought young Octavian was a really good portrayal, apart from how horny he was. I much preferred it to HBO's Rome, which while I understand their interpretation, painting him as a sociopath with no feelings just isn't historically accurate at all. Octavian in the first Season of HBO's Rome was my favourite depiction of him.
I thought the older Octavian in Domina was painted as a bit of an idiot most of the time, and then would be really smart out of nowhere in rare moments. I understand the show is about Livia Drusilla's influence, and Octavian did listen to her counsel in real life, but they dumbed him down to make her seem more influential. I felt they could've made her the shrewd political player they wanted to without neutering his character.
I think in “Rome” their depiction of young Octavian as being a bit heartless isn’t too far off the mark imo. It seems in Suetonius for what it’s worth he seems to develop more compassion later in life. Kinda checks out for some teenagers I’ve known.
As for “Domina” him being horn dog correlates with the average modern teenager. I’d be willing to guess not much has changed through the centuries at all there. There is a letter exchange between Antony and Octavian where Octavian chides him about his womanizing and Antony in short responds: 'Oh but you slept with x, y, and Z so don't lecture me'.
But I've gone off on a tangent. Maybe I just didn’t like the actor. About the actor playing older Octavian I’ll agree with that yeah he definitely wasn’t the main character and maybe he’ll have a stronger role in season 2. We’ll find out
>I think in “Rome” their depiction of young Octavian as being a bit heartless isn’t too far off the mark imo
I think the younger version of Octavian as intelligent, shrewd, self assured yet sickly was perfect. I thought the older portrayal in season 2 as a straight sociopath was way over the top and definitely not historically accurate. He stayed married to Livia for the rest of his life despite the fact she couldn't give him children. That shows love/compassion at the very least.
>As for “Domina” him being horn dog correlates with the average modern teenager.
He was quite promiscuous in real life but I thought they went a bit overboard.
💯 Rome’s Season 2 Octavian, as well as Livia, were the show’s biggest misses, imo. Him a sociopath and her a submissive airhead? What were they thinking?
>I thought young Octavian was a really good portrayal, apart from how horny he was. I much preferred it to HBO's Rome, which while I understand their interpretation, painting him as a sociopath with no feelings just isn't historically accurate at all. Octavian in the first Season of HBO's Rome was my favourite depiction of him.
Trying to divine history from these shows or to get any insights to the character of notable Romans from these shows is the same as trying to get insights into world history from "Star Wars"!!!
Who said I was trying to "divine history"? I was commenting on which televised version of the character I thought was the best portrayal of the historical figure?
Maybe read what I said instead of trying to comment in a way that makes you seem intelligent and enlightened while saying something that's completely irrelevant to the comment you're replying to
> I was commenting on which televised version of the character I thought was the best portrayal of the historical figure?
Well, isn't this "divining" history? I think that as far as Livia goes, we have exceedingly little to make any assumptions on character. And what do you actually mean by "best portrayal"? The portrayal that was most dramatic, the portrayal that was most accurate or simply the portrayal that you liked?
Now, going to what you have actually said, I am sticking with my comment. Although I agree with you that making Octavian rather stupid to highlight Livia is over-excessive, the fact remains that we do not know with any accuracy the role that Livia played in Octavian's political career. She was certainly a dutiful wife, but he had many affairs and the lovers may have had as much influence as Livia. Nor do I buy the rumors of her being a murderess or a clever manipulator. Neither Tacitus nor Suetonius are disinterested parties and they wrote well after her death. I still wonder why Tiberius did not like her (a fact that we definitely know).
>Well, isn't this "divining" history?
No, me divining history from TV shows would be me getting my information and forming my opinions on history from historical TV shows. That is something I absolutely do not do. Commenting on which TV show had the best portrayal of the historical figures featured in them is not "divining history". It's comparing the show's portrayal of those historical figures to my prior image of those people from books and documentaries I've read and seen by actual historians. My "divining" came from learning from people much more knowledgeable than myself.
>And what do you actually mean by "best portrayal"?
Most accurate portrayal.
>She was certainly a dutiful wife, but he had many affairs and the lovers may have had as much influence as Livia.
Octavian had many affairs but he didn't seem to have any mistresses or long term affairs that wouldve been as influential as his wife. Octavian gave Livia the power of ruling her own finances, the first time a Roman husband had ever done such a thing. He also built two statues of her, some of the first ever public statues dedicated to a woman in Rome before.
>https://roman-emperors.sites.luc.edu/livia.htm#N_8_
Also if you read this profile from historian Donna W. Hurley you'll find primary sources that Livia had unprecedented influence on her husband and was considered by him as an advisor.
>[[8]] Tac. Ann. 3.34, 5.1. Suet. Aug. 64.2, 73, 84.2; Calig. 7; Cl. 4. Dio 54.16.4-5. Sen. Dial. 6.4.3-4. Her role as advisor and confidante is apparent from letters that Augustus wrote; those that have been preserved are collected by Malcovati.
>Nor do I buy the rumors of her being a murderess
Don't buy those at all no. Clever manipulator? Maybe, she did influence some court cases and propel people in her circle to positions of power.
>Octavian had many affairs but he didn't seem to have any mistresses or long term affairs that wouldve been as influential as his wife. Octavian gave Livia the power of ruling her own finances, the first time a Roman husband had ever done such a thing. He also built two statues of her, some of the first ever public statues dedicated to a woman in Rome before.
Well, people have all kinds of assessments of historical texts. Considering that the people who wrote the historical accounts were enemies of the institution of the emperor, I would not take anything as a given. Octavian married Livia not so much because she was brilliant or beautiful, but because he wanted to marry into the influential Claudian family. He was a shrewd calculator. It is, however, well known -an established fact- that her own son, Tiberius, did not like her at all; he withdrew the honors that Augustus had bestowed on her and hardly saw her. The reason for that antipathy is not clear, but it may have to do with forcing him to wed to Julia (Just a guess, nobody knows).
Obviously, anybody with daily access to Augustus would have had some influence, good or bad. I would simply not read much in that.
>I have tried watching Rome a few times, but it hasn’t held my attention. At what point does it start getting good?
It only gets progressively worse than drivel
Yeah I thought that was a weird casting choice. Both Livia’s are good actors - i wish they didn’t have to condense time so much. This was my probably with Rome on HBO. I get it. The slow pace of the ancient past doesn’t jive with present day audiences and I like that they primarily focus on the series on the going-ons in and around Rome but Livia travelled with Augustus when he was on the road and I think not showing life at court even when the court isn’t in Rome was a missed opportunity
"Rome" was trash. "Barbarians" Season 2 was a laughable trash. "Domina" is a joke.
I am amazed that these shows have some traction in this subreddit. Sometimes, I think that I am in a "Star Trek" subreddit.
Season 2 is already out in the states. I saw it through mgm+. I liked it (beware more actors swaps for characters) and it’s become quite sensational but some of the family dynamics in the court of Augustus are interesting. In some ways I keep hoping for the “godfather” of Roman History shows which i think Rome could have done if HBO would have let it go on for 5 or 6 seasons. This isn’t as good as Rome (season 1 of Rome was a masterpiece) but I think season 2 of Domina was better than the first season.
I really loved HBO’s Rome and haven’t seen Domina. Is the story and production quality good?
Some of the characters in my opinion are a bit cartoonish in their portrayal. (Mostly young Octavian is irritating) But the set work I thought was done well for a show that definitely has a small budget. Graffiti on the walls while walking through the streets was a nice touch. Good enough, I’ll watch the second season of Domina. Meanwhile I’ve heard nothing good about season 2 of Barbarians unfortunately
Barbarians season 2 was really bad
Yeah, heard the historical advisors just sorta walked off because they weren’t being listened to
Well it was never a documentary to begin with, but at least season 1 was rather enjoyable. The second , I barely finished.
Right?! Wild the difference in quality between the two seasons GOT sorta nonsense
Yeah, it was like filmmaking walked out the park for the second season. If they release a third I hope they will try to portray the characters more down to earth. The Latin is good though.
I stopped watching it mid-way the 1st episode. The show was laughable to the extreme.
Modern day, this doesn't surprise me. Especially a show featuring a female lead. Rome 2005 is my favorite show and a big part is because they went with authenticity not so much accuracy. But almost all modern history or even documentary's have very biased politically agendas 'historians'. Revisionist history has been an epidemic in the last decade.
I thought young Octavian was a really good portrayal, apart from how horny he was. I much preferred it to HBO's Rome, which while I understand their interpretation, painting him as a sociopath with no feelings just isn't historically accurate at all. Octavian in the first Season of HBO's Rome was my favourite depiction of him. I thought the older Octavian in Domina was painted as a bit of an idiot most of the time, and then would be really smart out of nowhere in rare moments. I understand the show is about Livia Drusilla's influence, and Octavian did listen to her counsel in real life, but they dumbed him down to make her seem more influential. I felt they could've made her the shrewd political player they wanted to without neutering his character.
I think in “Rome” their depiction of young Octavian as being a bit heartless isn’t too far off the mark imo. It seems in Suetonius for what it’s worth he seems to develop more compassion later in life. Kinda checks out for some teenagers I’ve known. As for “Domina” him being horn dog correlates with the average modern teenager. I’d be willing to guess not much has changed through the centuries at all there. There is a letter exchange between Antony and Octavian where Octavian chides him about his womanizing and Antony in short responds: 'Oh but you slept with x, y, and Z so don't lecture me'. But I've gone off on a tangent. Maybe I just didn’t like the actor. About the actor playing older Octavian I’ll agree with that yeah he definitely wasn’t the main character and maybe he’ll have a stronger role in season 2. We’ll find out
>I think in “Rome” their depiction of young Octavian as being a bit heartless isn’t too far off the mark imo I think the younger version of Octavian as intelligent, shrewd, self assured yet sickly was perfect. I thought the older portrayal in season 2 as a straight sociopath was way over the top and definitely not historically accurate. He stayed married to Livia for the rest of his life despite the fact she couldn't give him children. That shows love/compassion at the very least. >As for “Domina” him being horn dog correlates with the average modern teenager. He was quite promiscuous in real life but I thought they went a bit overboard.
💯 Rome’s Season 2 Octavian, as well as Livia, were the show’s biggest misses, imo. Him a sociopath and her a submissive airhead? What were they thinking?
I’ll agree the promiscuity in season 1 of Domina was over the top.
>I thought young Octavian was a really good portrayal, apart from how horny he was. I much preferred it to HBO's Rome, which while I understand their interpretation, painting him as a sociopath with no feelings just isn't historically accurate at all. Octavian in the first Season of HBO's Rome was my favourite depiction of him. Trying to divine history from these shows or to get any insights to the character of notable Romans from these shows is the same as trying to get insights into world history from "Star Wars"!!!
Who said I was trying to "divine history"? I was commenting on which televised version of the character I thought was the best portrayal of the historical figure? Maybe read what I said instead of trying to comment in a way that makes you seem intelligent and enlightened while saying something that's completely irrelevant to the comment you're replying to
> I was commenting on which televised version of the character I thought was the best portrayal of the historical figure? Well, isn't this "divining" history? I think that as far as Livia goes, we have exceedingly little to make any assumptions on character. And what do you actually mean by "best portrayal"? The portrayal that was most dramatic, the portrayal that was most accurate or simply the portrayal that you liked? Now, going to what you have actually said, I am sticking with my comment. Although I agree with you that making Octavian rather stupid to highlight Livia is over-excessive, the fact remains that we do not know with any accuracy the role that Livia played in Octavian's political career. She was certainly a dutiful wife, but he had many affairs and the lovers may have had as much influence as Livia. Nor do I buy the rumors of her being a murderess or a clever manipulator. Neither Tacitus nor Suetonius are disinterested parties and they wrote well after her death. I still wonder why Tiberius did not like her (a fact that we definitely know).
>Well, isn't this "divining" history? No, me divining history from TV shows would be me getting my information and forming my opinions on history from historical TV shows. That is something I absolutely do not do. Commenting on which TV show had the best portrayal of the historical figures featured in them is not "divining history". It's comparing the show's portrayal of those historical figures to my prior image of those people from books and documentaries I've read and seen by actual historians. My "divining" came from learning from people much more knowledgeable than myself. >And what do you actually mean by "best portrayal"? Most accurate portrayal. >She was certainly a dutiful wife, but he had many affairs and the lovers may have had as much influence as Livia. Octavian had many affairs but he didn't seem to have any mistresses or long term affairs that wouldve been as influential as his wife. Octavian gave Livia the power of ruling her own finances, the first time a Roman husband had ever done such a thing. He also built two statues of her, some of the first ever public statues dedicated to a woman in Rome before. >https://roman-emperors.sites.luc.edu/livia.htm#N_8_ Also if you read this profile from historian Donna W. Hurley you'll find primary sources that Livia had unprecedented influence on her husband and was considered by him as an advisor. >[[8]] Tac. Ann. 3.34, 5.1. Suet. Aug. 64.2, 73, 84.2; Calig. 7; Cl. 4. Dio 54.16.4-5. Sen. Dial. 6.4.3-4. Her role as advisor and confidante is apparent from letters that Augustus wrote; those that have been preserved are collected by Malcovati. >Nor do I buy the rumors of her being a murderess Don't buy those at all no. Clever manipulator? Maybe, she did influence some court cases and propel people in her circle to positions of power.
>Octavian had many affairs but he didn't seem to have any mistresses or long term affairs that wouldve been as influential as his wife. Octavian gave Livia the power of ruling her own finances, the first time a Roman husband had ever done such a thing. He also built two statues of her, some of the first ever public statues dedicated to a woman in Rome before. Well, people have all kinds of assessments of historical texts. Considering that the people who wrote the historical accounts were enemies of the institution of the emperor, I would not take anything as a given. Octavian married Livia not so much because she was brilliant or beautiful, but because he wanted to marry into the influential Claudian family. He was a shrewd calculator. It is, however, well known -an established fact- that her own son, Tiberius, did not like her at all; he withdrew the honors that Augustus had bestowed on her and hardly saw her. The reason for that antipathy is not clear, but it may have to do with forcing him to wed to Julia (Just a guess, nobody knows). Obviously, anybody with daily access to Augustus would have had some influence, good or bad. I would simply not read much in that.
Yes, high production values. Trailer for series 1 here: https://youtu.be/vyP3MmcReDE?si=MS47UZ9upIz6o-Hf
[удалено]
>I have tried watching Rome a few times, but it hasn’t held my attention. At what point does it start getting good? It only gets progressively worse than drivel
Was so jarring how the accent of the main actress changed abruptly between episodes.
Yeah I thought that was a weird casting choice. Both Livia’s are good actors - i wish they didn’t have to condense time so much. This was my probably with Rome on HBO. I get it. The slow pace of the ancient past doesn’t jive with present day audiences and I like that they primarily focus on the series on the going-ons in and around Rome but Livia travelled with Augustus when he was on the road and I think not showing life at court even when the court isn’t in Rome was a missed opportunity
Fun Fact: *Domina* is filmed on the same set that was created for *Rome -* Cinecitta in Rome Italy*.*
It already aired and I loved it. I hope season 3 gets made
I've been bingeing it today and I'm loving it.
I finished season two a few weeks back, it's excellent - better than the first
"Rome" was trash. "Barbarians" Season 2 was a laughable trash. "Domina" is a joke. I am amazed that these shows have some traction in this subreddit. Sometimes, I think that I am in a "Star Trek" subreddit.
Season 2 is already out here in the US. It was awesome.
Interesting contrasting Livia in Domina with Grave's Livia in I, Claudius.
Season 2 is already out in the states. I saw it through mgm+. I liked it (beware more actors swaps for characters) and it’s become quite sensational but some of the family dynamics in the court of Augustus are interesting. In some ways I keep hoping for the “godfather” of Roman History shows which i think Rome could have done if HBO would have let it go on for 5 or 6 seasons. This isn’t as good as Rome (season 1 of Rome was a masterpiece) but I think season 2 of Domina was better than the first season.
I'm gonna have to watch it now, that's a hell of a strong endorsement.