Which is better? Ever since I heard about it as a kid, I was interested in finding out the history of Henry VIII. I was very excited about Tudors when it came out, but couldn't watch more than a couple of episodes, it was disappointing. I really hope this is better, is it?
shareI certainly prefer ‘The Six Wives of Henry VIII’. Personally, I think Michell is a brilliant Henry VIII, far better than JRM who is one of the poorest Henry VIII I have ever seen. Overall the acting in ‘The Six Wives..’ is great and they do include many different figures from the Tudor court, whilst I find ‘The Tudors’ actually does not use as many as they could. Also I don’t feel ‘The Tudors is a good representation of the Tudor court in the 1520s and that they make the mistake of portraying a Henry VIII who is too youthful for that period. In contrast the transition from youthful to mature king in ‘The Six Wives..’ is superb. The production is not as glitzy as ‘The Tudors’, but I find ‘The Tudors’ lacks certain substance like quality of acting, whilst ‘The Six Wives..’ has such qualities in abundance. It is also fairly accurate and can’t really be accused of sexing up events. Overall a great drama from the BBC, and if you enjoy this I really recommend that you watch ‘Elizabeth R’, on Elizabeth I which acts as a sort of sequel to this drama.
‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’
I couldn't get this one, but I found the 2001 documentary of the same name narrated by David Starkey. Just watched the 1st episode about Catherine, I love it!! It was very entertaining & I didn't keep track of the time. Felt sorry for her though.. with all the miscarriages & all.
Hopefully I get this version
Starkey’s documentary is interesting and certainly a worth a watch. If you liked the documentary then I recommend his book on the same subject; he couldn’t discuss all his ideas in the documentary so the book compensates for this. Its an interesting read.
This BBC mini-series is out on DVD in region 1 and region 2 formats and should be readily available on Amazon.com.
‘Noli me tangere; for Caesar's I am’
I know this is late but I am re watching the Keith Michell version. No comparison the Tudors is like amateur night at the local high school compared to this one. I believe the major weak link is the actor who plays Henry Viii in The Tudors. I agree with the other poster, he has to be the weakest portrayal of the King I have ever seen. He looks like a good smack in the face would killed him. If they had a stronger and better actor I think The Tudors might of held up a little better. IMO The Tudors is also over produced for the MTV crowd so it can get better ratings and that is probably the reason they picked the actor.
shareSurely the two are incomparable? The Tudors is not aiming to be a historically accurate, scholarly look in to the reign and court of Henry VIII. Its` pure entertainment, for entertainment`s sake.
Whereas the Six Wives was an indepth look at each individual wife, and an attempt at a true portrayal of the time period.
So, it depends what you`re looking for. Beautiful people making love= The Tudors
If you want to learn something = Six Wives.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
I agree but when the Tudors was advertised it bragged it had historians approval. It was advertised as some sort of historical drama.
shareDear marbleann:
I wish I were a C.S.A., as I wanted Mr. Steven Waddington to play Henry VIII.
Agreed. Made all too apparent in his scenes with the fop who played Henry VIII in the Tudors. I just really think they were casting for the MTV set and IMO was a big mistake, because he was the main character. I wondered how they were going to portray Henry when he got older and bigger, I guess we will never find out.
I am seeing promos for it on BBC America now and they still stress the same aspect of the show, sex. It was unfortunate because I do not even think he is a good sex symbol. Like I mentioned earlier he is just too smackable.
Dear marbleann:
Interesting point agreed! JMR is not sexy! Unless you were horny as hades and stranded on a deserted island, even then he had better be a good fisherman!
As an american who loves movies I am starting to warch a lot of bitish movies and I find in most cases their acting is superb.I just bought henry the eight with keith mitchell and his performance is a tour de force and if this was a movie he would have won the academy award.The vhs set is cheap now.Also loved Pride and Prejudice and have watched it a bunch of times but I also liked Keira Knightly movie probably because you cannot help in falling in love with her even at my advanced age of 64.I hope she finds some good parts because she has it,Especially with her expressions.Do not like British comedy that much unless its with wit.Any recommendations for british series as if you can get it on vhs -its cheap.Have seen all the great american films and need some new material.
[deleted]
I was talking mostly about his acting.As you know the script was given to him.After watching the series I looked him up in my encyclopedia and I agree with you but by using the info just from the series I could see the ruthlessness by hearing about Thomas Moore and one other well known person he murdered plus the one later who was his advisor-sorry but bad on names and I can just imagine all the other ones .It appeared that a lot of people in court kind of knew that with just a whim he could have them executed but your right, to be more historically correct they should have shown these emotions.As a person who majored in history I like movies to be as close to the truth as possible and I enjoy info and thoughts from people who can add to the historical record and of course if I make a mistake I don't being corrected .Thanks for the info and writing back
I was a child when Henry V111 with Keith Michelle was on the BBC. Compared to the rubbish of the Tudors, this is a masterpiece of top quality acting and keeping to the history of what did happen rather then making it a sexual romp.
Many say that the Tudors is just entertainment. Er...not when it insults the audience when it is historically incorrect plus the lead actor looks like nothing of the great King.
To my mind, Keith Michelle was Henry of England and all the cast looked like their counter parts.
I am hoping they don't make anymore of the Tudors...but I doubt I will get my own way in this matter.
The best films are made in an intelligent format.
I watch every season of The Tudors and even I will admit that Six Wives and Henry VIII and His Six Wives is better than The Tudors. One of the weakest links in the cast is Jonathan who although he is a good actor he just is not a good Henry. Richard Burton and Kieth portrayed power, class, strength and danger without having to throw temper tantrums. And even when JRM does go into temper tantrum mode, I sometimes laugh because almost everybody on the show could throw him across the room to make him shut up. He just does not exude power, he looks like Henry VIII if Henry was in a boyband.
And although I like Maria, Annabelle, Anita, Natalie, Joss....the actresses who portayed their counterparts in the BBC version just had something more. The only one I think can really compare is Natalie and Charlotte, from Henry VII and His 6 Wives, as Anne.
"... have mercy, for I've been bleeding a long time now"-Michael Jackson
This question is a complete no-brainer: Six Wives, hands down. The Tudors is just some mindless pap spoon-fed to the MTV/reality *cough* trash *cough* TV generation. In addition to the Six Wives VHS or DVD being available on Amazon, the DVD is also available through Netflix. It's easy to find. I must respectfully disagree about Six Wives' depiction of Henry's ruthlessness, though perhaps it is a little too subtle. There was a hissing quality to Michell's presentation at times, such as when he threatened Wolsey, Cromwell, Norfolk, not to mention Katharine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour. Most monarchs of Henry's age had to adopt a ruthless quality. Given Henry is just one generation removed from the War of the Roses, I can well comprehend his need to look over his shoulder. Though his daughter Elizabeth preferred peace, partly due to her frugality, she also employed people to apply tortures to her enemies. All of the Tudors realized "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown." In Henry's case, his wives all became embroiled in his larger political concerns, whether in terms of foreign policy, the succession, or his handling of religious matters. Depicting him as some sort of Bluebeard is just ridiculous. Likewise, even friends who committed treason or other crimes had to be dealt with in the strictest possible terms. Monarchs must lead by example.
As to the poster who asked for other recommendations, I would offer Elizabeth R, First Churchills, Edward the King, Rumpole of the Bailey, the 90s version of Pride and Prejudice, the older Jane Austen collection, the works of Dickens and Goerge Eliot, Duchess of Duke Street, I Claudius, Anna Karenina (Nicola Pagett version), Cousin Bette, Love in a Cold Climate (original BBC version), Prime Suspect, Inspector Morse and Sergeant/Inspector Lewis, Lord Peter Wimsey series and many others. If you check the Masterpiece Theatre and Mystery rosters, you should be in good shape. Enjoy!
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!
I prefer the Tudors. So far I am most of the way through season 1, watching it on DVD. I watched Six Wives when it was originally broadcast and, as I recall, was favorably impressed at the time. Watched the Catherine of Aragon episode yesterday on Netflix via Roku and was somewhat disappointed and do not know if I will continue in the series. First, production values are far better in the Tudors. Six Wives is a filmed stage play with almost everything happening inside. I started feeling claustrophobic after 90 minutes of almost nothing but oak paneled sets. As for historic accuracy I am not an expert but suspect that Six Wives would get the nod here. However, if historic accuracy was my prime concern I think I would prefer to view a documentary on the subject rather than Six Wives. As far as multi-dimensional characters are concerned I believe Tudors is far better than what I've seen in Six Wives. The first episode of SW centered on Catherine but most everyone else turned out to be a flat character brought on stage to deliver the appropriate lines to advance the plot. What I like about Tudors is that the main characters are a mixture of good and bad, there are no pure heroes nor villains. The worth of various virtues, or the lack of them, is played out in the dialogue and consequences of the various characters actions. I find myself much more intrigued by Sam Niel's multi-faceted Wolsey than the stereotypical caricature in SW. Of course to be fair SW was not about Wolsey, nor did it have the time to develop other characters. So lets compare apples to apples. I found the character of Catherine much more strongly developed in Tudors than in SW. Watch the crying scene in SW if you need convincing.
shareThe Six Wives is the BEST!
"A stitch in time, saves your embarrassment." (RIP Ms. Penny LoBello)