New series to air on Showtime in early 2007. Showtime's Press Release

Starring Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as Henry VIII, in his younger, thinner years. Written by the same guy who wrote the movie Elizabeth and also starring Sam Neill. The first season is supposed to be 10 episodes and will track Henry from 1520 to 1530, or right up to Anne Boleyn, with the possibility of later seasons getting into the Reformation and the beheading and whatnot.

I think it sounds interesting, especially as the goal seems not to be a straight-laced BBC costume drama. It seems somewhat analogous to HBO's Rome, though I could be just generalizing two historical dramas with nothing in common. And, I'm never going to object to more Jonathan Rhys-Meyers.

I was just thinking about getting Showtime again!

This could be very interesting. The sane Henry the VIII (before he became all crazy and heir-obsessed) is one that we don't usually hear about. We always hear about the morbidly obese asshole who acted like a spoiled brat and killed people when they didn't do what he wanted. I can't wait to hear more about this show. The Tudors are an interesting bunch, this could be a really great show, as long as I don't keep focusing on the history vs. Hollywood aspect.

ETA: Nevermind.

The only good thing about Mission Impossible 3. Between this and Dexter, I might have to put in an extra $20 for Showtime.

Sounds like a great show and I loved Elizabeth. I hope some The Movie Network picks it up here in Canada.

While I, too, have no objections to seeing more Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Aprelia, what I do object to is how they are trying to market it as "not a straight-laced BBC costume drama," as though they are doing something new & ground-breaking. Sorry, but no. The 1970 BBC mini-series starring Keith Michell has already been there & done that. Ok, so there wasn't the nudity & crudity of modern cable tv, but it was a damned good series which did not need nudity! It was hardly staid or straight-laced, either. They showed the evolution of Henry from hot young stud to revolting fat pig -- which is pretty amazing since I just looked KM up on imdb & discovered he was already in his 40s when they filmed it. He did a very good job of playing the young Henry, as I recall.

And frankly, the fact that the main writer on this also wrote Elizabeth, is not a recommendation! The article quotes him as saying that he's writing entertainment, not documentary. Fine, I do know the difference. But entertainment does not have to be historically inaccurate, as Elizabeth was. Again, the BBC has already been there & done that far better before: Elizabeth R, starring Glenda Jackson.

This makes me sound like a cranky old snob. And ok, I do resemble one much of the time. But it pisses me off that they keep re-making things, over & over & over, all the time trumpeting the remakes as much better than the "old stuffy versions." I loved Rome, it was great fun. But it doesn't hold a candle to I, Claudius.

In the interests of full disclosure: yes, I am a history professor. I chose this fun (but very low-paying) profession because I loved those BBC costume dramas. The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Elizabeth R, I, Claudius, and the original 1968 Lion in Winter made me who/what I am today. I try to force my students to see the latter, at the very least.

And I doubt anyone could call I, Claudius stuffy, what with the sex-offs and such...

Looking forward to The Tudors, though, if Canada does ever pick it up. I love any historical drama (didn't know that about Elizabeth being innacurate--I know very, very little about that time period; will have to check out Elizabeth R).

Very much looking forward to this. I'm a voracious fan of anything Tudor. And, praeceptrix, I like it all--the costume dramas, The Lion in Winter (not Tudor but still stunning), and older films such as "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex". Allison Weir, the Simon Schama documentaries, that other guy I always confuse with Simon Schama, even some of the really godawful Henry VIII documentaries that have been produced in the U.S. in the last year or so. When it comes to something like the film Elizabeth, I can enjoy it for what it is, while also annoying people around me by pointing out the historical inaccuracies. So really, it's a win-win. :) I guess what I'm saying is, they can keep remaking this stuff forever for all of me.

Amalthea, here's a quick and interesting link to some of the inaccuracies in the Cate Blanchett film (which I still thought was fantastic and captured the 'spirit' of Elizabeth I very well. I'm looking forward to the sequels).

kieyra said:

David Starkey?

I can't wait for The Tudors either. The Six Wives of Henry VIII (with Keith Michell) is one of those entertainment shows that changed my life; I've had a huge interest in the six wives ever since. I know The Tudors will probably have a few historical inaccuracies, but I read a lot of Historical Fiction novels, so I'm used to cutting writers a lot of slack, as long as they get the general spirit of the characters correct.

That said, if they're doing all of the Tudors (Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I) then ten episodes seems a little short. That's a lot of pivotal English history right there.

I'm excited about this. I could care less if the show is historically (in)accurate. When it comes to movies or TV shows, all I want is to be entertained for an hour of so. Hopefully, I can add this show with the other Showtime programs I've gotten hooked to.

I switched to Showtime from HBO in August and I haven't looked back yet.

First, Brotherhood, then Weeds (ok -- I'm a latecomer), then Dexter, and now this. Showtime is keeping their hooks in me. I may just get a friend to tape the final 8 episodes of Sopranos for me. I was so disappointed with season 6.

Eagerly looking forward to this series, although I'm not sure if it will be enough to get me to get Showtime for it. I may wait for the DVDs or just have a friend record it for me.

The Keith Mitchell series was good, but I remember deciding that I didn't care for the "BBC look". Granted, it and "I, Claudius" were made decades ago, but the style in which they were filmed and that obvious overhead lighting always made it look to me like they were shot on soap opera sets.

I presume that this production will have big budget for costumes and set decoration. I know there will be historical inaccuracies, but I can overlook them.

I have to wonder, though, how long this series will last. "Rome" is only lasting 2 seasons despite critical acclaim. Unfortunately I just don't think the average U.S. viewer has much interest in historical dramas, let alone historical dramas about stuffy English monarchs. It seems just about everyone reads Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in high school and sees the movie with Marlon Brando. So you'd think there'd be a lot of familiarity and interest with "Rome". Alas, it didn't happen.

The average viewer will probably have not much knowledge about Henry VIII other than he had a lot of wives. Plus "Showtime" seems to have less subscribers than "HBO". I'm hoping good things for the show, but I just don't want to be disappointed if it doesn't do well.

And I wonder if this "new" take basically means "everything you've already seen before". Only this time "with lots and lots of nudity"!

I'm psyched for this! I'm an Early British Lit professor, so I'll probably have lots of nitpicks because I know the time era so well, but that's half the fun.



Imelda, when I first glanced at this I thought you said "hair-obsessed" and I was really, really confused, since personal grooming was not one of Henry's priorities.

(Waves at my other professor friend, praeceptrix).

I'm hoping fewer subscribers means lower expectations, ratings-wise. I think "Rome" is being dropped not just because it has low numbers, but because it has lower numbers than other things HBO could put on the air. And I'm sure it's very expensive.

But a short run is not necessarily a bad thing. They will have made all ten episodes before they air, so I'm pretty sure they'll show them all. Many British shows have limited runs, and some would argue that the length of a season is inversely proportional to the quality of the show. We'll have to see how it works out, of course, but I trust we'll see all ten episodes of the first season at the least.

There have been plenty of Tudor-era, Elizabethan BBC-type dramas, but have any others been produced by an American company primarily for an American audience? I could be misreading Showtime's announcement re: their role in the production, though -- they could be pulling a "SciFi Original" out of their asses. While the UK might have hit the saturation point with these types of dramas, I'm not sure the American audience has reached that point. On the other hand, there's probably a more limited audience in the U.S. for these types of things.

You & me, both, UnfamousLoser! It got me addicted to biographies of HVIII & all six wives, not to mention Renaissance music & dance. I was already pretty hooked on the costumes at a much earlier age.

I am looking forward to the show, but like blackwing, I may have to have someone record it for me. My cable splurge is HBO. Quick plug: if anyone here has not tried The Wire, I urge you to check it out. I truly believe it is the Great American Novel.

I can't quite explain why, but I actually kind of like the cheesy "BBC look." I'll take great acting & character development over flash any day. Of course, if I can have both, even better!

I suspect you're right. But then again, as I keep telling my students, it isn't true that history is boring & historical figures are stuffy -- that is just the way they were taught to you, all boring memorization & dusty dates. I am a founding member of the Sensationalist School of History -- we focus on the real things which make the world go 'round: Sex, Greed, and Violence! Speaking of which... when are they going to get around to doing a series on the Renaissance Popes? Lots of sex, greed, & violence there! The Medicis & Borgias, ah, those folks knew how to have fun... Or we could go in the opposite (temporal) direction & have a series on Charlemagne: beheading all those Saxons, having wine goblets made from royal Lombard skulls...

Another plug, this time for a fun website (not entirely off topic, either): Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog

(Waving back atcha, Beowulfgirl)

That's the trouble with the way history is often taught, people think it's boring. But when you start to look at history as the story of people's lives rather than just random facts, it becomes much more interesting.

I am looking forward to this. Even if I will annoy the piss out of people by pointing out the inaccuracies, I will be entertained. Especially if I have pretty Jonathon Rhys Meyers to star at!

In the October 16 - 22, 2006 issue of TV Guide (U.S. version) there's some behind the scenes photos of the filming of The Tudors on page 20. They show Sam Neill as Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII, and Jeremy Northam as Sir Thomas More. They also show Anna Brewster, but they don't mention who she's playing.

They just showed a promo for it earlier tonight on Showtime. I think it looks great.

Callum Blue is in it. I was going to avoid it but if Mason is in it, I will have to watch.

I'm a little disappointed that they aren't starting with the Earl of Richmond defeating Richard III to become Henry VII. I mean, if you're calling the show The Tudors, shouldn't the dynasty's founder be shown. It's a little disappointing that the most memorable Henry VII on screen will prolly go down as Dominic West in Richard III.

That being said, I'm really excited about this. I love Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Sam Neill, and Jeremy Northam. And right now Showtime is beating out HBO overall on the dramtic interesting TV.

He is? I didn't see him in the promo. I miss Mason (And Dead Like Me in general)

Callum Blue is interviewed in the extended promo, The 2nd Evil.

After viewing the extended promo, I'm a bit confused as to the chronology. They mention Henry being about 25, but he was nearer 40 when the Anne Boleyn stuff took place, and that seems to be a major aspect the narrative The Tudors seems to be going with. I wonder if they will chart a passage of time or if they will just conflate everything. I have a feeling the "historical" aspects of this show are going to drive me up the wall.

I don't really see Jonathan Rhys-Meyers pulling this off, but I guess stranger things have happened. It's not his looks so much as the fact that his "acting" often provokes me to laugh out loud. I really think he's overrated. But then this whole production seems kind of over-the-top, so maybe it'll suit him. He was one of the only things I liked about MI:3.

JRM aside, I'm totally watching this for Callum Blue and Henry Cavill. It can be absolutely horrible but I am, in fact, shallow enough that they will keep me watching no matter how bad or good the show ends up being. Just thinking about Henry Cavill makes me want to go watch I Capture the Castle immediately. I still puzzle over the logic in that film which allows the heroine to prefer Henry Thomas, but I guess that's for another forum.

The extended promo is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb1ff_niTOU

I'm baffled at the age thing too. And am also anticipating crying at the historical inaccuracies. :(

Me too. At least they portray Henry as thin and handsome. So many people think he was just a huge bloated sloth, but he really had been quite good looking when he was younger.

While all the stuff with Anne is very interesting, the rest of the wives are pretty interesting as well. In that promo someone said that not much is known about Henry VIII. Fine, but those who do know a little about him only know about Anne Boelyn. Why not give them some of the rest of the story? A writer wouldn't have to do anything to make that story interesting.

Thanks for the link to the promo. My interest in this has greatly increased.

I just wanted to add how psyched I am for this. I hope it delivers, because my expectations are through the roof.

I'm hoping it goes well, but I agree with you in that I think he's overrated. As far as looks, the guy who plays Charles Brandon appears to me like he would generally be considered better looking. But I guess Jonathan Rhys Meyers is probably considered a bigger "name", even though he seems unknown by the great majority of the population.

My favorite of his wives is Catherine of Aragon - I guess I feel a lot of sympathy for her, and I'm hoping this series does her justice.

Echoing the thanks for the link to the promo. Still not going to let my hopes get too high, though. As several of you have pointed out, the age thing is a pretty glaring (& unnecessary) mistake. He was 18 when he became king & married Catherine (& I'm with you, blackwing, I find her the most interesting & sympathetic of the wives), about 30 when he had the affair with Anne's sister Mary, and 42 when he finally married Anne. And, as I said a page ago, Henry VIII has already been portrayed as a hot young stud in the first 2 episodes of the BBC series. Why do they have to advertise this as though they were doing something groundbreaking? Why can't they credit previous versions?


Me too! I've just started the section of Western Civ where we go over the Crusades & am having to explain how incredibly inaccurate Kingdom of Heaven was. I guess next year my students may be asking me about The Tudors. I wonder whether we ought to form a support group?

Yeah, between this and Rome coming back next year, I would definitely spring for TMN. Sucks that they rarely pick up Showtime programmes, and if they do, it's on a four-month delay.

No offense to JRM fans, but I just can't see him as Henry VIII, not even the earlier, skinnier model. He's just too scrawny. Henry was known for being an all-around athelete, a wrestler, etc. and from what I remember of the descriptions he was a fairly "robust" (i.e., big) guy, even when he was younger and thinner. They have determined from his armor that he was 6'1", which was pretty tall back then. From the pictures of JRM on IMDB (where it says he's 5'10"), he just doesn't look like he has a sufficiently "commanding" presence. That aside, it will be interesting to see how much license they take with the facts. I wonder if they'll have the Field of the Cloth of Gold. It would be worth watching to see that, but unless they have a big budget they probably won't even attempt it.

I'll watch it, because I love British royal history, but I'm kind of disappointed that they're doing Henry VIII AGAIN.

Just once, I wish someone would do the Plantagenets. THAT was one twisted family.

I share that sentiment, Eliot. I love the Tudors, but the Plantagenets were a riot. I love that Henry VIII was a Plantagenet on his mother's side. It sure explains a lot...

Unfortunately, as long as an American audience is intended to be a primary viewer, the only British royals I ever see us getting to any significant degree are the Tudors. We recently got Rufus Sewell as Charles II in "The Last King" but I don't know how many people bothered to watch that, because it was about some English king they never heard of.

I have a degree in English history so I agree it's a shame that there aren't more monarchs highlighted in movies and TV shows. It's sad but true, but I wouldn't be surprised if 95 out of 100 Americans think a Plantagenet is a type of fruit.

That all rather depends on which Plantagenet we're talking about, doesn't it? ;-)

I have to rent that, as my dvr was misbehaving when that was shown. How was it, blackwing ? Have you seen The Libertine? Is it any good? I rather like Charles II, he's one of the few Stuarts I can respect.

I don't have a volume of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester to hand, so this is a bit of a paraphrase:

God Bless our Good & Gracious King,
Whose promise none relies on;
Who never said a foolish thing
Nor ever did a wise one.

To which Charles II replied: "My words are my own, my actions are my ministers'."

Regarding the time issue, I think they can pull it off. Henry was around 35 when he first started chasing Anne around, and JRM is in his late 20's, so it's not that much of a stretch. And maybe they have her running around Court before he starts going after her in earnest - he was screwing around with her sister for awhile, so it's not totally impossible that he knew Anne in his 20s (not sure when she came back from France, though). I assume the series starts out when he's in his 20s and goes from there. Maybe it hops over a few years, like Rome did.

I'm curious to see how this will stack up next to Anne of a Thousand Days, which in my humble opinion sets the standard for Tudor films.

Well, if we're talking athleticism, based on JRM's running in Bend It Like Beckham, you may have a point, TVid.

Perhaps this will be a more effete Henry VIII?

<shudder> Methinks effete Henry VIII is an oxymoron. Even with his musical & intellectual talents, I think he makes the top ten list of macho horn-dog English monarchs...

TVid -- I agree that it would be fun to see the Field of the Cloth of Gold re-enacted. It is cable, so maybe they've got the money. I don't have Showtime, so I don't know what their budgets are like, but HBO certainly spent a lot on Rome.

He did run like a girl but....he's so pretty!

I know, I know. But if we start to get really nitpicky about the history of this show, we're going to have strokes.

I can't wait for this. I know it will have a lot of inaccuracies, but if the show sparks people's interests and they read up on the subject, then I think it's great. It always makes me sad when people don't know about world history. I will probably learn a thing or two from this board; there are a lot of history majors/professors, etc. that can teach me a little more. I've always been interested in the English monarchy and have pretty much taught myself about it using my own and my parent's college history books, David Starkey's books, and being a documentary junkie. I only had to take 2 history classes for my major (and they weren't really history they were called Humanities in the Western Tradition), but I've always loved history.

Some photos and link to the trailer here.

This chronology is all true, but it makes the gap between history and the show seem larger than it may in fact be. Assuming the show starts in 1520, as the trailer suggested, then the historical Henry was only 29. So really, we're only potentially looking at a 9-year age difference, which certainly isn't nearly as cringe-inducing as 20, as some people seem to be suggesting.

Damn, this show makes me want Showtime! Not that it'll be any good, and I'll probably be laughing at how inaccurate it is, but it looks pretty.

Although, I'm a tad confused on the timeline they're going with on this show. Ten episodes, and we've got Catharine (spelled with a "K" on the preview for some reason) not being able to bear an heir, Anne moving through the ranks, and Henry's son being born. Did that all happen within ten years? It's been awhile since I've read up on the Tudors, but I thought it was a bit more spread out between Catharine-Anne-Jane, what with all the divorce fun and all that.

I'm still waiting for the Borgia film to be made. I am all over that!

So, the new ads on Showtime claim April 1 as the premiere date. No idea whether this will be anything close to historically accurate, but from the previews it does look like it will be rather hot. They certainly seem to be playing up the sexual side of things (and fighting, but that's hot, too, in only a slightly different way).

Katherine is a correct spelling. She spelled it both ways herself.

Any updates on the premiere date?

Let's not forget that Richard Burton portrayed Henry VIII in Anne of a Thousand Days. His Henry was certainly quite studly and handsome and certainly NOT obese! And Genvieve Bujold made a very fiesty, intelligent Anne.

I agree that this new series isn't doing anything NEW with Henry VIII.

Been seeing previews for it all the time on Showtime. Can't wait for it to start. Unfortunately also can't help but feel that it would be getting a lot more buzz if it was on HBO rather than Showtime.

Just saw an extended ad for it on Showtime, and it's more than a wee bit inaccurate, historically speaking. They're apparently intent on presenting Henry VIII as some sort of Tudor rock star in his mid-twenties during everything that happens, which is crap.

However, the cast is pretty ridiculously attractive, so there's that.

Well the show is probably a few years into the marriage of Catherine and Henry because I saw one preview with little Princess Mary running around, and she looks about 5 or 6. Since Mary was not their first child, a 5 or 6-year-old Mary would mean that Henry and Catherine will have been married around 13 years. However, a 5 or 6-year-old Mary also screws with the timeline since Henry is supposedly 25 in this series. He didn't get involved with Anne at least until his mid-30s. Also, I think the son is not Prince Edward, but rather an illegitimate child whom history knows nothing about. It's also possible that this son later dies in infancy, since that was so common back then.

This show really isn't aiming for historical accuracy. Especially when you consider the fact that Princess Margaret and Princess Mary Rose have been combined into one person. I think the only historically accurate thing is the fact that Henry actually was a physically fit stud in his youth. But like Demian said, the cast is impossibly pretty, so who gives a crap about history?

Showtime has been promoting this show like crazy, and I've got friends who worked on it, so I'll be really disappointed if it sucks.

Really? They combined Margeret and Mary? Why?

In order to prevent my head from exploding, I'm just going to stare at the pretty people on the TV and keep my mouth shut. Since there are so many, it shouldn't be that hard.

Henry and K of A did have one son who died in infancy.

Henry had an illegitimate son with a mistress didn't he? I thought I read that he gave him the title Duke of Richmond and even tried for a while to put him in the succession ahead of Mary.