Yes, but the reason I subscribe to HBO in the first place is just for the endless graphic sex and endless vulgarity. If that didn't appeal to me, I'd just save my money and watch the regular networks.

I was drawn and quartered for making some of the same points about network tv. I've never seen "Rome", but I just don't understand how artistic freedom translates into endless nudity and foul language. It's like that Jay Leno joke about adult films - how is standing in a booth with your pants down your ankles and one hand clapping qualify as adult? A little junk food is ok once in a while, but when it becomes the whole diet - well, you get HBO, Showtime, and others of their ilk as we know them today.

i'm glad i don't find jay leno humorous.

Oh yes, Jay Leno Humorous, great citizen of Rome. Glad they've protrayed him well. Too bad he has disappeard though...

Well, in this case, nudity and profanity is authentic! It's called realism and realistic portrayal of the world they chose to show us. Why pretend that this part of life doesn't exist. I want to see ROME, not church meeting.

Despite what you've readf around here, "Rome" really doesn't have all that much nudity, violence or foul language. The show does have those elements, but they're relatively brief and usually have something to do with the story at hand.

Not Caligula?

First of all I suggest that you read up about the Roman period and way of life because it seems obvious to me that you are not familiar with it.
The show's portrayal of Roman life is fairly tame IMHO.

Why do people insist on homogenizing life as it happens/happened? Why do people complain about the language in Goodfellas? Guess what - if the F bomb offends you, you should not be watching a mobster movie. If violence and nudity offend, do not watch a fairly accurate portrayal of antiquity. If I watch a show on network tv about the Roman empire I would expect the nudity to be toned down (but not the violence as this is not a problem for people), but I would be offended by network TV trying to show a post-Janet Superbowl Rome and would not watch it.

What a marvelous device the channel button is, with a touch you can change the images that appear on your television.

There was more swearing on the bus on the way home yesterday than there was on the last ep of Rome, 2 women were having a pretty heated argument over some flowers, one woman got slapped in the face, and madness ensued.

I'm guessing most of the innocenti here here don't go out in public.

Fuck no.

I almost totally agree, but in some ways that is what makes it seem so out of place at times. It does often feel like the lingering nudity is interjected just for titillation purposes, and to remind you that you are watching HBO. It could be 80% eliminated with no story lost IMO. The violence is moderate but not as graphic as certainly it could be, and the language is tamer than many network shows for the most part.

It is funny how accustomed we have come to violence but a little nudity gets us all freaked out. I think there has been a great deal of violence on the show and it is not that toned down (not that i would want it to be). I mean in the last episode we had Pullo beat a guys head against a stone wall that left his skull crushed and twitching dead on the ground. I mean it has not been graphic, zoom in in the gore, type violence but it has not been moderate in my mind.

A televison program or film is about more than just story, though. It's also about mood and setting. You could let the actors wear their street clothes and act out the script on a bare stage and not lose any story either, but that doesn't mean it would be good.

Ancient cultures didn't have the hangups about the human body that Americans do. And neither do most Europeans. "Rome" is a coproduction with the BBC and is not airing exclusively on HBO.

I, for one, much prefer to see ancient Rome portrayed the way things really were, rather than censored for delicate American red-state sensibilities that can't tolerate the sight of a nipple occassionally.

There are hundreds of cable channels available. If nudity offends you, you have plenty of alternatives.

no sex will have no effect on the telling of the story of Julius Ceasar, but it's great for showing you how life was really like at that time. It's the little details like this that make Rome a good show.

I've seen a bunch of the old 50's and 60's historical movies, but the little details that Rome pays attention to makes it a much better experience. In fact I don't even bother with the so called classics anymore since they are too americanized.

Romans defecated every day. Romans invented the vomitorium. There was sex with young girls and boys (children) and animals. Need these things be shown in order to accurately portray the way things really were?

If it is unnecessary to the story, what purpose does it serve? Nudity is too often used as a cheap thrill device that can actually detract from the production. In other instances it is used very effectively. In my opinion Rome has some of the latter, but still throws an inelegant shout out to the "Caligula" crowd.

As much as I enjoy Rome, "I, Claudius" is the definitive piece of entertainment done on this subject. It certainly had some naughty bits, but used them in a largely different manner, and much more effectively.

Ah, the inevitable conservative leap from plain nudity to something evil like pedophilia.

So far, "Rome" has shown an apparently "underage" (by U.S. standards) Octavian having sex with a prostitute, as well as his own sister. And yes, those circumstances needed to be shown in order to convey the sexual politics of the times, in my opinion. (His sister used it to try to get information out of him.)

In fact, almost all of the sex has been pertinent to the political machinations of the story: Atia uses it to get to Marc Antony, Timon and several others; Servilia uses it to get to Caesar and to get back at Atia; Cleopatra uses it to get to Caesar.

I could go on, but yeah, a nipple, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Thanks for the knee-jerk political ad hominems. They had nothing to do with what I posted, but it would have shook my faith in internet banter if you had left them out.

The sad thing is that the nipples and sex are not the things that are getting the complaints. It is the 2 scenes (all I can recall) with full frontal shots of men, or 1 of a man and 1 of some kind of man-horse hybred. OMG!! There is a penis on my tv, cancel my HBO!! If you took away those scenes I bet Rome is not so wild. Just like Oz, some of the violence was horrible, but the penis shots was what got everyone upset.

I still think all the problems the penis shots is either latent homosexual desires in the viewers or general feelings of inadequecy. I mean come on it is a couple full frontal male shots - maybe 30 seconds worth in a series that will be 10 or 11 hours long.

question: is there more male nudity in this versus HBO's Oz? I don't remember all you guys going apeshit over that.

I can only recall 2 penis shots in Rome, Marc Anthony (IIRC) being bathed with oil, and the freak that Attia was giving as a present.

I would imagine the viewership of Rome is greater than that of OZ.

WOW! If I had known there would be (apparently) so much cock in "Rome" maybe I wouldn't have cancelled HBO after "Six Feet Under" went off the air.

Of course, I'm sure everyone here knows that a vomitorium was not actually a room to vomit in.