http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okEqLPDxr1s

If that really is why _Rome_ was cancelled, because the sex decreased and, with it, the viewership, I don’t know if that means the writers just can’t write without it, or the audience just can’t stand the politics without the reprieve of naked time every so often. And I don’t know which is more depressing.

So then what do you think, is the distilling and dumbing-down a result of the producers’ preferences, what they think would be most successful in the medium, or just piss (hah!) poor adapting of a decent (not necessarily SPECTACULAR) piece of historical fiction? If the book worked and was simple enough, why do you think they changed it? Because I think it goes a little beyond the arguments of, “Well, there are just some things that can’t translate from page to picture,” which is often an excuse for film adaptations of books. That works sometimes, but not always, and what you’re saying makes me think it shouldn’t in this case.

To take a specific example (since I was totally WTFd when I saw it, and you mentioned you didn’t remember it in the novel): Did they add the incest because they thought it would be cool and EVERY show should have something shocking like that, because they thought audiences would like it, or because they thought there needed to be another dynamic for that character (William?) and that was all they could come up with?

(And about the incest again, and related to the last possibility there: I really hope they don’t try to use the twisted relationship between the dude and his mom as an excuse for his raping the other girl… “My mommy f***ed me up, so I have relationship and power issues! I’m not *really* an asshole, I can’t help myself!”)

I’ve seen all of Rome. If I’m remembering correctly, it gets less sex-ful in the second season–maybe that’s why it got canceled? I would say, sexwise, it’s between Pillars of the Earth the book and Pillars of the Earth the TV show. The sex adds to the plot and historical ambience about 50-75% of the time, and the rest of the time it’s just there because yay sex. As I’ve written on OTI before, the fun of the show is that it showed so many different kinds of Roman sex: low-class sex, high-class sex, sex with a teenage prostitute, sex with Cleopatra, loving sex with your female slave, angry gay sex with one of your male slaves, sex with your sister because you’re being manipulated for political purposes, sex sex sex sex sex…

And also there’s some history. And one gladiator scene.

(Don’t get me wrong – I would totally watch that show.)

Also, although I guess I did say that they ramped up the sex in the TV version, that’s not quite accurate. So far there’s actually been less sex, believe it or not. What they have done, though, is made the plot-function of the sex much, much more stupid. In the book, Tom and Ellen’s sexual relationship is used to demonstrate a sociological point. Because everyone’s sleeping in the same room, they get it on in front of the children all the time, and no one really cares too much about it. Semi-public sex is just part of poor people’s lives. When Alfred tells the monks that Tom and Ellen are having sex, it’s not because he’s trying to get her in trouble, it’s because he doesn’t understand that anyone would be mad about it. And even the monks aren’t really mad. They understand that this kind of thing is typical, especially among the poor. They just use it as a pretext for their own political jockeying, striking at Prior Philip through Tom through Ellen. And this too tells us something about the broader social context.

In the show, they have sex once, Alfred sees it, and it triggers some kind of Oedipal crisis where he blames her for replacing his mother. Then he goes and tells a wildly embroidered version of the story to the monks with the specific goal of destroying her. Like the urination scene, the actual smut level has not changed… and yet it’s so much more obnoxious, isn’t it? It no longer serves to advance the depiction of character or society. Instead, it advances a standard melodrama plot, and while I’ve got nothing against melodrama as such I feel like it tarnishes both 1) the original book, and 2) oddly enough, the sex.

How about this: the series is not ramping up the smut, it is distilling the smut. By boiling away all of the intelligent stuff around the sex, they end up with a final product that’s closer to pornography.

But your clarification about _Rome_ makes me wonder if it lost viewers because there was what *they* would call “too much” politicking involved. Sad as it is, I very easily envision a scenario in which the mob (get it?) demands more sex and swords, and the studio either caves and sacrifices plot for hott- thus risking a loss of a chunk of audience because they get angry or disgustipated by the inaccuracies and such- or doesn’t and loses at least some of the chunk of audience watching for the promise of people in (or out, I guess) of togas getting it on.

How much have you seen? Does it get sexier as it goes, less sexy, or does it stay pretty consistent?

I think the adaptation problems you’re discussing are purely that, though: historical fiction movies have a different format than those allowed for novels, meaning the politics and sociology are not as big of a part. The “reveal” in the first episode felt very formulaic to me, not having read the book, and the fact that it’s onscreen made me think it’s supposed to be something close to dramatic irony, which is always a big pull for cinematic efforts. The urination scene *was* pretty damn awful, and it’s fairly obvious who dun what in the past and what’s going to happen sooner or later (I expect Jack to somehow rise to the throne or something close, aye?), and I think that’s the point of it being onscreen as opposed to in print- the miniseries makers aren’t presenting a mystery, but blatant exposition. And why, well, I’d chock that up to lack of faith in the audience, which I can’t really blame them for. They’re ramping up the sex because that’s a draw for film and television, and they’re oversimplifying the plot because the audience they’ll draw in with said sex wants softcore porn, not mystery. I’d categorize it with _Rome_ and _The Tudors_, two series I haven’t watched but have been told to because of the historical spin- but I have been reluctant because these same recommenders first mention how the shows are uber sexxay, the historical part being an afterthought; and while I’m not a prude, I don’t watch movies or shows simply because they’re hott. But, I still make the comparison because while there is supposedly lots of politicking in the two other series, the ads are at least pitched to ignore that- it’s all sex and sieges and swords, and the politicking sort of takes a backseat position to the rest. Any soundbites (apart from heaving and panting) are cheesy, action-packed one-liners that are fairly generic and give absolutely no mystery at all.