Discussion Series / SpartacusBloodAndSand

Two years later, no action taken. Is there a way to do it without manually copy and pasting all sub pages to the correct location?

There isn't.

A lot of people seem to have gotten a Race Lift, based mostly on where the show was filmed and the pool of actors available. For example, Mira, supposedly from Spain, has a dark Latin look. But back in those days most inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula were Celts, and would have been much fairer. Likewise, Crixus and many of the Gauls are awfully dark for that ethnic group. By the same token, a lot of the Roman characters are blond and quite pale. But this was actually not very common among Latin/Etruscan people and Romans generally had darker hair and complexions than the ones we see on the show. About the only group that looks about right for their ethnicity are the Germans. Gannicus is also believable as a Celt.

True. I do wonder why the series went with the idea of Gannicus resisting a leadership role, though, given that the real Gannicus lead a major Celtic faction within the rebellion (and died in a different battle than the one Spartacus fell in). Also of note regarding the Race Lift issue: while most Romans were somewhat darker than the ones we see in the show, they did admire the pale look (as in the Aeneid), and not only wore wigs but painted themselves to look paler. In fact, if you're going to have your Romans looking like they were wearing makeup at all, you might as well go all out, but shows don't tend to. Even Rome, which really prided itself on historical accuracy, only showed full-on Roman makeup in one episode, where (if you haven't seen it) Atia dresses up Octavia to attract Pompey. Of course, Spartacus is a little more fantastical, but I actually think the stylized maquillage of the Romans would have fit quite well with the show's overall appearance, as well as being more accurate.

Probably had written themselves into a corner with Gannicus, making such a show of how reluctant he was about being a serious rebel leader and playing him up as the bad boy hedonist of the four main male heroes.

Class-conscious Romans associated dark suntans with laborers and slaves, people who had to spend their lives working outside. A "proper" Roman lived and worked indoors as much as possible, especially the wealthy, who rarely left the domus or villa if they could avoid it except for social events. Even so, the number of natural blonds is unrealistically high among the Romans on the show. Seppius and Seppia were probably among the most convincing looking Romans, although the makeup use (and in some cases its absence) is indeed not quite up to Roman spec. But neither were the womens' wardrobes. Respectable Roman women wore much more conservative outfits than the sexy gowns we see on the show. The traditional stola provided a lot more coverage, and they often wore additional layers besides.

But of course the show was going for sexy, not for historical accuracy. The same reason the heroes often fight wearing little more than loincloths. Ironically, Gannicus probably had the most coverage out of the male leads. Spartacus, Crixus and Agron were often showing more skin.

Well, not all respectable women wore the stola. It was a way for a woman to affiliate herself with matronly virtues, but it wasn't a sign of prostitution or penury to go without it. Where the rich women's costumes generally go wrong is in the shape— Roman clothing, as a rule, wasn't that tightly fitted to the body's curves (and some Romans wore underwear, including bandeau-style bras and loincloths). Of course, I think the silliest change is another one you mentioned: why are the rebels dressed in bare loincloths and tiny halter dresses after they've already sacked rich villas? That's fine for scenes set in summer, but when snow's blowing on them, it seems a little more dubious. I'd expect them to be loading on the wool overtunics and cloaks, and maybe even boots.

No, where they go wrong are married Roman women wearing dresses that low-cut (and often with open backs) in any kind of social setting, which in real life would have been very scandalous. In private they could pull it off. But showcasing one's boobs in public was seen as very lower class, and would have been associated with prostitution. One would have expected Illythia's husband and father to be critical of her fashion choices (especially since both were in politics).

On the escaped slaves front, it was funny though. Especially when issues like having to hide out on mountains and/or being prepared for winter come up. I assume we're meant to be impressed by how tough they are, running around with so much bare skin in the cold.

One of the things that would have been interesting, that the show really didn't delve into very deeply, would have been the change between what Illithyia and Lucretia could "get away" with socially. Some respectable Roman women "dressed sexy": for example, Julia, daughter of Octavian Caesar "Augustus", annoyed him by wearing immodest clothing. (He did ultimately exile her, but for outright adultery, not skimpy dresses.) So it happened, but the traditional-values crowd frowned on it. By contrast, lanistae held the status of "infamia", along with gladiators, actors, pimps, and prostitutes. Basically, they were halfway between Hollywood celebrities and trailer trash, at least in the opinions of respectable citizens. Not only would nobody startle at Lucretia's dresses, they probably wouldn't even be surprised by her affair with Crixus, or for that matter with anyone else: what more could you expect from such a lanista's wife?

Well, Julia was an example of a girl/woman acting out against her father on purpose. After all, Augustus did divorce her mother Scribonia literally on the day she was born, having stuck it out that long only because he would have lost some paternal rights to the child if he divorced her before the birth, and he was hoping for a male heir. Once his daughter, a disappointment in and of itself, was born he ditched Scribonia and ran off to marry Livia. He was also a very controlling father. So Julia made it her lifelong mission to antagonize him, especially since she probably found his "traditional family values" moralizing disgustingly hypocritical.

However, here we have Ilythia, Licinia and other upper-class married women, and in the earlier Republic era, who dress in a pretty racy manner by period standards. Which on some levels made it very modern "Beverly Hills". They disdain Lucretia because her inferior social status. But in the real ancient Rome this would have likely been reflected in more conservative dress, showing that they were proper upper class matrons (albeit childless ones) whereas Lucretia was more middle class. I think that a lot of people have such a sexed-up mental image of ancient Rome that they do not realize that the upper class was rocking more of a "Downton Abbey" kind of attitude, at least in terms of public class relations, regardless of whatever misbehavior they were getting into behind the scenes.

You're right that Illithyia and Licinia are definitely pushing the boundaries, unless they have unusually tolerant husbands and fathers. I would describe Lucretia as more "middle-income" than "middle-class," though, because in terms of respectability she, Batiatus, and the other lanistae/lanistae's families are all near the bottom of the barrel, no matter how much money they make. Thus Albinius's remark about Batiatus's "mad quest to become aedile": participating in the entertainment industry was an indignity unimaginable for a public official. For a prosperous grain merchant, it might have been possible, but for even the finest lanista, the idea was ludicrous.

Well, obviously the show takes liberties. It is true that Batiatus would not have been able to pursue positions on the Cursus Honorum, even on a provincial level (and certainly not in Rome itself). Being Vince McMahon didn't get you as much respect back then as it does now. But dropping the title aedile indicates this little slipup, since he had no military background (something he blamed his father for) and had never been military tribune (like Glaber's sidekick/Heterosexual Life-Partner Marcus, much less a quaestor. Glaber could have gotten in a lot of trouble for trying to help somebody like Batatius jump the line like that.

This is kind of like how Batatius bought Agron and Duro for, what was it? Like 80 denarii? Later on Albinus's sheep were listed as being worth several thousand!

The writers obviously didn't keep close track of historical details.

It would have been interesting to see the elite women in conservative attire at least in public, to contrast their rather more revealing outfits worn in private. But of course it would have been less sexy.

It's a dumb way to organize the tropes. They should all be together in one list, since it's all one show.

The problem is that the General tropes list will thus become VERY long. For example, the three Battle Couple pairs mentioned under the Vengeance entry do not become Battle Couples until that series. Spartacus is a little unusual by U.S. TV standards in that each "season" is a separate sub-series, especially Gods of the Arena, in which Spartacus does not appear at all due to Andy's illness and death.

So this partly reflects the unusual nature of this show relative to most programs. Consolidation could be done. But it would not clean things up much. We would end up having to split the tropes into alphabetical sub-folders anyway due to the number of them. The current layout almost makes more sense because it is more closely aligned to the changes in the story type in the different series.

It's not that different. The prequel half-season is the only thing unusual. Otherwise it's just got different names for each season. There's no reason that the tropes should be split up between seasons and "general tropes." It's messy and confusing.

If someone can do it, I'd be fine.

Sure, but we try to keep the editorializing down in the main articles. There's a "reviews" link at the top of the page for people who want to write a review.

There's not a trope page in existence that isn't subjective to a degree. Don't get me wrong, edit wars aren't worth the time or effort, but if we can't poke fun at a series this goofy, what's left? Manos? I don't see anyone removing "So Bad, It's Good" from that page. The few people I know who watch Spartacus wouldn't watch it if it were not a silly, gratuitously violent, overly masculine Guilty Pleasure with bad special effects that takes itself way too seriously. Edit any and all "snarking" at the show out of the page and a large part of its appeal is essentially stifled.

What are you talking about, Manos is a pure work of art, how dare you insult it! I'm going to go over there and bitch and whine and suck the fun out of this site until there's nothing left!

Read the last topic you started about this. It is right above this one.

Likewise with some of the supposed "editorial non-trope things" that were removed a couple of weeks ago. Just about everything on this wiki is a trope, and the page can be condensed without deleting things if they're relevant.

The crowning things aren't tropes. They are just listings of things people thought were cool. That's why they are off in Sugar Wiki land.

Every show/game/whatever on this wiki has a Crowning Moment entry. When they become excessive they get moved to another page. Thus far, that's not the case. So Yeah.

Don't put that shit back in the article. This is an admin warning of an edit ban. We're trying to fix this Crowning crap being in every article.

Put em on the C Mo A page or make a C Mo A page. I would agree this show has them, but if we actually put all the shit people thought were awesome about this show on the page, it would grow beyond belief. The show seems written and shot by someone who has read this wiki and was determined to fill a page with HSQ and C Mo A. I can name 15 of each, but its not worth drowning the page.

If you don't put Crowning Moments into the shows and shit, how will anyone find them. I mean noobs, not people who live on here cause they have fuckall to do because they have a boring fucking job in Wyoming of all places. What exactly is wrong with Crowning Moments. We list other subjective tropes on pages all the time. Look, don't start turning this place into Wikipedia. This isn't Wikipedia. Christ. I've been here for as long as I have because this place didn't take itself as seriously as Wikipedia. But it seems like a bunch of folks have immigrated and begun crusading. That's how all the fun got sucked out of Wikipedia. Don't do it here too. I mean I can see Wikipedia is trying to make a bid for credibility (which, as long as it's open to public edit they'll never get, it's kinda a catch 22). But we're not looking for credibility. This is a place to have a little fun with entertainment and media.

SD - I'm the same as you man. I specifically started going into the forums because I hated some of the crap I was seeing, some of the same stuff you're complaining about. This IS one of the few things I looked into the real reasoning on, and agreed about. Everything's subjective, IMO, and the point they're trying to not cross is that there are a few things way too easy to fight over or fill a page with.

And their choices are - Nip it in the bud, or clean up later. They chose nip. Add a line in this stating "C Mo A - Too many to list, see C Mo A". Calm down man, it's a website, not a lifestyle. :)

By the way - I came here after watching episode 12 so I could read some C Mo A's... and there weren't any. So I do feel your pain.

Meh, I'm the guy with the boring job in the middle of Wyoming, lol. I kill a lot of time on here.

Start CrowningMomentOfAwesome.Spartacus Blood And Sand page. Nothing wrong with the crowning stuff other than it's just not a trope and we want to keep the articles about tropes.

There is one Series.Spartacus Blood And Sand that's Series.SpartacusBloodAndSand