Ok, so maybe no one here watches it, but I get the feeling one or two of you might...

If you don't then tune out of this already. SPOILERS for those who don't know history...

So anyway, the Tudors was just picked up for a fourth season. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118002...1&nid=2563

The issue is, the Tudors is currently in its third season, and its already handled the major (imho) storyline, i.e., Henry's seduction, breaking with the Catholic church, the divorce, the marriage with Anne Boleyn, and her eventual beheadding.

Now we begin the next season, when he has just taken Jane Seymour as his third wife. Now, of course, we'll go through the standard storyline, the eventual birth of his male heir, and Jane's death. (in childbirth, no less.) Then we have Anne of Cleaves, whom he stayed with for less than a year. Really, even if you make her super sexy, (which you can't cause he divorces her so quickly, cause he hated her..) how much storyline is there?

Then we get back into semi-interesting, with Catherine Howard, who's one of Anne Boleyn's realtives. But the problem is, she's wife number five, and she's already been teased IN THIS SEASON.

Granted, Showtime has no problem with showing us things that happen at the very end of the season at the beginning, so its very possible he hooks up with that chick towards the end of the season, the same as with Anne Boleyn in season one.

My point is : Its possible we'll finish all four of the last wives in this season alone. (Although I think its more likely Catherine Parr will be in the next one.) We have another season comming. I don't exactly see the show as ready for a whole new reboot, by switching to the next generation, and going on to Elizabeth's story. But, that being said, it is called The Tudors, its certainly a possibility. Can the show survive without Edward's body being shown off in every other episode?

Hell, they've already got a grown up Mary, perhaps they will show us Edward's reign, then hers. But really, how exciting can watching a child, or an exceedingly devout queen, really be? Unlike Big Love, which managed to hype up the sex in the first season, then trickle down and let the story reign instead of the nudity, (and suffer not at all, its still an excellent show) I'm not certain that the Tudors can do this. There's a certain amount of people who are watching it for the "corset porn" for lack of a better term.

Ah, anyway, you guys probably don't even watch the show, I just am mind-boggled and don't know where else to say so.

Can we get a run down of which actresses' boobs/cooch are shown in The Tudors, as well as Big Love? I had heard The Tudors was good and was going to netflix it, if there is boobage as well, it will get a priority bump.

Quote:Can we get a run down of which actresses' boobs/cooch are shown in The Tudors, as well as Big Love?

lol, I cant believe you went there on a co-ed board.

(04-13-2009 03:36 PM)ohgeetee Wrote:  Can we get a run down of which actresses' boobs/cooch are shown in The Tudors, as well as Big Love? I had heard The Tudors was good and was going to netflix it, if there is boobage as well, it will get a priority bump.

This is the public section of the forums, you know. With other's real names getting outed in these forums (I'm looking at you Chromatic, in this thread), you might be careful what you post. You never know when your real name will get dropped tied to your username and then all future employers will have access to your opinions on 'boobs' and 'cooch'.

You've been warned ... again.

Don't phear the cooch.

I'm not sure how your post was intended, and now I am unsure of how the 'warning' post was intended. I read it, and the way I understand it, is that the posts here are public, and it is my responsibility to not post anything I don't want my grandma to read.

From your reply, the message now seems to be 'make sure you don't post anything that someone else wouldn't want their name to be associated with.' If this is the intended message, I'd suggest altering the initial warning post to more clearly illustrate this.

Personally, I don't care about the associations to my handle on a public forum on the internet, but if its intended to be my responsibility to make sure that what I say is not something someone else disagrees with or doesn't want read in association with something they posted, that is not a responsibility I want to take on, and simply won't post in the public forums. As long as rules are understandable, I don't have any issue following them.

On a second note, I have no interest in conversing in special terms with people based on gender. As far as the general appropriateness of terminology, I felt that if "corset porn" were acceptable then "boobs and cooch" wouldn't be much different. If this makes someone uncomfortable, feel free to just let me know, in public or private, and I'll edit/refrain in the future.

(04-14-2009 08:46 AM)ohgeetee Wrote:  I'm not sure how your post was intended, and now I am unsure of how the 'warning' post was intended. I read it, and the way I understand it, is that the posts here are public, and it is my responsibility to not post anything I don't want my grandma to read.

Correct.

(04-14-2009 08:46 AM)ohgeetee Wrote:  From your reply, the message now seems to be 'make sure you don't post anything that someone else wouldn't want their name to be associated with.' If this is the intended message, I'd suggest altering the initial warning post to more clearly illustrate this.

Personally, I don't care about the associations to my handle on a public forum on the internet, but if its intended to be my responsibility to make sure that what I say is not something someone else disagrees with or doesn't want read in association with something they posted, that is not a responsibility I want to take on, and simply won't post in the public forums. As long as rules are understandable, I don't have any issue following them.

First, un-twist your panties.

I was merely reiterating my warning (noun - something that serves to warn, give notice, or caution). I was not issuing an ultimatum.

There are no rules. Post whatever you want.

Quote:You've been warned ... again.

warned (verb - to admonish as to action or manners)

Thanks for the clarification though, its easy to misinterpret text communication with no tone or body language to go along with the conversation. If this had been a living room conversation, I doubt there would have been any confusion.

Um, wow.

Considering all the people who've met me on this board, I didn't think that anyone would feel uncomfortable in speaking on such terms in front of me. (Especially considering some of the conversations during D&D. Even from you, Ged.)

To answer your question OhGeeTee, Big Love has Chole Sevingy and Ginnifer Goodwin, maybe some others... (Not the girl from Veronica Mars though, if you're in to the big eyed-crap.)

I couldn't tell you who was in The Tudors, none of them are big names. So far I think the only Queen we've seen is Anne Boleyn. Lots of mistresses though.

But I also take it from the replies that no one else watches the show, so oh well.

pwn (verb - an act of dominating an opponent)