Borgia is a far greater show in my opinion. The Borgias is entertaining fast food, but Borgia is the far smarter show, with greater attention to being true to the time, place, and people of the Renaissance.
"Cesare, Lucrezia, Juan, and Giovanni"??? Giovanni and Juan are the same. Giovanni is the italian version, while Juan is the spanish version. The actual name of Cesare, Lucrezia, and Juan's little brother was Jofre(spanish/name in HBO) or Goffredo(italian/name in Netflix).
Thanks for this, I was confused watching this video, since I knew Giovanni Borgia mostly by his Italian name. If he wants to go with the Spanish version, it would be Juan Borja, not Juan Borgia.
I couldn't get past the first episode of "Borgia," so I don't know if my opinion on which is better really matters (but considering that I've watched the entire series of "The Borgias" at least ten times, it's definitely one of my favorite shows ever). I wanted to comment on your saying that you didn't see much of a character arc in Cesare's portrayal in "The Borgias" because he starts off as a badass and ends as a badass, but I think the arc that the writers were going for was an emotional and psychological one more than anything else. It's basically a descent into darkness. Over the course of the series, he commits more and more morally questionable acts, until the person he is in the last episode would probably shock and terrify the person he was in the first episode. His father slowly begins to fear him. You see him become more violent, absolutely ruthless, and in the very final scene reach a point where even his love for Lucrezia has lost all its joy and innocence. Compare his uneasy "I felt the life go out of him" in 1x05 when he kills someone for the first time with him staring at the blood on his hands in 2x05 after his first murder (as opposed to his previous kills which had occurred during fights) with him setting a man on fire and, unflinching, watching him burn in 3x09. His loss of innocence isn't as abrupt or dramatic as Lucrezia's, but it is the main point of his arc, in my opinion.
Btw I disagree with you about the part with Cesare defending Rome with fake cannons made of plaster and wood, I don't think it was "stupid" I think that was actually a very clever idea. Since they didn't have bronze, they could only use plaster & wood to make the fake cannons, they were much faster and cheaper to make and they look exactly like the real bronze cannons. These fake plaster cannons were suppose to be just an illusion to trick the French troops into thinking those cannons were real, and it worked, the French king was fooled into believing they were real and the French troops retreated, which ultimately saved Rome. So in the end it was a clever idea Cesare thought of to trick the French.
In other words: the Borgias won only because the French king and the 2 Sforzas are gutless fools that don't even know how to use spies in order to figure out whether the Borgias have any real cannons or not, right? And the Borgia Pope is a complete idiot, too, for you know, he has neither money for bronze nor time to make cannons exactly because he spent money and time for his stupid feasts, and for fighting pigeons, and for sleeping with his lovers, and for whatever. Yes I have to agree: in such moronic environment Cesare looks rather clever, allright. lol
well in the pope's defense, he didn't know the French king was going to mass an assault on Rome in such short notice and it probably never crossed the Sforza or the French king's minds that Rome would make cannons of their own. But yeah, I do agree that Rodrigo was a bit of an idiot in this and the French king was as dumb and clueless as a rock. But I would've expected more from Caterina Sforza though, they portrayed her as this cunning and smart and calculating schemer in S3, but she wasn't so smart before that. I think they purposely dumb down the other characters in that scene to make Cesare look smart. And of course as viewers, we know that those cannons were fake, but let's look at it from their perspective, if we were actually in that position and saw a row of cannons that look exactly like the real thing, I would assume they were real too and I wouldn't risk the lives of my troops in case those cannons were real, so I would've retreated too.
I agree it was great, but at least partially because I know of other historical examples of this type of thing, like the inflatable tanks used in WWII by the Allies.
@@melissaknive3494 Kind of a different thing though, isn't it? During the time of the Borgias cannons had been around for a while, but they were still much rarer than during later centuries. They would have been extremely expensive and difficult to move. An invading army would probably have a pretty good idea about the number artillery at each castle or city in their way. Especially if the invaded state is rather small like the papal states during that time. If a large number of cannons suddenly appeared out of nowhere the french would have been very suspicious and would have found a way to test if the cannons were functional after investing a huge amount of money to raise an invading army. To use your example of fake tanks, the Germans would have seen through the trick if there had suddenly appeared 10.000 allied tanks out of nowhere.
I played Cezares personal guard in the Borgia version and spend quite a lot of my life doing that, fighting, braking stuff, traveling around the Europe, not sleeping for days and being soaked in artificial rain durring the rainy scenes at the end or going through literal fire durring the battle scenes (and nearly dying when one really crazy extra tryed to stab me with a sharp spear out of nowhere) I'll be honest, I watch this review only because I'm still not able to watch anything I act in, so I watch reviews as a sort of therapy. I left this life behind, because of my beautifull wife and our daughter. Also, I have no idea why Im writing this... :-D (Anyway, if you are interested in some details from the making of the series, feel free to contact me. )
I've watched both shows at least 3 times in their entirety and adore both. I wish Showtime's version would have had one more season as intended just to see Cesare kick ass and be brilliant to the very end. Canal's (Netflix) version was also great with Cesare and he was brilliant because he didn't always need an army to win his battles. Cesare steals the show, except on Showtime's version when he's sometimes overcome by the powerful presence of Jeremy Irons.
I find it fascinating that this guy is such an "expert" on Cesare Borgia but does not know that a) Cesare never developed tertiary syphilis and may in fact have been effectively cured by the fever in 1503 that nearly killed him and b) syphilis does not disfigure and even by his time in Navarre, Cesare was being described as a handsome and healthy man - not "disfigured" nor wearing an "iconic" mask regularly. Even the people who didn't like him admitted he was fiercely intelligent (if sometimes 'moody') and very handsome, right up until his death. Also, since the Showtime series was canceled before its planned fourth season, it seems likely that some of the complaints about a cut-off story-arc for Cesare may be blamed on that, not the intentions of the series creators.
Borgia did it way better, there is no question around it. You are obviously biased towards the Showtime version because of the way you present the Netflix version. I took the chance of trying to watch the Showtime, but I couldn't stand it; it felt so fake and forced. Borgia's characters are so real and humane and well done, the fact that for our modern standards of "goodness and morality" Borgia characters are too brutal. Cessare and Lucrezia's relationship was so much deeper than just "will they fuck" their relationship was based on real love deeper than the brother-sister incest dynamic; did you miss the dialogs between cessare and Lucrezia on the second and third season where they both have grown out of the horny teenagers phase and become more mature. Fact check, on the Netflix version, Lucrezia and cessare never had sex. Lucrezia's relationship to her father Rodrigo, my god how can you say that Rodrigo was cold, I think you just skimmed through the whole thing. Rodrigo loved his children and his family, my favorite scene where you can appreciate that love is when Lucrezia's marries her third husband Alfonso D'Este and leaves Rome, that speech when they were saying farewell made me cry. But yeah, keep showing rabdom clips without context. A plus is that canal+ did an outstanding job in making such a quality production out of a small budget.
The borgias were just way better in basically everything. Watching Borgia i was just in two moods: emotionless or disgusted.The Borgias emotioned me in many occasions, for example i couldn't contain my tears on Juan's burial from 2x10. And the cast with Jeremy, Francois, David and Holliday was absolutely amazing.
Ah yesss, I remember! The Pope of Rome buried his favourite son. Quite alone. And without any christian rites. And in unsanctfied ground, like a dead pet dog or something. :P Poor Juan. Poor Rodrigo. Poor me - I didn't know anymore if I should cry or laugh. Do you understand that the scene not only never happened - it COULDN'T happen, never, no matter what? What's use in great music and brilliant acting if the scene itself is ahistorical, implausible, ridiculous bulls..t? And actually The Borgias is full of such silly crap made up for modern teenagers and housewives. The noble lady Giulia Farnese is travelling through the half Italy - alone, on horseback and without protection. The bastard son of the "virgin" Pope's daughter and some stable boy is parading through Rome. The cardinals of the Curia visiting some cheap bordels, setting fire to the Vatican and commiting suicide. And so on and so on. See unlike The Borgias Borgia Faith and Fear is clever. And even if the show is not always accurate, it at least TRIES to recreate the times of Borgias.
DivergentRunner, ah the old good song again: a show is not history, go and watch documentary and bla... LOL I don't expect absolute historical accuracy from TV shows. What I want is a balanced and vivid blend of facts and fiction. Borgia provided me with such a blend, The Borgias never did. As for the tastes: nope, not anything is a matter of taste. The historical accuracy is objective. The clever plotlines remain clever, no matter who watches. In both aspects Borgia F&F wins easily, hands down. Accordingly, there are different ways to do audience - it depends on what part of audience the show creators appeal to. And where exactly have I attacked YOU? I haven't written a word about you, not even asked you to shut up. :) We are discussing not us but the two Borgias shows, aren't we? Good night.
The part that really got me was when Rodrigo picked up Juan's body, turned around, and showed him carrying a young child version of Juan while he held him close and kissed his head so affectionately like even though Juan was an asshole and we were kind of routing for him to die it was the reaction a father towards the death of his son--his little boy--that broke our hearts
And and the relationship between Lucrezia and Cesare looked completely awkward even when they were just close in the Netflix version. The actors hadn't any chemistry
Everything but historical accuracy. No that Borgia was completely accurate, but it captured the Renascence Italy a lot better. Life was short, the church was cruel and all powerful, public executions were a pastime, and Rome was in a perpetual state of civil war
Mmmm, I don't know... I mean I know The Borgias was over-romanticized, but I think it was closer to reality, than Borgia. It was the dark renessaince, yes, but I don't think that all people in power were sociopaths who didn't care about anyone, just like not all people in power are that way now. It was more human to me, how they cared about each other and had normal emotions. Btw your agrument on the stuff which was shown as fact: I don't think they wanted to show everything accurately, it was for entertainment, and not a documentary. With an incestuous relationship and a cantarella-ring Lucrezia's character was made more exciting with less effort, and I think that was the goal. Who wnts to know the facts, will read about it - just like I did.
dodo EXACTLY! I mean why are ppl keeping talking about historical facts in 2 TV SERIES? of course theres gonna be original plot that’s what makes it a TV show. Else why watch it instead of watching documentaries. The plots which shows and indicates character are just as important
@@katherineli9908 Yes. Because even though it was based on historical figures/facts, at the end of the day, these are fictional characrers in a televison show. And writers want you to care about them.
A very old comment to contribute to, but screw it. As someone who wrote their thesis on renaissance italy this is a great topic. The fact is, it is a very common occurence for historical entertainment to tone down the cruelty because people will find it exagerated, but the truth is that the morality displayed in canal+ Borgia is far more accurate than the toned down version in showtime the Borgias. Rome was a shiny oppulent city completely rotten on the inside at the time. Even the monks had goons working for them. The top of the catholic church were sociopathic because the system in place demanded that you had to be to reach it. Italian politics in the renaissance was closer cartel politcs in Mexico now or Columbia in the late 80's and 90's than anything you see in the US congress. It was a ruthless game, that demanded heinous acts to achieve anything. But that reality can be alienating and make it hard for people to digest a story. So showtime turned the violence, corruption and cruelty waaaaay down.
Of course it's fiction, but it's a little weird that people are so naive to the Renaissance, firmly believing in the idea of the Dark Ages as full of violence and war and corruption, and the Renaissance as relatively calm and serene, but that is only the image the people of the Renaissance themselves created to make themselves seem better, smarter, more caring than the people of the Middle Ages. The Showtime version of the Borgia's adopts this romantic idea of the Renaissance, turning it more into a love story between brother and sister in times of war and corruption, while the Canal+ version - which I admit, I find much more superior - is more a character driven story. The people around the Borgia are also part of that story. Giulia Farnese is at times very cynical and therefore funny, Vannozza Catanei is not an ex-courtisan turned to the spurned lover, and Della Rovere is shown to be just like Rodrigo Borgia, but he is bitter that he did not "win" the Papacy before Borgia did
I think know you got it wrong 100%, why would it need humor, it was a drama? Netflix got it right, the casting, and story was more interesting Cesare in Netflix looked and was a bad ass on the other hand the HBO'S Cesare looked like a pussy and was weak. The Pope was much better in Netflix /CANAL playeing his cards to advance the name Borgia. One more thing the location of Borgia made you feel as if you were in Italy during the Renaissance.
ok so first of all tom fontana did not portray pope alexander in borgia. that was john doman. tom fontana made the show. i mostly agree with your point except when it come to lucrezia. i believe the actress in borgia Isolda Dychauk did a brilliant job and i love how she did her lines. plus her physical appeaeance more matches the said appeal of the real life lucrezia.
Definitely preferred the Canal+ version. It had a lot more to say about the period of the Renaissance in the terms of the age itself. I think the honesty of the human body and of the brutality are necessary to understand the time period and an interesting counterpoint to the beauty created by artists like Michaelangelo and Da Vinci and classical humanism that was emerging in Italy at the time in contrast to the rule of the church. Also, I liked the mixed European/American cast and the various accents. It gave the impression of the Vatican and the places they traveled as having distance culturally, etc. from each other. Even within the family that sense of do we really know each other? Even our closest relatives? I liked Isolda's diction and portrayal. The Showtime Lucretia was very Hollywood and did not look at all like a Renaissance beauty but a 1950's Hollywood ideal. Cesare's arc in the European production was really informed by the writing of The Prince and concepts of a good sovereign who uses force for the good of the state in very unstable times. Also, they wrestled with it but no incest took place.
I do believe that you're judging the Netflix Cesare's charisma based upon very modern sensibilities, yet I recall Cesare actually addressing this point in the last episode of the second season in between his letting go of Ottaviano Riario, & his proclamation of "Aut Caesar, Aut Nihihl". The Canal + version clearly shows the Borgia family's behavior as in large part a response to the sheer hostility their mere presence on the Papal Throne aroused in the traditional Italian block of the nobility. Over all, the historical Cesare Borgia (largely represented by the Canal + version) was a far better figure than the Sforza, Orsini, Colona, & della Rovere families. I just think one needs to pay very close attention to the political machinations of Cesare that are revealed in every piece of his dialogue. He also makes note to his secretary while serving as Duke de Valentinois after marrying Charotte d'Albret how he's gained the adoration of his subjects by actually using their taxes payed to him to better their lives. In the third season, the crowds of the Romagna cities nearly lynch Alessandro Farnesse simply for delivering Julius II's (Giuliano della Rovere) proclamation stripping Cesare of his title of Prince of the Romagna & his intention to reabsorb the Principality back into the direct supervision of Rome. There's a very good reason why the cities which Cesare conquered resisted Papal sieges for YEARS after that proclamation. The famed, & celebrated Chivalrous "Gran Capitan" of Spain, Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba, Viceroy of Naples also included betraying Cesare by arresting him & sending him back to Spain when he escaped Rome & went to Naples as his second deathbed regret, despite the fact that it was Isabella of Castille herself (who de Cordoba clearly loved dearly, they knew each other from their early teens when she was a Princess, & his third deathbed regret he claimed would would confess only between God & himself). I highly doubt that the chivalrous de Cordoba would have regretted arresting Cesare Borgia had Ill Valentino truly been as unsympathetic a figure as you seem to think he is in Borgia. He was very much on the path of Nitzche's Ubermench, in his ruthlessness where all the other already hostile aristocracy was concerned, & yet genuine care for the welfare of his subject long term. Remember that Cesare was fighting forge a unified Italy when the native aristocracy was known to be hostile to perceived outsiders, threats to the political status quo, & seditious when it served the interest of preserving the benefits that de facto feudal independence offered them, such a thing is not practically accomplished by playing the role of the saint.
All good points but the way I looked at Cesare's sudden influx of empathy in the last season was basically a ploy that the writing staff of Borgia did to make us empathize with him. So that we'd have an emotional connection with the ending where he lives. From what I've seen here many fans of Borgia over look how savage and mental the character was portrayed early on. And while old 1400s was way more violent then today that doesn't excuse how irrational a lot of his actions were. In seasons 1 & 2 he was a butcher instead of a general. Bombastic and loud instead of calculating and charismatic. So when in the third season he became likeable in his portrayal I saw it as the writers tryingto make the audience feel for him. Which in my personal opinion cheapens all the good he did in season 3 because it was unrepresentative of who he was before. Which came off as artificial. Lucrezia's character growth by comparison felt much more real because it had been set up. She'd been shown to have sympathy and compassion. So when she stopped her husband from executing those men (I can't remember if they were his brothers or traitors). I genuinely felt it fitted within her character. But when Cesare was being written as a monster and then becomes a charmer it just felt like I was being manipulated for the twist ending.
But he does have flashes of empathy in the second season though. He takes an active interest in his subjects' welfare by using their tax money to improve their lives, he does show a sincere care for Carlotta d'Aragona, & he does show love for Charlotte d'Albret all while showing him bonding (while looking to advance his own interests) with King Charles a bit, but more so with King Louis. For a while we do see a bit of a moral struggle during Cesare's first meeting with Savonarola, in which there's just a bit of the old seminary boy still left in him. I also believe that season 2 also has a moment when Cesare finds himself applying some lip balm when he notices a blind beggar asking him for some money, & the then cynical Cesare asks him why he should give him anything as he knows not whether the man will spend it wantonly, and how he's blind to begin with. The man then recounts how he lost his sight when in the rentinue of a young but arrogant nobleman who made it a point to harass & assail another young nobleman & his seminary friends, & how he holds no grudge against those men as he knows that his sight was lost in a fight that his side instigated. Cesare then taken aback surely feeling a great bit of sympathy at realizing that the blind man was one of young Colona's retinue back in a season 1 fight, leaves the entire pouch of money that he was then carrying with the blind man. In season 1 we also saw it implied that seminary Cesare (his beardless self) was much more actively charitable. As for Cesare as a person, I subscribe to an answer the Borgia actor Mark Ryder gave in an interview as to whether he viewed Cesare as a hero or as a villain, both as he did do heroic things, but also many terrible things as well. He's a bit of an anti hero, he's not a Galahad, or a de Cordoba, or Roland, no his behavior tends to match many other seen as historical "greats" (series Cesare matching Alexander the Great far more than Caesar, ironic given that Rodrigo chose Alexander as his name rather than Julius, & Cesare clearly had Caesar as his historical idol). I do think the Borgia Cesare portrayal could have used a bit more of demonstration of what Cesare had planned as to where he thought to place his friends & family in his planned new political order in a united Italian realm.
Bookmark, so Cesare in season 2 is not calculating enough, seriously? Jeez, the guy basically manupulated the world around him! And speaking of him being a butcher instead of a general: didn't we see him taking Milan without any single shot? :-) Actually the very essence, the alfa and omega of Cesare's character is formulated clearly on "Borgia", and pretty early, too: WHEREVER I AM, TWO ELEMENTS ARE ALWAYS STRUGGLING WITHIN ME - BEAST VERSUS ARCHANGEL. MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THE BEAST WINS. Cesare is neither black nor white on the show; he's both, at the same time. He is truly the villain AND the hero of the story. Surely his irrational, savage, bestial side is very distinct from the very start. Also, quite important: he himself is fully aware of it. But Cesare's "archangel" moments are also there, all the time, in all 3 seasons. Don't you remember how he tried to console Giovanni de' Medici after the death of his father Lorenzo? Is it not obvious how desperately he loves Rodrigo through the whole season 1? And even though he never really liked Juan he's positively terrified by the very thought he COULD have killed his brother, even by accident, in the drunken brawl. As he matures and emancipates himself from his father, these both sides of his character, the "good" and the "evil" one, start to evolve rapidly. So Cesare in seasons 2 and 3 is better but, at the same time, also worse than at the start of the series. The idea of two sides of humans is surely not new but that's what Tom Fontana's show deals with. It's about human nature in the first place - which, btw, didn't change much from the time of Borgias. The conflict of 2 sides is still the same; it is just not so intense as in the Renaissance.
Why did you ignore that Netflix showed Lucrezia's Governorship and handling of the Papal Throne? Or her last marriage and all it's intrigue. I think you are correct that in the first season and first half of the second season they focus on Lucrezia deciding what she wants and spends time away from major players. However the plot picks up with her in the second half of season 2 and season 3. While The Borgias Lucrezia was more outwardly interesting and had a superior, in the end the majority of her plot was reduced to "Will she sleep with her brother" The entire show more or less turned into that. The other plots were poorly explained and gloss over in favor of that plot. I found it more interesting that the Lucrezia of Netflix had a plotline outside of that.
The Borgias wins for so many reasons! Cesare and Lucrezia..... Cesare's relationship with Juan..... no american accents..... But at the end of the day, it's all because of one man....... Micheletto! Not only is Sean Harris a tremendous actor..... Oh, let's just keep it like that; Sean Harris is a tremendous actor! Micheletto was a-may-zing! He was violent and hard and cold as ice, but he had a heart and he had the most intense bromances with Cesare and when he kneeled in front of Lucrezia with the baby.... My heart just exploded out of my chest. The Borgias also had a more charismatic Rodrigo, a more passionate Katerina Sforza and an absolutely incredible Lucrezia, but the main reason for the Borgias winning? Micheletto! Always and Forever!
I totally agree, The Borgias is so much better, the actors in The Borgias were better and they had better chemistry, especially between François Arnaud and Holliday! And they made the Borgia family much more likable in The Borgias.
Brandon Hernandez: I sorta disagree, because Holliday (the actress who played Lucrezia in The Borgias) had such awesome chemistry with François Arnaud (actor who played Cesare) in The Borgias (Showtime version) that I'm glad she was in The Borgias with François, and not in the Netflix version. I also hate Cesare in the Netflix version, so I'm glad François was not in the Netflix version. The Cesare in The Borgias played by François was much more likable and charismatic.
One point that, for me, goes to Borgia is the greater inclusion of the peripheral character, Johannes Burchard (various spellings), who was the papal Master of Ceremonies and chronicler of the times of Alexander VI (also before and after). After all, his journals provide much of the contemporary documentation of the reign of this pope. And, in an otherwise often humorless background, Borgia's Burchard provides some comic relief.
I'm still a bit sad that I saw the HBO The Borgias first, and the other one second. Because in my opinion, Borgia doesn't even come close to The Borgias. It lacks acting talent and the overall feel was like they did it too fast, without enough thinking. The Borgias made it feel like you were in sunny Rome, and even though it might have seem less gory, the pain and struggles came more to light. Especially during the rape of Lucretia, the death and the burial of Juan. Maybe I'm a little prejudice since I saw The Borgias first and Giulia is played by a Dutch actress, but I couldn't agree more on it winning this "battle"!
@ Finaly Dishonored: please read HolandaChiquita's comments carefully, he actually said The Borgias is better than the Netflix version and I agree, I think The Borgias is better than the Netflix version too.
No wonder 'cause parts of Borgia WERE shot in Italy, indeed - at Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola, in Tarquinia, Viterbo, Sermoneta, Civita Castellana, at Palazzo Orsini-Odescalchi in Bracciano, in Parco degli Acquedotti near Rome and many many other historical Italian locations. As for the Borgias it was completely filmed in Hungary.
I liked both but....Borgia was just a little better, in my opinion. It was'nt perfect, but the Borgias were to... polished and I liked the interpretation of the characters more in Borgia. Except Cesare and Rodrigo, there I'm still undecided...
I'm french and I've watched both shows. I'm sorry in advance for my bad English :/ First of all Borgia is NOT a Netflix creation but a Canal + creation ! And I loved it way more than The Borgias. On the other hand I really enjoyed the Borgias too. Your criticisms made a lot of sense but I disagree on a lot of points. I don't think any show tried to follow an historical path, Borgia was clearly not accurate, and didn't try to be, as you imply. I think that The Borgia is really « American », I mean characters had to be good or horrible (Cesare/Juan), Catarina Sforza had to be Badass, etc. In almost every American production you have to empathize for one of the main families or group of characters (The Starks for instance), while I think Canal + show most interesting point was that it didn't try to picture the Borgia's trinity as nice people. Maybe my preference goes to Canal + because I watched the show first when it was displayed on TV in France, I don't know, but I think in France we are not attached to “the loving family idea”, it's pretty much obvious in our cinema and theatre. Killing and death didn't have the same weight in people way of seeing things, I think Borgia depict way more the real XVth century states of minds. How religious the family is, except Cesare, while being all but not Christian. I loved how Charles VIII, Louis XII and Anna Breizh were portrayed. We know that Charles VIII had the most stupid death of french kings History, even if in Borgia it wasn't accurate, the idea remained. Both The Borgias and Borgia followed all of the rumors which were believed true in the XIXth century, the incest within the family, Della Rovere being gay (even having an affair with Raphael), but both softened them. If you've ever read “Les Borgias” by Alexandre Dumas, you'll understand pretty well what people kept thinking about the Borgia in Europe until the middle of the XXth century. They were supposed to be cunning, sadistic, incestuous, manipulating and always pulling political strings. It's totally what I saw in Borgia and not in The Borgias. While I preferred Jeremy Irons as pope Alexander, Cesare, Lucrezia and Juan were better characters in the Canal + show for me. Juan is totally out of it, his mind isn't straight and I loved how heartlessly Lucrezia killed him. Cesare is mean and a bastard. The Prince, is one of the most famous philosophy book in history, the perfect ruler of Machiavel is mainly inspired by the Valentinois, and The Prince of Machiavel resembles a lot Cesare of Borgia, I really liked it. Juan and Cesare were Character whom I couldn't pity at all. Lucrezia was the most gentle one out of them, but not flawless. She was a feminist but wanted power, respect. The first season was about her growing as a teenager, after that she just lives her life how she wants, and I liked it. You may disagree with me, however it's my point of view. If I was to resume everything in one sentence I would say that The Borgias is a “Grand public” show, while Borgia is made for history fans only.
+Mauve sabot Your English is perfectly fine haha. And all of your points are completely valid.I suppose which people are going to like is going to depend on what their watching it for, and which one they see first. I find it that most people enjoy their first exposure most because it becomes the base in which the other has to compare to. As to your point on characters, I have to agree that the romanticizing and need for sympathetic portrayals is a very American thing. Europeans seem to enjoy the antihero more, while Americans like to only focus on the virtues and not examine their faults. I would say though i found Borgia at times being "Needlessly cruel" in their depictions which kind of felt unnecessary. At some points i wanted to say, "we know their bastards, try showing something different about them." Did you ever see it that way?
+Bookmark Yes I agree with you, Borgia's characters cruelty was a little bit too exaggerated sometimes, especially Cesare's. ;) Yet it kind of left the feeling that they were persuaded not doing wrong, or at least, not fearing any retaliation, as if they weren't normal humans. It didn't bother me but I can easily understand that a lot of people would find it difficult to become attached to the main characters. I'm sorry for writing about Borgia being a Canal + show, I didn't read your description ahead...
I think it was just irrational as bookmark said. Although I have to admit that at times the actor of Borgia seems better(at least when it comes to action) when comes to emotions The Borgias won.
@@_Bookmark_ Borgia was wayyy better, The Borgia's main protagonists are too cheesy , they look like romantic versions of real cold blooded murderers who the hell wants to see that ? Borgia has more intense portrayals and Rodrigo's acting is better than Irons who never scares anyone . In some shots he looks like the father in 7th Heaven in his attitude. Borgia isn't a Netflix creation but a Canal+ creation. I didn't even know Netflix had something to do with the show. Now I 'm moving to your Sherlock Holmes video and I'm scared to see the terrible Sherlock winning against the pretty cool Elementary.
The Netflix/Canal+ Borgia didn't have Cesare and Lucrezia actually have sex. That show teased their relationship, but they didn't actually do it. And the ending for Cesare with him in the New World I thought was a good use of artistic license.
I watched shows like these religiously, but in terms of the better series its Borgia hands down. The Italian Renaissance, though praised for its art and culture, was a brutal time especially in the hands of Pope Alexander VI. I couldn’t understand why HBO treated the Borgias like the Medicis. That to me is unforgivable. Its a lot more capturing to try and solve a dysfunctional family than one where their motives are clear and predictable.
Borgia could not hold my intention at all. The Borgias had so many better qualities, like character development and they were more likable. Cesare in Borgia was so crazy, I couldn't stand to watch his scenes for long because he was always killing people for the stupidest reasons. BTW I laughed so hard when you mentioned all the dark scenes & you know it's the dark ages but could someone please light a fucking candle😂😂😂
Why do you have to like Cesare? Just because he's the main character? He's an antihero and that's ok. It's funny no one had problems hating Juan. I guess a lot of people, especially most Americans, feel the need to like the main character as a person to enjoy since they equate it to the "protagonist." The person that you're rooting for and who you want to succeed. If that person has evil goals and methods, it's hard to empathize in that way.
@@iateyursandwiches the show borgia made cesare unrealistically cringe by making him kill everyone like they were bugs. and not true, i pitied juan a bit actually. also generalizing americans is so hilarious, hehe. couldn't be more wrong
Borgia (Canal Studio/ Netflix) was far superior on every level, from the tone, pace character development etc. though I did find the other rendition entertaining.
While personally i think the Borgia is a lot better than The Borgias, i do appreciated their own merit to handling the show. Like The Borgias, it's well-handle story for entertainment with nice set, but definitely historically inaccurate and more Hollywood-ish. While Borgia on the other hand, the story feels more real. There were some historical inaccuracy, but the setting makes up invoking a sense of realism. Other flaws i would definitely like to point out is the acting and accents, they sounds terrible for a television format. In short, The Borgias wins in story and in television format. Borgia wins in historicity and arguably some storylines as well.
Lol Cesare never slept with Lucrezia in Borgia. They made out, but Paolo was there, and that's as far as it got. I think Borgia did the Cesare x Lucrezia better in the sense that it wasn't the main point of the show. It kinda felt like in season 3 of The Borgias, that the Cesare and Lucrezia romance was what the writers wanted to write when they had a crap load more to work with.
Lucrezia in both versions is portrayed quite good. However I absolutely disagree that Lucrezia in Canal+ version didn't have any strong moments as character. Her interactions with Juan Cesare and her father are so much more interesting than in Showtime...
I watched one episode of the Netflix version and was completely turned off. The acting was bad and over the top. Every character seemed to be pouty like they couldn't get their way and the patriarch was unlikeable ane didn't seem like he had as much drive as the HBO's Pope Alexander. The HBO show is ten times better and sorry but shits all over the Neflix version. The story and the characters take their time. Even if the Neflix version is more historically accurate that doesn't make it better
Excelente Review Amigo! 👍🏼👍🏼 🆙 I say the Netflix “Borgia” versión overall was the Best . Even with the smaller budget they finished it !! And the actors were catapulted to fame worldwide.
I like your videos, and thought your comparion was well reasoned. I favor Showtime's The Borgias myself. A lot for some of the reasons you described. Superior portrayals of many characters such as Lucrezia, Caterina Sforza, Micheletto, Cesare, Della Rovere, and Juan. I also favored Vanozza though I know you did not. And characters like Ascanio Sforza were interesting (mostly all the Sforzas were interesting, barring the son who was kind of there to just be tortured), as too were Machiavelli and poor doomed Paolo. I also think that, had it not been cancelled, the development of Cesare Borgia in the Showtime series would've far outstripped Netflix's version. I know you say he began as a badass, and just became a slightly bigger badass. And while I don't totally disagree, I think given more seasons, a different pattern would've emerged. Because Cesare in the Showtime version isn't a total bastard lunatic from word one. He's kind to his sister, protective of his parents, resentful of his brother. He's clever, sure, and a strategist -- one whom Micheletto really teaches to fight. But what's more interesting is the progression of his ruthlessness. Because he wasn't always so. Micheletto did so much of the dirty work himself, only to see Cesare brutally murder his own brother, and then his sister's husband in season three. It's more interesting to see someone human lose their humanity, which I think is the trajectory Showtime was taking. Because he was so sympathetic in the beginning. And he loses that humanity through relentless ambition, rampant jealousy, even incestuous love of his sister. (Also, I just really, really love François Arnaud and find it difficult to fault him much so there's bias for you.) I also think what you intimated is right, that Netflix's version is very reflective of the attitude so much of Europe had (and still have) of the Borgia family -- attitudes reflected in the rumors of the family itself at the time. They were Spanish, ruthless, and conniving. Not unlike a mob family (and Italy was not Chicago, who loved their mobsters). Rodrigo was ambitious and greedy. Lucrezia a scandal of Italy, though amazing for her time. And Cesare cut quite a swathe of blood himself before being brutally killed. So yeah. Netflix's portrayal of the Borgias lacking humanity or something remotely resembling any kind of sense actually makes perfect sense to me.
Thank you so much for this. I have been a huge fan of The Borgias for a long time and seen it quite a few times. Borgia on the other hand I had to give up. Could not like it. I couldn't get into the diversity of accents and did not like the characters. I'm a huge fan of Jeremy Irons so I was biased from the start. I cared about all the characters in The Borgias, ended up a huge fan of Francois Arnaud and Sean Harris, both of whom I thought were magnificent and I enjoyed the story. For me that wasn't the case with Borgia. Neither of them are historically accurate so I watched for entertainment reasons only, and for me that was better accomplished by the Showtime series. Pity it was cancelled. But your two videos were great to watch. Can't wait to watch the Sherlock one! (I'm guessing Elementary vs Sherlock? Good luck!
I actually found the crazy Cesare of the Chanal+ version rather interresting and I didn't find him quite irredeemable, though he definitely did a lot of monstrous things. In the first season he was trying to be a good man of the cloth some of the time and throughout the series he genuinely cared about his family (well except Juan). I found his growth from an already unstable young man into a megalomaniac very believable and realistic and the actor played it perfectly imho. And I don't agree with your comment that the Chanal+ show had no humor for the first two seasons. For instance the papal secretary, Johan Burchard, was played for laughs a few times and an intentionally annoying German child prince was also present. Although I don't agree entirely with your assessment you have gained a new subscriber for your generally sound reasoning and solid delivery.
Thank You very much Anders. And after going back to watch him a bit more I start to see why people do like him. He is a bit of a Walter White character. And thanks for your sub, I'll try and get the next episode out round the 25th.
@Snafu If you find the videos so truly atrocious i would suggest that you hit dislike and put them out of your mind. And if you are unable to voice your opinion without resulting to childish vulgarity, you need not feel obligated to continue voicing them.
When you say you’re interested in anything Borgia I think you just mean after you saw the shows and then reading Wikipedia as you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about beyond that. And you really don’t know how to analyze characters. You didn’t mention anything about the many philosophical questions Cesare had in the Canal version. It added much depth to his character and why he made the choice to be what he was. Cesare’s internal conflict in the Canal version showed exactly why he inspired so many artists. That doesn’t exist in the Showtime version. He’s just a sad, mopey kid with few other emotions and no questions. Also your analyses of Della Rovere and Micheletto are homophobic.
In my opinion, the only thing I disliked in the Netflix version is Cesare's landing in the America's. But in every other way, I consider it a masterpiece.I must add the fact that you said The Borgias is the superior version. It would have been better to say that you liked it better, not making it a general opinin. Creating such a great show with less money could be considered something good, not a disadvantage. Also, it somehow presents the events in a very realistic way, I am personally sick of most Hollywood movies whose actors have perfect faces, perfect clothes (in the 15's century, let's not forget it). I don't understand why claiming the lights switched off could be a bad thing. It was the Dark Ages, the whole world was upside down, most people were confused, bad, cruel, wishing only for money, political power and lust. To answer to the final question, in my opinion, the European version made Cesare look like a monster in a certain way because his ideal was not necessarily to make a great unified Italy but to nourish his own desire to become emperor. He had great potential, he was gifted to rule and lead armies but he lacked knowing himself, he just acted on impulse and desires so he didn't have the greatness of the history most successful emperors. So I think that is why they portrayed him as a man who had all the means, but the wrong reasons. I must mention that i haven't seen yet the American production, that is why I only wrote about the European one, which I find outstanding.
The main reason i didn't watch the other version is that it wasn't finished. Also, the purpose for watching this series is not necessarily to evaluate the way it was realised, but making one interested in that subject, in this case the Borgia family. And I'd say it worked :D
I've watched both versions. In my opinion, Borgia (international) version was much deeper. And I personally think Mark and Isolda were more amazing and stronger in the roles. Yes, Isolda's character took time to develop. But I think by S3, Lucrezia was a beautifully developed character with layers. And the storyline for Cesare/Lucrezia was much more meaningful in S3. I will say fans can enjoy both versions just fine, though.
The Borgias was my favorite. I watched the Netflix version first and then went on to Showtimes. I can take alot but the ending of the Netflix version was ridiculous. So totally agree with you!
The Netflix ending is only ridiculous if you take it literally. An alternative interpretation is that Cesare's escape to the New World is his dying dream.
The actor who played Rodrigo in Borgia, is John Doman. Also he was the voice of Caesar in Fallout New Vegas. I think you should do a bit more research next vid. Borgia is a superior show for the record.
I agree. I watched both shows and binged Borgia twice. I watched the Borgias and got uninterested in episode 3. I couldnt get enough of John Doman and Mark Ryder
I still like the portrayal of Gulia and Alessandro better in the European version. I feel Guilia, while it was nice they made her more poised and kind to lucrezia (and NOT a practitioner of witch craft lol) it made her almost a Mary sue or more dull. A bitch as she was, at least she had more of a character and played a more pivotal role. Also Allassondro❤ Its almost enough to make me prefer it. I do hate how shit Miccholetto is in it though and you see it more if you watched it after the American version. American version doesn't white wash all of them much, just Cesare. ALOT. Lucrezia is just as innocent overall in both versions. ALL in all, I wish there could be a reboot with a collab of American and European studios to bring the best of both versions together. That would be epic!
Also the borgias to me were just regular people who wanted to thrive and survive during a time where money and power were only granted through with blood. No empire is made bloodless, its through sacrifice, pain, and blood. The Borgias tried and failed to unite Italy under their rule but what makes them so interesting is how close and epically they failed. A true crime family
Well done on these videos Dalton!!! I absolutely hands down no contest prefer 'The Borgias' over 'Borgia'. In fact, I tried about 10 minutes of 'Borgia' and tapped out because I couldn't stomach Rodrigo sounding like a cowboy lost in Renaissance Rome. UGH. YUCK. 'The Borgias' are excellently led by Irons, who to me plays the scheming politician/primary-ambition-for-family-gain-plotter magnificently. Also, most definitely a very generous budget is needed for such a story, and HBO's production values are screamingly GORGEOUS. GORGEOUS. Both series are unbearable in their graphic blood, intimate scenes, etc, and I didn't need to have that shoved in my face - - I fast forwarded through those. I think that overall the writing, look, feel, and characterizations of 'The Borgias' are appropriately lush for the time, place, and people, and 'Borgia' just does not make that mark. 'Borgia' is dark, unrewarding on any level, a slog, almost abusive to the viewer. The characters of 'Borgia' seem to crash against each other. 'The Borgias' characters make more sense with each other. As to the question of the US version romanticizing mafia gangsters of the Renaissance.....as the saying goes, Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Ok I get it Cesare didn't go to America but you're going to throw away all of Mark Ryder's fucking tremendous acting because the writer said lets have Cesare go to America for some reason?
Hey ! So i'm late obviously... I'm french, so i'm sorry for the mistakes i will make ! I didn't watch The Borgias (actually just the first episode), so I can't judge which one is the best, but I want to take the defense of Cesare in Borgia ! You said, I believed, that you were happy to see him dead because you can't stand him, and I'm able to understand that. But, personnaly this character is my favorite in the show and may be just my favorite one at all. He is not just bad or good, he is complicated and it makes him so much interesting ! I love his development through the seasons, and his madness but also his intelligence ! So actually, I was very very very sad and emotional when he died ! It's the same for Giula, for me she is just perfect, badass and bold ! And I think all characters in Borgia are kind of antihero, or at least not just good or bad people, and it makes them very human ! Also, I really think it's important because the show is less focus on the story than the characters : how they change, their choices, their troubles, and their feelings. Different subject, I would like you judged the sets, the costumes, the directing as well, I don't know how they are in The Borgias, but in my opinion, in the Canal + show they are gorgeous !
I liked the Canal+ Lucrezia precisely because she resembles a young girl, who indeed want to experiment with love and marriage because they have not much else to do. Lucrezia acts and looks her age, including all her mood swings and terrible decision making, which she herself later acknowledges. At the end of season 2, she is more mature in decision making and that why the Pope appointed her as his surrogate. The Showtime Lucrezia looks like a 20+ yo, but acts like a teenager, which comes of a little bit weird. And she seems so sweet and bubbly, which she stays the entire series in my opinion. The times she's not so sweet is because the other party is very mean to her. That does, however, not mean that I think the C. version is perfect (1/2).
I thought the Canal+ one was better. Mainly I thought the character development was all around better. That being said the last minute of Season 3 made me unspeakably angry. Ceasere somehow magically makes it to the Caribbean 🙄 Come on! It would have been an act of heroism for the guy doing the editing accidentally *snip* at the end of the reel. I think the reason why in the Showtime one Ceasere was a more likable character is because that’s kind of a Hallmark of American cinema. The focal point of the show is always portrayed as “having demons” “rough childhood” “a creature of his time and so on. I think the honesty in Canal+ was refreshing. God forbid a historical figure that was a murderous dirtbag be portrayed as a murderous dirtbag. (With the exception of that ridiculous last minute or so 😩)
The Cringeworthy part of The Borgias has the end of the episode with the plaster cannons. He drops the fake Cannonball and it shatters, and everyone laughs in very sitcomy way [Oh that Ceasere Borgia
I really liked both, I did see Borgia first, and only watched the Borgia because I didn't have access to Borgia. I at first couldn't stand The Borgia but grew to like it and have seen it several times. I strongly disagree with you on who did it better though. Your comparisons are mostly right but I'd give Borgia the points on Rodrigo and Lucrezia over The Borgias every day! Lucrezia tried to be cunning and smart in The Borgias and every time she failed while she does it very well in Borgia. When the pope leaves her in charge (which happens in both shows) she teaches the cardinals how to bake in The Borgias but actually rules very well in Borgia. Same with the Pope they made him very stupid in The Borgia's and it made Cesare do all the evil acts where as in Borgia they are equal. Plus the look of Lucrezia, Rodrigo and Cesare in Borgia are almost identical to their actual portraits which plays a huge part! Plus the fact Borgia actually has an ending should be another point. All in all both are good but Borgia is a masterpiece the Borgia doesn't even come close.
Both are good. However, BORGIA (Canal+ / Netflix), without a doubt, is THE BEST! It has a better story line, is more historically accurate (except for the part of Cesare in America-wtf), and it does not apologize for the violence, nudity, sexuality and language, unlike the American Showtime does (sugar codes it). PS the actors and actresses in BORGIA are way better looking (hot). Salutations to all.
I definitely like your Borgia reviews. I've just watched the Netflix Borgia and I have to agree with a lot of your points here (and in the last one). Especially in terms of Alessandro, and Vanozza. Not many people bother differentiating on crazy or shadowed characters but I honestly feel that what was appealing to me about Borgia at all was the playing up of Alex (Alessandro) and giving Vanozza more screen time in a public sphere. Also, I approved more of the character of Guilia in Borgia not because I liked her (she was a royal, evil, conniving, heartless, piece of shit who was anything but good) but because at the end of the day, she had more character and I felt something about her more than "oh yes, the whore. well she's a nice/mean whore." In Borgia I definitely felt a desperate, cruel, "take what I can while I have the beauty to do it because that's all the currency I have" type of feel that made her theoretically sympathetic though I never was towards her (I'm sorry but when you plot against Lucrezia--his daughter--out of jealousy...I mean, c'mon). And yes, Lucrezia--though a bit more kind hearted in The Borgias--was just better and Cesare was better in likeability just because he wasn't a fucking lunatic. I tried to connect with Bogia Cesare but...nothing. That's why Michletto was better too in The Borgias--because though he's kind of like how BorgiaCesare is with the ruthlessness and the killing and lust for killing and finesse, he has character, motivation, and at least something that separates him from the category of "it's instinct to kill" or "i want/feel so I do."
Nope, the Netflix Cesare was just brilliant. Beautiful, ruthless, passionate, and apparently...immortal. HBO's Cesare didn't have to be any of those things because of his sister and manservant.
I have have watched both versions several times as I am very interested in this period of history and this family in particular. I have to say for the sake of historical accuracy Borgia is the superior show, up until the point Cesare strolls onto a beach in The America’s of course😅 at least they waited until the very end to be that ridiculous, that being said I can forgive Canal+ for that little hiccup
I have watch both versions and I have to say that I enjoyed Showtime more . In the Showtime version I really liked the Borgias and I wanted them to win. The Netflix version really made me hate them and I was pulling for their enemies to win. The two shows are night and day.
I agree with you, the Borgia family were so unlikable and despicable in the Netflix version that it was hard for me to like any of them, I was always rooting for their enemies to win in the Netflix version. It's one of the main reasons why I dislike the Netflix version, I could not enjoy it at all. But the Borgia family were much more likable in 'The Borgias', the actors in The Borgias also had much better chemistry together and they were also better-looking than the actors in the Netflix version, I also think the acting was better in The Borgias. It's because of all these reasons that I think The Borgias is much better than the Netflix version.
Fontana's Borgia - end of the story. Why? Because it actually tells the story of the Borgia family and what happened in Italy during the Renaissance, not some made-up stuff without any sense and with the mere scope of entertainment. The Borgias could have called the “Meet the John Does” and nobody would have been able to tell the difference. If you can’t bother to open an history book to get the basics correct, then you write a script with imaginary characters that live during the time of the Borgias and that’s it, you can invent as much as you want, who can argue on people who never existed? Just because it happened 600 plus years ago, it doesn’t mean this part of history has to be rewritten because too boring or not worthy enough of historical accuracy. “It’s fiction, not an history documentary, it’s just for entertainment!” Well at this point, why not having a nice tv series on WW2, with Hitler winning the war, the US becoming a Japanese colony , De Gaulle a transsexual cancan dancer, Churchill having an affair with Princess Elizabeth, Stalin becoming a priest and Franco pardoning the communists? Now, that would be entertaining to watch and something new and never heard of …
I enjoyed watching your videos and feel that you did make several points that I would offer no contest to. However, I personally feel that Borgia is the version I would continue to watch despite the valid points you brought up. The Showtime Borgias doesn't appeal to me the way it does to you, and it's just my silly opinion. In any case, I think you did an amazing job with the research and comparison of these two takes on a historic family that people will continue to talk about and adapt. Keep up the fantastic work and have fun doing what you love!
I liked the American version better, if you read Monte Cristo in it is an old Italian locked away in prison and he asks if Cesare did succeed in uniting Italy? He was kind of a hero to some Italians in that time and after his death. He wasnt perfect, but he was a badass.
You can't take the allegorical and philosofical meaning of Borgia... That's the fact. Americans like action more than history. So... You can't take the allegorical ending of Borgia but you can take all the historical errors of The Borgia (that don't have any narrative sense)... I can't take that! :D Tanti saluti! Ti auguro davvero di diventare un grande esegeta cinematografico, ma non lo sei.
That's wrong in The Borgias every character especially Cesare was magnificent and much more correct because he started from an intelligent 18 year old boy who is jealous of his brother because he wants his position in the army and wants to protect his family and ends to the legend we know today . Cesare was the Machiavellian kind of bad guy he was the man that he was going to do anything for his purposes and that's makes him really interesting .
I liked more Borgia than Borgias, even with less budget to me is more dynamic and the actors look with more passion. I never saw it as something searching to be historically accurate. But well each one have the right to having their favorite. And that's OK Regards from Mexico.
I don't think the American version glorified them exactly. I mean Cesare still does some fucked up shit. One scene that really disturbed me is when he rips Ursula's habit off her head and forces her to sit for a painting. It's nothing compared to what the other Cesare does, but it still got to me. Also, he burns a man alive for ALMOST betraying him. That's pretty fucking ruthless. Also Lucrezia in the American version is kind of creepy, especially in season three where she keeps trying to seduce Cesare and gets mad at him for trying to put some distance between them after she succeeds. Not to mention that she forces him to witness the consummation of her marriage and gets off on the fact that he's watching. Rodrigo is probably the most glorified character, but still forces his daughter to get married twice and seems to care little about the fact that she was brutally raped and abused the first time.
What are you talking about? Netflix Borgia did it way better. I honestly don't understand how you said that Borgia lacked humanity, when the characters were so real. Lucrezia's character development was amazing and she did shine as one of the main characters. Cessare was magnificent, Rodrigo as well. Holy shit Borgia is the reeal deal, while "The Borgias" was too idealized, I couldn't stand it, I thought I was watching a soap opera or some shit. So no, The Borgias isn't in any way superior to Borgia. Borgia did it best.
It is either Juan Borja (Spanish) or Giovanni Borgia (Italian), not Juan Borgia. Also as many already pointed out: When you said that Giovanni was one of the suspects in the murder of Giovanni, you actually meant his brother Goffredo Borgia/Jofré Borja.
I saw Borgia back when it first came out, and absolutely loved it. It was very dark and captured the grim feeling of the period. The showtime version on the other hand was a little too "Hollywoodish" for my taste. Although the acting was good. You still didn't get the feeling of renaissance Italy and the griminess of it all. It was bright, happy feeling and definitely toned down.
For me most of the characters in the Borgias were more interesting and attractive, their individual story deeper, but Borgia on the other hand developed the storyline very interesting. It's a pity that the Borgias end on halfway of the story. But they both have their good points. The development of Cesares character in Borgia was done very well ! His wishes and visions, his rise and his fall. Very interesting and inspiring!
Yeah, I’m just rewatching season 1 with my boyfriend and I can’t believe the guy who made the video could say Lucrezia’s murder of Juan was without reason. When he lied to her that her attempt to safely get Maria Enriquez to Spain failed and that she was wrong because Maria named one of the boys after Juan, it devastated Lucrezia and shattered her faith in God and desire to become a nun, reaffirming what the other novice had said. When she found out that he had her friend killed and also killed Pedro Luis, I think she had ample motive to want to kill him. And I think a lot of people take it for granted how skeptical modern people today are of religion. “I did not want him to go to heaven” was actually totally believable as Lucrezia’s motive because it was 1497 or so, and Lucrezia fully believes that if the Pope pardons Juan, he will go to heaven. I’ve always been fascinated with the mindset of people from hundreds of years ago and what morality meant to them. Borgia may not be palatable or believable to modern audiences, but the producers at least understood to a better degree the motives of Renaissance people and portrayed that unapologetically.
It's interesting, looking online I was surprised to see that a lot of people interpreted the "Borgia" ending literally. Which was kind of funny to me, because when I first saw it I thought that it was a pretty clear metaphor, for Cesare entering Paradise/the place after death. I mean Borgia was never one of subtlety, the show writers tended to love these really obvious dream sequences and hallucinations, and this seemed very much in a similar vein to that. Although, they could have meant it literally for all I know, I mean I could be totally off here, it was just my interpretation. That said, I definitely won't be saying that Borgia is more historically accurate, to me they are equally inaccurate. Especially because the third season of the Borgias was a bit weird. I personally preferred Borgia, but I did think you raised a lot of valid criticisms about the series, even if I kind of disagreed with certain things, you framed your argument very well.
+jane doe LOL you know many people tend to take anything they see on screen quite literally; probably they don't know the meaning of the word "allegory" and never heard of such an artistic device as "breaking the fourth wall"... The ending of "Borgia" is surely open to interpretation. Personally I like to take it as a kind of "birth of the myth" allegory - mostly because of the season 3 slogan( "End of a reign, birth of a myth"), the last words of the series( "In the beginning" - which is no less as a direct quote from the Bible) and the appearance of Tom Fontana( series' creator) and his two directors in the last scene. But I love your "paradise" interpretation as well! That said I know a lot of people who took the scene literally( Cesare survived) and are absolutely HAPPY about such a surprise. I think it's OK and I'm not going to argue with them. But seriously: to COMPLAIN about the ending because of its "inaccuracy" is just ridiculous.
Speaking of historical accuracy of "Borgia" and "The Borgias" in general: "Borgia" is undoubtedly less inaccurate than the other one, by miles :). It's backed by a meticulous research and did a very good job trying to combine facts, rumors and elements of fiction. While "The Borgias" never even tried such a thing: it's almost completely a figment, and - in my opinion - quite a dull one, too.
+Diane Selwyn Good point! I thought the scene of him getting up after fighting while all the cardinals talked about rumors of how he survived, was the direct visualization of the man becoming the myth. I saw the "paradise" ending as separate, however you are very right that it could just be a continuation of that theme. It was a very prominent message throughout Borgia, Cesare's struggle to be the best, to be unique and achieving it by becoming a legend.
+Diane Selwyn Hmm, I don't know it's always difficult to quantify for me and as someone who loves history I've learned to accept inaccuracy in historical fiction. For example, the female costumes in the Borgias were slightly more appropriate to the Era, where Borgia often bounced slightly different eras around and took their female costume designs from artistic renderings. However, the Borgias also changed a lot of things, especially going into the third season. Even before then, they killed Aflonso d'aragona in season 2 (specifically stating that he was Sancia's brother), but they they retconned it so that they could have Lucrezia marry him in Season 3. So I usually say tat they are both equally inaccurate.
+jane doe See absolutely NO TV-show is appropriate to study history, that goes without saying ;-) Borgia is in no way a paragon of accuracy. Its chronology is just a hot mess; some events are distorted( Juan killing his half-brother and wife, Lucrezia killing Juan, the whole relationship between Lucrezia and 2 Alfonsos - just to name a couple of the most grave "errors"). Plus some obviously fictional story-lines, like Cesare trying to sucrifice his son. Plus a good deal of anachronisms, of course, there is no period dramas without anachronisms. On the other hand, the series is full of real historical facts, details and characters. So the output is ca. 50% of history + 50% of fiction, melt together in a quite bold and unexpected way. But trying to list the fictional elements in The Borgias, I don't even know where to start! The way they showed Prince Jem and his death? Juan attacking Forli and torturing Caterina's son? Or maybe Juan threatening Lucrezia's baby who, btw, was born after Juan's death irl? That never existed Bianca as a wife of Francesco Gonzaga - instead of Isabella d'Este, the first lady of the Renaissance? Rodrigo killing some fictional cardinal Orsini, and by his own hands, no less? Lucrezia experimenting around with poisons? The whole Napoletan plot? Della Rovere trying to poison Rodrigo? Cesare killing both Giovanni and Ludovico Sforza( I seriously believe the show was cancelled because the writers got short of Sforzas LOL). And on and on and on... And what do we have on the other hand? A couple of trivial facts everyone can read on wikipedia plus some old gossips about incest and fratricide. No research, no balance between history and fiction, no even attepmt to find such a balance - the show is just nearly completely fictional. Blah...
I'm not sure which area you watched this but I don't recall this ending. It might have changed on netflix but Cesare definitively died. And then they had an epilogue with the family doing the post-history of the Borgias. Also, the incest was never consummated during this part. Both versions were historically inaccurate, however was careful to show the actual renaissance, not the romanticized portrait of what we want it to be.
Great comparison between Cesare and Juan in the two series. I think the HBO runners could have give Paolo's murder to Cesare (and most Juan's other evil deeds) without the audience hating him, because the actor was so great and the story so well written. Would have added that extra layer of darkness and complexity to Cesare that really helped the show. Also, I used to value historical accuracy highly, but even as a history geek I can appreciate HBO & Netflix indulging in the Black Legend, while separating art from reality. It's fun and entertaining though I understand the average viewer might just assume everything in the show is true.
I enjoyed both versions but found the Canal+ version superior in many respects, namely Mark Ryder's performance as Cesare. Neither of these productions had good endings. Awful casting of Jeremy Irons in the HBO version in my opinion and believe me, I love that actor.
i love the HBO version. I liked the Canal+ one but like you said, I found Lucrezia's character boring af, and I LOVED her in the borgias. Hate the way it ended though, i miss it.
