Hey folks,
I felt ashamed watching this disgrace of the truly exciting founding of our nation. It begins with a foppish John Hancock and a teenage Sam Adams, and it degenerates from there. This is a disgrace to American history. Showing it on the History Channel only adds salt to the wounds.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
It was flat out horrible. Not withstanding the terrible historical inaccuracies, the acting was awful, the action sequences were awful, and the dialogue was something out of a ScyFy flick. They didn't say things like "bat-s**t crazy" in 1776.
Reading through the responses on this thread it is obvious who likes this crap; knuckle-draggers who DVR Pawn Stars and bored housewives who get tingly over the Jonas Brothers.
To those who say the real history would be boring, it's a shame you never went to college and took a real history class.
Spoken like a true elitist snob who probably doesn't know half of what you THINK you know. That's why you go to message boards for shows you hate. It helps you to prove your superiority, even though you know that in fact, you are quite lacking.
How do you know they didn't use terminology such as that? At one of the civil war re-enactments I attended, one of the re-enactors spoke of a general who was known for his profanity. After his talk, I went up to ask him what kind of profanity they used in the civil war. He responded: "the same as we use today." So why is it out of the realm of possibility the same language might have been used in the Revolutionary War period?
BTW, I did go to college and I did take a "real history class." My college professor was an Eleanor Roosevelt fan. Need I say more? My best history teacher was in high school. He didn't care if we memorized dates as long as we knew what happened in history and more importantly WHY things happened.
This is Historical Fiction. Not a documentary. So.. If you naysayers saw Doctor Who visiting Hitler and Rory punching him in the face, is this how you get? You take to a forum and scream " Not accurate history waah!!!" Its a story based off of history. Not an accurate school quality bio. Yikes. Oh well. The only good critics I'd ever listen too are Siskel and Ebert. And they aren't around anymore. oops
Neal The Greatest Hero Ever
Keeper of Rumpels fluffy socks!
C and C,
I agree! I watched the first episode and wasn't even mildly entertained. The issue that people seem to have is this is being shown on "The History Channel" not on the "SyFy Channel". "SyFy Channel" would be a better home for this or BBC America where "Doctor Who" is shown.
I rank this along side "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer" or the series "Copper", or using Wikipedia as scholarly source material. Entertaining for some irritating to others. Like all TV programs, all you have to do is change channels to avoid it, which is my intention.
Je
Perhaps they should of had a warning at the beginning of the show like they do for shows like Jackass:
"Warning: This show contains inaccurate information about American history. Viewer discretion is advised."
It should just be obvious.
Neal The Greatest Hero Ever
Keeper of Rumpels fluffy socks!
Sam Adams was not a teenager; for one thing, he was a widower. He was a tax collector; I doubt the British would hire a teenager for that job.
Boo Hoo! Let me wipe away the tears with my PLASTIC hand!--Lindsey McDonald (Angel)
Hey folks,
I understand the concept of historical fiction, and I have enjoyed it all my life. American history, in and of itself however, is not dull in any sense of the word. American history, and especially the history of our American revolutionary times, is absolutely thrilling and makes a great basis for truly exciting stories.
Historical fiction about our revolutionary days can be most intriguing, but the fiction should complement the actual history rather than bastardize it. When I first heard about this series, I was looking forward to having our great historical story come to life on the screen. Sadly, that was not to be.
Someone seems to have had an underlying agenda to depict John Hancock as a foppish dandy. Was the idea to make Hancock the token gay for the series? Hancock was President of the Continental Congress when the Declaration of Independence was conceived and ratified. He was a great character in his own right and certainly did not need to be re-invented to make this series interesting.
Sam Adams was a Harvard College graduate, had been widowed and remarried, and was in his mid 50s at the time of the American Revolution. Sam Adams certainly was not an uninteresting character in history, but in this series they seem to find it better to depict Sam Adams as a 20 year old revolutionary just oozing with hormones to attract a female audience.
Get serious. This is not historical fiction. This is simply romance novel writing trying to pass itself off as historical drama. Remember, the fiction in historical fiction should complement history - not throw it out.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
Where'd you get teenager from? Ben Barnes is 33 years-old. And I'm fairly certain the character wasn't meant to be perceived as in his teens (and was in fact depicted as being a widower).
shareI tuned out when Benjamin Franklin said "batshit crazy".
share