It's very good if you approach it as partial history and partial fiction....I am thoroughly enjoying it . It's not a documentary it's an interpretation of those events that occurred and put into a format to engage the audience ;)
shareI agree, I understand people complaining because it is on the History Channel but they never claimed that it was an accurate depiction of the American Revolution.
Actually IIRC it was always presented as "Historical Fiction". While I don't claim to be an expert, I love American History revolving around the revolution. Plus I love historical fiction, which goes all the way back to when I was little and my parents got me an American Girl Doll - Felicity (which for those of you who aren't familiar, she's the American Girl Doll set in the Revolution Era... I think she's "retired" now though).
Not to mention it has a fantastic cast. I adore Michael Raymond-James, Ryan Eggold, and (especially) Ben Barnes.
I agree with both of you, I don't think this was ever presented as a die hard documentary type of show.
I'm enjoying the show myself.
You can call me 'Mayor Chapstick.'
I guess it's good for ratings to make Sam Adams look like a 30 year-old hipster that scales the sides of buildings like Spiderman, but it makes it hard to take seriously. I think he would have been in his late 40s to early 50s during the time period depicted in this program and probably not running around like a modern day action hero. Anyway, it makes it entertaining.
shareA few people have complained about that. But when I was in my 40s, I could still perform like that. Never jumped from roof to roof, but scaled a few structures. I'm now 54 and as a boy scout leader, I can still leave the kids in my dust.
shareI find the cast, as one reviewer points out, very much the "Junior Varsity Team" and the acting to be all kinds of dreadful, myself. Seriously, even as historical fiction, it's bad.
shareOn a strictly entertainment level, sure, it's entertaining. On that level I'm able to tolerate it, constantly reminding myself it's entertainment, in the way that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was entertaining.
And because it's entertainment, it may as well be set on Mars as Boston, or have the Brits be zombies. Anyone who creates these kinds of shows may defend their programs as entertainment.
I think what most dissatisfied people are getting at is this:
Does everything we are constantly inundated and bombarded with related to history (on history channel and elsewhere) or what they pawn off as news have to be created/produced/packaged as entertainment?
I guess by doing so, they relinquish any kind of historical responsibility and journalistic responsibility.
There you have it.
Our so-called "news" on most networks and cable channels is merely Entertainment. Entertainment to push their owner's corporate agenda..Disney, or Comcast (NBC) or Wall Street, whomever.
Add to that, the presentation of history as entertainment.
We have decades snowballing upon each other: of what the corporate owners label and "brand" as news, and what they label and "brand" as history....but in all truth, is merely....entertainment and fluff.
Many people over time only get....entertainment news, entertainment history.
Very Orwellian. Very dangerous.
And yes, we don't have to watch, do we? We could all read books and find good documentaries. I heartily enjoy both.
This practice is not a good, long term recipe for having an informed citizenry and some may say that it endangers our representative democracy.
It's being proclaimed a "Dramatization". It's an entertaining twist to history. It's not meant to be a history book. I like it. If you know anything about history, it basically follows the truth but has a complete different way of getting there. No need to pick this thing like it's won Oscars. Just enjoy it.
shareTotally agree. I'm a historian, but I'm loving the mini-series for exactly what it is--fiction based on a historical event.
-----
It's dangerous business going out your front door.