Sons of Liberty

#4
#4
It might be good. What I don't like about shows like this is the attempt to make 17th century life resemble 21st century life. Granted, if the dialogue in the show were to match the language and syntax of the time, we'd probably need subtitles.

And please, can Hollywood cease the slow motion vignettes in combat scenes?
 
#6
#6
bigdaddy said:
I wouldn't expect anything historically accurate out of the history channel
Click to expand...

This show will certainly be a break from their UFO, Sasquatch, Nostradomus, and other conspiracy shows they spew out. But they got my attention with this one.
 
#7
#7
I'm giving this one a go. History channel is mostly junk, but it's junk I'll actually watch sometimes. Pawn Stars and American Pickers and such
 
#8
#8
It worries me that the commercials have a British band playing for the montages.
 
#9
#9
bigdaddy said:
I wouldn't expect anything historically accurate out of the history channel
Click to expand...

It already gets me with the casting they have a guy playing Sam Adams that is 33 years old when in actuality he was 51 at the time of the Boston Tea Party.

Henry Thomas (43yo) best know for playing the kid in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is playing John Adams who would have been (38)

I don't have a problem with Dean Norris (51) playing Ben Franklin (67) as Norris is a great actor and Franklin was very active for his age in that time.

All the other roles seem to be pretty spot on or with a in 3 or 4 years. I'm looking forward to seeing how Jason O'Mara portrays George Washington.
 
#12
#12
Well I just watched the first episode. Not real sure what I think. As a movie/tv show it isn't bad, but I have to wonder how much "artistic license" they have taken. Some of this doesn't exactly jive with the version I'm familiar with. I mean hell I know the accepted version of them as pure selfless saints is over romanticized bs, but this seems more interested in making them to be drunk crooks.
 
#13
#13
give_him 6 said:
This show will certainly be a break from their UFO, Sasquatch, Nostradomus, and other conspiracy shows they spew out. But they got my attention with this one.
Click to expand...

I remember the time when History was nothing but Nazi, Hitler, and WWII documentaries.
 
#14
#14
chatsworth_vol said:
Well I just watched the first episode. Not real sure what I think. As a movie/tv show it isn't bad, but I have to wonder how much "artistic license" they have taken. Some of this doesn't exactly jive with the version I'm familiar with. I mean hell I know the accepted version of them as pure selfless saints is over romanticized bs, but this seems more interested in making them to be drunk crooks.
Click to expand...

That is basically exactly what they were though. The revolution has been romanticized for two hundred years when in reality it was all about a few very powerful men wanting their way
 
#15
#15
"Sons of Liberty" is a fitting title, cause the creators are taking any and every liberty they can in this series in telling the "story" of our founding fathers.

It feels like Michael Bay trying to write a history book. The acting is poor and cliches are everywhere. For example, Sam Adams is cast as "the troubled youth" turned into the "reluctant hero". John Hancock is portrayed as a sniveling rich fancy lad and is probably rolling in his grave right now. And "Hank" from Breaking Bad is freakin' Ben Franklin.

All the colonists have American accents even though America doesn't exist yet. It's weak sauce. All of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
SWIL said:
"Sons of Liberty" is a fitting title, cause the creators are taking any and every liberty they can in this series in telling the "story" of our founding fathers.

It feels like Michael Bay trying to write a history book. The acting is poor and cliches are everywhere. For example, Sam Adams is cast as "the troubled youth" turned into the "reluctant hero". John Hancock is portrayed as a sniveling rich fancy lad and is probably rolling in his grave right now. And "Hank" from Breaking Bad is freakin' Ben Franklin.

All the colonists have American accents even though America doesn't exist yet. It's weak sauce. All of it.
Click to expand...

Apparently Jason Bourne is a direct descendent of Paul Revere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
So I have this recorded but bad on comments from friends it's useless to watch of you value any historical accuracy (which I do) . Opinions?
 
#18
#18
utvolpj said:
So I have this recorded but bad on comments from friends it's useless to watch of you value any historical accuracy (which I do) . Opinions?
Click to expand...

Historical accuracy is relative though. England talks about the war like we do Vietnam. Its a blip.
 
#19
#19
utvols88 said:
Historical accuracy is relative though. England talks about the war like we do Vietnam. Its a blip.
Click to expand...

It's not at all relative in this instance. The history channel should be able to get simple facts correct
 
#20
#20
utvolpj said:
It's not at all relative in this instance. The history channel should be able to get simple facts correct
Click to expand...

Like someone else already posted, it went off the tracks for me within the first five minutes when it became apparent that the "American" characters spoke with full on modern American accents while everyone on the side of the crown spoke with a British accent. It's still on my DVR in the event I ever run out of stuff to watch, but I kind of doubt I'll ever spend 5-6 hours watching the whole thing.
 
#21
#21
I finally got around to watching the first two episodes last night from my DVR. I'll finish it up tonight.

I consider myself a amateur military historian and while a lot of it is over embellished and made up. (i.e. what should actually be a 44 year old Sam Adams going across rooftops like Batman)

Take for instance Margaret Kemble Gage (wife of General Cage) they portray her as young 25-30 years old when in actuality she was 41 in 1775 some 5-6 years older than Dr. Warren and while it has been speculated that she was Dr. Warren's informant unless I'm forgetting it don't think I have read that they were having an affair (which would be highly dangerous for both)

A lot of it however was very close to historical accurate that I have read with just some (a lot) of Hollywood liberty taken.

One thing I liked seeing was the addition of William Dawes (Often overlooked) in the midnight ride. I however wished they would have added in the lanterns and the Old North Church and the planning for the ride that took place days before. Revere was actually held up on the road by a British Patrol for sometime before making his escape (he did not go Chuck Norris on them), it was also still dark when he finally made it to the Clark house where Adams & Hancock were staying.

My assessment of the series is I hope people enjoy it for what it is then seek out other information to learn more on the subject.

I highly, highly recommend the book Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fisher published in (1994) by Oxford University Press.

It is the best book I have seen on not only the Midnight Ride but of the Battle's of Lexington & Concord and the running battle along the road as the British Army returned to Boston.

I'll post my final thoughts on the series tomorrow after I see the rest of it but it is entertaining and held my interest enough that I would probably get it on Blu-ray when its released.

Checkout the Preview trailer I posted on History's next mini Texas Rising in that thread.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top