lighten the F up people - Sons of Liberty (2015) Discussion

[–] femmefatal00 9 years ago

Agreed. If anything it made me actually look up the people and events of what happened comparing fact from fiction. I find it all fascinating.

There will always be someone who complains what's inaccurate and whatnot on every docu-drama. Just look at the Wiki page for John Adams miniseries (which naysers are all gushing over on this board), which has a summery of every historical inaccuracy on that show. My point is, dramatization is used for entertainment value, it's not a new thing. Shakespeare dramatized Henry VII, Ceasar, and Anthony and Cleopatra, why can't other's do the same?

reply

[–] pugsley_lover27 9 years ago

I loved it!

reply

[–] ELOrocks17 9 years ago

What if Hollywood made a miniseries about MLK, and have Jerry Seinfeld portray King? Would you think its ok?

*********************
Conservatives hate what people do -- Liberals hate who people are.

reply

[–] rickathedj 9 years ago

I wouldn't watch it because I can't stand Seinfeld. I also wouldn't go to the board for the movie and complain about it.

reply

[–] larosat 9 years ago

What if Hollywood made an MLK movie and had go against everything MLK stood for? Oh wait..........

reply

[–] MsWhat 9 years ago

Agreed. If anything it made me actually look up the people and events of what happened comparing fact from fiction. I find it all fascinating.

Completely! I was Wikipedianing a lot 

reply

[–] kelzan 9 years ago

I wish that they had more of an interest in accuracy, the story of American Independence is an amazing enough story that it did not need all these embellishments.

reply

[–] rickathedj 9 years ago

Kelzen, who do you wish had more interest in historical accuracy? The History Channel? I think that is the wrong direction to be looking to place blame. The History Channel is a business. They are in business to make money, and they spend a lot of money to find out what will make them money. The programming on the History Channel is the result of that research. Ice Road Truckers, Deadliest Catch, etc etc. seems to be what sells. I'm forced to believe that if there was a market for truly accurate history, they would be producing more of it.

So who is to blame? A large percentage of history teachers for one. Remember the history teacher in Ferris Beuhler's Day Off? They may not be THAT bad, but that's how a lot of kids perceive their teachers: monotone and boring. Kids usually don't see the value of learning history anyway, so boring teachers validates their opinion of the subject.

While some parts of the story were fictionalized, the basis was true. The colonists didn't like the way they were being treated by the crown and rebelled, winning their independence. They got the names right and the major events, as well as the reasons for the colonists discontent. If turning Sam Adams into an action hero to get people to watch who would otherwise have no interest, those people have at least gotten the basics.

reply

[–] fitchj21 9 years ago

"Some" was fixtionalized? More like 80% was fixtionalized. Pick up a few books. I agree with Kelzen, a more accurate story would be just as interesting. I expected more out of the History Channel. I enjoyed the action but after viewing 10 minutes I knew I was watching this as if it were Oliver Stone produced.

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 9 years ago

I wish that they had more of an interest in accuracy, the story of American Independence is an amazing enough story that it did not need all these embellishments.

kelzan... if the useless pos channel that still has the nerve to call itself HISTORY, had an interest in "accuracy" they would have made this "History bone".. and the past "History bones"... a "Documentary" and not a Movie.

The channel is garbage, and every program on it is garbage, the useless pos channel has been out of the "History" business since 2007, the time is long past for it to change the name to something more fitting to it's programming, as it is.. it's a disgrace to the word "History"...

If you deflect the topic of the thread from the show to me, our discussion is over 

reply

[–] kelzan 9 years ago

It was more than just accuracy but that was very important in itself for a channel that calls itself the History channel, they also had a cartoonish portrayal of the British. The acting and production values were great, but aside from that it was a disappointment.

reply

[–] rickathedj 9 years ago

We have covered this thing about the "History" channel time and time again. Did you not know about the history channel? Its not exactly a recent change in their programming. I don't understand why the people who are complaining about a lack of historical accuracy are bothering to watch the channel. I know one person on this thread (and a couple of others) is on some kind of crusade. He thinks its his mission in life to warn people about History Channel programming. I grew tired of his nonsense a long time ago and put him on ignore, but I see he is posting here. So why do so many people watch, knowing it wasn't be historically accurate?

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 9 years ago

http://variety.com/2015/tv/reviews/tv-review-sons-of-liberty-120140555 3/

Here's what VARIETY had to say... check out the comments section... the channel really needs to change it's name... people still think that they can tune to a channel named HISTORY, to see factual "History" programming.. only to be disappointed.

If you deflect the topic of the thread from the show to me, our discussion is over 

reply

[–] Underdog_73 9 years ago

So it takes a childishly fictional story, to get you interested history? Why not be interested in history for the actual knowledge? Furthermore, it was aired on a channel that's dedicated to......you got it....history. There is nothing historical about this horrible abomination, and that's what people are upset about. If Hollywood put this out, the disappointment would be less. It's expected from Hollywood. It's not expected from a network who's sole purpose for existing is history.

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 9 years ago

So it takes a childishly fictional story, to get you interested history? Why not be interested in history for the actual knowledge? Furthermore, it was aired on a channel that's dedicated to......you got it....history. There is nothing historical about this horrible abomination, and that's what people are upset about. If Hollywood put this out, the disappointment would be less. It's expected from Hollywood. It's not expected from a network who's sole purpose for existing is history.

 Thank you !!!!!! That just about sums it up... 

If you deflect the topic of the thread from the show to me, our discussion is over 

reply

[–] rickathedj 9 years ago

Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you truly not understand the world around you and the people who inhabit it?

So it takes a childishly fictional story, to get you interested history?

There are people out there, believe it or not, who don't know when George Washington served as president, or who we fought for independence in the revolution. Its my hope that shows like this would get THOSE people interested in history, or at leave give them a basic knowledge of what happened. The basics of the story are correct: the crown was oppressive to the colonists and the people named in the show did something about it.

Furthermore, it was aired on a channel that's dedicated to......you got it....history.

When did you come out of your coma? The history channel hasn't been about pure history in several years. If you didn't know that then you are the one with a problem. To continue to complain about it after all these years shows you just want to whine.

reply

[–] Je_Notter 9 years ago

Cheers Mate!

I think they should have the "Sam Adams" character nicknamed Spider Adams. And, they should have given him rudimentary web making abilities (he could have been Peter Parker's great, great, great, et cetera, grandfather). I missed Stan Lee but he must have made an appearence somewhere in the series.

And where the heck were the VAMPIRES? Shows like are never successful without a healthy sprinkling of the undead.

Je

reply

[–] femmefatal00 9 years ago

Do you know how pompous you sound?

So it takes a childishly fictional story, to get you interested history? Why not be interested in history for the actual knowledge?

That's pretty much like saying "It takes watching Star Trek, to get you into Science!?!?! Uh, yeah, sometimes it does, take a silly show to spark an interest into someone to explore further.

Different stroke for different folks. You may breeze through 800 pages of the revolutionary war but it isn't the same for everyone.

You have to admit that action movies far exceed in revenue then the "critics choice" picks. And History channel (like all channels) is about making money. Since Marvel, DC, comic action are all the rage they're going for a new approach in trying to appeal to a younger broader audience by making the founder fathers more scruffy, younger, and action pack.

I've seen John Adams, while I thought it was very good, I know it's not the type to be a big draw for a lot of people. No action, no suspense, nothing to get the blood pumping in excitement.

And I'm sure given the budget and timing, they needed to squeeze a lot into 6 hrs. and get the point across fast. I do wish that they invested it into a full season or 2 to really explore it in depth, but who knows what goes behind the scenes in the studio as they negotiated deals to produce a show.

reply

[–] rblomberg79 9 years ago

No, I don't think anyone should lighten up. If these people have been "long forgotten," which they haven't, by the way, then that's a big problem. Almost all of these people have living descendants; they lived real lives. To treat their memories with such disrespect is shameful. It's sad you think this is all right; it doesn't say much good about your character.

reply

[–] mary13743 9 years ago

I agree with nosidak. I've been watching with my tablet in my lap. Anything I have a question about or need more info, I'm looking it up. I'm enjoying it

reply

[–] rickathedj 9 years ago

Anything I have a question about or need more info, I'm looking it up. I'm enjoying it

Mary, that's impossible. One of the complainers said that NOBODY looks up factual information about movies. LOL

reply

[–] fitchj21 9 years ago

I don't understand why we find it necessary to depict the British as intolerably cruel just to make us Americans to look so heroic. There are so many things wrong with this historically. So, I will voice my opinion in that the true story is in itself interesting, I don't see the need to make it Sons of Fiction.

That sad, very disappointed in this series. Give us the truth. Oh, and the acting was fair - that might be an overstatement.

reply

[–] catlover11 9 years ago

I totally agree with you. It made me google different people and topics and read about it/them. I learned a lot from the show. I wish they would do more from the point of July 4 on. Maybe another 3 shows.