"Sons of Liberty." Topic

"History is moving forward with its ambitious Revolutionary War miniseries and has firmed up a star-filled cast. The cable network has ordered the six-hour Sons of Liberty, which follows "a radical group of young men — Sam Adams, John Adams, Paul Revere, John Hancock and Joseph Warren — as they band together in secrecy to change the course of history and make America a nation."

The sprawling cast includes many notable names playing famous founders: Ben Barnes (The Chronicles of Narnia) is Sam Adams, "a natural born leader with charisma and a penchant for mischief;" Ryan Eggold (The Black List) is Joseph Warren, "a doctor and man of conscience and integrity;" Michael Raymond James (True Blood) is Paul Revere, "a veteran who wholeheartedly joins forces with Sam Adams;" Rafe Spall (Prometheus) is John Hancock, "the wealthiest man in Boston at the time"; and Henry Thomas (E.T. The Extraterrestrial) is John Adams, "a lawyer and the conservative, smart cousin of Sam Adams." Additionally, Marton Csokas (The Lord of the Rings) is cast as the ferocious General Thomas Gage, who is sent to handle the unrest in Boston with a military response, Emily Berrington (24: Live Another Day) plays Margaret Gage, and Dean Norris (Breaking Bad) will take on "the brilliant yet mischievous diplomat" Benjamin Franklin.
The Revolution War is pretty hot right now in TV — Fox's Sleepy Hollow has been a surprise hit, while AMC recently launched Turn…"
From here
link

Also…

"TV news for you today, people, starting with hunky TERRA NOVA star Jason O'Mara who has just joined the cast of historical mini series SONS OF LIBERTY in which he will play George Washington! I've told you recently that History's six part series will chronicle the American Revolution from the Boston Tea Party to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Set to play the army general who later on becomes the president of USA, O'Mara joins Dean Norris as Benjamin Franklin, Ben Barnes as Sam Adams, Henry Thomas as John Adams, Marton Csokas as general Gage, and Rafe Spall as John Hancock"
From Hollywood Spy.

Amicalement
Armand

Additionally, Marton Csokas (The Lord of the Rings) is cast as the ferocious General Thomas Gage, who is sent to handle the unrest in Boston with a military response,

The ferocious General Gage? What Granny Gage? Ferocious?

Oh dear……

My cynicism about the Hysterical Channel is showing. With Granny Gates being described as ferocious and some of the other descriptions, I can't be too sanguine about this production.

Jim

Will young Lt Tavington be burning God-fearing patriots in churches on Boston too?

BTW, Disney did a fine Johnnie Tremaine back in the 1950s. I guess you could call that a miniseries too. I still temember him getting molten silver poured on his hand.
And I can still sing "The Sons of Liberty ".
"It 'a the tall oak tree…."

We are confusing British General Gage with Gates. Gage was removed after the ?Phyrric? victory of Bunker Hill (Breed's Hill).

link

GdeP

History is moving forward with its ambitious Revolutionary …

For you non-Hollywood insiders, I believe they mean "The History Channel"

The press-release alone has already put me off. "Ferocious" General Thomas Gage"? Confusing Gage and Gates?

Anytime now Early Mourning Writer will chime in to tell us that's all wrong and we should be grateful that they are doing this at all. We are so wrong for wanting to get it right.

The Revolution War is pretty hot right now in TV…

I wish it wasn't. Anytime a historical period is described as being currently "Hot" then you know were in for a lot of stretching the truth.

If the project doesn't involve Tom Hanks, Ken Burns or the American Experience, I will skip it.

Sons of Liberty get all the cute girls too! Just ask Johnnie Tremaine!
YouTube link

Plant the seed in our homeland, boys.
Let it grow where all can see.
Feed it with our devotion, boys.
Call it the Liberty Tree.
CHORUS: It's a tall old tree and a strong old tree,

link

Armour hot dogs also included a plastic Sons of Liberty coin in each pack.

The sad thing about such projects is that if it is crap, and no one watches it, then Horrywood will claim that "no one wants to watch authentic historical programming".

If it's anything like that horrible Ridley Scott mess Gettysburg,and the latest mess, the World Wars, I'll skip it!

Bob

I'll wait until its released before I bash it or praise it. hahahaha

So it's "old" tree OFM and not "oak" tree?
Well that is how I remember it from my youth! And I am sticking to singing "oak"!

Ironwolf- I'm with you! No need to judge anything guilty before proper proof.

They did a good job in my opinion on The Hatfields and McCoys. I'll give it a shot.

Please ..Please don't let it be anything like "Turn"
AAGGGHHHH
Nasty Brits and goody goody americans.

What "95thRegt" you did not like Patton riding an M-3 in 1918?

Well they are playing very fast with history.

Like:

Doctor Warren was banging Gage's wife.

In the mini series it is General Gage who ends up killing him.

After leading a cavalry charge.

Artistic liscense to historical events is putting it lightly. My wife came in at one point and said: "You're still watching this?" I said: " It's like a train wreck, you cannot help but look it's so bad." I did kind of link the representation of Hankock, although ofcourse they did have to get the dig in about "evil" rich people.

Six hours of my life that I will never get back. I should have known better…

It was AWESOME! (IF you watched all three episodes with an impressionable gal that looks up to you).

Made me look like the smartest person ever!

I was all "THAT NEVER HAPPENED! Hancock was not Quark from Deep Space Nine! (a cowardly, money hungry opportunist), John Adams was not a sniveling wusse! There were NO redcoats at the Tea Party! Lady Cage was from Jersey, and a B word according to all accounts, but she NEVER screwed Dr/General Warren, and certainly wasn't a spy nor played any part in anything! Paul Revere NEVER threw a sword "Gladiator" style from horseback and impaled any British on his ride! Cage was not a bloodthirsty tyrant who tortured and murdered Rebels on any battlefield, he was a defeatist, who was praying that no shots were fired at all."

I could go on and on.

At first, I thought it was some foreign POV, making the colonists out (except Sam Adams, the Rambo like hero, wonder if the main sponser had anything to do with that?) to be wimpy, greedy, 70's pool hall type thugs. Then when I saw the portrayel of the British was evidently inspired by Mel Gibson's "Darth Vader Cornwallis", I relaxed, and realized there was no bias.

Don't recall any documentation of Sam Adams, Hancock, Revere and the bunch doing commando raids, with explosions, on British camps before Lexington, either.

Nor any accounts of the rebels on Breed's Hill unexplicably caught well out in front of their defenses.

I could go on and on.

Seriously, If Bigfoot and aliens appeared at5 Bumker Hill, I would have said "Well, that's the Hist Channel for you!"

But this. THIS was blasphemy!

The only bright spot? DEA agent Hank, playing DEA agent Ben Franklin! LOL! I fully expected him to start mentioning Hiesenburg! Badass Ben Franklin! LOL!

Artistic liscense to historical events is putting it lightly.

Yes, I didn't know Paul Revere had hand to hand combat with Royal Marines on his well known ride ? Didn't know the rebel's doctor slept with Gen. Gage's wife and she was originally from NJ ? Etc., etc., as many have already mentioned. Yes as time went on it did remind me a bit like their other mini-series, The World Wars. Artistic liscense was obvious there too …

Good grief!! The actor who played John Hancock must have studied under Henry Winkler as he has all his manerisms down pat. Horrible portrayal of Mr. Hancock.

Lots of soap opera stuff, but I enjoyed it anyway.

This is what I posted on my unit's reenactment site:

It is not often that a statement is made here regarding depictions of the American Revolution on television. Most of them of late have been quite flawed factually to an absolutely astounding degree. The latest offering "Sons of Liberty" however sinks to such depths of slander and cartoonish fantasy as to cry out for comment. It is safe to say that at least 85% of it is completely fabricated. link The portrayal of Thomas Gage is particularly atrocious. This is a man who is reputed to have listened and responded to complaints about his soldiers interfering with children's sledding during a time of martial law. He was an honorable man criticized for his leniency. To make him out as some psychotic rapist who is harsher than Darth Vader is inexcusable. These were real people who have living descendants and frankly deserve better treatment by a channel claiming to be the "History" channel.

@SmokeyRoan Maybe Bigfoot and aliens didn't show up, but the British regulars using their oversized neck rollers as black bandit bandanas over their face and/or ninja masks in battle came awfully close.

Honestly it is like the Channel decided "Let's just take some famous names and events and then make up a bunch of crap about them."

Smokey got laid after watching it. So, some good must have come from it.

Yankee Doodle took a saw
with patriots devotion
to trim the tree of liberty
according to his notion.

chorus.

He sat himself upon a limb
just like some other noodle
and cut between the tree and him
and down came yankee doodle.

chorus.

Yankee doodle broke his neck
and every bone about him
and now the tree of liberty
does very well without him.

chorus.

One of my favorite AWI songs. The song was remembered by ACW soldier from NH (I think) who's mother used to sing it.

You can always expect this type of brain washing over here in the states these days. You would be surprised to learn that most of my fellow countrymen know very little about their countries history.

Not true, OFM.

We did it DURING the show, not after :)

Not true, OFM.

We did it DURING the show, not after :)

Those Lady Cage sex scenes got us all hot and bothered. :) :) :)

From "History" channel webpage:

"Historian's View

SONS OF LIBERTY is a dramatic interpretation of events that sparked a revolution. It is historical fiction, not a documentary. The goal of our miniseries is to capture the spirit of the time, convey the personalities of the main characters, and focus on real events that have shaped our past. For historical information about the Sons of Liberty and the dawning of the American Revolution, please check out the links below."

What a joke. They do not convey any of the personalities correctly. The whole series is bunk.

Sam Adams was not a attractive action hero. Far from it, why do you think Sam Adams beer has Paul Revere on its label?

As pure entertainment I thought it was a pretty good.As far a factual forget it.I watch tv for enjoyment but I read my books for facts.
Mark

that most of my fellow countrymen know very little about their countries history.

Tragically so … but ask about the game last night or who Kim and Khloe are bedding, etc. … you'll get volumes … sadly …

Not true, OFM.

We did it DURING the show, not after :)

Those Lady Cage sex scenes got us all hot and bothered. :) :) :)

You dawg you !

Sam Adams achieved an unique "double" that would actually make a good film script. Not only was he (probably) the only 18th C tax collector to end up penniless (note that our Family didn't whack those who skimmed off the top……) he literally could not arrange a p1zz up in a brewery and managed to ruin the family brewing business. I suspect he was actually a British "agent provocateur" who was infiltrated in order to sabotage the radical movement and just made a hash of that as well.

Oh, and he was really smelly too, apparently; so much so, the Boston Mechanics actually had a clean suit of clothes made for him.

Sam Adams wasn't one of the Musketeers?

No, but he was related to Grizzly Adams (hey, it's as accurate as any of the rest of the plot).

I tuned in, accidentally, to about the Boston Massacre. The buffoon dropping his musket then shooting from the hip was enough for me.

Oh, and the sound guy obviously has spent too much time on the reenactment field and not enough time on the shooting range. Those muskets were obviously not loaded with ball. A musket loaded with ball makes a distinctive cracking boom, a musket loaded with just powder goes whoosh. These went whoosh.

I regret that I can't unsee what I did see.

It makes the Patriot look like a PhD dissertation.

"It makes the Patriot look like a PhD dissertation." This comment made my week.

Congratulations sir, you have won TMP.

Its pretty clear the video game Assassin's Creed III influenced the makers of Son's of Libery mini-series. Its just sad Assassin's Creed III is more historically accurate. lol

YouTube link

Either way, I enjoyed both for their entertainment.

>"It makes the Patriot look like a PhD dissertation." This >comment made my week.

>Congratulations sir, you have won TMP.

Thanks. SoL truly plumbs the depths of badness…

What was wrong with The Patriot? :-)

(note: I am being sarcastic)

Its pretty clear the video game Assassin's Creed III influenced the makers of Son's of Libery mini-series. Its just sad Assassin's Creed III is more historically accurate. lol

YouTube link

Either way, I enjoyed both for their entertainment.

My son has gotten into Assasin's Creed and I've spent several hours with him while he's played it. I think in some respects games like AC are better than these pseudo-historical shows. One the one hand they do not pretend that they are depicting history. On the other they expose kids to historical topics they probably would otherwise miss. My son and I have had several discussions about people and events that he has learned of from playing AC.

Rallynow, seems I've made an impression on at least one TMP reader. And, yes, if you are going to Hollywood (or Bollywood or any film making concern) looking for historical accuracy you can plan on being disappointed. If, however, you view hoping to be entertained – you just might be. Depends, of course, on the quality of the production. But historical accuracy? Not part of the equation. To wit, again:

Second historian asked (after the first got fired) for the Titanic movie what is most important: art or history? By answering 'art' he got the job. And for background visuals, you'd be hard put to find anything approaching as high a level of authenticity as that movie. The story, well that was just a story. And, um, that's what any good movie is, really.

So, here we are, mostly grown men playing about with toy soldiers which can be addressed from a variety of perspectives but cannot be clothed in any stripe of "historical accuracy" since we don't recreate the bile churning risk of bodily harm, the horrific sights and smells of mayhem and death, etc. Yet, some here always insist that movies MUST achieve historical accuracy. Delusional, folks, thoroughly and purely delusional. Either sit back and enjoy the movie or TV or whatever, or don't enjoy it if it isn't any good (there is complete drivel out there, usually more of that than the worthwhile sadly) or go paint a miniature instead.

But this insistence on harping on historical accuracy from a medium that has zero expectation of achieving 'historical accuracy' is just silly. If they get the costumes close and the other background, buildings, etc, in the ball park and the story is cool and the acting, editing, lighting all comes together to work, that is just great. For me, as a viewer rather than a writer, my expectations of a 'historical' movie is something that is fun to watch and perhaps inspiring for the gaming table. Nothing more than that.

You want historical accuracy, visit a museum, watch a documentary, or read a book. Oh, wait? All of those are subject to artistic license, aren't they? Okay, you want historical accuracy, don a uniform and get your bu** out on a real battlefield and get shot at.

Otherwise, take a chill pill and review the movie for whether it is a good movie or not, not based on they got it right or not.

And, for the record, I didn't watch this despite it being my favorite period of history. Just didn't appeal based on the previews.

I say this with no snark, but why does it have to be a choice between art and history? I'm fairly certain you can make a good, engaging, dramatic story that is both with very little additional effort.

Talk to the writers about that. They know better than you do.

ScottS, the very best of the very best movies work hard to get the 'history' right but the movie is never about the history, not if it is a good movie. Movie's are about people and the situations they find themselves in and the 'history' should never be more than background. Last of the Mohicans, the Daniel Day-Lewis version was great on a substantial level of authenticity as background (quibblers will no doubt arise) with Mollo on board as a consultant but it was based on a fictional work that was reworked for 1930's Hollywood and then redone again when produced. And, if memory serves, the heroine that lived in the movie is the one that died in the book. But it was fiction and it is Hollywood.

Sadly, it seems far too much of Hollywood now only intends to entertain nine year olds, temporarily arrested nine year olds, and permanently arrested nine year olds, and males only. This despite Hollywood actually discovering that half or more of movie going decisions are made by women.

So, I say be glad of any half way decent movie that is a period 'flick that fits in with our hobby interests and worry less about 'accurate'. Chances of seeing such movies made anymore is on a steep diminishing curve – they are damnably expensive to make and the changing audience dynamic and viewing platforms means everyone here should go see any 'war' movie made in the hopes another one might be made and that, somehow, some of them will be really good. But not 'historically accurate'.