[Adder]

I totally agree.

This show was a travesty. The ONLY thing familiar about it was the names of the participants. They managed to mash together events in a morass of out of place occurances, broken timelines and melodramatic nonsense.
“Sam Adams” was portrayed more as a Son of Anarchy, rather than a Son of Liberty.

I found it all confusing and in the end disgustingly cloying.

For those many who don’t know Sam Adams from a beer, I can only imagine the total misinformation they might have absorbed. I KNOW they said it wasn’t a documentary but dang!: they might well have had Paul Revere driving a red mustang on his ride and being chased by Sheriff Roscoe B. Coltrane.

[Batman11]

“I KNOW they said it wasn’t a documentary but dang!: they might well have had Paul Revere driving a red mustang on his ride and being chased by Sheriff Roscoe B. Coltrane.”

Ha! Don’t give them any ideas....

[jjsheridan5]

That is the problem that I have with the "it wasn't pretending to be a documentary" crowd, as well as the original poster who claimed that it highlighted the principles behind the countries founding. It did no such thing, and actually works to subvert those principles.

Turning John Adams from a portly, thoughtful, mature man, into a 20-something hipster who didn't even take any money from his capitalistic enterprises (great, the country was founded by a hipster d-bag working for a non-profit), it turns the whole revolution from a principle-driven movement against the existence of oppression, to an emotionally-driven movement against the severity of that oppression.

This is not highlighting the principles of this country. It is, subtly, subverting them. In order to do this, they had to turn the English into something they weren't: monsters. The English didn't scream for vengeance, as in the movie, they did everything to avoid escalation. Gage wasn't some kind of monster; he was driven by a sense of law and order, and was fully committed to the colonies. His subordinates thought he did far too little, not to much, even to the point of allowing the militias to continue training in plain view. They didn't butcher our soldiers. IIRC, the only such butchering occured on our side. The military didn't flog civilians (or even involve themselves in civilian justice). But the writers, wanting to turn this from a conflict based on principle, into one based on what looks suspiciously like left-wing emotionalism, needed to have the English as the boogieman.

The worst part, though, is that so many who should know better, think: "well, it's just a show" or "it highlighted what this country was founded on". When they should be appalled at how the principles are being turned from the thoughtful output of men of reason, into the 200 year old equivalent of "hope and change".

[DesertRhino]

Exactly. This much license, they might as well have had them all be bikers too.