T1B

DAMN, I missed it! Did that air last night?

How many parts is it? I caught most of Part 1 and some of Part 2. Set it up for DVR so I will finish the first two tonight. Is it 8 all together?

mvscal wrote:7 parts, 9 hours total.

9 hours of Dinsdale talking? That took some serious editing.

Some reviews complained about Giamatti not "looking the part"...fuck that noise.

Goober McTuber wrote:

mvscal wrote:7 parts, 9 hours total.

9 hours of Dinsdale talking? That took some serious editing.

Some of his posts take 9 hours to read...

mvscal wrote:Didn't have very high expectations for this, but it's outfuckingstanding. HBO hit another one out of the park.

Concur 100%. It borders on hagiography at times, but the acting and subject matter are so compelling that I just don't give a fuck.

He seemed an odd choice for the role, but Dinsdale was surprisingly great as John Adams.

Based on Parts 1&2, I feel safe in saying that Paul Giamatti has earned himself an Emmy. And the guy who played Franklin was equally outstanding. I can hardly wait to see the two of them in the next episode which will most assuredly deal with their time in France as envoys to Louis XVI.

I'm also dying to see the conflict between Adams and Jefferson play out. So far the character of Jefferson is, sad to say, the one very minor disappointment I can find with this series. He's not very well developed and appears to be, at this time, a bit of an afterthought. An additional 5 minutes elaborating on Jefferson during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence would have gone a long way.

BSmack wrote:I'm also dying to see the conflict between Adams and Jefferson play out. So far the character of Jefferson is, sad to say, the one very minor disappointment I can find with this series. He's not very well developed and appears to be, at this time, a bit of an afterthought. An additional 5 minutes elaborating on Jefferson during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence would have gone a long way.

What the fuck? Is it a prepubescent Jefferson or something? Quit gazing at the package, Lagos.

He was not well developed as a CHARACTER.

YOU ASS.

i think it sucks.

im pretty open to watching anything on cable, but id rather watch cops or cops marathon in fort worth or cops in miami than this crap. dinsdale is a poor choice imo. should have went with haywood or perhaps velocent.

maybe ill watch more than fifteen minutes of the next one and see where it goes. with hbo, im always skeptical as they show bill maher about eleventeen times a day.

no offense

BSmack wrote: I can hardly wait to see the two of them in the next episode which will most assuredly deal with their time in France as envoys to Louis XVI.

Part troix was no part deux. They'll have to go a long ways to top that.

I've got HBO on demand, so I just watched the 2nd episode again. Even better the 2nd time around. A fucking masterpiece, and what should be required viewing for every kid in 3rd grade and wannabe newbie taking a citizenship test.

War Wagon wrote:Part troix was no part deux. They'll have to go a long ways to top that.

[dinsdale]You mean part trois? Tell me you knew?[/dinsdale]

I've got HBO on demand, so I just watched the 2nd episode again. Even better the 2nd time around. A fucking masterpiece, and what should be required viewing for every kid in 3rd grade and wannabe newbie taking a citizenship test.

After a long and tiring weekend spent alternately moving my brother in-law and feasting with the parents, I finally settled down in front of the TV at midnight last night to watch part 3. Sadly, sheer exhaustion denied me the capacity to watch past Adam's arrival in Paris. I shall be watching again tonight. Thank God for DVRs.

You should understand that, by definition, anything should be a bit of a letdown following what was the single most important moment in the political history of North America. Try to adjust your expectations accordingly.

BSmack wrote: You should understand that, by definition, anything should be a bit of a letdown following what was the single most important moment in the political history of North America. Try to adjust your expectations accordingly.

True to an extent, but most film events tend to build towards a crescendo. I have high hopes that watching the Constitution get hammered out won't suck.

War Wagon wrote:

BSmack wrote: You should understand that, by definition, anything should be a bit of a letdown following what was the single most important moment in the political history of North America. Try to adjust your expectations accordingly.

True to an extent, but most film events tend to build towards a crescendo. I have high hopes that watching the Constitution get hammered out won't suck.

I guess I saw it differently. The frustrations and animosities that developed between Adams and his contemporaries during the late 1770s are very instructive, as is his barely hidden contempt for the French. One can already see the seeds for the conflicts of the Adams Presidency and the election of 1800 being sown in Paris circa 1777. I was mesmerized by the whole spectacle. In fact, I was happy to see some of the flaws in Adams' character be exposed. I can no longer consider this hagiography.

If those made up patsies were historically representative of the French court at the time, I would completely understand Adam's contempt.

As for character flaws being displayed, seems to me that Franklin was the major exhibitor, not Adams.

Unless you count seasickness as a flaw.

Character flaws? It's always the pricks that get shit done. I'm thoroughly enjoying this series, btw.

War Wagon wrote:If those made up patsies were historically representative of the French court at the time, I would completely understand Adam's contempt.

As for character flaws being displayed, seems to me that Franklin was the major exhibitor, not Adams.

Unless you count seasickness as a flaw.

At best, Adams displayed an extreme lack of tact. At worst, he was petulant and overbearing in a situation that demanded the exact opposite. Whatever the flaws of the French nobility were, and there were many, the fact remained that Adams and Franklin were the ones begging the French for support. Franklin realized this and acted according. Adams did not and subsequently earned the distrust of the French.

In short, he was the KC Paul of Versailles.

My biggest disappointment with the episode was that it utterly and totally glossed over and oversimplified the years 1777-81. But I suppose you can only cover so much in a 7 episode mini-series. They would have better served the subject by turning it into a 15-20 episode series. Of course they would have also doubled their budget.

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:As for character flaws being displayed, seems to me that Franklin was the major exhibitor, not Adams.

Who got the deal done? Franklin or Adams? No way we could have won the Revolution without direct French intervention.

I admittedly don't have the back ground that you do on the subject mv but my father however does and he slightly disagrees as we have had this conversation on a number of strange occassions since I was a child and he is of the opinion that the Colonies would have eventually won the war regardless it just would have been a much longer and drawn out affair than it already was.

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:As for character flaws being displayed, seems to me that Franklin was the major exhibitor, not Adams.

Who got the deal done? Franklin or Adams? No way we could have won the Revolution without direct French intervention.

It was Adams' bullheadedness that (in no small part) led the Continental Congress to vote unanimously for independence, was it not? Without his efforts in Philly, we may not even be talking about Franklin's success in France.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:As for character flaws being displayed, seems to me that Franklin was the major exhibitor, not Adams.

Who got the deal done? Franklin or Adams? No way we could have won the Revolution without direct French intervention.

It was Adams' bullheadedness that (in no small part) led the Continental Congress to vote unanimously for independence, was it not? Without his efforts in Philly, we may not even be talking about Franklin's success in France.

Nobody is disputing that Adams was an effective debater or legislator. He was also a damn fine lawyer who could have taught F. Lee Bailey a few tricks. But as a diplomat to the Court of Louis XVI, he was an abject failure.

mvscal wrote: Who got the deal done? Franklin or Adams?

How the heck should I know, I haven't seen that episode yet. :)

But most assuredly, I shall defer to your historical knowledge of the matter. It's been a long time since I studied that in school.

Incidentally, and to that end, I picked up a new book at the store the other day entitled "American Creation" by Joseph Ellis. Ever heard of him? Anyways, perhaps I'll learn something. I've only read a coupla' chapters so far, but it's a fascinating subject.

mvscal wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:he is of the opinion that the Colonies would have eventually won the war regardless it just would have been a much longer and drawn out affair than it already was.

He isn't particularly well informed. We would not have been in any position to fight a drawn out war without French aid.

France began supplying Washington's army clandestinely in 1776 through a Portugese front company run by the French arms dealer/secret agent/playwright, Beaumarchais. Without that powder, it's likely that the Continental Army would have been snuffed out before it could score its critical victories at Saratoga and Yorktown.

You're right he doesn't have a clue on the subject... he only taught a course on it at the USMA

And what you refer to was clandestine and that he freely admitts we needed but that wasn't direct intervention. No different than the US supplying arms to the afghans in the 80s.

mvscal wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:You're right he doesn't have a clue on the subject... he only taught a course on it at the USMA

Yes, he doesn't have a clue. He is an idiot and it's pretty clear the apple didn't fall very far from the tree. His opinion is nothing more than anti-French bigotry with absolutely no basis in fact and no understanding of exactly how thin a thread the Revolution hung on. We simply didn't have the economic base to fight an extended war without outside help. Unimpeded, the British fleet would have strangled the colonies economically. Period. End of story. Game fucking over.

John Adams was of the opinion that the war could not be won without French naval support and he was proven correct by events. French naval intervention was decisive. So who do you suppose was better informed, John Adams or some dumbshit pontificating from his armchair 230 years later?

And what you refer to was clandestine and that he freely admitts we needed but that wasn't direct intervention. No different than the US supplying arms to the afghans in the 80s.

Got news for you, dumbfuck. Providing arms and ammunition is direct intervention and our arms to Afghans in the 1980s and French arms to the colonies in the 1770s was critical to victory in both instances.

I guess your version of "direct intervetion" doesn't jive with the rest of the world or especially the military's!!! Secrectly supplying arms is by no means direct, it is any thing but; It is indirect intervention. Direct intervention was when French ships showed up on the Atlantic coast.

I also am damn sure my father's expertise with military matters greatly excedes your own from your arm chair. Unlike you he has actually served in multiple military campaigns (Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, and Bosnia) during his service and commanded troops in combat.

mvscal wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:I also am damn sure my father's expertise with military matters greatly excedes your own

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it doesn't. Anybody who suggests that we could have done without French aid during the Revolution is not simply wrong. That person is a fucking Grade A moron.

I have no interest in splitting hairs over what you two idiots consider to be "direct" or "indirect." The bottom line is that French arms ended up in Colonial hands and without those supplies we were well and truly fucked. That is a fact that is beyond dispute.

Let me know when your fuckwitted old man wants to talk about facts. I'll be happy to humiliate him too.

I never said he said without french aid but without their direct involvement. Jesus you're worse than I am about arguing just for the sake of fucking arguing.

mvscal wrote:Sending us weapons and ammunition is direct involvement.

The opinion that we could have won without the thousands of professional troops and their engineering expertise not to mention the vital naval support that the French provided is highly speculative at best. The facts demonstrate that that intervention was the decisive element.

Hence I used the word opinion.

Without the threat of the French fleet, the British would have been free to set up a leisurely blockade of Colonial ports which would have choked us economically. We really weren't in great shape as it was. They could also have occupied the Contintental army with a series of amphibious feints and raids up and down the coast designed to frustrate and demoralize the population.

Eventually, the Revolution would have collapsed in poverty,squabbling between the states and general disgust. The British failed to divide and conquer. A more patient strategy would have yielded great success. Then again, with the French busy providing the revolution with financial and military support, they really didn't have the luxury of patience now did they?

Your ideas are correct, I don't disgree with the military strategy you provide here for the Brits and neither does my father. But at the same time you are ignoring the climate in Britain and mainland Europe at the time. The war which was seen as small rebellion at first from the perspective of the British Isles was hugely unpopular with the population. Britain was embattled with on and off conflicts with France already. The war began to subdue an already shaky economic situation in Britain and created massive debt and money that was worth virtually nothing due to inflation. Political scandal at home in Britain began to weigh down the crowns political capital even further at home. King George didn't have that time that even you admit he needed to engage in such a conflict that you propose.

The Brittish were also used to fighting by European standards where the capture of major cities and capitals (i.e. New York, Boston, etc.) would traditionally mark the end of a conflict which did not hold true in the Americas. There was no central stategic base for the British to attack due to the large areas of land that the colonies covered and their governments being seperate. It was different kind of war for them that they were ill prepared for in the same manner that the Colonies were.

The debt incurred by France helping us was also a major factor in it's own Revolution (amongst other issues). I think that you ignore the Spain and Netherlands as well and their supplies of arms and assistance (though not on the same scale as France's).

We seem to only focus on the issues here in America now when discussing the Revolution while ignoring the plethora of obstacles that England itself was facing itself at home.

In the end I think it would have been a longer conflict and a coin toss at best for either side.

mvscal wrote:My point is that without French aid we wouldn't have been in any position to wage a long, drawn out conflict. We simply did not have the financial or military means to do so. Britain's internal politics are largely irrelevant to that consideration.

But their ability to wage a large scale war from across an ocean, communications, and other logistical factors are not. King George faced as much or more derisivness at home regarding the war as our George is now concerning our own...

mvscal wrote:Sending us weapons and ammunition is direct involvement.

The opinion that we could have won without the thousands of professional troops and their engineering expertise not to mention the vital naval support that the French provided is highly speculative at best. The facts demonstrate that that intervention was the decisive element.

I would go even further and state that were it not for the supply of French gunpowder and the hope for an alliance to soon follow, there would have not been a Declaration of Independence period. There is simply no way the east coast merchants, plantation owners, doctors and lawyers who made up the Continental Congress would have stood for the promise of a war guaranteed to lead to their perpetual economic ruin.

mvscal wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:

mvscal wrote:My point is that without French aid we wouldn't have been in any position to wage a long, drawn out conflict. We simply did not have the financial or military means to do so. Britain's internal politics are largely irrelevant to that consideration.

But their ability to wage a large scale war from across an ocean, communications, and other logistical factors are not. King George faced as much or more derisivness at home regarding the war as our George is now concerning our own...

Without French interference they wouldn't have had to wage a large scale war. A strategy of naval blockade and commerce raiding would have been more than sufficient to ruin the colonies without the risk of any shocking defeats or lurid outrages to inflame the populace.
It would have been kept on the back pages.

Our founders were fortunate in that they were opposed by one of the single most incompentant adminstrations of any nation at any point in history. The American Revolution rates, IMO, as the single most ghastly policy blunder in world history.

That I don't disagree with. King George was totally inept in all aspects of his reign. He went through what was it 3 or 4 PMs just during the revolution alone? He couldn't hold together any sort of government during his tenure.

Good Lord, episode 4 had me crying like a fucking baby in the final scene.

Rack this series.

War Wagon wrote:Good Lord, episode 4 had me crying like a fucking baby in the final scene.

So did “The Batchelor”. BFD.

We don't get HBO but just bought this series on DVD from Amazon.

Watched the first disc (episodes 1 and 2) last night. This series is the equivalent of a book you just can't put down (which the McCullough bio was, BTW). Great casting, great performances and truly compelling material. Prolly stay up late again tonight. Might have to put it down for awhile, though, to catch May-Treanor and Walsh kick some slope butt.

How much did that set you back? Whatever it cost, it's worth it. I've got HBO on demand and have watched every episode at least twice.

War Wagon wrote:How much did that set you back? Whatever it cost, it's worth it. I've got HBO on demand and have watched every episode at least twice.

I got it for $29... but it was at a discount because the SOs sister works at Target.

War Wagon wrote:How much did that set you back? Whatever it cost, it's worth it. I've got HBO on demand and have watched every episode at least twice.

The OL ordered it, but I just checked and it was $38.99.

She and the boy sat down a couple of weeks ago and dropped a couple hours of salary on DVDs - John Adams, the three Bourne flicks (I actually am looking forward to doing a Jason Bourne marathon one of these days), Children of Men, Spartacus, Blue Hawaii, a 5 disc History of Britain from BBC/History Channel and the French Revolution also from the History Channel.

That should take a couple of nights to work through.

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:As for character flaws being displayed, seems to me that Franklin was the major exhibitor, not Adams.

Who got the deal done? Franklin or Adams? No way we could have won the Revolution without direct French intervention.

Neither one. That would be Gates.

Just saw it on netflix. Very well done and true to the book (which was also excelent). Nice to see Franklin shown as the irrelevency and Jefferson as the worthless tool they actually were.

Diogenes wrote:

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:As for character flaws being displayed, seems to me that Franklin was the major exhibitor, not Adams.

Who got the deal done? Franklin or Adams? No way we could have won the Revolution without direct French intervention.

Neither one. That would be Gates.

Just saw it on netflix. Very well done and true to the book (which was also excelent). Nice to see Franklin shown as the irrelevency and Jefferson as the worthless tool they actually were.

Yeah Jefferson was truly a fuck up other than two bills passed and having a gifted pen. His management of Virginia during the war was atrocious. His selfishness also knew few bounds.

i've watched this thread rise and fall but hadn't seen anything so i stayed out for spoilers.

i've seen the first 5 parts with Netflix. i think it's pretty good, not the Wire or Deadwood great....but good.

unlike some others, i think the Jefferson character is pretty interesting and not merely a tool.

King Crimson wrote:i've watched this thread rise and fall but hadn't seen anything so i stayed out for spoilers.

i've seen the first 5 parts with Netflix. i think it's pretty good, not the Wire or Deadwood great....but good.

unlike some others, i think the Jefferson character is pretty interesting and not merely a tool.

The problem was that Jefferson really was a tool despite our country's copious love affair with the legend that has risen in his name.

Basically what I said previously still applies. He helped enact two laws that were very important to our nations development but other that he was a complete and utter fuck up as a politician and at managing the state of Virginia during the war and again later as President. He was also very self absorbed and unwilling to sacrifice as many of the other founding fathers did during the Revolution. It took prodigious prodding from many of his close friends and colleagues to pull him away from Monticello for even a few weeks at a time to attend to his business in both the State legislature and later as governor. In fact the only thing he did in the legislature was to appear so as to defend his dubious actions prior to election and then promptly abandoned his post to return home.

I enjoyed the series. I thought the portrayals were very well-done. Again - those who thought Giamatti wasn't "heroic" enough would seem to be new to any understanding of Adams whatsoever. I think he was the perfect choice - and he did an excellent job.

mvscal wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:The problem was that Jefferson really was a tool

The problem is that you are an ignorant dipshit.

Coming from a tool such as yourself I take that as a compliment.