HBO's John Adams

[matthew mckeon]

Right on both counts. An tiny minority of American MPs, out of touch with American realities, would have been bad news for the Americans.

The British had an excellent case they had done the heavy lifting in the 7 Years War. But they also benefited a great deal as well.

[ole]

[quote]In theory, it would have satisfied their demand for "representation," but in the end that wasn't really what they wanted.[/QUOTE]Where have I heard that before?

ole

[milhistbuff1]

Indeed, they traded off lands especially in earlier wars that colonials had paid for with blood. For instance, Louisbourg was returned to the French in exchange for land in India.

[gary]

Does it count if I was at Colonial Williamsburg when they were filming part of John Adams? Don't know which episode as I don't watch tee-vee, but there was a very pretty brunette riding a carriage. She waved. I, the peasant in 21st Century attire with a camera slung around my neck, waved back.

[cw1865]

Did you guys catch the vaccination scene?

Ugh, pretty disgusting.

[mt155]

They knew to vaccinate against small pox, but in Holland they were still trying to bleed out his ailment. Who knows how medieval our modern medicine will look to folks 200 years from know.

Mike T.

[cw1865]

They just couldn't see the ultimate cause of the symptoms. The fact that they 'figured out' some method of mitigating smallpox is pretty amazing.

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by mt155

I think I like Giamatti for the role. Here's why; he's not a "big" star that will take over the series. That's one of the reasons I believe that Band of Brothers did so well. The "no name" guys did an outstanding job. Just my opinion.

Mike T.

I like the actor, but i don't know if a 'rugged' "John Adams, Frontiersman", is accurate. From what I have seen of Adams in paintings, (and when he became president), he had obviously had some rather foppishly monarchial training from having been overseas and seeing how things were there...

I, of course, am quite peeved that JEFFERSON, THOMAS is not the subject of his own miniseries. I wonder how much of him we shall get in this thing. I don't get HBO and it will be awhile before I get to see it, but from his likeness hanging on the post office wall, he appears to be a bit
too Fess Parker, in the early days, for me to accept him.

Maybe that was true, but he never struck me as being particularly MANLY.

He, after all, pursues Jefferson with compliments and
natterings about how "the South must be involved in this"
quite very Northern idea of bringing the monarchy to the states as a 'Union' of some sort.

I am willing to bet Jefferson is cast as an antagonist, if at all!

Beowulf

[cw1865]

Well, HBO's topic is HBO's topic. BUt I agree you can't do Adams without Jefferson. We will see how the Adams/Jefferson relationship plays out in the miniseries....It will be the depiction of this relationship that will eitther make or break the miniseries in my eyes.

[ole]

Maybe that was true, but he never struck me as being particularly MANLY.

John Adams was a lawyer/farmer; you'd rather he were a lumberjack or seaman or soldier? I didn't expect to see John Adams as other than an ordinary, midde-class man.

I like the actor, but i don't know if a 'rugged' "John Adams, Frontiersman", is accurate. From what I have seen of Adams in paintings, (and when he became president), he had obviously had some rather foppishly monarchial training from having been overseas and seeing how things were there...

I missed the "Frontiersman" depiction in the first three episodes. As for being foppish in the paintings of him, that was the way it was done -- officials were expected to be attired in the fashion of the day, and that came from British roots. In his official portraits, even good ol' TJ presented a foppish appearance. It wasn't until Old Hickory that the elegance was diminished.

ole