Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > TV Talk
Reload this Page >

John Adams - Part 1 "Join Or Die" & Part 2 "Inderpendence"

TV Talk Talk about Shows on TV

John Adams - Part 1 "Join Or Die" & Part 2 "Inderpendence"

Old 03-19-08, 08:54 AM
  #26  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Chew's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: South of Titletown
Posts: 18,628
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
Is anyone else getting a creepy serial killer vibe off Jefferson?
I think it's the freakishly high socks.
Old 03-19-08, 10:04 AM
  #27  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
Is anyone else getting a creepy serial killer vibe off Jefferson?

I get much more of a, "detached intellectualism" vibe. If you've ever had a friend that was so freakishly brilliant - leaps and bounds above the rest of you - they often have this sort of clinical detachment, where it seems as if they're having difficulty being in the moment, instead internalizing everything, analyzing it for context, working over the implications... even for NORMAL topics... here they are talking about severing all ties from a government that has been the only thing they've ever known... I think the actor does an excellent job of selling those wheels just humming in his head.

There's also a wonderful bemusement to him. I loved his, "Well, it's what I believe", when describing the Declaration. Another actor may have given this a Charleton Heson-esque reading, but in John Adams, it came off as, "well, do with it what you want... no big deal... it's my take on it."

Fantastic.


-Doc
Old 03-19-08, 10:30 AM
  #28  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Chew
I think it's the freakishly high socks.
I think it's the bug-eyes.
Old 03-19-08, 12:30 PM
  #29  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,580
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver

It was a bitter pill they had to swallow, and I thought the subtlety in that scene was excellent, as was the hint at Ben Franklin's disdain for the church ("Smacks of the pulpit") and his soft-touch at changing the line to "self-evident" without angering Jefferson.

-Doc
The scene was, as you describe, masterfully handled. However, you might want to compare it with the description in McCullough's book:

"A number of alterations were made, however, when Jefferson reviewed it with the committee, and several were by Adams. Possibly it was Franklin, or Jefferson itself, who made the small but inspired change in the second paragraph. Where, in the initial draft, certain 'truths' were described as 'sacred and undeniable', a simpler, stronger 'self-evident' was substituted,

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...'."

(from p. 122)

Even though the script obviously takes liberties with the book's scenario (or perhaps has drawn from other historical sources), I still didn't get the "disdain" for the church you perceived. Rather, I felt that Franklin was implying that the phrase sounded too "preachy" and that the resulting change was more in agreement with McCullough's description of the need for a "simpler, stronger" term.

Loved the detached, bemused portrayal of Jefferson you mention, which is entirely consistent with McCullough's book. The humanizing touches (the pause, followed by a slight hand wave, and the quiet, "Well, that's what I believe") made these men come to life in a way that was both touching and galvanizing.


This series is superb thus far.

Note: Could somebody edit the title of this thread? I'm a hillbilly born & raised, but I ain't heered nobody who says "inderpendence".

Last edited by creekdipper; 03-19-08 at 12:37 PM.
Old 03-19-08, 12:36 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Puyallup
Posts: 16,430
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
This is why I love television.

I remember watching the 10 part series 'The Revolution' on History channel on the fourth of july. That was great.
Old 03-19-08, 12:38 PM
  #31  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,580
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by superdeluxe
This is why I love television.

I remember watching the 10 part series 'The Revolution' on History channel on the fourth of july. That was great.
It's no surprise to me that a copy of "The Revolution" which I had listed on half.com for about 4 months sold this week.
Old 03-19-08, 02:27 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Puyallup
Posts: 16,430
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by creekdipper
It's no surprise to me that a copy of "The Revolution" which I had listed on half.com for about 4 months sold this week.

I bet the yahoo buzz meter for john adams is up 1000%

edit: 1034%

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/91177

John Adams, American Superstar?
by Molly McCall
Yesterday Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:12:47 PDT

HBO's latest miniseries—the seven-part "John Adams," starring Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney—kicked off with a two-episode opener on Sunday night. We don't know yet how the ratings panned out, but the reaction in Search the next morning sounded like a standing ovation.

Lookups of "john adams miniseries" rose an astonishing 1,073%, climbing into our top 35 daily movers. As of Tuesday morning, the query continued to hold sway in the top hourly searches.

The advance buzz was equally impressive. Over the past 7 days, interest in "president john adams" surged nearly 1,300%. We might've credited the bump to middle schoolers desperately seeking homework help, but the bulk of the queries came flowing in from 35 to 64 year olds. Americans interested in American history, who woulda thought?

Besides the man himself, searchers have investigated the Founding Father's family. Queries are up nearly 300% for Abigail Adams, the country's second First Lady and astute adviser to her husband. Demand for cousin Samuel Adams, son John Quincy Adams, and "john adams children" has also spiked.

Though many critics have lauded the cable drama, some reviewers have not been so quick to jump on the celebratory bandwagon. Tim Goodman at The San Francisco Chronicle bemoaned the waste of Giamatti's talents in the role. If the buzz keeps up the way it's going now, though, this may prove a historic role for the actor.

Last edited by superdeluxe; 03-19-08 at 02:33 PM.
Old 03-19-08, 03:42 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by creekdipper
Even though the script obviously takes liberties with the book's scenario (or perhaps has drawn from other historical sources), I still didn't get the "disdain" for the church you perceived. Rather, I felt that Franklin was implying that the phrase sounded too "preachy" and that the resulting change was more in agreement with McCullough's description of the need for a "simpler, stronger" term.

Disdain was, perhaps, too strong a word. Agnostic, maybe? Franklin always had a history of not falling too deeply into the habit of relying on the invocation of the almighty. He's quoted as saying, "As to Jesus... I have doubts about his divinity."

I don't know, maybe I'm just projecting my own aggrivations with certain aspects of "The Church" on to one of my favorite historical figures


-Doc
Old 03-19-08, 03:57 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Puyallup
Posts: 16,430
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
I would love to share a pint of grog with Ben Franklin, to just pick his brain.
Old 03-19-08, 04:18 PM
  #35  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by superdeluxe
I would love to share a pint of grog with Ben Franklin, to just pick his brain.

SECONDED!



-Doc
Old 03-19-08, 06:38 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 7,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
Disdain Franklin always had a history of not falling too deeply into the habit of relying on the invocation of the almighty. He's quoted as saying, "As to Jesus... I have doubts about his divinity."
-Doc
As did Adams (didn't believe Jesus was divine). I believe his father wanted him to be a pastor and he wanted to be a lawyer instead. It's kind of funny to think about how many of these giants in the founding of our country could never be elected to office today for their religious views. Funny, but sad.
Old 03-19-08, 09:58 PM
  #37  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 11,610
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by atlantamoi
As did Adams (didn't believe Jesus was divine). I believe his father wanted him to be a pastor and he wanted to be a lawyer instead. It's kind of funny to think about how many of these giants in the founding of our country could never be elected to office today for their religious views. Funny, but sad.
A lot of them believed in slavery too...it's kind of funny to think about how many of these giants in the founding of our country could never be elected to office today for their views on slavery. Funny, but sad...wait...no it's not.

I agree, it would be sad, IF there were enough non-believers to elect a non-believer, and they weren't allowed to do so.

Last edited by aktick; 03-19-08 at 10:01 PM.
Old 03-19-08, 11:02 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Puyallup
Posts: 16,430
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
I read that John Adams did not have slaves correct?
Old 03-20-08, 09:15 AM
  #39  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rockmjd23
Deist is a better word.

You are absolutely correct. And frankly, I hope that if there is a god, he does act in a Laissez-faire manner. Otherwise, he'd be a pretty big prick for allowing things to progress as they have...

I mean the law of averages states that if he was actively involved in answering prayers, the Eagles would have had at least one Superbowl victory in my lifetime, no?


Originally Posted by Rockmjd23
Correct, he employed free blacks.

Regarding his religious views, Unitarians don't necessarily believe in Jesus' divinity, but they believe in his teachings. Very interesting denomination, I have a few friends who are members.

This has always been my argument to the wing-nuts. So what if I think the whole "immaculate conception" thing is a bogus transmogrification of ancient myths, or a mistranslation centuries after the fact, or even just a greedo-shooting-first recut. Does it make his teaching any less valid? Does it make his philosophies any less noble?

It's a crazy comparison, but sometimes I think christians are like comic book continuity nerds who can't enjoy Spider-Man or Batman Begins as tonally faithful representations of their favorite characters because of slight changes made to translate them to film.

Christ, could you imagine if John Adams today claimed that Jesus had organic web shooters? A tarring and some feathers would be the least of his worries



-Doc

Last edited by Doc MacGyver; 03-20-08 at 09:20 AM.
Old 03-20-08, 10:00 AM
  #40  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,580
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
You are absolutely correct. And frankly, I hope that if there is a god, he does act in a Laissez-faire manner. Otherwise, he'd be a pretty big prick for allowing things to progress as they have...

I mean the law of averages states that if he was actively involved in answering prayers, the Eagles would have had at least one Superbowl victory in my lifetime, no?





This has always been my argument to the wing-nuts. So what if I think the whole "immaculate conception" thing is a bogus transmogrification of ancient myths, or a mistranslation centuries after the fact, or even just a greedo-shooting-first recut. Does it make his teaching any less valid? Does it make his philosophies any less noble?

It's a crazy comparison, but sometimes I think christians are like comic book continuity nerds who can't enjoy Spider-Man or Batman Begins as tonally faithful representations of their favorite characters because of slight changes made to translate them to film.

Christ, could you imagine if John Adams today claimed that Jesus had organic web shooters? A tarring and some feathers would be the least of his worries



-Doc
I'm amazed that you would ask the question regarding whether the idea of a Christ who is not divine would make his teaching "any less valid?"

Are you serious or just attempting to be witty or provocative?

Ignoring your rather intentional blasphemous slurs intended to offend Christians (unless you want to employ the Chris Buttars defense from the Political Forum), the deity of Christ makes ALL the difference in the "philosophies" he taught. If Christ is God, then He is delivering the Word of God, not just some well-intentioned but potentially-flawed personal self-help philosophy on how to lead a good life. Christ maintained that He was doing the will of the Father. If He was not whom He claimed to be, then He is just some crackpot who happened to say some things that appeal to a lot of people, including those people who reject His main "teachings" that one must obey God.

Christ repeatedly pointed out that He did not come to establish an earthly kingdom. How do you interpret his remarks when Mary spent money to anoint His feet and was admonished for wasting money? Christ didn't agree, pointing out that there will always be the poor amongst us...instead, He praised Mary for her focus on God (Himself, in this case) first. Although He certainly advocated caring for the sick and needy, He was much more concerned with their spiritual condition. He visited and ate with those who lived openly sinful lifestyles not as a way of showing approval but because they were those most in need of spiritual help (the healthy man doesn't need a physician, etc.)

Your entire view of God is man-centric; that is, that God should do things exactly the way you want them...thus, you reject the idea of a sovereign God who controls all things (yes, even permitting the atrocities that we see in a fallen world). A God-centric view accepts that we are His creations and serve His purposes to glorify Him...yes, even you, Doc...either by demonstrating His justice or His mercy. Because you can't conceive of that notion as being "fair"...obviously, equating your omniscience with that of God...you reject a God who would permit such things to occur.

The Bible plainly states that, without a resurrected Christ, Christians (along with everyone else) have no hope. You cannot interpret the Bible to mean anything else. For a Christian to say that Christ was not divine is not only blasphemous but ultimately a rejection of the entire gospel message. In that event, any of the "philosophies" espoused by the world through various "ism's"...Atheism, Marxism, Buddhism, Capitalism, Hinduism, etc....are just as valid. Then Christianity becomes just another "works-based" philosophy in which personal salvation (or self-esteem, or whatever it is that you are trying to achieve in life) is based upon whatever you can do in order to "earn" your place. Christianity is the only religion that offers a salvation based upon grace and the imputed righteousness of a Saviour for salvation (even while acknowledging the need to bear fruit as evidence of one's salvation...but not as the cause of that salvation.

At least those who openly despise Christ for condemning sin and mock Him through blasphemous comments (often to make money from those who similarly reject the notion of sin & the need for repentance) are being intellectually honest. Anyone who says they admire Christ's "philosophies" while rejecting Him as the Son of God is either being hypocritical or is woefully ignorant of the scope of His teachings. Of course, you have the Griffins of the world who tell Jesus to "suck it", then express confusion as to how that statement could be found offensive (can't Christians just take a joke?).

EDIT*** While I welcome replies, methinks that we're veering off-topic from the tv thread and should take our discussions to the Politics Forum if we continue along this line much longer.

Last edited by creekdipper; 03-20-08 at 10:05 AM.
Old 03-20-08, 10:07 AM
  #41  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,580
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
In the spirit of the last edited comment, I will just say again that I love this series so far. Makes history so much more entertaining than the explosion of the week we so typically see.

"John Adams" has all the depth and subtlety that "The Patriot" lacked.
Old 03-20-08, 10:48 AM
  #42  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by creekdipper
Your entire view of God is man-centric
Makes sense to me, since humanity invented the concept of god.
Old 03-20-08, 11:32 AM
  #43  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by creekdipper
I'm amazed that you would ask the question regarding whether the idea of a Christ who is not divine would make his teaching "any less valid?"

Are you serious or just attempting to be witty or provocative?

Ignoring your rather intentional blasphemous slurs intended to offend Christians (unless you want to employ the Chris Buttars defense from the Political Forum), the deity of Christ makes ALL the difference in the "philosophies" he taught. If Christ is God, then He is delivering the Word of God, not just some well-intentioned but potentially-flawed personal self-help philosophy on how to lead a good life. Christ maintained that He was doing the will of the Father. If He was not whom He claimed to be, then He is just some crackpot who happened to say some things that appeal to a lot of people, including those people who reject His main "teachings" that one must obey God.


At least those who openly despise Christ for condemning sin and mock Him through blasphemous comments (often to make money from those who similarly reject the notion of sin & the need for repentance) are being intellectually honest. Anyone who says they admire Christ's "philosophies" while rejecting Him as the Son of God is either being hypocritical or is woefully ignorant of the scope of His teachings. Of course, you have the Griffins of the world who tell Jesus to "suck it", then express confusion as to how that statement could be found offensive (can't Christians just take a joke?).

EDIT*** While I welcome replies, methinks that we're veering off-topic from the tv thread and should take our discussions to the Politics Forum if we continue along this line much longer.

Aw man, here we go. I wasn't trying to start an argument, just saying that I can appreciate someone's worthy and admirable teachings without buying into the Dogma lock, stock & barrell. It certainly wasn't meant to offend. If you find comfort and solace in your beliefs, more power to you, brother.


Originally Posted by creekdipper
The Bible plainly states that, without a resurrected Christ, Christians (along with everyone else) have no hope. You cannot interpret the Bible to mean anything else.
The bible also states that I should stone my mother for planting crops of different species next to each other and should ritualistically kill the Philadelphia Eagles for touching a pig's skin and working on Sunday.

Originally Posted by creekdipper
For a Christian to say that Christ was not divine is not only blasphemous but ultimately a rejection of the entire gospel message. In that event, any of the "philosophies" espoused by the world through various "ism's"...Atheism, Marxism, Buddhism, Capitalism, Hinduism, etc....are just as valid. Then Christianity becomes just another "works-based" philosophy in which personal salvation (or self-esteem, or whatever it is that you are trying to achieve in life) is based upon whatever you can do in order to "earn" your place.
I haven't been a Christian for some time. I disagree that I am rejecting his entire message simply because I don't believe that God magically impregnated a teenager.

As for your other "isms"... they are just as valid. As is any viewpoint or philosophy that offers personal understanding of the human condition without any detriment to others. And if we all followed Jesus' message of loving our fellow man as we love ourselves, even if only to "earn" our place, then the world would certainly be a pretty nice place to live.

I reject the notion that I cannot take philosophies and ideals from different sources to construct my own understanding on the human condition. I'm a pluralist by nature (as is the foundation of this country) and presuming the hubris to think I found the one philosophy that absolutely "nailed it" is something I am not capable of. Must I support the subjugation of women to find certain principles of Islam appealing? Must I reject the Constitution and Bill of Rights because I think the second ammendment is outdated? Must I reject the bible because I think Gay dudes should be able to live how they want and that slavery is wrong (an issue on which the bible is totally silent)?

For the record, let me paraphrase Ferris Bueler: "I'm against all 'isms', for that matter." To buy wholesale into any "ism", is to by definition exclude any other. A purely capitalist society would be dog-eat-dog and would let those without health insurance die in a gutter. A purely socialist society would leave no account for individual rights and would almost certainly become corrupt. I'm entirely against drinking the kool-aid on any one idea. That's how extremism is born.

To put it another way: "I am an extreme moderate. I believe that anyone who is against moderation should be castrated." - Dr. Franklin


-Doc
Old 03-20-08, 12:22 PM
  #44  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Puyallup
Posts: 16,430
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
..thread moving in 3..2...1..
Old 03-20-08, 12:38 PM
  #45  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by superdeluxe
..thread moving in 3..2...1..
Ha, NO! That's why I ended with Franklin. I'm done, back to the show.


Something I'm a little concerned about... I love how the revolutionary was is portrayed from Adams' viewpoint, but does that mean we will not be seeing any of the battles he wasn't there to witness? I'd hate to think we got such a fantastic introduction to General Washington only to have him relegated to the occassional pre/post battle cut-away...

EDIT: I should probably not make any assumptions, as the uptick in scale from episode one to two was enormous, so It's probable that it would continue to build on that theme.

-Doc

Last edited by Doc MacGyver; 03-20-08 at 12:40 PM.
Old 03-20-08, 12:45 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Puyallup
Posts: 16,430
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
Ha, NO! That's why I ended with Franklin. I'm done, back to the show.


Something I'm a little concerned about... I love how the revolutionary was is portrayed from Adams' viewpoint, but does that mean we will not be seeing any of the battles he wasn't there to witness? I'd hate to think we got such a fantastic introduction to General Washington only to have him relegated to the occassional pre/post battle cut-away...

EDIT: I should probably not make any assumptions, as the uptick in scale from episode one to two was enormous, so It's probable that it would continue to build on that theme.

-Doc
If they make a 1776..I would assume we would get more battles.
Old 03-20-08, 01:57 PM
  #47  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by superdeluxe
If they make a 1776..I would assume we would get more battles.
I think someone mentioned that was greenlit, but I hadn't heard any confirmation, or whether it was Playtone that was handling it. I'd love for that to be the case, with a cross-over of characters, having this take place in the same "universe" as John Adams.

I absolutely loved 1776 and seeing the British on Jamaica Pass or seeing the British ships lurking off shore during the Battle of Brooklyn... man, I'm getting chills just imagining the scope of it...



-Doc
Old 03-20-08, 03:52 PM
  #48  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
re: 1776

Next up for HBO: “1776”

The year 1776 has gotten cinema treatment only once before, as a 1969 Broadway musical turned into a film. Now, fresh off the “John Adams” miniseries, the pivotal year is about to get a second look.

Like “Adams,” “1776” will be another HBO series based a David McCullough book, an eponymous title published in 2005.

Kirk Ellis, the screenwriter for the Adams series, says he’s already outlining the “1776” project.

“It’s the perfect companion piece,” Ellis told The Patriot Ledger. “Where ‘John Adams’ is an interior epic, the odyssey of one man through a period of history, ‘1776’ is a concentrated action piece.”

The Tony Award-winning Broadway musical told the story of the Continental Congress and Declaration of Independence. The HBO series will focus on General George Washington and the ordeals of the often-beleaguered Continental Army. Ellis said it will probably be finished in 2010.
http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x561178412

I loved the first two episodes of "John Adams" and eagerly await 1776. Not to mention "The Pacific"...thank god for HBO!
Old 03-20-08, 04:15 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: DFW
Posts: 2,541
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
Is Playtone doing it, do you know? I LOVED 1776, and thought from day one it would make a fantastic miniseries. The Battle of Brooklyn alone would be worth my cable bill.
Yup, Playtone is doing it.

From the Futon Critic:http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=6907

1776 (HBO, New!) - The pay channel and Tom Hanks & Gary Goetzman's Playtone banner are set to team for a new multi-part mini-series based on David McCullough's recently published book "1776." Said project, which Hanks and Goetzman will executive produce, will track George Washington's military campaign against the British. The news marks HBO and Playtone's second small screen adaptation of a McCullough novel, the first being the upcoming 11-hour project "John Adams." Kirk Ellis, who spearheaded "Adams" (writing nine of the 11 hours), is understood to be in talks to do the same for "1776." Production on "Adams" is set to begin in the fall while no timetable was given for "1776."
Old 03-20-08, 04:19 PM
  #50  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TruGator
re: 1776

Next up for HBO: “1776”

The year 1776 has gotten cinema treatment only once before, as a 1969 Broadway musical turned into a film. Now, fresh off the “John Adams” miniseries, the pivotal year is about to get a second look.

Like “Adams,” “1776” will be another HBO series based a David McCullough book, an eponymous title published in 2005.

Kirk Ellis, the screenwriter for the Adams series, says he’s already outlining the “1776” project.

“It’s the perfect companion piece,” Ellis told The Patriot Ledger. “Where ‘John Adams’ is an interior epic, the odyssey of one man through a period of history, ‘1776’ is a concentrated action piece.”

The Tony Award-winning Broadway musical told the story of the Continental Congress and Declaration of Independence. The HBO series will focus on General George Washington and the ordeals of the often-beleaguered Continental Army. Ellis said it will probably be finished in 2010.

Wow... that is exactly what I was hoping for... which I'm not used to getting (I'm looking at you, George Miller's Justice League)... thanks for the info, Gator. Sounds awesome.


-Doc

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.