Watched the Kennedies. It actually was very well done. It was very fair to the Kennedies, even Joe Sr. There were times it was a little flat, but I think that's inevitable for a show like this, and it was produced by the History Channel.

I've now seen more than half the series. Perhaps the best historical drama I've ever seen.

Now, I am Irish-American and from Massachusetts, so I'm supposed to love the Kennedies. The fact is I am not a big fan, especially of Ted. But I have a degree in history, and what more can you ask for as far as a fascinating subject. A powerful and power hungry father trying to manipulate his sons for the thrown, the second in line trying to carry on when the oldest dies in war, jealousy between brothers, the fate of the world(Cuban missile crisis), an assassinated president...on and on.

How did the writers handle all this? Absolutely brilliant. Attention to historical detail is meticulous, and yet they manage to bring out the drama and make this interesting, make the characters very human. I have not found one single thing that anyone could complain about as being unfair or inaccurate, the they are portrayed very sympathetically, even the nasty old man. This drama would have done Shakespeare proud.

What a commentary on the real state of things that this show was dropped and only an obscure station picked it up. The history channel, which spent 25 million on this, by far the biggest budget thing they've produced, said it didn't meet their standards. This from a channel that mostly does UFOS and monsters now, and of course Swamp People and Pawn Shop. Unbelievable.

Make sure, fellow script writers, that you don't include anything in your scripts that will run counter to the prevailing political narrative in American media and entertainment. If you don't know what that means, there will never be any convincing you anyway.

Didn't the History Channel refuse to air this series because of historical innacuracies?


Phil

Nope, not at all. There isn't anything it it that isn't well known already. History Channel only said it didn't meet its standard, but did not explain.

It's actually kind of funny. You knew most of the major critics would trash it. That was a given before they even viewed it. But what was amusing was that a common criticism is that it "shed nothing new on the matter," something like that. In other words, it made nothing up, but only used well known historical facts.

I also got a kick how every one of these reviews mentioned that it was produced by "conservative" producer blah, blah, blah. If Oliver Stone produced it would they say well known "liberal" director?

The funny thing is when you watch this, there is nothing conservative about it. Nothing that smears liberals or Democrats either. it's simply powerful drama. And trust me, I know my history far more than my screen formatting, and they paid remarkable attention to the facts.

I haven't seen it myself, but I heard that accuracy was a part of the problem, much like that James Brolin movie on Reagan.

Was Rosemary mentioned?


Phil

I have not seen one with a segment on Rosemary, but I believe it is included. There is much that surprisingly is not included. Ted Kennedy, Kathleen Kennedy are not even mentioned. The Kennedy story is long and has many characters, so they really tried to center this on Joe, Rose, Joe Jr, Jack, Jacky, and Bobby and Ethel.

I have not even found one thing that was historically questionable. The Kennedy people are the ones who called it inaccurate, but then they refused any specifics.

There was a segment where it was discussed how Joe worked with organized crime to stack the Chicago vote. There is no evidence for this that I know of, but it's pretty widely accepted.

The negative things shown are all well known. There was no reason to fictionalize.

The Reagan movie was more liberal fantasy. If I recall, the big one was a scene with Ron and Nancy when Ron says AIDS is God's punishment of gays, something to that effect. There is no reason to think Reagan ever thought this. Reagan was a union leader in Hollywood. He had many gay friends, and there's no reason to think he had any anti-gay thoughts or feelings, let alone policy.

Quite a bit of money was spent on AIDS research under Reagan. The criticism was one, that it wasn't enough, and two, that Reagan took a long time to recognize AIDS in any public speech. That's a pretty weak reason to say Reagan was anti-gay, and even worse to imply he was happy to see gays die of a horrible disease. But it fits the liberal narrative of what conservatives are: evil, greedy, mean spirited.

I'm going on memory on that, so let me know if I'm wrong.

I will go as far as to say the Kennedys is the most historically accurate drama I have ever seen, by far. I am not a fan of Oliver Stone's version of history, but he actually did a good job with Nixon.