TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like
Google.
Pages:1
Official Colonial House Thread ***YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!***
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: cptodd
Here is the thread for discussions of the goings on at the Colonial House.
I did not get a chance to see it yet (Work) but I can't wait. What are your impressions so far?
Posted by: SnakeEyes
I wish they'd air these over 8 nights so it seems longer.
Posted by: firerose818
I loved it! I felt terrible for the Governor's daughter in losing her fiance. It was amazing to see how everyone in the community came together and how close everyone was in such a short period of time.
The only complaint that I have is that they didn't show more of the preparation for 17th century living. I remember that in Frontier House the first episode was showing the training and preparations for living. I would liked to have seen an entire episode instead of just a little bit during the credits.
-Rose
Posted by: jlb.x
I was surprised to see Gov. Wyers return. I doubt we'll see any of the rest of his family -- perhaps the boy, but not his daughters or wife. I think they handled this tragedy amazingly. The music, the fog, the editing, and having his servants tell their diary cameras what happened was very well done. Not showing any of the actual grief of Bethany, just the reaction to it by the other "settlers" made it all the more heart breaking, for me anyway.
Obviously, you'd rather that this never happened. Especially in contrast to the church scenes and the big party. But they had to have it in the show and it was done with class and dignity.
Jumping back a little... The discussion of the Native Americans between the Wyers boy (sorry, forgot his name) and Mrs. Wyers was very odd. He said something like, they're not acutally 17th century Indians. She said, they still might be dangerous, "Don't you watch the 10 o'clock news?" I actually laughed out loud at how stupid that sounded.
I agree that showing a little more of the prep for their lives might have been good to see. I was surprised that they only spent two weeks preparing at Plimouth Plantation in Massachusetts (I've been there but I don't really know how authentic is really is). I would have thought they might have needed more time than that. But they did seem very anxious and eager to get to their "settlement."
Looking forward to the rest of the series... :up:
Posted by: dirtypacman
Very Happy so far with it....as I always am with PBS programing.
I fell asleep to the last 1/2 hour so I going to return to viewing prior to tonights airing.
And just because im from MASS its Plymouth.
Posted by: DancnDude
This is the first of the House series that I have seen and it was very interesting. Kinda cool to see how modern-day people react to living like the colonists. How long does the series go?
Posted by: jradosh
I was a bit disappointed that they didn't have to build anything. They just moved in and that was that. In "Frontier House" at least some of them had to build their houses and also clear the field for planting.
So far so good. :up:
Posted by: dirtypacman
Total 8 hours over 4 episodes.
Tonight 8-10pm
Next week Monday/Tuesday 8-10pm
Posted by: jlb.x
quote:
Originally posted by dirtypacman
And just because im from MASS its Plymouth.
The city is Plymouth, the historical/educational site is Plimouth Plantation.
Posted by: dirtypacman
Thanks for update I never knew that and I have visited.
you learn something new everyday!
Posted by: cptodd
I'll give that damn Governor a city on a hill! He is getting on my nerves. So far he is not as bad as the head of the household in the Manor House series though.
Posted by: Bryanmc
So, were both those people skinning dipping and hanging out in their B-Day suits in front of their son?
Good thing they didn't have social services back in 1682. ;)
Posted by: cptodd
I am not so sure that being nakey in front of the children will get you in trouble. Don't "naturalists/nudists" get nakey in front of the kids en-mass (when they get together)?
Posted by: Bryanmc
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
I am not so sure that being nakey in front of the children will get you in trouble. Don't "naturalists/nudists" get nakey in front of the kids en-mass (when they get together)?
I guess you're right.
Seemed strange to me though.
I don't want to know what kind of messed up I'd be if I'd seen my mom and dad hanging out naked.
<shudder>
Posted by: cptodd
TRUST ME! I found it strange too! But not only did they get naked (though I did not see the son when they were naked) BUT they also spoke about having sex in front of him while he was asleep! Yuck. Can you imagine if he woke up?
Posted by: cptodd
OK. Let's get to the meat cause they have certainly given us much to talk about.
1) What do you all think about the fact that they had "people of color" in the colony? Certainly not historically accurate.
2) What about the fact that they had someone "come out"?
3) Do you think they stage conflict intentionally? Not that they say "you have to say and do this" or "you and you have to make the rest of the folks uncomfortable" BUT do you think that they cast folks KNOWING that if they put together certain kinds of people there will be conflict?
Posted by: dirtypacman
1) I dont know historical facts on this
2) I think it was pretty Gay ....lol
3) Yes as does every show of this type. I mean think of the preacher--- they must have grabbed him right up to be on this show!
LOOKING FORWARD TO NEXT WEEK!
Posted by: TreborPugly
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
TRUST ME! I found it strange too! But not only did they get naked (though I did not see the son when they were naked) BUT they also spoke about having sex in front of him while he was asleep! Yuck. Can you imagine if he woke up?
1. I'm not sure the son was with them. But skinny dipping is not quite the same as general "getting naked."
2. They spoke about their son being asleep in the loft above them. Within hearing distance, but not right in the room. However, this is not abnormal. For most of human history, people have lived in close enough quarters that children would be aware of their parents having sex. Many people still do.
Posted by: TreborPugly
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
OK. Let's get to the meat cause they have certainly given us much to talk about.
1) What do you all think about the fact that they had "people of color" in the colony? Certainly not historically accurate.
2) What about the fact that they had someone "come out"?
3) Do you think they stage conflict intentionally? Not that they say "you have to say and do this" or "you and you have to make the rest of the folks uncomfortable" BUT do you think that they cast folks KNOWING that if they put together certain kinds of people there will be conflict?
As the black woman who left said, she was just trying to live the experience of the birth of America. The people of color on this show are Americans, and they probably have just as much ancestral connection to the original settlers in Maine as anyone else there. They are not playing the role of a black person breaking boundaries. Just the role of a normal settler. There are all sorts of differences between the original settlers and the people now reliving it. Why make such a big deal about skin color?
The coming out was just a reality show aspect that they can't avoid.
I think that they do pick a range of people, mainly to have diversity of opinion, but I'm sure they don't mind a bit of conflict to make it interesting.
Posted by: Bryanmc
quote:
Originally posted by TreborPugly
1. I'm not sure the son was with them.
There was at least one shot where dad was sitting naked on a rock and the son was walking right by him.
Posted by: digdug
quote:
Originally posted by Bryanmc
There was at least one shot where dad was sitting naked on a rock and the son was walking right by him.
Maybe mom had him turn around until she got in the water?
Posted by: cptodd
quote:
Originally posted by TreborPugly
As the black woman who left said, she was just trying to live the experience of the birth of America. The people of color on this show are Americans, and they probably have just as much ancestral connection to the original settlers in Maine as anyone else there. They are not playing the role of a black person breaking boundaries. Just the role of a normal settler. There are all sorts of differences between the original settlers and the people now reliving it. Why make such a big deal about skin color?
The coming out was just a reality show aspect that they can't avoid.
I think that they do pick a range of people, mainly to have diversity of opinion, but I'm sure they don't mind a bit of conflict to make it interesting.
Well the question of race is interesting in light of the fact that they strive for a certain historical accuracy. My point is that no African person would have been a "normal settler" as everyone else. They would have been set apart. In the period that they seek to depict there are some questions and observations that I can't get past:
There were Africans in England to be sure. Not many but there were a few. Europeans also had at least some notion of the existence of other peoples through such things as travel narratives which were quite popular at the time. What is troubling is the notion that Africans would have been part of a transatlantic voyage sanctioned by crown and undertaken by capital. While we can't speak of race and racism in this period the way we understand it presently (we would have to wait for about 250 years for the rise of social Darwinism and scientific racism) we could . . . . Let me back up. I VERY MUCH like the emphasis on religion that permeates the show. It in some way fitting. While most colonists made the voyage to the new world for economic reasons, they were creatures of the early modern world. Religion and the religious life world ABSOLUTELY PERMEATED their relationship to self and to community. It is difficult for modern day folk to understand how deep this feeling was was. . . . Back to the discussion. As an African both individuals would NOT have been asked to help create a transplanted ENGLISH community on the shores on North America. In the early modern world there were two kinds of people: Christians and heathens; Africans were decidedly in the latter camp. (OK "two kinds of people" is a bit of an overemphasis in general terms but I hope you understand the distinction I am trying to make in the specific context of Colonial America and this show.) The emphasis here is not on race per se but on community. Africans as well as ALL heathens were outside of the community. In fact, the conflicts between the British/French/Dutch and the Spanish were understood in religious terms. They were expressed in religious terms. They were fought under the cope of religious ideology. So on the one hand they strive for "historical accuracy" by subjugating women to men and servants to freemen but on this point they are sloppy. One has to ask the question of why they did not stage this reenactment in one of the southern colonies if they wanted to introduce Africans? They would not have even had to make them slaves (as we understand the term). They would have been servants. It would have been more historically accurate no?
The coming out was interesting. It allowed them to address a contemporary issue in a time long gone. But to clarify: there were no "homosexuals" "back then." There were sodomites. Just a small distinction but an important one nonetheless.
I guess as with sex, conflict sells too! :)
Posted by: cptodd
quote:
Originally posted by TreborPugly
1. I'm not sure the son was with them. But skinny dipping is not quite the same as general "getting naked."
2. They spoke about their son being asleep in the loft above them. Within hearing distance, but not right in the room. However, this is not abnormal. For most of human history, people have lived in close enough quarters that children would be aware of their parents having sex. Many people still do.
You are QUITE RIGHT on point two. But who wants to hear your parents bumping uglies? Those parents seem to be some real free spirits. I like him. She is a bit overbearing for me though.
Posted by: TreborPugly
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
Well the question of race is interesting in light of the fact that they strive for a certain historical accuracy. My point is that no African person would have been a "normal settler" as everyone else.
[SNIP!]
I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter that there weren't any people of African decent among the original settlers. There also weren't people of Italian or Greek, or whatever decent, which is I'm sure common in this set of people. These are 21st century Americans. They have a diverse genetic background. I'm sure 95% of them are just as infeasible as someone who is by our modern definition "black." The point is that the physical characteristics don't matter. Each person is just a warm body. Each person is trying to live like those original settlers. Genetics are completely irrelevant. And "historical accuracy" on this point is impossible, with a bunch of Americans.
The male/female issue is different. There were in fact men and women in the settlements, so it makes sense to distribute the roles based on gender. There was not any ethnic diversity, so we can just ignore that characteristic.
There was also not much religious diversity, so they are trying to ignore that, but the people are putting their modern lives into it. One of the problems is probably that the "lay preacher" is putting modern religion into these services. For the proper feel of the time, they should use (if available) some written sermons from the time. Otherwise, they should just use this time as a "blank", that the people should associate with no-work.
Posted by: henryhank
Just another random comment - instead of punishing the non-sabbath-going and profanity spewing "offenders" by having them silenced for two hours and not do any work, therefore hurting the entire community... and by extension making the governor abolish the punishment all-together... why don't they just assign the worst/dirtiest/hardest tasks to the offenders, or make them WORK MORE for their transgressions? That would make a lot of sense, I'm not sure why they haven't though of that, and I can't think of any historic reason why that wouldn't be allowed. It's just like the "lay preacher" pointed out - if everyone curses alot, putting them all out of work for 2 to 24 hours, they'll get that "law" abolished as well. Makes no sense to me.
Posted by: cptodd
quote:
Originally posted by TreborPugly
I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter that there weren't any people of African decent among the original settlers. There also weren't people of Italian or Greek, or whatever decent, which is I'm sure common in this set of people. These are 21st century Americans. They have a diverse genetic background. I'm sure 95% of them are just as infeasible as someone who is by our modern definition "black." The point is that the physical characteristics don't matter. Each person is just a warm body. Each person is trying to live like those original settlers. Genetics are completely irrelevant. And "historical accuracy" on this point is impossible, with a bunch of Americans.
The male/female issue is different. There were in fact men and women in the settlements, so it makes sense to distribute the roles based on gender. There was not any ethnic diversity, so we can just ignore that characteristic.
There was also not much religious diversity, so they are trying to ignore that, but the people are putting their modern lives into it. One of the problems is probably that the "lay preacher" is putting modern religion into these services. For the proper feel of the time, they should use (if available) some written sermons from the time. Otherwise, they should just use this time as a "blank", that the people should associate with no-work.
I did not say that there were no Africans among the settlers. I said that there would have been no Africans who were asked to be part of this second world or settler society; a transplanted English colony. By the time there were certainly Africans in America. For example, the Dutch had brought the first Africans to New Amsterdam by 1626 (I believe). They were servants. They were set apart from the community. The Dutch are an interesting example because they had much more tolerant societies (allowing all sorts of people to live within their communities) but they still brought these Africans over as servants. Servant'ts who's status was inheritable: i.e. SLAVES. There were Africans in other parts of colonial North America at the time as well.
"The point is that the physical characteristics don't matter."
In what world? Certainly not Colonial America. Let's say for a moment that there was some sort of temporal accident and those people were transported back to that period in time? In which category do you think those two folks would have been assigned? The problem here is that I don't think you understand the pervasiveness of slavery in Colonial America. There was not ONE place in Colonial America (as well as the rest of the New World) that was not touched by slavery. It was one of the central institutions of colonial and early American (in addition to early national and antebellum) history (in addition to the British, French, Spanish, etc Caribbean and the Spanish mainland). If they wanted to do this exercise right they would have explored this aspect of the project of colonization just as they explored other aspects. As it stands, this show creates the impression (actually perpetuates the impression) that slavery and slave societies did not exist in the pristine North nor were these important institutions in the pristine North. Perhaps they wanted to spare our delicate sensibilities? I don't know. What I do know is that they create a false impression when they do mess like this. It allows folks to run about and ignore the brutish and nasty aspect of the colonization of the New World.
Posted by: jlb.x
John Voorhees is a decendant of Native Americans. By your logic, he too should not be participating in this show. It surprises me somewhat that there are not members of another religion (Jewish in particular) too, who would not be accurate in this setting either, and would probably not participate in the Sunday Sabbath.
The fact of the matter is, to exclude anyone who is an American from this show would be wrong. We are all, if not directly, decendants of this time period and how it shaped Americans. Frankly, what's stranger than the African-Americans and Native Americans are the people from Britain. Sure, the original settlers in this area were British, but the mix of British and Americans seems to clash with the attempt to make this an experiment in American history.
I'd kind of like to know what the colonists expect to eat for the second half of their stay. They seem to be out of edible meat, though eggs and peas are still plentiful. Why haven't they had more sucess with planting vegetables? They don't seem to be doing any hunting -- perhaps because the 21st centruy Native Americans have made game off-limits to the colonists in their land?
Posted by: cptodd
quote:
Originally posted by jlb.x
John Voorhees is a decendant of Native Americans. By your logic, he too should not be participating in this show. It surprises me somewhat that there are not members of another religion (Jewish in particular) too, who would not be accurate in this setting either, and would probably not participate in the Sunday Sabbath.
The fact of the matter is, to exclude anyone who is an American from this show would be wrong. We are all, if not directly, decendants of this time period and how it shaped Americans. Frankly, what's stranger than the African-Americans and Native Americans are the people from Britain. Sure, the original settlers in this area were British, but the mix of British and Americans seems to clash with the attempt to make this an experiment in American history.
I'd kind of like to know what the colonists expect to eat for the second half of their stay. They seem to be out of edible meat, though eggs and peas are still plentiful. Why haven't they had more sucess with planting vegetables? They don't seem to be doing any hunting -- perhaps because the 21st centruy Native Americans have made game off-limits to the colonists in their land?
I wonder if you remember that old (and perhaps they are still doing it) game on Sesame Street? "Which one of these things are not like the other ones?" I am NOT saying that the black folk should not be on the show. What I am saying is that if we are going to do this right they should be situated in a realistic manner. John Voorhees had spoken about being part Native American in the first half of the first hour of the series. If he had not opened his mouth I doubt anyone would be questioning his appearance in this show. If we apply the "Sesame Street Test" I don't think it is such a stretch to place him in the group that he is in now (I am not sure what to do with the Asian gentleman). Who knows perhaps we should have had a contingent of Native Americas as well. We could have had a parallel focus on the lives of two communities who came into contact. That would have been interesting too.
The British are certainly appropriate in my mind because at the point that this was going on it was CERTAINLY their history. This struggle was/is as much part of British history as it is American history.
Those folks will find something to eat. It might be nasty but they will find it. I can't see them starving (though it would not be the first time that a group of colonists starved).
Posted by: TreborPugly
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
I did not say that there were no Africans among the settlers.
[snipped same comments as before]
You really don't get my point? These are modern people assuming the role of original settlers. They cannot possibly have the same ethnic background as the settlers, so it is a moot point! Imagine that they are providing the voices for a cartoon of life in 1628. It doesn't matter if they look like the characters they portray. They are simply putting themselves in the shoes of these historical figures.
If each person is assigned a ROLE, then it doesn't matter what their ethnicity is. Obviously, the African American man playing the role of one of the freemen would not realistically be there. But he's not playing himself. He's playing a settler.
If they were trying to make a movie about 1628 for public consumption, then yes, the physical characteristics would matter to make it look realistic. But this is an experiment in living like the settlers did. So ANYONE could do it. A 14 year Asian old girl could assume the role of Governor, if she was assigned that role and knew how to act, and the other participants understood that she was playing a part.
Furthermore, you seem to be too wrapped up in appearances. As has already been pointed out, one person you have no trouble with has as much Indian blood as English. But since he looks right to you, it is okay. Unless the African American folks participating in this are very rare, they too probably have as much English blood as African. And with the exception of the people who are from modern England, none of the others probably have substantial English blood either. The only thing they have going for them is that, to you, they look the part. They certainly don't have the same cultural identity as 1628 settlers. They don't have the same skills, the same faith, the same diet, anything. You choose to pick one completely irrelevant characteristic to choose who can play what role in such an experiment? Bah.
Posted by: cptodd
quote:
Originally posted by TreborPugly
You really don't get my point? These are modern people assuming the role of original settlers. They cannot possibly have the same ethnic background as the settlers, so it is a moot point! Imagine that they are providing the voices for a cartoon of life in 1628. It doesn't matter if they look like the characters they portray. They are simply putting themselves in the shoes of these historical figures.
If each person is assigned a ROLE, then it doesn't matter what their ethnicity is. Obviously, the African American man playing the role of one of the freemen would not realistically be there. But he's not playing himself. He's playing a settler.
If they were trying to make a movie about 1628 for public consumption, then yes, the physical characteristics would matter to make it look realistic. But this is an experiment in living like the settlers did. So ANYONE could do it. A 14 year Asian old girl could assume the role of Governor, if she was assigned that role and knew how to act, and the other participants understood that she was playing a part.
Furthermore, you seem to be too wrapped up in appearances. As has already been pointed out, one person you have no trouble with has as much Indian blood as English. But since he looks right to you, it is okay. Unless the African American folks participating in this are very rare, they too probably have as much English blood as African. And with the exception of the people who are from modern England, none of the others probably have substantial English blood either. The only thing they have going for them is that, to you, they look the part. They certainly don't have the same cultural identity as 1628 settlers. They don't have the same skills, the same faith, the same diet, anything. You choose to pick one completely irrelevant characteristic to choose who can play what role in such an experiment? Bah.
So why didn't they make a 14 year old Asian girl the Governor? Would you have been satisfied if they did? It seems to me that they pick and choose the elements that go into Colonial House as they feel. Fine! Let the black folk play freemen and women as they choose. I don't have a problem with that as long as they bring to light some of the more unseemly aspects of the founding of this nation: the ones they seem intent upon hiding. Let white folk be enslaved for all I care.
Posted by: jlb.x
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
So why didn't they make a 14 year old Asian girl the Governor? Would you have been satisfied if they did?
A 14-year-old girl? No, I don't think that would make sense. Though she might be slightly more forgiving than Gov. Wyers.
I certainly would have been fine with John Voorhees or Danny Tisdale being the governor of the colony. I'd even be fine with Mrs. Wyers or Mrs. Heinz as governor (a woman was in charge of the that rather stupid British historic reality show that was on PBS last year). Mrs. Voorhees is a little to free-spirited to have enough authority, I think.
In my previous post, I forgot to also mention newcomer Jeff Lin, whose heritage appears to include some Asian ancestry.
Is the show as accurate as it could be? No. They let them have toothbrushes. They can walk off the designated land and get a pint at a bar. There is no actual danger of not paying off their "debt." They get to go home to their warm house and plentiful food and hot showers after four months -- meaning there's little or no incentive, other than their own pride and initiative, to really make it authentic and work toward paying off their debt.
Under these circumstances, I think it seems to be fairly well done... and entertaining. And these are still the only type of reality shows that I will watch.
Posted by: cptodd
We all know that they are going back to their comfy lives after they leave the show. They actually can't just walk off and get a pint at a bar. While he was given a stern talking too I think he should have been "voted off the island." But I understand why they didn't. At what point does this little exercise become a farce then? I guess I am much less willing to give them a break than you are.
And yes, I knew Mr. Lin was in residence.
They let them have toothbrushes? Dang!
Posted by: pmyers
My wife brought up the idea that they should have made it so that if the met a certain "goal" then they would all win a cash reward....give them some incentive to actually payback their investors.
Posted by: henryhank
Didn't these people see "Frontier House"?? Shouldn't they be building their root cellers now, while the gound is still soft?
Posted by: Incognito
Doesn't it bother anyone (as much as it does my wife & I) that people are deciding to break the rules the show laid out??? i.e. breaking the Sabbath, going to a pub, desperately having to reveal your sexuality.
This irritates me ... I guess its the fact that so many applied that didn't make it on (who would of "tried" hard to stay true to the rules/laws) ... these people were probably informed of rules of the show & laws to abide by; coinciding w/ common law on the 1600's.
They should especially know this from prior "house" shows ...
To me, as someone put before, these are roles they are playing ... now I understand that staying in character 24 hours a day/ is improbable .. i.e. letting curse words fly, etc.
BUT to willingly/knowingly break the laws/rules is reprehensible to me.
<steps down off soap-box>
by the way, I think the Governer is doing great ... its the lay-preacher who is awful at his role.
Posted by: DRobbins
quote:
Originally posted by jlb.x
I'd kind of like to know what the colonists expect to eat for the second half of their stay. They seem to be out of edible meat, though eggs and peas are still plentiful. Why haven't they had more sucess with planting vegetables? They don't seem to be doing any hunting -- perhaps because the 21st centruy Native Americans have made game off-limits to the colonists in their land?
I read somewhere that the series was filmed when it wasn't hunting season in Maine (which I assume is later in the fall). They tried to get an exemption from the hunting regulations but weren't able to accomplish this in time.
Posted by: pmyers
quote:
Originally posted by jlb.x
I'd kind of like to know what the colonists expect to eat for the second half of their stay. They seem to be out of edible meat, though eggs and peas are still plentiful. Why haven't they had more sucess with planting vegetables? They don't seem to be doing any hunting -- perhaps because the 21st centruy Native Americans have made game off-limits to the colonists in their land?
They still have that huge pig that gave birth right and a couple dozen of chickens?
Posted by: jlb.x
True... But presumably, the huge "fat mama" pig is currently more valuable as the mother to the five or six pigglets. Keeping the chickens alive to get the eggs is probably the best use of those birds.
Posted by: pmyers
quote:
Originally posted by jlb.x
True... But presumably, the huge "fat mama" pig is currently more valuable as the mother to the five or six pigglets. Keeping the chickens alive to get the eggs is probably the best use of those birds.
but that's assuming that they were going to continue to live there....we all know they are only there for 4 months.
Posted by: kevostl
I will have to say out of all the "house" series I find this one my least favorite. I haven't really cared if they live or die.
As other have mentioned I find think it is not in the best interest of the "colony" when people break the rules of the project. PBS should tell the participants - here is the deal this is the way people lived in XXXX year, here are the rules of that time, when you play the "part" you need to play the part according to the rules of the time not change them to meet your desires. Just leaving to leave or taking a day break and walking into town etc is not a good idea and those people should be kicked off by PBS.
Just my two cents....
Posted by: cptodd
quote:
Originally posted by kevostl
As other have mentioned I find think it is not in the best interest of the "colony" when people break the rules of the project.
Of all the ones I have seen I think Manor House was the best. Though I HATED the master of the house I think he made the experience the most real experience of all of the "house" shows.
Posted by: pmyers
I'm a show or two behind, but wow......have the laypreacher and his wife become drunk with power or what?
Posted by: cptodd
I am behind on my colonial house. I saw the first 20 mins of the third night (had to go to work) and that was it. Was it good? What did Oprah do in the colony?
I was looking in my PBS mag that they send every month and I see that there are a few shows that might interest people here: "Rebels and Redcoats: How Britain Lost America" and "Liberty! The American Revolution." The first one is a new 4 part series shown in 2 nights and the latter looks to be an already aired 6 part series shown in 6 nights. They air on June 23rd (for "Rebels") and June 24th (for "Liberty!").
Posted by: henryhank
I agree that the producers let this "house" series fall into a bunch of whiny jerks who just don't get it (well, a few do and are trying their best). When that b*tch said "I'm not going to let 17th century religion convictions interfere with my 21st century religious beliefs" (or something to that affect), I would have booted her off right then and there if I could have. That's not the game, missy - the project is to STEP INTO THE ROLES they had back then, not pick and choose what you want to do based on your 21st century life. It's too bad they let the sabbath law become meaningless, and really let the participants drive how things work. This could have been so much better with a few personell changes and a production crew with some backbone.
Posted by: Sinuralan
The problem is it sounds to me like the production crew didn't make these decisions or lay it out clearly enough to start.
From the beginning it sounds like it wasn't clearly defined (perhaps just assumed) whether they were modern people in old times or people doing a long roleplay. The fact that they knowingly cast people who declared that they had no interest in roleplaying 1628 and just wanted to see what it was like to live a different kind of life, indicates that they were not clear on their own direction. I think they take a fair share, if not most of the responsibility.
I also think it was a travesty that they never bothered to introduce most of the later colonists. They were practically half of the colony, there for 2 months, and we never even learned some of their names. Why not take 5 minutes to introduce them? I can handle a few more characters. At a certain point it almost seemed like a running gag. In various scenes there'd be some unnamed guy in the background and you go "who's that?" As if the producers/cast members were having fun inserting themselves into the backgrounds of scenes..
I still enjoyed the show a lot. I think they suffered quite a bit from losing so many people though. I don't think they should have brought on people who they weren't going to stay the whole time.
The whole thing with the second native american tribe I think indicates the lack of clarity the producers had in regards to roleplaying or not. The tribe didn't really roleplay at all. They were 21st century native americans with 21st century chips on their shoulder, maybe little or no attempt to imagine they were 1628 native americans. That makes it hard for other people around thme to roleplay.
That's the most frustrating thing with people half-committed to roleplay situations. Either have them be modern or have them be fully immersed, avoid-breaking-character roleplayers. Half-assed implementations make everything way too murky.
Posted by: cptodd
What I have seen so far I have enjoyed (despite my criticism :( ) but Sinuralan has hit the nail on the head!
Posted by: IJustLikeTivo
Frankly, these people bore the heck out of me. I watched the first two and was out of town for the last episode. I deleted it without watching. I can find more productive things to do with that time.
Posted by: pmyers
I have really enjoyed the addition of the "Head Merchant". I think that is what they would have done back in those days.
Posted by: kevostl
And would it hurt governor Heinz do any actual work??? Ever shot I have seen him in (except one) he was just watching the others. And his voice... grates on my nerves! I could go on and on about the new governor and his wife...
I too have enjoyed the arrival of the new "Head Merchant". I haven't seen the last 2 hrs so I'm a little behind.
Posted by: xix_84
quote:
Originally posted by Sinuralan
The problem is it sounds to me like the production crew didn't make these decisions or lay it out clearly enough to start.
From the beginning it sounds like it wasn't clearly defined (perhaps just assumed) whether they were modern people in old times or people doing a long roleplay. The fact that they knowingly cast people who declared that they had no interest in roleplaying 1628 and just wanted to see what it was like to live a different kind of life, indicates that they were not clear on their own direction. I think they take a fair share, if not most of the responsibility.
While I would agree, I think the producers did have a mind towards generating 'controversy' with a view to making the show more 'interesting'. One of the ways they achieved this was through the casting process, knowing that they were going to get the personality clashes, and other issues raised. Of course, knowing that meant that it made it harder for the settlers to succeed in their mission of creating a viable colony.
I think one of the things that bugged me was the sense that every episode had certain issues or points of view they were trying to bring up. I also believe there was a lot of prompting for what the settlers should be working on now. So for a couple of weeks they did the letter pinning every sabbath, then after that episode I don't think anyone wore one again.
And did the 2nd governor's wife really think of the poster competition with the excuse that it was advertising for back home, or was that the producer's suggestion. Similarly the establishing of a school so that the voiceover could bring up Harvard - did the prof think of that, or was there some line producer saying "OK, Heinzy, we think you should set up a school - that way we can bring up Harvard, and get great footage of a bunch of the others all pissed at having to work while you teach Greek".
So, everything seemed a little more forced this time. However, I still enjoyed the show, and was impressed by how much almost everyone had felt it a rewarding experience, including Bethany who had seemed to broaden her views on people's religious beliefs. Good for her.
Oh, and my all-out favorite colonist was Don, the carpenter. He seemed to be the one with the most common sense, and who could easily made it as a 'real' 1628 settler.
Posted by: MPeter
It seems obvious to me that production crew didn't set the "rules" of the project down from the start.
Carolyn Heinz in the initial episode admitted that her reason for joining the project was to "make a statement" about how she felt the country isn't going the direction that was intended by our founders. You think she mentioned that in her interview with the producers? Sounds like from the start she had no intentions of playing the part of 17th century female colonist.
I was very disappointed with the series and expected more from PBS.
Posted by: cptodd
I think Ms. Heinz (and remember that I did not see all of the episodes yet) did a pretty good job. She seemed to conform pretty well in the two night that I saw. Did she stray in the last two episodes?
Posted by: pmyers
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
I think Ms. Heinz (and remember that I did not see all of the episodes yet) did a pretty good job. She seemed to conform pretty well in the two night that I saw. Did she stray in the last two episodes?
Stray? I never thought she was on the right path to start. She seemed to always wanting to be running the women AND the men.
Posted by: cptodd
quote:
Originally posted by pmyers
Stray? I never thought she was on the right path to start. She seemed to always wanting to be running the women AND the men.
She did? Perhaps I was not paying attention. :eek:
Was she not reprimanded at one point?
Posted by: Steveknj
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
I wonder if you remember that old (and perhaps they are still doing it) game on Sesame Street? "Which one of these things are not like the other ones?" I am NOT saying that the black folk should not be on the show. What I am saying is that if we are going to do this right they should be situated in a realistic manner. John Voorhees had spoken about being part Native American in the first half of the first hour of the series. If he had not opened his mouth I doubt anyone would be questioning his appearance in this show. If we apply the "Sesame Street Test" I don't think it is such a stretch to place him in the group that he is in now (I am not sure what to do with the Asian gentleman). Who knows perhaps we should have had a contingent of Native Americas as well. We could have had a parallel focus on the lives of two communities who came into contact. That would have been interesting too.
The British are certainly appropriate in my mind because at the point that this was going on it was CERTAINLY their history. This struggle was/is as much part of British history as it is American history.
Those folks will find something to eat. It might be nasty but they will find it. I can't see them starving (though it would not be the first time that a group of colonists starved).
If they did this "right" a lot of things would have to be different. For instance, when the Voorhees decided not to go to the Sabbath services, they should have been burned at the stake as heritics. The point being is, are we trying to be COMPLETELY and totally accurate, or are they trying to play a role to get a FEEL for what life was like? In essence, the black gentleman was "playing the part" of a white gentleman for the purposes of this show. He should not be looked at as black or white, just as a settler. Later of course, his race does become an issue, as he realizes as a black man, the role he is playing would not be possible for him.
Great show, very interesting btw.
Posted by: Steveknj
quote:
Originally posted by Incognito
Doesn't it bother anyone (as much as it does my wife & I) that people are deciding to break the rules the show laid out??? i.e. breaking the Sabbath, going to a pub, desperately having to reveal your sexuality.
This irritates me ... I guess its the fact that so many applied that didn't make it on (who would of "tried" hard to stay true to the rules/laws) ... these people were probably informed of rules of the show & laws to abide by; coinciding w/ common law on the 1600's.
They should especially know this from prior "house" shows ...
To me, as someone put before, these are roles they are playing ... now I understand that staying in character 24 hours a day/ is improbable .. i.e. letting curse words fly, etc.
BUT to willingly/knowingly break the laws/rules is reprehensible to me.
<steps down off soap-box>
by the way, I think the Governer is doing great ... its the lay-preacher who is awful at his role.
Everyone "sticking" to the rules, makes for a totally boring show. They need a way to spice things up. That is why I think they picked the Vorhees to be on the show. Clearly, they had to know their feelings on the religious issue. I imagine they wanted them to play that role and see how it was handled. And I think Wyres handled it wrong. They should have sat them down and said to them, "Ignore the religious aspecst of the Sabbath Service and consider it a social meeting. You signed up fully knowing how things were like in the 1600s, and you a playing the role of a settler, like an actor. This is just a little game of pretend."
Posted by: Steveknj
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
She did? Perhaps I was not paying attention. :eek:
Was she not reprimanded at one point?
Not really, hubby Heinz let her run roughshot over the colony. She played the perfect 21st Century woman, but was far from the subservient 17th Century woman, that was common then. Although they alluded to there being strong women in those days, I would imagine they STILL had to "play by the rules" in front of the other settlers, or it would undermine the authority of the husband. And in this case, I think it did.
Posted by: nyny523
OK, I Tivoed all 4 episodes (which were actually 2 hour blocks with 2 eps in each block)so I could watch back to back. When I got to the 3rd ep, something happened to the recording, so I only got the first 8 minutes! I watched the final ep, but obviously missed some key stuff.
Can anyone tell me what happened in that 3rd block - specifically why the change in governership and any other pertinent info. Thanks!
FYI, I really enjoy these shows, warts and all. Gives you a taste of the time even if not completely balanced and accurate. Manor House was my favorite.
Posted by: FatherTed
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
Of all the ones I have seen I think Manor House was the best. Though I HATED the master of the house I think he made the experience the most real experience of all of the "house" shows.
I enjoyed Manor House but I thought they took too many occasions to 'break the rules' of protocol for the period. I really thought the 1940s house people tried so hard to do it by the book.
Posted by: FatherTed
quote:
Originally posted by henryhank
I agree that the producers let this "house" series fall into a bunch of whiny jerks who just don't get it (well, a few do and are trying their best). When that b*tch said "I'm not going to let 17th century religion convictions interfere with my 21st century religious beliefs" (or something to that affect), I would have booted her off right then and there if I could have.
I think they should have kept to the times and just burned her at the stake. :) That would have taken care of the whining... after 20 minutes or so.
Posted by: FatherTed
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
She did? Perhaps I was not paying attention. :eek:
Was she not reprimanded at one point?
There were two strong women in the show that just would not shut their mouths. They were never put under control and it never would have happened in that time period.
Posted by: pmyers
I thought it was pretty funny when they showed them all shopping in Walgreens and then cleaning themselves.
Posted by: Steveknj
Some people have mentioned there were other "house" shows on PBS before. Can someone furnish a list of said shows and do you know if they available on DVD?
Posted by: cptodd
1900 House (did not see)*
Manor House (saw and was good)*
1940's House (first I heard about it on this thread)*
Frontier House (saw and was good)*
Colonial House (obviously saw)*
* indicates on (or has been announced) dvd or vhs (to the best of my knowledge)
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/inde...rentPage=search
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/inde...rentPage=search
Posted by: ihatecable
Well here’s my take on this project. Early on one person (I forgot who) made the statement “we’re not out here to camp”, well guess what? That’s exactly what these whiners did. There was no sense of urgency for these people. Let’s take all the social BS out for a minute. This colony can go three ways:
1) Everybody dies (starvation, disease, hostile, ECT.)
2) Shut down and due to lack of profitably by the company
3) Successful and prospers
Well it seems that their priorities weren’t in the right places. It seems bases on their actions or lack of actions and their general attitude it seems the colonists weren’t even consider the possibilities of 1&2. It seemed more like “Boy I can’t wait to be out of here!” There was absolutely no sense of urgency of gathering resources (food for the winter & commodities to pay their debt) for the community other than a token amount.
Now on the social front, you are suppose to be a 17th century colonist. Act like it. This coming out and announcing that you are gay business well guess what would have happened in the 17th century, you would have been burned alive. So I guess if you want to be in character guess what? Don’t tell. Funny I didn’t see the heterosexuals mentioning the fact that they where heterosexuals. On the Sabbath front well let’s see what would have happened in the 17th century? Let’s just say bad things would happen to you. Probably cursing wouldn’t have been a good idea also. Once again people not playing by the rules. It seems Hillary, oops I mean the Governor Heinz’s wife was having a good time running the place if that’s what want to call it. Maybe she can run for senate here in NY in 06.
It seems during the company review the company people where more interested in not hurting anyone’s feelings rather than a fair assessment. They weren’t even remotely profitable and running out of food for the winter. Yet they seemed to deem a colony worthy of continuing, give me a break, lol
Send me out with a bible in one hand and a stock to lock those blasphemers for a couple of hours (after working all day long) and I’d have that colony in shape in one week!
Posted by: pmyers
ihatecable...I totally agree. I think there should have been milestones that the colonist needed to achieve to prove the colony was prosporous. For example: By week 3 the colony must have all corn planted. Or by week 6 a new structure must be built. Or by week 10 there must be X pounds of dried berries stored for the winter....then if they achieve a goal perhaps there could be some type of reward such as beer/wine.
Posted by: Martha
quote:
Originally posted by Steveknj
Some people have mentioned there were other "house" shows on PBS before. Can someone furnish a list of said shows and do you know if they available on DVD?
There was another excellent series that wasn't done by PBS but somebody else (maybe History or Discovery channel??) Anyway, it was called Pioneer Quest: A Year in the Real West, and these people really walked the walk.
I only saw part of it when it originally aired so when we got Tivo I set it up in a wishlist and it recently picked it up. It's reshown from time to time I guess. Anyway, if you like these kinds of shows, I highly recommend Pioneer Quest.
Posted by: cptodd
I think we moving towards a consensus that understands the role of women (at least white women) in these colonies as completely mute and subservient. I don't Think this was the case. Some scholarship suggests that women's voices were heard on many points. Though they were not formally included in the prevailing power structures their input was felt due to their role as advisor to their husbands. This affected the decision making of the men and in turn the direction of the colony. I am not saying that women had tremendous FORMAL power but women had some capacity to affect decisions (especially when it came to matters that were considered "women's domain").
Posted by: rasheed
After having watched many of these editions on PBS, the most interesting part to me is how almost all of the young kids do extremely well (relatively) with the period role. I also find their comments most insightful as well.
Rasheed
Posted by: Steveknj
quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
1900 House (did not see)*
Manor House (saw and was good)*
1940's House (first I heard about it on this thread)*
Frontier House (saw and was good)*
Colonial House (obviously saw)*
* indicates on (or has been announced) dvd or vhs (to the best of my knowledge)
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/inde...rentPage=search
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/inde...rentPage=search
Thanks,
I will be setting up a WL for each of these and probably NetFlix them when they become available. Good stuff, interesting if not entirely accurate.
Posted by: Steveknj
quote:
Originally posted by pmyers
ihatecable...I totally agree. I think there should have been milestones that the colonist needed to achieve to prove the colony was prosporous. For example: By week 3 the colony must have all corn planted. Or by week 6 a new structure must be built. Or by week 10 there must be X pounds of dried berries stored for the winter....then if they achieve a goal perhaps there could be some type of reward such as beer/wine.
While I agree in principle, I am not clear on what the intent of the project was. Was it:
Have the "settlers" play roles and they had to stick to their roles and make it a strict 17th century settlement? If that's the case, they could have hired actors to play the part and make a movie.
Or:
Was it to see how 21st Century people would react to a 17th Century world? If this is the case, then they succeeded, as many of today's morays came out (the women achieving more and more rights as the series went along, the "coming out", the settler taking his trip to the 21st Century world. All of these things played a factor in how the colony fared at the end (where they should have gotten a failing grade, because they failed to live a 17th Century life).
I think they tried hard NOT to be Survivor, by NOT giving them rewards, or having them reach intermittant milestones, etc. I would think during the 17th Century, there was no way of knowing when and if they were going to get checked up upon, the only goal they had was to make the colony profitable by the end of the contract (in this case 3 mos.).
Posted by: Steveknj
quote:
Originally posted by Martha
There was another excellent series that wasn't done by PBS but somebody else (maybe History or Discovery channel??) Anyway, it was called Pioneer Quest: A Year in the Real West, and these people really walked the walk.
I only saw part of it when it originally aired so when we got Tivo I set it up in a wishlist and it recently picked it up. It's reshown from time to time I guess. Anyway, if you like these kinds of shows, I highly recommend Pioneer Quest.
Thanks, I'll setup a wishlist for this one as well.
Posted by: cptodd
quote:
Originally posted by Steveknj
Thanks,
I will be setting up a WL for each of these and probably NetFlix them when they become available. Good stuff, interesting if not entirely accurate.
You are welcome
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser
Modified by Adam J. de Jaray