Hell on Wheels casting

[Temis the Vorta]

What I heard is, they've taken the cable trope of "unlikable characters" too far. Gotta have someone you can root for, or what's the point of watching?

Even famously dire Deadwood started off with a few charming characters. Al was a charming rogue, and Wild Bill, Calamity Jane and that guy who plays Unser now on Sons of Anarchy were all relatable folks.

However, historical fiction (pre 1950) is so rare on TV, that I'm determined to give this one every chance to shape up. Sometimes cable shows need a bit of time to develop.

“Wheels” is one of the least politically correct series on American TV. The native Americans are introduced as perfectly despicable bloodthirsty savages, the term “nigger” finds its way into a lot of dialogue, and there’s even a curse word in the show’s title.

That actually lays to rest my primary fear, which is that the characters would be presented as having anachronistic attitudes in order not to offend and drive away the audience. Imagine if they did they opposite, portraying the former Confederate lead character as a good guy who didn't have a racist bone in his body, was fighting for the Confederacy because it represented freedom (the war had "nothing to do with slavery," dontchaknow?) and instantly becoming bffs with the former slave character. Blech.

If this show were on broadcast or even a cable channel like TNT with more mainstream sensibilities, that is exactly what they'd do. Good for AMC in refusing to pander to the audience. A show with a former Confederate as the lead character should be offensive to some degree.

 

[Spot's Meow]

^I agree with you that it will make for thought-provoking and well-made television, but is it something I'd really want to watch every week? Probably not. I guess I'm traditional in that I like my main characters to be good guys that I can root for. My dislike of "bad boy" or offensive main characters goes all the way back to my deep disdain for Catcher in the Rye in middle school. I can't see myself wanting to watch a show where the main character is a racist, asshole former Confederate. Just doesn't sound appealing whatsoever.

Being the U.S. history nut that I am though, I at least have to give it a shot.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Even the "bad guys" of cable have redeeming qualities that make them root-worthy. Walter White and Jax Teller have families to protect, and if they commit crimes so they can help their families, then we can relate to that. Raylan Givens and Dexter Morgan are working towards their ideas of justice (greatly influenced by their psychological demons), and that's another way to win the audience over.

But Confederate guy doesn't have a family, he was fighting on the wrong side of the war, and he's a racist jerk. The usual mitigating factors aren't there, though who knows, they might develop over time.

 

[TigerBait]

i thought it was fantastic, not as 'deadwood' as i'd have liked...but then you cant use the word 'cocksucker' every other sentence on AMC.

the characters have plenty of room to grow, and the writing looks tight...if a bit provocational.

there is quite a bit of blood in the show, just a warning, but it helps lend to the realism of post civil war era.

 

[FreezeC77]

Umm maybe we watched different shows but I felt like they did do to great lengths to 'redeem' and make this Confederate soldier a likable character.

He said he owned slaves and then it was revealed he freed his slaves before the Civil War started and was paying them a wage. His wife was likely raped and then murdered by Union Soldiers on Sherman's March.

And the whole thing about not making him bffs with the former slave. It felt like that's the route it was going just based on the first episode.


I found the first episode rather boring. I'm intrigued by the time era of the show, but I'm not sure I'll stick with it that long.

 

[sojourner]

But Confederate guy doesn't have a family, he was fighting on the wrong side of the war, and he's a racist jerk. The usual mitigating factors aren't there, though who knows, they might develop over time.

Are we talking about the same racist jerk that freed his slaves a year prior to the war?

He seemed likeable enough to me.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I have to say, I was blown away, I think this is one of the best first episodes of a tv show I've ever seen, I absolutely love it.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Didn't have time to watch it last nite, will get to it tonight, but just wanted to pop by with the ratings news: 4.4M, strong start.

Sounds like the critics were off target? I hope so, I want this show to be good.

AMC’s newest series, period Western Hell On Wheels, was off to a strong start last night. It drew 4.4 million viewers to mark the cable network’s second-most-watched series premiere behind mega-hit The Walking Dead (5.3 million). The series was young-skewing, drawing more adults 18-49 viewers (2.4 million) than adults 25-54 (2.3 million).

Are we talking about the same racist jerk that freed his slaves a year prior to the war?

That's the kind of whitewashing I'm leery of. If he was opposed to slavery, why wasn't he fighting for the other side? Anyway, I haven't seen the premiere yet, hopefully they're threading the needle between historical whitewashing and creating an unrelatable character.

For instance, even if he freed his slaves, it's implausible that a man of his time and place could be anything but racist by modern standards. (Even many outright abolitionists were racist by our standards!) So if they want to use the but-but-but-he-freed-his-slaves!!! backstory as a way of making him palatable despite his racism, that's a good solution to the predicament.

 

[sojourner]

If he was opposed to slavery, why wasn't he fighting for the other side? Anyway, I haven't seen the premiere yet, hopefully they're threading the needle between historical whitewashing and creating an unrelatable character.

Yeah, you really need to watch the show before you continue making comments about it.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Why? Is this not the internet?!

 

[gh4chiefs]

If he was opposed to slavery, why wasn't he fighting for the other side? Anyway, I haven't seen the premiere yet, hopefully they're threading the needle between historical whitewashing and creating an unrelatable character.

Yeah, you really need to watch the show before you continue making comments about it.

I'm thinking some history lessons wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Talosian]

It's interesting, but I didn't feel that the characters were unsympathetic at all - surprisingly. The whitewashing of the Confederate protagonist would normally have annoyed me more, but somehow it worked, if only just. I suspect the inclusion of Common's character may have helped here. This isn't just a white man's Western.

Colm Meaney does a wonderfully hammy job of playing a villainous railroad mogul. He's over-the-top, but no more so than Daniel Day Lewis. In other words, he's great fun.

The episode was predictable, but then the mark of a good story is that you enjoy it even if you know the ending.

 

[Ryan]

But Confederate guy doesn't have a family, he was fighting on the wrong side of the war, and he's a racist jerk. The usual mitigating factors aren't there, though who knows, they might develop over time.

Are we talking about the same racist jerk that freed his slaves a year prior to the war?

That was a really groan-worthy moment in an otherwise excellent premiere. It looked like the writers had some real balls making the main protagonist a former slave owner but then they chickened out and had him free his slaves before the war and fight for "honor". This country is absolutely in love with Confederacy "lost cause" nonsense.

 

[sojourner]

^This country loves an underdog, even if it's trying to kill us.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

But Confederate guy doesn't have a family, he was fighting on the wrong side of the war, and he's a racist jerk. The usual mitigating factors aren't there, though who knows, they might develop over time.

Are we talking about the same racist jerk that freed his slaves a year prior to the war?

That was a really groan-worthy moment in an otherwise excellent premiere. It looked like the writers had some real balls making the main protagonist a former slave owner but then they chickened out and had him free his slaves before the war and fight for "honor". This country is absolutely in love with Confederacy "lost cause" nonsense.

Yeah, isn't that sickening? What kind of "honor" did the Confederacy have? None! That's just a lie perpetrated by people who can't deal with the fact that their ancestors were a bunch of racist scumbags who almost destroyed this country for a terrible cause. (But everyone's ancestors were racist scumbags so I don't see why they should feel ashamed about that in particular. )

Just as I feared, this show is falling right into that crap, giving us an anachronistic main character, because the writers don't want to challenge the audience by depicting the guy as being as racist as almost every white person was, northerner or southerner, of that era. His interactions with Elam the ex-slave - asking him to check before making decisions, not drinking from the water bucket just because Elam gave him the stink-eye - were far too respectful, very much a modern person's reactions, not at all typical of how a person from his time and place would have behaved in 1865 or even, shit, 1965.

Behold Cullen Bohahon, the world's only politically-correct ex-Confederate! He is surrounded by miscreants who actually behave like they're living in 1865, the better to highlight his immense moral superiority. What manipulative bullshit. Not buying it.

Even people who were lifelong Abolitionists, who hated slavery and worked their entire lives for its destruction, often had paternalistic, condescending attitudes towards blacks and considered them inherently inferior to whites. Opposing slavery was fairly common in the Civil War era; belief in racial equality was not. I really hoped that AMC would buck the general stupidity of TV and give us a historical drama that is true to history, and not pander to the audience with a History For Dummies approach.

Oh well, maybe I'll just try to ignore the anachronism and accept that Our Hero is just a very unusual guy, or a time traveller or something. But the bigger problem with Bohanon is that he's boring. If he were normally racist for his time and place, but (as the slave-freeing backstory implies) capable of changing, then there would be some interesting element to him. He might not have any respect for Elam now (he shouldn't), but can he learn respect as they work side by side? That would offer a little bit of dramatic interest, instead of what they have, which is "some guy wants to kill some other guy." Eh, who cares.

But anachronisms aside, this isn't a very well written show. It's clumsy and melodramatic. For my money, the most groanworthy moment was not Bohahon's sappy slave-freeing backstory, but the writers using the hoary old trope of someone conveniently dying just as they were about to reveal Crucial! Information!!!

But worse, it's making me hate Colm Meany! That zebra speech was horrifyingly reminiscent of Archer's gazelle speech. It was almost like the writers were consciously aping it, in tribute to Colm's Star Trek career...? "History is written by zebras, for zebras!" That's almost Ed Woodian in its inanity.

When the writing makes even Colm Meany look bad, that's when you know the entire writing staff should be fired. Wow, I never thought I'd see AMC air something this lame.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If he was opposed to slavery, why wasn't he fighting for the other side? Anyway, I haven't seen the premiere yet, hopefully they're threading the needle between historical whitewashing and creating an unrelatable character.

Yeah, you really need to watch the show before you continue making comments about it.

I'm thinking some history lessons wouldn't hurt either.

From who, the Daughters of the Confederacy?

 

[Kytee]

I liked the first episode, for me the story was engaging and the characters seemed like real people . Colm Meaneys character did feel a bit over the top , I'm hoping that gets scaled back a bit to more of a 'normal human' , not quite so over the top.

I enjoyed watching the show, I mean just looking at it. The sets and costumes were great , the lighting was well done, the facepaint on the Natives was very eye catching ( not sure if thats historically acurate or not , but I liked it ) . The music really felt like it suited the show.

Unfortunately , my ignorance of the American Civil War caused me to misunderstand somethings, maybe I need to pay closer attention. Hopefully someone can sort this out for me,

The guy hiring for the Railroad ( missing hand guy ) , which side did he fight for? When he is first talking about the gun that Cullen is wearing, I get the impression they fought on different sides , and from him calling the gun a 'griswold' I concluded that Cullen fought for the south, the other guy fought for the north. But then he hired him ; I didn't think it would be reasonable that he would hire an 'enemy' so willingly , so then I assumed they both fought for the south. (* this is where I got confused I guess, did the north and south really reconcile so quickly that hiring your enemy would be common ? ) but then we find out the Railroad guy was part of the soldiers that murdered Cullens wife, so he had to be a soldier for the north ( although, we do findout Cullens wife was from the North, is it possible she 'went home' when the war started ? and therefore was murdered by sothern soldiers? )

Anyway, I'll be watchign next week for sure, can't wait.

-Kytee

 

[gh4chiefs]

Yeah, you really need to watch the show before you continue making comments about it.

I'm thinking some history lessons wouldn't hurt either.

From who, the Daughters of the Confederacy?

No I think any reasonable history book would do quite well.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ That's clear to you on the basis of a review of a tv programme?

 

[gh4chiefs]

No from the comments about the soldiers and their motivations. It's just factually and historically inaccurate. For example, the idea that an individual solider might be fighting for something other than slavery is unfathomable to Temis and is dismissed out of hand as totally implausible.

The fact of the matter is there is a considerable difference in the motivations between the ruling elite of the Confederacy and the indivudual enlisted men who fought in the war. An overwhelming majority of the enlisted men did not own slaves and were not fighting one way or another for slavery. There were indeed fighting for their country, for their idea of patriotism, and yes their honor.

The ruling class, the elite, the politicians, the "fire breathers" as they're called, well yes that's a different story. THEY were fighting to maintain slavery and their way of life. And they used their influence to drum up support for the war by influencing the aforementioned soldiers by appealing to their sense of patriotism and honor and fighting for their country as they saw it.

Were they (the enlisted soldiers) racists? Probably so, especially in contrast to today's modern sensibilities. But that was a trait often shared by their northern counterparts as well.