Popular Post sunstoned Posted January 10 Popular Post Posted January 10 The series was dark, gritty, and extremely violent. My wife watched one of the six episodes and had to stop because the violence was relentless throughout every scene. In my opinion, this excessive violence detracted from the overall quality of the series. On the positive side, the acting was excellent, and the directing was top-notch. The attention to detail and authenticity was the best I have ever seen. One of my passions is researching and collecting artifacts from the American West, including antique firearms from that period. I am usually able to spot anachronisms in Western films, but I didn't find any in American Primeval. I even paused the stream to examine some of the clothing and firearms closely. It was clear that someone put in the effort to ensure the film had a realistic and authentic appearance. I can’t say the same for the script. There was a lot of poetic license involved. They placed the Mountain Meadows Massacre (MMM) a day's wagon ride from Fort Bridger, and the investigating U.S. Army troops traveled from the fort to the massacre site and back within a single day, which confused me. They also portrayed the Shoshone tribe camping near the MMM site. To the best of my knowledge, Shoshone people primarily lived in Wyoming, Idaho, and Northern Utah, and they did not typically travel in Southern Utah. The film depicted the Nauvoo Legion (Mormon Militia) and the Paiutes as being responsible for the massacre. It later showed the militia conducting a night raid that resulted in the demise of a troop of U.S. soldiers. While I’m not a professional historian, I don’t believe this actually happened. I know that Lot Smith engaged in some hit-and-run tactics against Johnston’s army, which involved burning a few wagons and scattering livestock, but I don’t recall any direct military confrontation leading to dozens of U.S. casualties. Additionally, the film suggested that Brigham Young was aware of the MMM, and it portrayed Wild Bill Hickman as the instigator instead of John D. Lee. In the film, Hickman was depicted as Brigham Young’s henchman. If I could do it over again, I would not have watched it. 8
Dario_M Posted January 10 Posted January 10 I've watched Final Destination, Scream, and then when i started Saw i stopped because there was just to much violence. I feel like it's bad for the spirit. I won't watch them again. 💀
Calm Posted January 10 Posted January 10 35 minutes ago, sunstoned said: The series was dark, gritty, and extremely violent. My wife watched one of the six episodes and had to stop because the violence was relentless throughout every scene. In my opinion, this excessive violence detracted from the overall quality of the series. On the positive side, the acting was excellent, and the directing was top-notch. The attention to detail and authenticity was the best I have ever seen. One of my passions is researching and collecting artifacts from the American West, including antique firearms from that period. I am usually able to spot anachronisms in Western films, but I didn't find any in American Primeval. I even paused the stream to examine some of the clothing and firearms closely. It was clear that someone put in the effort to ensure the film had a realistic and authentic appearance. I can’t say the same for the script. There was a lot of poetic license involved. They placed the Mountain Meadows Massacre (MMM) a day's wagon ride from Fort Bridger, and the investigating U.S. Army troops traveled from the fort to the massacre site and back within a single day, which confused me. They also portrayed the Shoshone tribe camping near the MMM site. To the best of my knowledge, Shoshone people primarily lived in Wyoming, Idaho, and Northern Utah, and they did not typically travel in Southern Utah. The film depicted the Nauvoo Legion (Mormon Militia) and the Paiutes as being responsible for the massacre. It later showed the militia conducting a night raid that resulted in the demise of a troop of U.S. soldiers. While I’m not a professional historian, I don’t believe this actually happened. I know that Lot Smith engaged in some hit-and-run tactics against Johnston’s army, which involved burning a few wagons and scattering livestock, but I don’t recall any direct military confrontation leading to dozens of U.S. casualties. Additionally, the film suggested that Brigham Young was aware of the MMM, and it portrayed Wild Bill Hickman as the instigator instead of John D. Lee. In the film, Hickman was depicted as Brigham Young’s henchman. If I could do it over again, I would not have watched it. I have read a synopsis of it. I will see if I can post it. I think it’s laughable that Lindsey Hansen Park who consulted on it is claiming it’s quite historical (combination of history and fiction). And of course, FAIR has something to say about it. Our Craig Foster is very familiar with the time period and happened to give a presentation a bit ago. Not sure we have it up yet. Will go check. 3
Calm Posted January 10 Posted January 10 (edited) Here’s some info specifically on the series… https://americanprimevalseries.com/ Quote Is American Primeval historically accurate? No. It's historical fiction, which means that many of the people and places in the show are historical, but nearly everything about them is made up. How does the show depict Native Americans? American Primeval offers a more nuanced portrayal of Native Americans than traditional Westerns. It attempts to move beyond stereotypes, but may still face criticism for oversights or simplifications. Did Native Americans really take in white settlers? Sometimes. In some cases, settlers who were captured during conflicts were later adopted into Native American tribes. One well documented case was Olivia Ann Oatman , a young Latter-day Saint girl that was captured and lived with Native Americans. How does the show depict Mormons (Latter-day Saints)? The show gives an exaggerated and distorted portrayal of 19th-century Latter-day Saints. It generally depicts them as manipulative and violent religious zealots. It amplifies the militarization and viciousness of some Mormon characters, which is at odds with what the historical record shows of typical Mormons of the time. Did the Nauvoo Legion really wear hoods and torture and murder people? No. The Nauvoo Legion was disbanded in 1845 in Illinois and never wore hoods, tortured, or murdered people. The Utah Territorial Militia, formed in 1852, was sometimes referred to as the Nauvoo Legion because many of the leaders from Illinois became leaders in the Utah militia. They never wore hoods or tortured or murdered anyone. You can read more about them on Wikipedia. Why is the Nauvoo Legion portrayed to look like KKK members? Its depiction in the series employs brutality and villainy for narrative effect, disregarding the historical purpose of the Utah Territorial Militia and the context of frontier conflicts. I understand they show the Nauvoo Legion/Utah Militia wearing KKK like hoods….One has to wonder why they went there. edit: removed misattribution Edited January 10 by Calm 1
Calm Posted January 10 Posted January 10 (edited) Here is Craig’s written presentation on violence in early Utah. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/virt_2024-history/foster-murder_mayhem_mormons And for those interested in the Utah War, here’s an article: https://rsc.byu.edu/nineteenth-century-saints-war/church-utah-war-1857-58 Edited January 10 by Calm 1
sunstoned Posted January 10 Author Posted January 10 (edited) 23 hours ago, Calm said: Yes, it did show them wearing hoods. Edited January 11 by sunstoned
Calm Posted January 10 Posted January 10 (edited) 20 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Yes, it did show them wearing hoods. Just hoods or the pointed ones? I am assuming they didn’t go so far as white ones… I couldn’t pull up a image in Google for some reason. Edited January 10 by Calm
webbles Posted January 10 Posted January 10 It sounds like they put the Mountain Meadow much farther north, somewhere between Fort Bridger and Salt Lake City. It is odd to have both the Paiutes and the Shoshone together. The Paiutes are southern Utah, northern Arizona. They were not near Fort Bridger or Salt Lake City. It sounds like the director liked the idea of the Mountain Meadow Massacre but it was too isolated to fit his show so he moved it into Shoshone territory but had to keep the Paiutes around because the Shoshone (as in actual living members now a days) would not appreciate being attached to the massacre. 2
webbles Posted January 10 Posted January 10 9 hours ago, Calm said: Just hoods or the pointed ones? I am assuming they didn’t go so far as white ones… I couldn’t pull up a image in Google for some reason. I found a youtube video that showed the hoods and it looks like a grain bag over the head. Nothing like the KKK pointed ones.
Calm Posted January 10 Posted January 10 26 minutes ago, webbles said: It sounds like they put the Mountain Meadow much farther north, somewhere between Fort Bridger and Salt Lake City. It is odd to have both the Paiutes and the Shoshone together. The Paiutes are southern Utah, northern Arizona. They were not near Fort Bridger or Salt Lake City. It sounds like the director liked the idea of the Mountain Meadow Massacre but it was too isolated to fit his show so he moved it into Shoshone territory but had to keep the Paiutes around because the Shoshone (as in actual living members now a days) would not appreciate being attached to the massacre. So much for being committed to authenticity
MustardSeed Posted January 11 Posted January 11 Watching it now- my goodness, maximum violence, worse than sopranos. Fascinating though, excellent acting. 1
Popular Post morgan.deane Posted January 11 Popular Post Posted January 11 Lyndsey Hansen Park when she brags about "historical accuracy" 9
Kenngo1969 Posted January 11 Posted January 11 23 hours ago, Calm said: Just hoods or the pointed ones? I am assuming they didn’t go so far as white ones… I couldn’t pull up a image in Google for some reason. Well, there's always AI: "Show me an accurate historical depiction of a Paiute, Mormon, KKK, hood-wearing militia member ..." 2
Zosimus Posted January 11 Posted January 11 On 1/10/2025 at 12:33 PM, Calm said: Did the Nauvoo Legion really wear hoods and torture and murder people? No. The Nauvoo Legion was disbanded in 1845 in Illinois and never wore hoods, tortured, or murdered people. The Utah Territorial Militia, formed in 1852, was sometimes referred to as the Nauvoo Legion because many of the leaders from Illinois became leaders in the Utah militia. They never wore hoods or tortured or murdered anyone. You can read more about them on Wikipedia. Is this correct? was it not leaders of the Utah militia that ordered and carried out the MMM? Is it historically accurate to say leaders of the Utah militia never murdered anyone? The link given in the FAQ doesn’t seem to think so: “Local commanders and members of the Iron County, Utah Territorial Militia, overcome with suspicion and war hysteria, perpetrated the Mountain Meadows Massacre”
Calm Posted January 11 Posted January 11 (edited) 6 hours ago, Zosimus said: Is this correct? was it not leaders of the Utah militia that ordered and carried out the MMM? Is it historically accurate to say leaders of the Utah militia never murdered anyone? The link given in the FAQ doesn’t seem to think so: “Local commanders and members of the Iron County, Utah Territorial Militia, overcome with suspicion and war hysteria, perpetrated the Mountain Meadows Massacre” I am thinking they mean the actual Nauvoo Legion never murdered anyone, not the Utah Territorial Militia. Edited January 11 by Calm 3
Zosimus Posted January 12 Posted January 12 2 hours ago, Calm said: I am thinking they mean the actual Nauvoo Legion never murdered anyone, not the Utah Territorial Militia. That’s certainly what they want to say, but is it accurate? Everything I see uses Utah Territorial Militia and Nauvoo Legion interchangeably. The MMM wiki for example: “The massacre occurred in the southern Utah Territory at Mountain Meadows, and was perpetrated by settlers from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints(LDS Church) involved with the Utah Territorial Militia (officially called the Nauvoo Legion) who recruited and were aided by some Southern Paiute Native Americans.” And this from a Church News interview with Richard Turley: “The main planners for the Mountain Meadows Massacre were local leaders: William H. Dame, who was the chief Nauvoo Legion leader in southern Utah” (source) 1
california boy Posted January 12 Posted January 12 From reading the earlier posts in this thread, I was under the impression that American Primeval was being presented as it being historically accurate. That is not the case. No where in the film is there any claims of being a historical portrayal of events that normally appears at the beginning of "based on true events" appear. I don't think anyone would disagree that during this time period, Brigham Young was attempting to control a large section of what the United States viewed as part of its Manifest Destiny and used not only his religious power over the Mormons living there, but also at times, used his role as governor to try and legally get his way. Nor would anyone dispute that the federal government were very nervous with that idea and was trying to figure out a way to control governor Young. No would anyone dispute that indian tribes were fearful of the white man taking over their lands the they thought were rightfully theirs. The story draws upon these conflicting interests and draws upon some historical events and people living at that time as inspiration, but not as accurate historical representation of what was going on. The film looks at these competing interests during a time when the west was a very harsh environment to live in. That is the compelling motivation of the film. And yes, it is a very graphic and violent series. 2
Calm Posted January 12 Posted January 12 (edited) 8 minutes ago, california boy said: No where in the film is there any claims of being a historical portrayal of events that normally appears at the beginning of "based on true events" appear. I have seen it in at least one interview (said they mainly used Brigham’s own words among other things) and Park said they mixed history with fiction iirc. She was not particular to point out what was history and what was fiction. I think the impression given was Mormons were excessively violent when the reality is the Utah area was less violent than the surrounding areas. Edited January 12 by Calm 3
california boy Posted January 12 Posted January 12 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I have seen it in at least one interview (said they mainly used Brigham’s own words among other things) and Park said they mixed history with fiction iirc. She was not particular to point out what was history and what was fiction. I think the impression given was Mormons were excessively violent when the reality is the Utah area was less violent than the surrounding areas. They are very clear that they drew from historical information and events to create the series, but no one is claiming that the series is an attempt to recreate historical events accurately. There is NO "based on true events" banner attached to the series. 1
CV75 Posted January 12 Posted January 12 I just binge-watched Svengoolie... at least a half hour of it feels like binge-watching... 2
Calm Posted January 12 Posted January 12 (edited) 42 minutes ago, california boy said: one is claiming that the series is an attempt to recreate historical events accurately. I am not saying they are, but that doesn’t mean the end result won’t be an image of early LDS as violent religious fanatics, etc. They may not be claiming it’s history, but they are claiming authenticity. Edited January 12 by Calm 3
Calm Posted January 12 Posted January 12 https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/american-primeval-true-story-explained There’s a lot of comments here with the words “exact”, “authentic”, “real”, “actually”, “based on”, “real story”, “balanced retelling of history”, “based on a true event” and “truthful”. Maybe they don’t have it in the series itself, but Netflix is certainly pushing it as a “based on true events” production. Quote Young was the then leader of the Mormon church with his own army — the Nauvoo Legion. “For this type of story, it was very important that we stayed authentic,” said executive producer Smith. “Even for all the Brigham Young sermons and speeches, a lot of his dialogue I took directly from text — real sermons that he had given — and used his exact words.” Quote Wolsey is inspired by a man who “was actually executed for his role in the Meadows Massacre,” Newman reveals. “There’s always some air of inspiration [and] authenticity to each character. There’s no one in the show that feels like a construct that would not have been a part of the real story.” Quote Smith added that they aimed to depict a balanced retelling of history. “It was driven by the Nauvoo Legion, but we have to understand that they perceived it as a threat,” he said. “They were coming in to defend their world. It is just another step — a very violent step — in the lengths that they went to.” Quote Smith explained that Brigham Young purchased the fort to “take control of it himself. Not for profit, necessarily, but to get rid of it so that the [US army] wouldn’t be able to use it. At that point, for Brigham Young, it was a defense from the outside world.” So, did the filmmakers actually burn down the Fort Bridger set? “We burned down about half of it,” Berg shares. “It was based on a true event.” Quote “The other part of what matters to me is the importance of an anti-nostalgic, truthful look at our history. I was a big Howard Zinn’s A People's History of the United States fan because it was the first time I was confronted with what I believed to be the truth. That these rose-colored glasses in which we view the past, from the first Thanksgiving onward, is a lie. It’s a lie meant to make us feel good about this really rugged, brutal path that we’ve taken.” He adds, “I think we do a disservice to ourselves by looking at it in that way because it prevents us from seeing it [happening] again.” Which implies the way he is presenting history in American Primeval is “truthful”. 4
webbles Posted January 12 Posted January 12 Quote Smith explained that Brigham Young purchased the fort to “take control of it himself. Not for profit, necessarily, but to get rid of it so that the [US army] wouldn’t be able to use it. At that point, for Brigham Young, it was a defense from the outside world.” I don't know how Smith can think that Brigham Young purchased the Fort Bridger so the US army couldn't use it. The Mormons forced Bridger out of the fort in 1853 (they alleged that he was breaking a treaty by selling liquor and ammunition to the Native Americans). In 1855, the Mormons purchased it from Bridger (he disputed the purchase). They used it as a major stopping point on the Mormon Trail (along with its neighbor Fort Supply which the Mormons had built around 1853). When the US army advanced in 1857, they burned it down so that the US army couldn't use it. Young purchased the fort so that it could be used for pioneers. The Utah war hadn't even started. 3
california boy Posted January 12 Posted January 12 7 minutes ago, Calm said: https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/american-primeval-true-story-explained There’s a lot of comments here with the words “exact”, “authentic”, “real”, “actually”, “based on”, “real story”, “balanced retelling of history”, “based on a true event” and “truthful”. Maybe they don’t have it in the series itself, but Netflix is certainly pushing it as a “based on true events” production. Which implies the way he is presenting history in American Primeval is “truthful”. Are you sure Brigham Young wasn't overly authoritatively? That he didn't try to control outside influences as much as he possibly could? I have to admit, I was surprised to learn that Brigham Young did in fact buy Fort Bridger and then burned it down to make it more difficult for the U.S. army to have a foothold they could use against the Church. Why else would he burn it down? Afterall, it was an important resupplying station for both the Saints and outsiders traveling to Utah. Does the series portray the Mormons as being more aggressive then they were? Probably. But that doesn't mean there isn't some truth in that portrayal. Like I said. I nor the production company is claiming to be historically accurate, but rather drawing from real events. But I am also not sure Brigham Young didn't have a heavy hand in how the Church dealt with outsiders. I doubt very much it is a portrayal of how the Church wants its history to be represented. I also don't blame them given their history of being driven from place to place. They were in Utah to stay this time and they were not willing to once again be driven out of their homes. I think you are looking for an accurate portrayal of events in a series that is not designed to be that. They are more interested in a drama to entertain. Now about the quotes you lifted from the article, are you saying none of what you quoted is true or that those events didn't actually happen?? 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now