Titans: The Rise of Hollywood

There were four Warner brothers, not three. Co-founder Albert is nowhere to be found or even mentioned. It's as if he didn't exist. Albert Warner headed all of Warner Bros. Distribution in New York with my grandfather Samuel Schneider (who was vice president and treasurer on the board). Albert and Sam were the first of the brothers to get into the movie business, before Harry and Jack joined them. A major mistake in this series.

United Artists was founded by four movie icons, not three. In addition to Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, and Charlie Chaplin, all shown in the series, they entirely left out D. W. Griffith. His career, impact, and legacy are completely gone. No "Birth of a Nation" or "Intolerance." None of his legendary work with Lillian Gish (who is also conspicuously absent). But to spend a good amount of time on the forming of United Artists and not even mention Griffith's name isn't just an error, it's revisionist history. It's just plain wrong.

The budget is low, except apparently for purchasing cartons of cigarettes. The younger actor playing Adolph Zukor was never without a cigarette in any shot or scene. EVER. It went beyond a chain-smoking vice or character trait into completely distracting and amateurish, like a bad joke or exaggerated nervous tick.

I appreciate the effort, and it's a story worth telling, so I'm glad this series exists. Many fascinating people, tales, and details are presented, but with some huge, glaring errors (mentioned above), it makes me doubt and question the truth in all of it.

I always enjoy learning about the early days of Hollywood. And I'll have to admit I did learn a few things I didn't know. But I'm taking it all with a grain of salt. Things like... United Artist was formed by 3 principals? Pickford, Chaplin, Fairbanks? What about D. W. Griffith? Zukor, Lasky but no mention of C. B DeMille? I'm left thinking the producers did this because... they couldn't afford any more actors. How many shots of actors walking down a path, actors talking at a table, Zukor lighting another cigarette. Good grief he would have been dead at 25 given how many times he's seen lighting up. As I say, I have enjoyed it but I do cringe every time I see the same set, an actor walking down a path and "thinking", actors at a table talking, the same shot of the narrator "Zukor" . Can't we vary that shot just a little? Oh well I guess that's the way they made films in the "early" days.

As far too many reviewers have noted, the acting is mediocre at best. No one is going to win an Oscar or Emmy for their acting here (although I don't think it's nearly as terrible as many seem to think).

But, if you're focussed on how good (or bad...) the acting is, you're going to miss out on what this series really is: History.

As a historical account of Hollywood and the major studios and stars, it's excellent.

Ignore the acting quality, focus on the history, and you'll appreciate this series more.

This series fulfilled it's purpose -an overall view into the studio heads who created Hollywood. And it did that by putting the true life events front and center, not the serie's sets, the wardrobe, and characters' acting skills.

My husband, who is not a film buff, was totally intrigued, especially by the genius and skills of Mary Pickford. Besides mastering acting, writing and producing, Mary managed United Artists studios, too. Fascinating woman.

Clearly the inspiration for this was "Movies and Money" by David Putnam, a book which I heartily recommend for anyone interested in the subject.

I heartily loved this show. Even though I'm no fan of the French I do have to say however it's pretty cruel to not acknowledge that it was the Lumiere Brothers who invented the projector to Eddisons "viewing box".

Proper "features" also needed funding and it was Credit Suisse who made the first. But when it gets into the story of Carl Laemmle I became hooked.

It is also ultimately very uplifting as it shows what entrepreneurs and imagination and energy can achieve. Really loved this.