Titans: The Rise of Hollywood

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.

As others have commented, the history itself is the star of this show. The presentation is subpar - especially when considering the subject. I tried to research if it was AI generated and could not get a definitive yes or no. I'm leaning toward a yes. There's something OFF about it, but the history presented is edifying.

We thought we knew a lot about the origins of movies, having watched the 13-episode series "Hollywood" narrated by James Mason. But each episode of "Titans", especially those covering the 1890s to mid-1910s, had us saying "I never knew that." By focusing on the business perspective--innovators who had a feeling that motion pictures could be big, but struggled to figure out how--the series explains how and why the innovations happened.

The docudrama is narrated as oral history by an older Adolf Zukor. The dynamics between the competitors/collaborators are often fascinating. The final episode or two, covering the end of the silent era, get bogged down by details about corporate wheeling and dealing, which can be hard to follow. Nevertheless, the earlier portions more than make up for it.

The rise of the Hollywood moguls is as entertaining as many of its movies, filled with fascinating rags to riches stories. And this series digs up a number of lesser known episodes among those otherwise well known. For example, Carl Laemmle's contribution has never been so well documented. And the storytelling style works.

But, despite its surface polish, it feels undernurished and low budget. The number of repeated shots becomes annoying; surely they could find some other visuals from somehere. Ads for early IMP films mention them being shot in Cuba, before the storyline gets us there. Sloppy.

Those early years will always enthrall, so it's worth a watch. But it's not quite there.

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.