25-05-2016, 07:26 PM
It wasn't the portrayal of Kennedy in 11-22-63 that I thought was most objectionable.
If you read my review, the two things about the series that were really badly done were the plottiness in order to keep the story going, and the portrait of Oswald.
The worst example of the first was when Bill Turcotte sees his dead sister coming out of a church next to Walker's house. That was just so ridiculous it was risible. This prevents Franco from knowing if Oswald shot at Walker.
The portrait of Oswald was so obsolete that it was like riding in a Model T Ford. I mean after Melanson, Newman, Armstrong and Garrison's files? Please.
The chief writer, Bridget Carpenter, ended up disagreeing with this portrait. At the end she thought Oswald was CIA. But King had veto power over the series.
If you read my review, the two things about the series that were really badly done were the plottiness in order to keep the story going, and the portrait of Oswald.
The worst example of the first was when Bill Turcotte sees his dead sister coming out of a church next to Walker's house. That was just so ridiculous it was risible. This prevents Franco from knowing if Oswald shot at Walker.
The portrait of Oswald was so obsolete that it was like riding in a Model T Ford. I mean after Melanson, Newman, Armstrong and Garrison's files? Please.
The chief writer, Bridget Carpenter, ended up disagreeing with this portrait. At the end she thought Oswald was CIA. But King had veto power over the series.