Thoughts/Impressions on “The Dynasty” Apple TV Series

[Scott_Cooper_AllStar]

View: https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/1770127346370056339
Not a surprise in the slightest. The agenda was clear.

I'm not surprised at the McCourty reaction either. Although I'll put that in the bucket of editorial choices I wish were different.

However, the Harrison thing is unprofessional. You can choose to gloss over 2003-2006 if you want. But how do you pull in Rodney Harrison and Deion Branch for hours long interviews for a Patriots documentary and then decide the only screen-worthy content is that one of them lived across the street from Aaron Hernandez! But those interview sessions with Murdoch and Portnoy are keepers!

 

[Ed Hillel]

Bill sniffed this out from the start, I bet. I think, some day, in the proper setting, he’ll have more to say about a lot of this stuff.

 

[Carmine Hose]

unless they literally ran out of bodies in the defensive backfield.

The kind of did given who was out there and how atrocious they were.

 

[BaseballJones]

The kind of did given who was out there and how atrocious they were.

But they didn't. That's the point. Butler was (my hypothesis) kept active because they actually had no other DBs available. They never intended for him to play at all unless - and this is an if and ONLY if situation - they actually ran out of bodies. They still had players available and active. They just stunk that day. So the criteria wasn't actually met for Butler to play.

 

[BaseballJones]

Bill sniffed this out from the start, I bet. I think, some day, in the proper setting, he’ll have more to say about a lot of this stuff.

From the sounds of it, I bet you're correct.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

View: https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/1770127346370056339


Not a surprise in the slightest. The agenda was clear.

Just to add to this, I was out running and errand over lunch and listening to a bit of Bertrand and Zolak and Zolak was basically saying the same thing, that he had spoken with a handful of players who gave lengthy interviews who were upset at the footage that got used vs. what never made it in. I know it is Zolak but I do think he's still pretty connected with some of the current and former players and it fits in with what Rodney and McCourtey were saying.

Not that this is a surprise to anyone who watched it, there was clearly an agenda. But it feels like there's another version of this out there that could have been so much better. Where they don't ignore the drama but it also isn't the overriding focus, and where it doesn't feel like RKK taking a shit on Bill.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

"That's the part they used." Or "I can't believe what they are trying to argue." Or "that is totally out of context."

If you spend much time with people who are interviewed for documentaries, you get these kind of reactions. It's quite common that filmmakers hide the narrative vision they have or they discover a different story in editing, and sometimes they even mislead their interviewees.

I guess these guys are used to stuff like 3 games to glory or NFL stuff, which is more what you see is what you get. But this bottom line is this: If you're ever asked to be interviewed for a documentary, the answer is pretty easy. "No thanks."

 

[Dave Stapleton]

"That's the part they used." Or "I can't believe what they are trying to argue." Or "that is totally out of context."

If you spend much time with people who are interviewed for documentaries, you get these kind of reactions. It's quite common that filmmakers hide the narrative vision they have or they discover a different story in editing, and sometimes they even mislead their interviewees.

I guess these guys are used to stuff like 3 games to glory or NFL stuff, which is more what you see is what you get. But this bottom line is this: If you're ever asked to be interviewed for a documentary, the answer is pretty easy. "No thanks."

I don't think anyone is looking for sympathy for the players here (other than maybe wasting some of their time which seems unprofessional). I think the point is that it lends further evidence here that there was an agenda and narrative here consistent with what many of us have indicated. Maybe you are saying this and I just missed your point.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

All the controversy in that game also overshadowed Cooks’ stupid hurdle attempt along with getting concussed on a play he probably should have just gone down.

Yes, at that point. But what seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back is that Brady wanted to come back at that number over two years and BB wouldn't give it to him. THEN Brady didn't want to come back.

 

[BaseballJones]

Yes, at that point. But what seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back is that Brady wanted to come back at that number over two years and BB wouldn't give it to him. THEN Brady didn't want to come back.

I'm struggling to see how your post was a response to the one you quoted.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

I'm struggling to see how your post was a response to the one you quoted.

That's because I clearly messed up. Hold, please.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

It sounded like from the documentary there was no way Brady was coming back.

Yes, at that point. But what seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back is that Brady wanted to come back at that number over two years and BB wouldn't give it to him. THEN Brady didn't want to come back.

 

[ehaz]

More from McCourty:

View: https://twitter.com/michaelfhurley/status/1770200528036761827?s=46

 

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

The Green Bay Packers have a statue of the coach who built their dynasty at the entrance to their stadium.

The New England Patriots have a documentary in which the team's owner calls the coach who built their dynasty a "schmuck" and a "pain in the tush."

'Nuff said.

 

[BaseballJones]

Yeah it’s absurd. I bet a “Dynasty” program on those Packers would have shown Lombardi to have all kinds of warts and unpleasantness.

I’m more on team Belichick than ever before. Guy is an absolute hero.

 

[mulluysavage]

"They only hit anything that is negative" is absurd. But it's not an uncommon reaction from athletes to docs.

3 Games to Glory isn't WYSIWYG, it's vigorous ball-washing. Which might explain DMC's reaction to Dynasty.

 

[Cellar-Door]

"They only hit anything that is negative" is absurd. But it's not an uncommon reaction from athletes to docs.

3 Games to Glory isn't WYSIWYG, it's vigorous ball-washing. Which might explain DMC's reaction to Dynasty.

I think his point was he did hours of interviews and they only used the most negative things he said, out of context, as such he felt tricked in that they used his words to paint what he feels is both an inaccurate image of what happened and his views on it. He wasn't commenting on the documentary as a whole, he was commenting on his involvement.

Dynasty has a very clear agenda, POV and position, it is not a neutral retelling of past events, and when that type of selective editing happens the people who agreed to interviews under the impression that the project WAS meant to be something it wasn't and give you hours of interviews only for you to take short clips that are not reflective of the conversation and position... well yeah you can expect those people to be unhappy.

Hamachek is a hack who makes bad documentaries, that he has no ethics and misleads interviewees and carefully misrepresents what they think to fit the narrative he's been tasked with isn't surprising, but neither is the interviewees being upset.

 

[naclone]

"A neutral retelling of past events" is a terrible pitch for a TV show.

Hamacheck's agenda was to sell a TV show to Apple, the #5 streamer trying to grow its audience.

I haven't seen Drive To Survive but my understanding is that its not a neutral retelling of past events created for F1 fans but a series about hot guys, fast cars and Bravo style drama, which is why the show is more popular than the sport is.

If we were asked to make a list of the 10 most dramatic and promotable things that happened in the 20 year dynasty that appeal to non-fans we'd likely come back with the same list as Hamacheck.

I think the problem is when pats fans hear Dynasty they think Tedy Bruschi and when TV people hear Dynasty they think Joan Collins.

They arent selling DVDs to fans. They are trying to get people who watch The Morning Show to stick on the platform.

 

[gammoseditor]

"A neutral retelling of past events" is a terrible pitch for a TV show.

Hamacheck's agenda was to sell a TV show to Apple, the #5 streamer trying to grow its audience.

I haven't seen Drive To Survive but my understanding is that its not a neutral retelling of past events created for F1 fans but a series about hot guys, fast cars and Bravo style drama, which is why the show is more popular than the sport is.

If we were asked to make a list of the 10 most dramatic and promotable things that happened in the 20 year dynasty that appeal to non-fans we'd likely come back with the same list as Hamacheck.

I think the problem is when pats fans hear Dynasty they think Tedy Bruschi and when TV people hear Dynasty they think Joan Collins.

They arent selling DVDs to fans. They are trying to get people who watch The Morning Show to stick on the platform.

Did you watch the documentary? If so what do you think it did well? The topics it chose to focus on is only part of the problem. It also did a poor job of telling those stories.

 

[naclone]

I did. I mostly liked it but also recognize its doing a different job than Do Your Job.

For context, my 79 year old mother who has deep resentment about the amount of time and money her husband and sons spent on the Patriots over this time span DEVOURED this series and watched the Hernandez episode twice.

From that perspective they did a great job telling these stories. Its a show for people who are obsessed with where Kate Middleton is.

Edit: To be clear I'm not saying the series is above criticism I'm saying that its far less likely to me that the agenda was any kind of hit job. The agenda was attract fans of true crime dramas and Bravo reality shows.

 

[cornwalls@6]

Gronk coming out swinging in defense/praise of BB. Doesn’t really address the documentary directly(at least in the article) but have to think it spurred these comments. Feels like we’re going see more of this. Would be very curious to see if Kraft does any clean up.

https://www.masslive.com/patriots/2024/03/rob-gronkowski-passionately-defends-bill-belichicks-patriots-legacy.html

 

[sezwho]

From that perspective they did a great job telling these stories. Its a show for people who are obsessed with where Kate Middleton is.

Edit: To be clear I'm not saying the series is above criticism I'm saying that its far less likely to me that the agenda was any kind of hit job. The agenda was attract fans of true crime dramas and Bravo reality shows.

This grounds the whole thing perfectly. That’s why not Netflix Apple (thank you @kenneycb) made it, and Bob went along to have a thumb on the scale for his hall of fame legacy.

Feels like it may not have the impact he hoped, not that he doesn’t get to HoF eventually, but I don’t think this accelerates it.

 

[Cellar-Door]

"A neutral retelling of past events" is a terrible pitch for a TV show.

Hamacheck's agenda was to sell a TV show to Apple, the #5 streamer trying to grow its audience.

I haven't seen Drive To Survive but my understanding is that its not a neutral retelling of past events created for F1 fans but a series about hot guys, fast cars and Bravo style drama, which is why the show is more popular than the sport is.

If we were asked to make a list of the 10 most dramatic and promotable things that happened in the 20 year dynasty that appeal to non-fans we'd likely come back with the same list as Hamacheck.

I think the problem is when pats fans hear Dynasty they think Tedy Bruschi and when TV people hear Dynasty they think Joan Collins.

They arent selling DVDs to fans. They are trying to get people who watch The Morning Show to stick on the platform.

I mean I understand that, I was pointing out that the people who gave him interviews did not know that when they agreed and based on their comments their interviews were not framed that way and they can rightly feel like they were tricked into helping him spin a narrative they don't agree with. Hamachek is a hack who makes sensational "reality TV" style documentaries that are mostly trash, but I don't expect people involved to necessarily know that, or figure it out when he probably lied to them about the doc's focus and was just using long interviews to fish for a few second clips he could use.

 

[naclone]

Yes. Do I think the filmmakers were fist pumping anytime Belichick answered one of their questions with 8 seconds of tight lipped silence? Yes I do. But not because their agenda was to trash Bill. Their agenda was to hook viewers into watching the next episode.

 

[kenneycb]

This grounds the whole thing perfectly. That’s why Netflix made it, and Bob went along to have a thumb on the scale for his hall of fame legacy.

Feels like it may not have the impact he hoped, not that he doesn’t get to HoF eventually, but I don’t think this accelerates it.

Apple made it, not Netflix. Historically Apple hasn't greenlit too many documentaries.

 

[bigq]

Bill sniffed this out from the start, I bet. I think, some day, in the proper setting, he’ll have more to say about a lot of this stuff.

Perhaps but I would not bet on him having more to say about it publicly. I would guess that Kraft gave Bill a lot of reasons to remain silent in his severance. Also Bill spilling the beans publicly doesn't feel like something he would do.

 

[sezwho]

Apple made it, not Netflix. Historically Apple hasn't greenlit too many documentaries.

Thank you, that's correct of course! I'll update the OP for numbness (still on coffee #1).

 

[Fishercat]

Because you know what casual viewers of Bravo-style reality shows, gossip fans, and conspiracy theorists hate: powerful people getting into sex scandals involving major discrepancies of influence. Glad they didn't include that.

I dunno, like I get the idea that this was meant as a general audience item and as such they were going to aim for that. Using my girlfriend as a barometer - she's a casual Eagles fan who more enjoys needling Pats fans than football in general. She was reading The Dynasty going into it, is a Vanderpump/Reality TV fan, and spent roughly four hours this week talking to me about Kate Middleton. The show lost her around the Hernandez episode. She was very into it early on, but faded pretty quickly on it as it went on and it continued to dive into some of the more salacious elements. But she's also the kind of person who will dig into topics and ask questions and it led her to question some of the output, especially as she was reading the book simultaneously and the emphasis on topics and storytelling diverged a lot (according to her, I can't read because I'm a dummy).

 

[naclone]

Because you know what casual viewers of Bravo-style reality shows, gossip fans, and conspiracy theorists hate: powerful people getting into sex scandals involving major discrepancies of influence. Glad they didn't include that.

fair point, well made.

 

[Silverdude2167]

To build on the Drive to Survive parallels.

They represented the best driver in the world so negatively as a villain that he basically refuses to talk to them anymore.

Which was a choice since he now wins every race.

 

[Jinhocho]

The Green Bay Packers have a statue of the coach who built their dynasty at the entrance to their stadium.

The New England Patriots have a documentary in which the team's owner calls the coach who built their dynasty a "schmuck" and a "pain in the tush."

'Nuff said.

I read this on Twitter. Was that your Twitter account? If so, small world

 

[Al Zarilla]

Just skip the negative episodes, which you can tell by the titles, and watch the rest. Personally, I can never get enough of the XXXVI, XLIX and LI, and the Apple rendition had some nuances of them I had never seen

 

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

I read this on Twitter. Was that your Twitter account? If so, small world

Yeah, that was me.

The avatar is the same too, so it would be a hell of a coincidence if it wasn't me!

 

[Toe Nash]

"A neutral retelling of past events" is a terrible pitch for a TV show.

Hamacheck's agenda was to sell a TV show to Apple, the #5 streamer trying to grow its audience.

I haven't seen Drive To Survive but my understanding is that its not a neutral retelling of past events created for F1 fans but a series about hot guys, fast cars and Bravo style drama, which is why the show is more popular than the sport is.

If we were asked to make a list of the 10 most dramatic and promotable things that happened in the 20 year dynasty that appeal to non-fans we'd likely come back with the same list as Hamacheck.

I think the problem is when pats fans hear Dynasty they think Tedy Bruschi and when TV people hear Dynasty they think Joan Collins.

They arent selling DVDs to fans. They are trying to get people who watch The Morning Show to stick on the platform.

OK, but if I were making an anti-Pats doc I would have included more interviews with coaches and players from other teams. The Mike Martz section in the Spygate portion was actually very compelling for example. Which gets back to, who is this doc for -- you could definitely make an interesting doc from a hater perspective, I'm a big kid and could handle watching it, but this isn't it. It's muddy and weird and BB sitting there tight-lipped isn't compelling TV.

 

[Cellar-Door]

OK, but if I were making an anti-Pats doc I would have included more interviews with coaches and players from other teams. The Mike Martz section in the Spygate portion was actually very compelling for example. Which gets back to, who is this doc for -- you could definitely make an interesting doc from a hater perspective, I'm a big kid and could handle watching it, but this isn't it. It's muddy and weird and BB sitting there tight-lipped isn't compelling TV.

Not if you're doing it for Kraft, it's not an Anti-Pats doc, it's a "Fuck Bill, it was really Kraft and his best bud Tom Brady who were responsible for the success". The show got made because Glazer is a personal friend of Kraft and Kraft pushed everyone involved to be available for interviews, etc.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I don't think anyone is looking for sympathy for the players here (other than maybe wasting some of their time which seems unprofessional). I think the point is that it lends further evidence here that there was an agenda and narrative here consistent with what many of us have indicated. Maybe you are saying this and I just missed your point.

News media has a negativity bias which reflects... human negativity bias.That's it. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy or an agenda to bury the Patriots. We are all just interested more in the negative stuff.

 

[naclone]

Yes, I think as with most things the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'm trying to think about it from the Apple perspective. I think someone over there said, "Where's our Drive To Survive? Let's take some meetings." not "Do we know anybody with a good take on why Bill Belichick sucks? Let's get him on the air asap." And I think the pitch to Apple was, "here's the rough storylines we think can sustain 10 hours of TV for a broad audience."

Not at all the same thing, but a close friend and colleague of mine was on a reality cooking competition show and wound up getting the villain edit down the stretch. I'm positive the producers of that show did not set out to take her down a peg, nor was the recipient of the hero edit involved in funding the series. In fact, the producers of the show routinely filmed the judges giving sound bites about how much they loved a dish immediately followed by sound bites of how much they hated the dish so that the editors could craft the story either way.

If nothing else I'm convinced that more often than not the only agenda is eyeballs and money.

 

[jcd0805]

Yeah it’s absurd. I bet a “Dynasty” program on those Packers would have shown Lombardi to have all kinds of warts and unpleasantness.

I’m more on team Belichick than ever before. Guy is an absolute hero.

Ditto. The sight of Kraft on my tv during games is going to make me nauseous knowing he orchestrated this hit piece.

 

[Scott_Cooper_AllStar]

OK, but if I were making an anti-Pats doc I would have included more interviews with coaches and players from other teams. The Mike Martz section in the Spygate portion was actually very compelling for example. Which gets back to, who is this doc for -- you could definitely make an interesting doc from a hater perspective, I'm a big kid and could handle watching it, but this isn't it. It's muddy and weird and BB sitting there tight-lipped isn't compelling TV.

Exactly. The pushback isn't that any of us individually don't like it, that's art. It's that there are clear misses for every imaginable target audience. They can't make everyone happy, but you've got to give someone what they are looking for.

• Pats fans: No need to rehash
• Pats haters: Missing interviews with bitter opponents. Light on Spygate from this perspective (missing unfounded rumors that opponents believe and 2019 incident). Could have used Rodney Harrison interview material in discussing dirty reputation, playing past the limits. Orchids of Asia
• Vanderpump crowd: My wife would expect a discussion of Bridget Moynahan. Missing the photo leaks that caused Brady's phone destruction policy. You cannot leave out Orchids of Asia. PG-rated treatment of Gronk partying. Where's Antonio Brown?
• Modern documentary fans: They want to think they learned something while being entertained. If I watched a 10 episode documentary on the Saints with a full episode on Bountygate, I damn well better be exposed to the most coherent arguments for why it was a huge deal and why it was a nothing-burger. I definitely don't want to find out you left out details because you needed a few more ten second clips of Sean Payton not answering questions about it to prove he's slightly more of a douche than Tom Benson.
• Kraft family: They don't really come off well. I still appreciate his key role in the turnaround, but this tarnished it a bit. I didn't think I had enough info to have an opinion on Jonathan before. Some people are born on 3rd base but have the traits (whether through nature or nurture) in common with the people who did whatever got them there, so I don't prejudge. He came across as the other kind of person on 3rd base, in line with some of whispers I've heard in this forum.

 

[scottyno]

I have said this, but my hypothesis is that that was a mistake. That the ST coach sent him in for that one play (maybe totally forgot about Butler's ban) and BB noticed it and said absolutely no more of that, and that was that.

It was also on the punt return team and that was the only punt of the game by the Eagles so it could be as simple as that.

 

[Van Everyman]

So here’s a question I would’ve been interested to hear answered in this documentary:

Why did the Pats pass on Lamar Jackson in the 2018 draft?

Bill had to know by that point—after the 2017 mess and the Jimmy G saga—that Brady wasn’t going to stick around. Supposedly Lamar had an awesome visit and Josh loved him (and Bill apparently liked him as well). and they had not one but two shots at getting him in that draft.

Was Bill more interested by the 2018 offseason in loading up for one more run with Brady? Did he not want to deal with the mess of drafting Brady's replacement with Tom still on the roster?

 

[riboflav]

One thing seems apparent… while many many others are quite happy to take shots at BB, he never takes shots at anyone else. He just keeps quiet. I can’t think of one time where he has put someone on blast like people are doing to him.

Jesus sister yes! This is why he is the goat. Always has the back at least in public of everyone around him and will take the bullets all while under the impression that he’s still the coach.

 

[riboflav]

Gronk was also (mostly) left out except for the 2017 comments.

BB was in full on hostage video mode.


To this day, I remain infuriated by the Butler benching. Yes, Butler had a dissappointing year, but you can't see fit to play a guy for 98% of snaps through the whole season and 2 playoff games, then bench him for the Superbowl, lose the game because your team could not get one single stop, never give a word of explanation, and expect to get anything but excoriated.

Honestly, I think BB simply cost himself and the Pats a champioship out of some type of spite. Hard to believe, but nothing else makes any sort of sense. I don't mean that he tried to throw the game, but I think he created a scenario in his head where giving Butler's snaps to a mix of Rowe, Richards, Bademosi, etc, would be best for the team or at least good enough to win. And even as that failed miserably he refused to adjust.

You’re doing a lot of speculating based on very little to no evidence. Bill went home to Nantucket satisfied not winning that SB bc spite.

 

[riboflav]

Just haha starting to read the rest of thread from where I took off several days ago. Glad I’m not alone.

 

[riboflav]

I recall when the trailers came out I surmised this isn’t gonna be good for Bill and someone here assured me Apple TV doesn’t do hit jobs.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

You’re doing a lot of speculating based on very little to no evidence. Bill went home to Nantucket satisfied not winning that SB bc spite.

That's not exactly what I was saying. I don't think he went home satisfied.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

So here’s a question I would’ve been interested to hear answered in this documentary:

Why did the Pats pass on Lamar Jackson in the 2018 draft?

Bill had to know by that point—after the 2017 mess and the Jimmy G saga—that Brady wasn’t going to stick around. Supposedly Lamar had an awesome visit and Josh loved him (and Bill apparently liked him as well). and they had not one but two shots at getting him in that draft.

Was Bill more interested by the 2018 offseason in loading up for one more run with Brady? Did he not want to deal with the mess of drafting Brady's replacement with Tom still on the roster?

Yes.

Drafting Michel was a huge reason they won SB 52, Michel was a beast that postseason. They made a pick based on immediate need and it paid off handsomely and right away in the short term. In the long term it did not, but flags fly forever.

 

[slamminsammya]

Yes.

Drafting Michel was a huge reason they won SB 52, Michel was a beast that postseason. They made a pick based on immediate need and it paid off handsomely and right away in the short term. In the long term it did not, but flags fly forever.

I don't think Michel added much value above and beyond what any other RB would have given you. A lot of his TD's that postseason were walk ins with massive holes.

 

[tims4wins]

I don't think Michel added much value above and beyond what any other RB would have given you. A lot of his TD's that postseason were walk ins with massive holes.

While I tend to agree that he wasn't special, the reality is that he was on the field and made the plays.

If I was given a chance to take the blue pill and go back to 2018 and draft Lamar instead, I think I take it... but is it a slam dunk? Is it worth the risk of not having that 2018 AFCCG and Super Bowl in our archives?

 

[bigq]

I don't think Michel added much value above and beyond what any other RB would have given you. A lot of his TD's that postseason were walk ins with massive holes.

Only one player can be the best RB in each postseason. Michel was by far the best RB in the 2018 playoffs. He had the most carries, the most yards per game, the most TDs, the longest run from scrimmage, the most first downs and no fumbles. Certainly his performance was aided by an excellent run blocking offensive line however it is silly and of course unknowable to say that a replacement level player could have done all of that.