Titans: The Rise of Hollywood

I was really worried when I started this that it would be cheesy and shallow. Now as many others said. The recreations were horrible and wooden. But especially the early episodes are very very interesting about the exchanges and how Edison had somehow created a monopoly. Edison was well known for suing the hell out of anyone that he thought was not paying him for his inventions. But luckily he over reached with the movies and ended up losing. The music was so bad through out especially the music for the introduction for each episode. But this is a definite watch for anyone that likes movies.

While packed with enough Hollywood history to make even the most avid movie goer salivate, this series falls short in almost all other categories. The acting is wooden and shallow. Why they decided to use a narrator who sounds like Peter Falk is unanswerable. If you close your eyes, you'll swear you're watching the Princess Bride. Overall, it plays like an 8th grade attempt at docudrama. Watch for the history or don't bother.

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.

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.

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.