AMC Developing Sitcom Titled ‘We Hate Paul Revere’

One of America’s most famous patriots is slated for a little attention on the AMC cable network–perhaps regrettably so. There may soon be a bit of hate going around for him with a new AMC sitcom in development called “We Hate Paul Revere.” So much for sitcoms where “everyone loves” someone, eh? And so much for patriotism.

According to reports, the show is being written and executive produced by writer-actors Ethan Sandler and Adrian Wenner. The show apparently centers on two brothers living in Colonial Boston who are not fans of famed Boston entrepreneur, Paul Revere.

Revere was a well-known businessman and silversmith in his day, but in ours he’s best known as one of the riders that caromed through Boston and nearby towns to warn patriots that “the British are coming.”

AMC has not officially picked up the show as of yet, nor has the cabler officially picked up any of the other few sitcoms it has greenlighted for development.

Picked up or no, the folks at Boston’s Paul Revere House aren’t very amused about the idea of their namesake becoming an object of sitcom derision.

The historical association immediately took to Twitter to express pique about the planned sitcom. On the Twitter accounts the Paul Revere historians and keepers of the Patriot’s image said “I hate this idea,” and “AMC, really?”

Food Stamps Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day In Obama's First Term
Boston Nanny Charged In Infant's Death, Case Evokes Memories Of Louise Woodward Case
  • GarandFan

    TV, aka ‘the vast wasteland’.

  • Paul Hooson

    On one hand it’s great not to live under the rule of a king. On the other hand, the history of the founding of this country is a little less than charming as well. George Washington who was perhaps the most wealthy landowner and slave owner in the country at the time gets the brilliant idea that why should a king collect taxes when I could collect taxes myself. He gathers together a bunch of his friends in a room who write some declaration of independence, appoint Washington head of an army of poor peasants sent out to lose their lives in combat against the king’s troops, who are already weary and tired after sailing for months across the ocean. Washington also appoints himself chaplain of his own army. When the king realizes that it’s too difficult to wage a long distance war by sea with the U.S. colonies, he gives up. And Washington’s friends appoint the wealthiest man in the country president twice without any free election by the citizens. This doesn’t sound romantic, but it’s the unfortunate truth.

    • Brucehenry

      Ummm, no.

      • Paul Hooson

        Washington was not only worth an estimated $525 million dollars, but he also received two percent of the entire federal budget as his salary as well. Incredible. A president, unelected by the public, only installed into power by his friends gets two percent of all the federal taxes raised as his salary. The only president more wealthy than Washington: None of them. John F. Kennedy had to share his $1 billion estate with the rest of the Kennedy family.

    • Phil Snyder

      Paul – it must be nice in your universe. Can people from reality come visit from time to time?

      • Paul Hooson

        You show me one example where some country wasn’t founded by some leader who only wanted great power for himself. Even Ho Chi Minh thought of himself as the Vietnamese “George Washington”. Look at the similarity here. Both were not elected, by their own people, but held power because of their self-appointed friends approval. Both were fans of the overthrow of the authority of colonial governments, so they could have nearly unquestioned rule of their own. Both were able to afford educational opportunities that the average citizen could not. Both ruled in one party environments(Ho Chi Minh, the Communist Party only)(Washington with no opposition or opposing parties until his second term, although they had no real chance of defeating Washington’s rule).

        Since Washington’s time, there has been elections and opposing parties, in Vietnam there has not been. That’s the one big difference. But, many of these elections had severe voter restrictions such as being a landowner to vote or other standards that have been slowly removed.

        The nature of the federal government and elections has certainly evolved in this country, and for the better for the most part. But, Washington’s government was hardly a democratic one or one that truly represented the citizens. It had more in common with some dictatorship than not.

        • herddog505

          Paul HoosonYou show me one example where some country wasn’t founded by some leader who only wanted great power for himself.

          Don’ t look now, but you’re living in one. Washington was NOT thrilled to be president. Consider that he might well have done it for life or even been king. Instead, he did it for eight years… and then went home.

          I’ve heard this bunk about the founding of our country before, and it simply cuts no ice. While Washington and his fellows were not saints, they gave us a republic when they might easily have bequeathed a dictatorship.

          • Paul Hooson

            Don’t get me wrong here. I certainly prefer our Bill Of Rights to the rule of law in other nations. I’m about the biggest defender of absolutism when it comes to the Bill Of Rights there is. The 1st Amendment is my favorite. But, the history of the Founding Fathers is a little more grey than many realize.

          • MartinLandauCalrissian

            You pretending you like the Constitution was the funniest thing I saw posted today. Thanks for the laugh.

          • Paul Hooson

            The Constitution and Bill Of Rights are excellent in my view. Washington, maybe not as much. Even though Washington was probably far and away the most wealthy man living in America at the time, worth $525 million, you have to ask some questions about the honesty of a man who charged a 2% rate on all federal taxes raised that went into his own pocket as a salary at a time when the soldiers were cold and some were likely losing fingers or toes to frostbite. Washington’s response was to borrow $20,000 from a Jewish businessman, Haym Solomon and to urge Haym Solomon to shake down some of the wealthy Jewish families of Europe such as the Rothchilds for some more money. According to Jewish historians, this money was never paid back by Washington or his federal government. Washington also ran the early army like something of a despot as well, awarding floggings to the soldiers for minor violations such as swearing and using God’s name in vain. On the other hand, venereal diseases were becoming common among Washington’s army because of visiting women called “camp followers”. On the positive side, Washington might have been a rare president not to have a mistress, although Benjamin Franklin used to brag about all of the “strumpets” he would hire for sexual purposes.

          • herddog505

            There’s a difference – QUITE a difference – between “the Founding Fathers weren’t saints” and “George Washington was in it just for the money and power”.

          • JWH

            George Washington is something of an anomaly when it comes to the founders of states. If he’d wanted to become king, he certainly could have. But there’s good reason that he’s compared to Cincinnatus.

            Incidentally, I can think of one thing that distinguishes George Washington from the founders and first leaders of revolutionary states. Washington had no children. Would his mindset have changed if he had them? I’m not impugning his character. Just speculating.

            As far as the other founding fathers, I think you see a mix of motives. I think you can make a very good case that the Constitution, with its electoral college, bicameral legislature, and so forth, was set up partly to prevent power from concentrating in the hands of a single individual, but also to insulate the government’s workings from the common people. The intellectual reason for this is to prevent momentary passions from moving the nation in an untoward direction. But it also effectively concentrated power in the hands of the upper class and upper middle class … who just happened to be the same individuals writing the Constitution in the first place.

            I have no doubt that a number of the founders were motivated by a call to public service. But some would have been motivated by power. Or for the chance to be a part of something large and historical.

            And even those motivated by public service came to different callings. Some, for example, might have seen themselves as advocates for the greater good of all the colonies. Others would have seen it as their duty to preserve the power and influence of their home colony.

            And maybe some just wanted to impress the ladies by saying, “Yeah, I signed that Constitution.”

          • herddog505

            I think that’s pretty reasonable. With regard to GW, I like to think that it would have made no difference: having spent so much time and effort (and risk to his own life) getting shed of George III, setting himself up as George I of the Americans would have been (to put it mildly) ridiculous.

          • JWH

            On the other hand, I wonder if people would have propelled his sons to power anyway. This country is home to a LOT of political dynasties.

    • skwills

      Actually most of he redcoat army didnt sail to America. I knwo this is hard to grasp, but most of the British military fores used in the American revolution wre actually colonials. Its not like the colonial “peasant” uniformly supported the Revolution.

      it’s also a bit silly to say its nie nto to live under the King. I actually am a Monarchist so disagree. Besides, those awful high taxes imposed by the King were ten times lowr than the Taxes became under the Republic.

  • Commander_Chico

    Sounds like a pretty good idea for a show. Paul Revere was a man, not a statue; so was everyone else living in those days. For example, there was fucking involved in every one of the patriots’ lives; not immaculate conception.

    Dealing with the period with a little humor might lead some to pick up a book and read the history.

    Too bad the perpetually indignant brigade, Warner among them, and the snobs will probably kill the idea with their threats and drama. It’s just a form of political correctness.

    • JWH

      I’m skeptical. High-concept comedies don’t always turn out well.

      • herddog505

        How about “From the White House to the Big House”, a comedy about Barry being sent to Supermax? (we can only hope for a reality show)

        Somehow, I’m guessing that AMC would have no interest.

        • JWH

          I wouldn’t make it about President Obama (or any other president since FDR), specifically, because it’d turn off too many viewers. But making it about a fictionalized president would work.

          • herddog505

            Even better: “Big House Buddies”:

            Laughs galore when former presidents Clinton and Obama become cellmates in a country- club prison. Also stars R. Lee Ermey as Warden Rockwell.

          • Vagabond661

            How about “Ain’t nothing but a hound dog” the Bill Clinton Story.

          • JWH

            You have to cast Charles Colson as the prison chaplain.

          • Commander_Chico

            yeah but i think he’s dead.

      • Commander_Chico

        I was thinking of Monty Python’s treatment of King Arthur.

        • Yeah, you can’t expect to wield supreme power just because some watery tart chucks a sword at you…

    • herddog505

      There’s a line between having some harmless fun at the Founding Fathers’ expense, and then there’s a mean-spirited rewriting of history. Given the present, ongoing liberal Two Minute Hate against the Constitution, I think that it’s reasonable to suspect the latter.

      • JWH

        I think there’d actually be some funny stuff here, if it’s handled right.
        How about:

        Founding Mothers. Dolley Madison, Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, and Sally Hemings tour America by ship and by cart as their husbands found the country and run it in its early years. Along the way, we learn that these ladies were responsible for many of the freedoms we take for granted.

        Kitchen Cabinet. An inside look at the foibles in George Washington’s first Cabinet.

        • herddog505

          It might work.

  • herddog505

    At this rate, we”ll soon be treated to such shows and movies as “An American Terrorist: The Life of George Washington” or “Redcoat Heroes”.


    Attention lefties: Delta is ready when you are.

    • JWH

      At this rate, we”ll soon be treated to such shows and movies as “An American Terrorist: The Life of George Washington” or “Redcoat Heroes”.

      In an alternate universe, American Terrorist is a respected documentary filmed by the Royal Film House, and Redcoat Heroes is an Colonial Uprising-themed first-person shooter.

      That said, the Tories are still miffed that even though the Yanks surrendered, the King consented to grant them representation in the House of Commons … and Alexander Hamilton was made a peer!!

      • herddog505

        JWHRedcoat Heroes is an Colonial Uprising-themed first-person shooter.


        • JWH

          Don’t laugh, Herddog. There’s been a lot of controversy. Somebody in the user community released a mod which lets the player take the role of a Colonial rebel.

          • herddog505

            Not sure how much fun is to be had from a first-person shooter that only fires about three rounds every minute. Sounds about as entertaining as a Bassett Hound racing simulator.

          • JWH

            Wait until you see the dating sim Franklin’s Ladies.

    • skwills

      The Redcoats were heroes. The diea that all Rdcoats wer snarled faced villaisn servin a black hearted evil tyrant King makes the American revoluion a clear good guy-bad guy story, but its also not True. heck, most of he Redcoats wee born in the colonies, and the Loyalists really werent monsters. Nor was King Geoge a Tyrant.

  • JWH

    The History of our Revolution will be one continued lye from one end to the other. The essence of the whole will be that Dr. Franklin’s electric rod smote the earth and out sprang General Washington. Then Franklin electrified him… and thence forward those two conducted all the Policy, Negotiations, Legislations, and War.

    –John Adams, 1790

    Paul Hooson’s bizarre Washington counter-hagiography aside, I think there’s nothing wrong with reminding ourselves that our founding fathers were mere mortal men. Many of them were extraordinary men, the best that the thirteen colonies could offer, but they were still men, each with weaknesses and peccadilloes that highlighted their mortality. And I see nothing wrong with reminding ourselves of it.

    Indeed, the recent movie Lincoln is a great example of such a reminder. We would like to think that the Thirteenth Amendment was passed by a congress of men solidly committed to the notion that all men are created equal and no man should be held in bondage. But Lincoln does an excellent job of showing us how the sausage is made. The idea of noble and wise solons is a nice myth. But those solons had to deploy patronage and political gamesmanship to win support from men whose motives were, shall we say, less altruistic, and from others who demanded concessions to their political priorities of the day.

    All of that said, I doubt that a situation comedy called We Hate Paul Revere is going to be a scholarly assessment of Revolutionary War heroes. But I think that any outrage at the comedy is overblown. I (briefly) searched for information about the show, and all I could find is that it’s a comedy about two brothers in Boston who hate Paul Revere. It’s high-concept comedy without any of the details filled in. It may turn out to be a rollicking ride with a number of historical in-jokes. But I suspect it will deliver the same quality as The Secret Diaries of Desmond Pfeiffer.

  • They’re really getting desperate for entertaining ideas, aren’t they?

    • JWH

      What if they combine a Revolutionary War epic with “Walking Dead?”

      • I’m waiting for a seafaring version of “Walking Dead” with folks on small yachts trying to avoid zombie whales, myself.

        • JWH

          The 2 percent vs. the Zombie Leviathans

          • “Hear that? Off in the distance?”

            (faintly…) “…..bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-

            “Crap! It’s Moby Dick! Paddle faster!”

          • JWH

            No, no, no. Remember. It’s the 2 percent on their yachts.

            “Oh, dear. It is Moby Dick. Jeeves, to the paddles, man!! I will stand here and look determined!”

          • SCSIwuzzy

            John Kerry is getting his own show?

  • jim_m

    The program must be produced by descendants of Israel Bissell.

  • Pingback: Revere Copperclad Bottom 1-Quart Covered Saucepan | My Blog()