Bond family unhappy with Nine miniseries
Family of late entrepreneur takes aim at the network he once owned.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
The family of Alan Bond have objected again to Nine’s two-part miniseries.
“The writers and producers made no attempt to contact the Bond family to ensure the portrayal of Alan Bond was accurate and appropriate,” the family said in a statement.
“Despite his shortcomings, the late Alan Bond was a significant contributor to the industry of Australia … the Bond family disassociates themselves entirely from the content of the House of Bond and express their profound disappointment and distress at its inaccurate and sensationalised demonising of Alan Bond.”
Part 1 drew 613,000 viewers for Nine, which was lower than Seven’s Hoges miniseries at 837,000, but still enough to win the timeslot.
House of Bond was produced by CJZ which, along with Nine, was forced to apologise for the creative license taken in 2015’s House of Hancock.
House of Bond‘s disclaimer declared “What follows is based on real events, although some scenes have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes.”
A spokesperson for the network told Fairfax Media the show about its own former proprietor portrayed him as “the quintessential Aussie larrikin we all knew for his passion, courage to take on the establishment as well as his flaws”.
Source: The Age
Share
- Tagged with Hoges, House Of Bond
9 Responses
Hey Maeve I think you are thinking of west coast USA versus East Coast…there may be some gums in California because of similar climates but there certainly aren’t any around Newport, Rhode Island. Just saying.
i didnt even know it was on
Eucalypts are quite common in the US….just saying….
And I enjoyed this mini series….which is what is was…not a biography….just TV.
Maybe this is the start of the death knell for all these mini-series.
As a minor side player (very minor) at the time I can say this was a load of bollocks. Major facts and people were omitted to start with.
At a time when free to air is struggling for viewers and facing competition from infinitely better TV dramas being streamed it is beyond belief that such a poor piece of writing could make it to the screen. Was there nobody in the network script editing this and simply saying it is not good enough to commence production? But putting that aside thedirtydigger is right. There are many better stories out. It seems Nine lacks the talent to identify them. Back to Netflix.
From the ratings I’d say that most of Australia were unhappy with it.
Exactly. Around 650,000 viewers and some of those just had the TV on and didn’t really watch.
I can’t see anything wrong in Nine’s “Wolf Of Wall Street” adaptation it’s just entertainment
I just don’t think Alan Bond has the same level of interest to viewers…does anyone really care about his business dealings and takeovers etc, it’s all a bit ho hum —apart from the America’s Cup, which was strangely rushed through in the production…and the sight of all those gum trees in ” Newport Rhode Island ” looked a bit obvious… it actually appeared to be shot in Newport, but Newport Yacht Club in Sydney.
The characters were given all the depth of Fantale wrapper, and most scenes with Diana Bliss involved Alan and a bunch of flowers that ended up in a bin.
Just a bit too silly, I’m sure there are other Australian stories that deserve their own mini series before Mr Bond. The only saving grace was the archival film to be honest.