There are some good points to this show, so let's get them out of the way first. It's half-decent acting, scenic locations, an intriguing plot twist that sends the protagonist - by accident - into the New World and straight into a nasty conflict on the colonial frontier. It's also the fact there aren't that many shows about the Canadian fur trade and the rough-and tumble era of early colonization....and this show tries to elevate the profile of our country, so to speak.
OK, onto the flaws and problems. The history, as is depicted on film here, was never this interesting or this violent, this 'sexy". It is hard to find actual accounts of armed confrontations between different fur traders or these episodes of almost guerrila warfare in the boreal bush. So, 'Frontier' is using some seriously creative licence here. Also, lot of the characters are cast as inept, drunk, corrupt or morally deficient...or combination of all. They steal and kill, almost at will. I understand that the show's creators were keen on portraying conflict; let's at least try to portray conflict realistically. One had to be competent to stay alive and prosper on the frontier. Things like trying to kidnap a chief's son (in order to force a tribe to negotiate) would have been exceedingly stupid. And the folks who ruled the colony still ruled it...by a rule of law. The setting looks like it's supposed to be somewhere in the northern Laurentians in Quebec but could also be northern Ontario...but is actually Newfoundland. We are not told at the onset as to what year it is. Big mistake in my opinion. Doing a period piece requires an attention to detail. For instance, an English officer in a redcoat, even in the wilds, would have worn longish hair in a pony-tail or perhaps a wig, and no beards would have been seen on any of these men, in the late 1700s and very early 1800s. The French Canadian and Metis trappers and fur dealers would have had a very specific look to them, as well. A woman running the bar at the company fort would not have worn trousers - maybe for riding a horse but never for work in a public place. Also, no matter how much a governor of a fort would have screwed up, he would not have been murdered/summarily executed by another big official. It's too outlandish. At worst, they would have been sent back to England and 'retired' with some kind of a pension and told to shut up. Anyways, a lot of creative license is at work here, with trying to make the Hudson's Bay Company and its times seem more interesting and more dramatic than it really was.
OK, onto the flaws and problems. The history, as is depicted on film here, was never this interesting or this violent, this 'sexy". It is hard to find actual accounts of armed confrontations between different fur traders or these episodes of almost guerrila warfare in the boreal bush. So, 'Frontier' is using some seriously creative licence here. Also, lot of the characters are cast as inept, drunk, corrupt or morally deficient...or combination of all. They steal and kill, almost at will. I understand that the show's creators were keen on portraying conflict; let's at least try to portray conflict realistically. One had to be competent to stay alive and prosper on the frontier. Things like trying to kidnap a chief's son (in order to force a tribe to negotiate) would have been exceedingly stupid. And the folks who ruled the colony still ruled it...by a rule of law. The setting looks like it's supposed to be somewhere in the northern Laurentians in Quebec but could also be northern Ontario...but is actually Newfoundland. We are not told at the onset as to what year it is. Big mistake in my opinion. Doing a period piece requires an attention to detail. For instance, an English officer in a redcoat, even in the wilds, would have worn longish hair in a pony-tail or perhaps a wig, and no beards would have been seen on any of these men, in the late 1700s and very early 1800s. The French Canadian and Metis trappers and fur dealers would have had a very specific look to them, as well. A woman running the bar at the company fort would not have worn trousers - maybe for riding a horse but never for work in a public place. Also, no matter how much a governor of a fort would have screwed up, he would not have been murdered/summarily executed by another big official. It's too outlandish. At worst, they would have been sent back to England and 'retired' with some kind of a pension and told to shut up. Anyways, a lot of creative license is at work here, with trying to make the Hudson's Bay Company and its times seem more interesting and more dramatic than it really was.