View single post by javal1
 Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 12:52 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1491
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 The show "Gettysburg" in my eyes represents everything the History Channel has become: a hodge-podge of disjointed "stuff" which depends on fancy graphics, CGI, and special effects to replace a cohesive story of a momentous affair.

I have to wonder who their target audience was. If it was meant to teach the basics of the battle to newcomers, it failed miserably. Nothing was put into context, it was never explained where the locations mentioned were in relation to other places on the battlefield. Not once did they show an overview map with locations marked. We got the typical overhead view of the fishook with no labels marking features of the field.

If the audience was those already knowlegable of the battle, then they failed even worse. Nothing new, nothing revealed. They evidently used Ridley Scott to convey (through grapic CGI and special effects) the profound message that war is violent. Well, thank you so much for that revelation - I never knew that!

The History Channel potrays this as the story of the battle. So I'll close with this list of words and/or events that were not mentioned through the entire two hours:
  • Herr's Ridge
  • Willoughby Run
  • McPherson's Ridge
  • Barlow nor Barlow's Knoll
  • Buford
  • Reynolds
  • Hood
  • Seminary Ridge
  • Night attack on East Cemetery Hill
  • Heth
  • Big Round Top
  • Pettigrew
  • V. Strong
  • Early
  • Trimble
  • Oak Hill
  • Hancock
  • Howard
  • Doubleday
  • Assault on LRT
  • Armistead
  • Longstreet (his name was mentioned once but in relation to a quote, not his part in the battle.)
The story of the battle? I think not. A series of short stories which when put together taught nothing - I think so.