| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > NEW! - What Civil War Shows are coming on TV > How about a group review? |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > NEW! - What Civil War Shows are coming on TV > How about a group review? |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| How about a group review? | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri May 27th, 2011 06:12 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
Folks, Had an idea that maybe if we could get enough members to watch the following shows, we could do sort of a group review. Watch them, then drop your thoughts about them as a reply to this post. If we get enough of a response, I'll put them together as a group review and run it in the news section. This Memorial Day, HISTORY® will launch a four-year initiative to both honor and commemorate the Civil War, which marks its 150th anniversary in 2011, starting with a weeklong programming event. Civil War Week kicks off with a two-hour feature documentary, Gettysburg, Executive Produced by the Scott brothers, Tony (Unstoppable; Man on Fire; Top Gun) and Ridley (Gladiator; Black Hawk Down; American Gangster). “HISTORY is the perfect partner for us to tell the epic true story of Gettysburg. We are excited to bring this battle to audiences in a powerful new way,” said Scott Free, principal Ridley Scott. The network announced today that Gettysburg will be narrated by renowned actor, Sam Rockwell (Conviction, Iron Man 2, The Green Mile). Following Gettysburg will be special Civil War themed episodes of Pawn Stars, American Pickers and the premiere of the two-hour special, Lee & Grant. Gettysburg strips away the romanticized veneer of the Civil War and presents the engagement in a new light: a visceral, terrifying experience with everything on the line. At its core, this is the story of the soldiers on the ground, not the generals who commanded from behind the frontlines. Compelling CGI and powerful action footage place viewers in the midst of the fighting, delivering both an emotional cinematic experience and an information packed look at the turning points, technology, and little known facts of perhaps America’s greatest battle. Lee & Grant, produced with the cooperation of leading Civil War historian Winston Groom, author of Forrest Gump, is a personal look at two iconic leaders of the Civil War. Surprising details reveal the bold choices Confederate General Robert E. Lee and Union General Ulysses S. Grant made on decisive battlefields like Vicksburg and Gettysburg that, within days of each other, turned the tide of the war. As part of HISTORY’s Civil War Week, this special features a unique perspective, exploring how these men changed the course of American history. As part of its ambitious four-year programming commitment to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, HISTORY® is partnering with the Civil War Trust and the National Park Foundation for GIVE 150™, a massive educational and fund-raising initiative to enhance Civil War education nationwide, and to protect and preserve battlefields and other key sites from this pivotal period in American history. HISTORY will be matching grants up to $150,000. To learn more go to: [url=wlmailhtml:{908A68BC-3405-46A9-B6B4-93717F010E2D}mid://00000022/!x-usc:]http://www.give150.com/]http://www.give150.com[/url]. HISTORY is also donating $100,000 to the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership. HISTORY has also launched a dedicated website, Civil War 150. Visit http://www.History.com. National advertisers Bank of America, RAM, and GEICO have signed on to sponsor the week-long event. Gettysburg is being produced for HISTORY by executive producers Tony and Ridley Scott as well as Mary Lisio; Showrunner is Ben Fox. Director is Adrian Moat; Writers are Richard Bedser and Ed Fields; Graphics produced by Stargate Studios; HISTORY Executive Producers are David McKillop, Mary Donahue and Julian P. Hobbs. Lee & Grant is produced for HISTORY by Motion Picture Production, Inc. John Alon Walz is Executive Producer for Motion Picture Production. Mike Stiller is Executive Producer for HISTORY.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 27th, 2011 07:11 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Mark Member
|
Sounds like a good idea to me! I'll be watching! Mark
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 01:45 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Doc Ce Member
|
Not bad thus far. Minimal 1st day mention but more than most documentaries. Humiston story is a good human interest one but well known. Doc C
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 02:10 am |
|
4th Post |
|
Doc Ce Member
|
I did enjoy the geico commercial. At least they didn't include round top. Doc c
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 02:39 am |
|
5th Post |
|
Doc Ce Member
|
What about east cemetery hill? Also, it's very doubtfull that the maryland union/confederate regiments went head to head at culps hill. Doc C
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 03:03 am |
|
6th Post |
|
Mark Member
|
Just finished watching the special “Gettysburg.” I was not terribly impressed. My biggest problem was the lack of context. The producers constantly made the claim that this was the pivotal battle of the war, but they neglected to explain the strategic context of the battle or its consequences. They provided an interesting variety of vignettes, however, the program did a very poor job of situating these vignettes into the operational picture of the battlefield. I also thought that their choice of commentators could have been much better. They had James McPherson saying two sentences, the rest of the talking heads were lackluster at best. I felt their visuals were also poor. Ridley Scott tried hard to bring a gritty reality to war, but I my opinion it seemed like he only seceded into turning the Battle of Gettysburg into the clearing of Fallujah. I had low expectations, and unfortunately they were met fully. Mark
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 12:52 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
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:
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 01:47 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
TimK Member
|
I liked it. It was different. I expected to see the same stories - Longstreet just nodding his orders to Pickett, the 20th Maine and Chamberlain, etc. etc., but it went down a different road. I had some issues with casting, and some of the overview shots didn't look like the Gettysburg I know, but this was not enough to make me turn it off. I liked the explanations of the inner workings of the artillery, and the descriptions of the the different kinds of projectiles. Canister is some nasty stuff. It was not perfect, but I think they tried to stay away from the cliche, introduce some new thought, and thankfully, stay away from the gumpy over the top speeches that were in the movie "Gettysburg". I get concerned that people that hang around CW discussion boards know too much to really enjoy a two hour window of a battle they have spent years studying. I liked getting a new perspective.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 02:48 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Old North State Member
|
I am one who is not an expert on Gettysburg. It was the first CW battlefield I visited (took one of those personal tours with a guide driving our auto) and I've been back a couple of times since. I still don't understand how the various parts of the battle fit together and last night's TV version didn't help me a bit. In fact, its disjointed presentation of the battle is much like my own understanding. Perhaps that's just the way it was? It seems to me that Lee's dash up into PA was to gather supplies and he came back with a lot. In that regard it was successful, yet I don't recall any mention of gathering supplies in last night's presentation. How many reenacting units did they use in the film?
____________________ "While we live we will cherish, protect and defend her." |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 02:55 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
j harold 587 Member 
|
My wife subscribed to a higher level satelite package so I could watch this and the Grant - Lee segment tonight, then we will cancel this package. It is almost like a group of Ambrose Brice short stories in video. It does not put the segments in any context as to the total contribution to the final outcome or progression of the battle. I will not nit pick arms, terrain features, or architectural short commings that would not be of intrest to the casual viewer who was watching for some sort of learning experience. The cut away sequence of how an artillery piece is fired, and the different type of shells were a good feature, but seemed to be used as fillers rather than being put in context. An explaination of why Barksdales troops were held under fire would have been good. I am sure others will comment, but confederate soldiers did not all have shoulder length hair, and bad dental hygine! To echo N. B. Forrest "war means fighting, fighting means killing" no matter what century it is set in.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 03:54 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Doc Ce Member
|
Tim Indulge us with the new perspective. I thought the program was a different presentation albeit the same disjointed effort as others. Thank goodness they didn't mention Chamberlan and Roundtop. They came close to letting the viewers know that there were 2 other divisions involved with the Pickett-Pettigrew- Trimble charge but alas no. It appeared that just as the confederate infantry climbed the emmitsburg road fence the union soldiers were only a few yards away which wasn't the case. I just wish when they do historical shows they could at least be accurate in their presentation. I give them credit for mentioning Culps Hill but what about the myriad other events mentioned by Javal. If the program piqued the general publics interest to learn more then it was a success. There is an easy way to learn the flow of the 3 days - read Coddingtons' or Pfanzs' books. Doc C
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 05:08 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
bolaman1975 Member
|
i wasn't really impressed...they left out alot...i am a certified battlefield guide...if i did a tour like that and only mentioned the topics they mentioned in that show i would've never passed.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 06:06 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
TimK Member
|
Hey Doc - I don't write so good, so this probably won't make as much sense as if we could sit across a table from each other, but I'll give it a try. First, please read Joe's first post in which there is a description of the show and what they want to do. Second, if I remember, at the very outset of the show they (the proverbial they) said they were going to follow the experiences of six less than famous participants in the battle. I think this is what I mean by a new perspective. Certainly most everyone here has a textbook knowledge of Gettysburg. We have all seen the movie (I still cringe whenever a noble speech and the inspirational music start up), we have all seen the Ken Burns episode, we have all seen the electric map version, and most of us have read several books, or at least chapters on the subject. Certainly we all know the story (not like a certified guide, or as I believe you do as someone that has prepared to take the test). So, if any of this makes sense, I don't think the show set out to impress anybody on the glorified aspects of Gettysburg, and I believe that is why so much is left out. That wasn't their goal, to re-tell again, the concise battle of Gettysburg. Certainly there was a lot of History Channel shtick that didn't help their effort, but I still applaud the effort. And having said all this, I understand what everyone else is saying. I just happened to enjoy the show more than a lot of other television I see.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 11:51 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
pamc153PA Member
|
Tim, I'm more than happy to give your perspective the benefit of the doubt--especially since I didn't see the show. It kind of rounds out a pretty lopsided scope of reviews. That said, based on what I've heard here and at another forum, I probably would have turned it off early, too. We here, and we as a group of Civil War enthusiasts, are a discerning bunch--our familiarity with the subject has made us so, and that's to be expected. I'll readily admit that I'm the one who can't watch the movie Gettysburg without telling anyone within earshot, "That's not what that part of the battlefield REALLY looks like!" even though I know most of it wasn't filmed on the field. I know the battlefield and the battle story so well it's hard to let those inaccuracies go. And nobody but me cares, anyway! But I am always looking for the "other side of the story," new little bits and facts and stories about a battle I know like the back of my hand with my eyes closed (ask my husband how many times I have said to him, out of nowhere, "Hey, guess what I just read about ________ at Gettysburg!"). I might know that much of a book, a news story, a film, etc. about the battle might be "drek" (I read that on another site), but somewhere in there might be a diamond in the rough that is new. My sister thinks that "The Killer Angels" is a great CW book; I think it's just okay, but you never know what "just okay" can bring: for me, it brought the whole darn CW into my life for the first time. Maybe this show will do that for someone else, who knows?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 11:59 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
Great comments folks. Lee & Grant starts in an hour - let's see how we feel about that one. Continue with comments about it and Gettysburg here.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 1st, 2011 03:27 am |
|
16th Post |
|
Mark Member
|
Just finished Grant and Lee. I thought it was above average. The script was well done. I thought that the insights provided by most of the commentators were excellent (although I still question how being someone's great-great grandson makes you an authority on them). The visuals were ok, although I got tired of watching the same ten guys get bowled over. What a let down when they ended the war in 1863! It was so frustrating to see the build up to the Overland campaign and have it reduced to about a twenty second slide show. Arrrgh! At least it was better than the Gettysburg special... Mark
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 1st, 2011 01:18 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
I'm on my way out, so I'll say more later - but this was a good, solid, fact-filled show with only two caveats....later.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 1st, 2011 02:37 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Doc Ce Member
|
Better than the Gettysburg show. No major gaffs but nothing outstanding. Doc C
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 1st, 2011 04:18 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
PW Hess Member
|
Not bad, but they should have spent more time on the Overlord campaign
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 1st, 2011 04:47 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
PW Hess wrote: Not bad, but they should have spent more time on the Overlord campaign Yes, MacArthur wading ashore at Normandy should not be missed 
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 01:57 pm | Page: 1 2 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > NEW! - What Civil War Shows are coming on TV > How about a group review? | Top |
