cutiger83 Posted May 28, 2014 Share #76 Posted May 28, 2014 Yes because everybody knows that Patton rode a WWII tank in WWI, he was that good! As Bugme said earlier "history comes from books(written by the victor). Video is entertainment". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgawne Posted May 28, 2014 Share #77 Posted May 28, 2014 I really hate it when people say "well, it's OK because it gets people interested in history." Huh? That's like showing people a film of space ships made of stone with no windows going to Jupiter portrayed as fact, and saying it is OK it is wrong because it got kids interested in science and they looked up the real facts. The point is that it is NOT that hard to do it right, and as long as you keep giving a pass to these kinds of things you will never get anything better. If you publically shame people that make this junk by calling it what it is, then the next time they will try harder. Something I have noticed recently is that every time I turn down doing something for the media, as they all get paid but expect me to work for free, is that there is always someone out there that will work for free. And you get what you pay for, generally. I also see people who actually know their stuff helping some of these productions, but then after they see it aired they are rather upset at what ended up on the show, which had they been given a chance to screen it before the final cut, it could have been fixed. It seems to be pretty rare that any production company will have an expert back near the end to make sure they did not allow errors to creep into it. Even when I have been able to do that, stuff creeps in that I say "that is wrong" but the producer wants it in for some reason and it stays. In short, the show was just bad, and The History Channel should change it's name to "The HC" and stop pretending they care at all about history. They don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garth Thompson Posted May 28, 2014 Share #78 Posted May 28, 2014 OK I got it the HC did a poor job but if some young people saw it and got interested in WW1/WW2 or militaria in general that is a good thing. It's no worse than Sgt Rock comics or Combat which were just as cartoonish but got a lot of us interested in collecting. We all went on to develop an interest in and read real history. We learned to study our artifacts. Nobody woke up one morning an expert on militaria or a published author, something had to ignite that interest. If this series did that for some young people I can live with the mistakes. Just my humble opinion, Garth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutiger83 Posted May 28, 2014 Share #79 Posted May 28, 2014 In short, the show was just bad, and The History Channel should change it's name to "The HC" and stop pretending they care at all about history. They don't. The reality is that this is a miniseries made for TV and not a documentary. TV is just like the internet. I don’t believe anything I read on the internet without researching it myself. Don’t believe everything seen on TV without looking up the facts. Trying to publicly shame someone is not going to do one thing to change something being made purely for entertainment. I am not saying the show was good. I agree the acting was horrible and the gear was out of line but the historical facts were not way out of line. Did Patton ride on the back of a tank in WWI? Probably not. Was he the first officer assigned to the tank unit? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David D Posted May 28, 2014 Share #80 Posted May 28, 2014 Yes because everybody knows that Patton rode a WWII tank in WWI, he was that good! 1959486_883606584987762_5078005435602398871_n.jpg And had a M1917 machine gun in 1914 -Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Ragan Posted May 28, 2014 Share #81 Posted May 28, 2014 After reading some of you guys reviews, I think we are all pretty much in agreement, it sucks! I have set thru all the 1st episode and half of the 2nd one and was finally so disgusted with it I won't watch the rest. I can't believe how bad the costumes were, the reenactments were even worse and there are so many inaccuracies it's impossible to keep up with all of them. Even the markings on a German Storch were horribly inaccurate. The whole thing could have been better and should have. Just my 2 cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintageproductions Posted May 28, 2014 Share #82 Posted May 28, 2014 What did you do? Associate Producer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted May 28, 2014 Share #83 Posted May 28, 2014 Associate Producer OK. I probably would have got that if I read the thread but I hate those threads about movies not even out yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted May 28, 2014 Share #84 Posted May 28, 2014 The reality is that this is a miniseries made for TV and not a documentary. TV is just like the internet. I don’t believe anything I read on the internet without researching it myself. Don’t believe everything seen on TV without looking up the facts. Trying to publicly shame someone is not going to do one thing to change something being made purely for entertainment. I am not saying the show was good. I agree the acting was horrible and the gear was out of line but the historical facts were not way out of line. Did Patton ride on the back of a tank in WWI? Probably not. Was he the first officer assigned to the tank unit? Yes. How do you call this a miniseries? It's a documentary as far as what I have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutiger83 Posted May 28, 2014 Share #85 Posted May 28, 2014 How do you call this a miniseries? It's a documentary as far as what I have seen. The History Channel website says "Mini Series Event" not documentary. http://www.history.com/shows/the-world-wars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted May 28, 2014 Share #86 Posted May 28, 2014 They can call it what they want, but the format seems to be more of a documentary. It doesn't flow consistently like a miniseries story line. It would be like calling World at War or Victory at Sea a miniseries. That's just my opinion after watching a LOT of documentaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted May 28, 2014 Share #87 Posted May 28, 2014 Jim You just might learn something about the members of the forum if you did. Owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted May 28, 2014 Share #88 Posted May 28, 2014 Jim You just might learn something about the members of the forum if you did. Owen If I did what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 28, 2014 Share #89 Posted May 28, 2014 Back in the 80s there were some pretty decent mini-series, like George Washington (nominated for six Emmys, no less) Marco Polo, and the like. Or, at least to my teenage mind they were decent! Too bad they can't (don't) make anything like that anymore... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_%28TV_miniseries%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_%28miniseries%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted May 28, 2014 Share #90 Posted May 28, 2014 Back in the 80s there were some pretty decent mini-series, like George Washington (nominated for six Emmys, no less) Marco Polo, and the like. Or, at least to my teenage mind they were decent! Too bad they can't (don't) make anything like that anymore... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_%28TV_miniseries%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_%28miniseries%29 Those are what I think of when I think of the term "miniseries". Maybe they should call this a longdocumentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uplandmod Posted May 28, 2014 Share #91 Posted May 28, 2014 I was disappointed with the series because they didn't go all the way with the anachronisms! If you're going to do it, go all the way!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_rambow Posted May 28, 2014 Share #92 Posted May 28, 2014 Back in the 80s there were some pretty decent mini-series, like George Washington (nominated for six Emmys, no less) Marco Polo, and the like. Or, at least to my teenage mind they were decent! Too bad they can't (don't) make anything like that anymore... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_%28TV_miniseries%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_%28miniseries%29 I distinctly remember that documentary and even think of it occasionally when something about George Washington comes up. If that's not an indication of a good production, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor996 Posted May 28, 2014 Share #93 Posted May 28, 2014 OK I got it the HC did a poor job but if some young people saw it and got interested in WW1/WW2 or militaria in general that is a good thing. It's no worse than Sgt Rock comics or Combat which were just as cartoonish but got a lot of us interested in collecting. We all went on to develop an interest in and read real history. We learned to study our artifacts. Nobody woke up one morning an expert on militaria or a published author, something had to ignite that interest. If this series did that for some young people I can live with the mistakes. Just my humble opinion, Garth True, but in the Sgt Rock comics at least there was [if i am remembering correctly] always a small no pictures section of the 'real' WW2 history tucked between the pages and we all SHOULD have all known going into a comic book that there was no real Sgt Rock as portrayed and that the events drawn were all fiction. When you turn on a channel that claims to be 'history' it shouldn't be the viewer trying to figure out what part is 'dramatized' and what is 'history'. JMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 29, 2014 Share #94 Posted May 29, 2014 I really hate it when people say "well, it's OK because it gets people interested in history." Huh? That's like showing people a film of space ships made of stone with no windows going to Jupiter portrayed as fact, and saying it is OK it is wrong because it got kids interested in science and they looked up the real facts. The point is that it is NOT that hard to do it right, and as long as you keep giving a pass to these kinds of things you will never get anything better. If you publically shame people that make this junk by calling it what it is, then the next time they will try harder. Uhh....pretty sure I've read of astronauts and scientists who were inspired to go into those fields thanks to the 1966 star trek series. Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbUSWM Posted May 29, 2014 Share #95 Posted May 29, 2014 Another favorite part.. I think it is a swipe at our returning veterans in line with Homeland Security declaring our returning veterans as a threat to our country: "Before the war, Mussolini is an anti-war activist, a journalist, he is pretty much a pacifist. Mussolini becomes a very different person than he was before the war. His whole attitude towards his nation and his role in it changes. He develops this hyper sense of nationalism and real pride in his country." "The horrors of war have transformed Mussolini into a ruthless killing machine. A trait he will take back with him to Rome." The show censors the fact that Mussolini was a radical socialist revolutionary BEFORE WWI. They are attempting to show that war creates monsters... when in fact Stalin and Mussolini were monsters all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted May 29, 2014 Share #96 Posted May 29, 2014 Read the fury thread ….pretty simple . You collect Armor ..its your field…. You could even call it recon by fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted May 29, 2014 Share #97 Posted May 29, 2014 You could even call it recon by fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriot Posted May 29, 2014 Share #98 Posted May 29, 2014 I liked seeing the US soldiers during the fall of the Philippines wearing M1 helmets (should have been M1917A1) and HBT utilities (should have been khaki shirts & trousers). The mistakes with the Germans were just as bad. Since this is the US Militaria Forum, I will refrain, except to say that they were not wearing stahlhelm in 1914. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutiger83 Posted May 29, 2014 Share #99 Posted May 29, 2014 ajb, We're here to discuss and enjoy our time in the hobby, not debate politics or alleged political agendas, so leave that out please. ...Kat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted May 29, 2014 Share #100 Posted May 29, 2014 Read the fury thread ….pretty simple . You collect Armor ..its your field…. You could even call it recon by fire. I'll read it after I see the picture. The stitch counters tend to ruin good entertainment before it even airs. From what I have heard elsewhere it is being called a good film. Thanks for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now