Brief "heads-up" re Gettysburg documentary

[Jack ONeill]

Gentlemen,

The "Gettyburg" documentary WAS widely discussed here on these forum pages. The general consensus, (and by all means watch it if you want), was how truly awful it was. Those of you who have studied ANY history of this titanic struggle should be offended immediately at the incredible lack of historical accuracy and lackluster performances by those involved. It makes the "Gettysburg" movie by Ted Turner a superior product by comparison, even with its "Fat Rebs..." and sometimes strange equipment usage.

By all means, watch this show. You will be amazed.

Jack B)

P.S. - To RClark - Not everything on the History Channel about the Civil War is worth watching. The more History you research, the more you'll see the errors they come up with. Can be quite disturbing at times.

P.S.S. - Yes, the Waterloo film was a dud. Massive overacting on Plummers' and Steigers' parts.

[SouthernSteel]

Yes, as far as the HC is concerned, the old program they have/had called "Civil War Journal" is case in point. Only ever seen it on the MHC, but I have no doubt it was likely common fare for the normal channel back a few years. It tries hard, but just doesn't cut it.

That said, even Ken Burns' documentary has some glaring problems, so it's unlikely that anyone will ever find a perfect program. Honestly, though, this docudrama thing isn't even in the same league. So much promise and $ wasted, ugh.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Jack O'Neill wrote:

P.S.S. - Yes, the Waterloo film was a dud. Massive overacting on Plummers' and Steigers' parts.

I disagree. I thought the film did a reasonable job of displaying the battle. No, not perfect, but pretty good. The scene of Ponsonby being run to ground by the French lancier leaves an indelible impression of how personal battle can be, even in the midst of 150,000 other men.

My only lament is that an extended version was never released.

[Little Powell]

It's obvious that these programs are not perfect. And people are going to criticize it no matter how accurate it is (this soldier had the wrong buttons, this soldier was too fat). I had to bite my tongue several times when watching the Gettysburg doc to keep from spoiling the enjoyment for my wife, but again, it's entertaining, it covers parts of the battle that aren't covered elsewhere, and it gets people interested in history. I saw Turner's Gettysburg movie when I was 13 years old and I've been hooked on the Civil War ever since. If any program can get someone interested in history, then it's a good one in my book.

[Jack ONeill]

MTG,

Yes, the actual portrayal of the battle was pretty decent. The ACTING, (or over-acting), on the main charactors part was a big detraction IMHO.

Jack B)

[Damned Black Hat]

Civil War Combat is perhaps the best History Channel product I've seen on the war. Very well done and authentic and can be had for around $10 on Amazon.com.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Jack O'Neill wrote:

Yes, the actual portrayal of the battle was pretty decent. The ACTING, (or over-acting), on the main charactors part was a big detraction IMHO.

Well of course it's over the top, it's a Soviet production. On second thought though, for the Russians, it would be considered rather low key. :laugh: As I recall, during Waterloo's filming, the director commanded the 5th largest army in the world.

[con20or]

soviet? really?

What was their angle?

Why all US & British actors...

[Jack ONeill]

They were willing to provide the troops for the production. Those were Russian Soldiers in those costumes/uniforms.

Jack B)

[rclark14]

Yes indeed, I loved that- did you see the 2007 film 'Gettysburg'- the best documentary on the battle by far. Good programming- on Military History