|
Post by El Crab on Oct 3, 2011 23:23:47 GMT -6
On the new channel H2, which I believe is a spinoff of The History Channel (you know, so they can show actual history shows on a channel), there was a show the other day called How It Went Down. They used green screen and computer imaging to remove the monument and road and markers, to recreate the view from Weir Point and the aftermath on the 27th. Doug Scott was featured, and I'll hold my opinions until I find out if anyone else saw it.
Did anyone else see it?
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Oct 4, 2011 11:31:35 GMT -6
I saw it when it first came out. It was nice to see the hill in a 'before' condition. It was shot mostly from Godfrey's viewpoint. I don't remember there being much on how it happened, just mostly what Godfrey saw.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Oct 4, 2011 21:30:25 GMT -6
Did it bother you that it was presented as Godfrey's viewpoint, when most of what they were discussing is what Weir and Sergeant Flanagan saw? It just seemed ridiculous for the program to open with "getting it right" when they did that.
And to have Doug Scott involved and going along with it...
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Oct 5, 2011 11:58:43 GMT -6
I was disapointed in it for and for the focus on what Godfrey saw. The show is named "How It Went Down" and what they were showing was after the fact. It just left a flat feeling for me. I guess I was expecting some 'new and amazing facts'!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 5, 2011 14:28:57 GMT -6
ZG: I am afraid that if you want amazing facts to be revealed by this series or any like it you are in for a long wait. The producers of these shows do not have people like us as a target audience. They aim at the great historically unwashed. Two cases in point from the two How It Went Downs that I watched.
Pearl Harbor: The show concentrated on the bomb that blew up the Arizona. First, it really was not a bomb but rather a large caliber armor piercing naval shell with fins attached, a sort of airborne IED. Second, it did not go down the stack, as was once widely believed (and still included on the monument to Arizona on Ford Island), it hit on the starboard side of B turret, penetrated several decks and exploded in or very near a 14" gun magazine. The Navy and every historian above the age of six has known this since the fires went out, but for those who do not know B from a bull's butt about this the show was neat stuff.
The Alamo: This show concentrated on debunking the movie versions of the Alamo, all of them, that show all those gallant defenders standing side by side manning the walls, sort of one of Clair's impregnible skirmish lines on steroids. Well here are the facts. There were fourteen plus guns to be manned, with an average I would suppose of five per crew. That makes it 70 plus. There were several, perhaps as many as ten or twelve sick and in hospital. There was in excess of three quarters of a mile of perimeter to defend. There were probably eight to ten defenders manning listening posts outside the walls. Did I mention the attack started around 0400 when most of the garrison was sound asleep, and the first penetration was made before many could get out of bed. Now you do the math, and see that these folks were spread out all over the place, considering that you only have 189 plus or minus to start with. Anyone who has studied this battle since Fess Parker first met Buddy Ebsen knows what went down, but for those whose only knowledge is John Wayne and Richard Widmark it was probably a revelation.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 5, 2011 17:45:28 GMT -6
Suspect we think that something called the History Channel should have higher regard for the audience, which would ideally be better informed on history.
In the movie called SOTMS, Benteen says "Mistakes were made." Jarring, given its popularity at the time and utterly unimaginable emerging from Benteen in other than a sarcastic vein.
I conclude that anachronistic phrase and 'how it went down' is the cynical ploy of those feeding off the hippy era boomers. It's an anachronism and as appropriate as 'far out.' Because I'm olde, I resent being so cynically targeted for crap delivery.
I haven't seen it, but frankly that whole network is nonsense, now. It was boring and repetitive when it was the Hitler Channel for shut ins, but now it's alarming in its errors and pretensions and probably success in spreading them to those likely to believe. I have specific people in mind.
No need to guess. Just wait. It's coming.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Oct 5, 2011 18:46:27 GMT -6
I felt the biggest issue was why Godfrey? I get that he wrote more about it than probably any other Seventh survivor, but Weir and Company D were the ones who saw the most. The account they were essentially recreating was that of the men with Weir upon arriving at Weir Point. But the show was presenting it as what Godfrey saw from that point, and slides him right into Weir's spot in the retelling.
And Doug Scott went right along with it. He wanted to see what Godfrey saw from Weir Point and 2 days later, when going over Last Stand Hill.
I agree, DC. I just can't wrap my head around gussying up real stories when they're fascinating as it is. The things Benteen did say would've worked just fine. He didn't really hold back, and sure had a way with words.
Mistakes were made. That's just some writer thinking they've got something clever to cap a scene. Of course, that wasn't even the most jarring thing about Benteen in SotMS: The Movie. His Prince Valiant do was.
On a side note, he's still listed as William F Benteen on the IMDb page. The History Channel folks aren't the only ones who can't get even the simplest things of Little Big Horn right.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Oct 5, 2011 18:49:17 GMT -6
And right after posting this, the SotMS theme, Elegy, came on in my earbuds. At least they got the music right. Its a phenomenal soundtrack.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Oct 5, 2011 21:14:53 GMT -6
I somehow missed the shows and have never heard of it. Guess I've been busy watching Babe Winkleman, Jimmy Huston, or old Harold Ensley reruns of the Sportsman Friend.
There are so many of those shows that will use someone in authority like a park ranger, who typically has his own theory, and try to pass it off as what really happened. Their choice of expert is sometimes way off.
Leonard Nimoy used to do a good job narating the In Search of shows. They were well written. And anything produced by Donna Lusitania and her cohort, whose name escapes me, was always good. But now I harken back to when the History channel had history. I'd bet those shows probably broke the budget.
The military channel has taken over being the Hitler channel. H2 has been running these Brad Meltzer shows with him as an alleged history detective. What an idiot he is.
What also bugs me about those shows is that everything is repeated about three times. First as a pre-commercial prelude to what is coming up next, then as a post-commercial prelude, and finally they get to the point about 20 minutes later. An hour show has about 20 minutes of commercials. Then the actual footage used for original content is about 13 minutes which is constantly repeated. Ten minutes of the 13 is spent with a few people talking about the process they are going through leaving about 3 minutes of subject matter that may or may not be historical significant.
bc
|
|
|
Post by bc on Oct 5, 2011 21:20:18 GMT -6
And right after posting this, the SotMS theme, Elegy, came on in my earbuds. At least they got the music right. Its a phenomenal soundtrack. Mr. Crab, Don't tell me you walk around the golf course with Garryowen playing in your ears? What a way to get to the Masters. bc
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Oct 5, 2011 22:12:37 GMT -6
And right after posting this, the SotMS theme, Elegy, came on in my earbuds. At least they got the music right. Its a phenomenal soundtrack. Mr. Crab, Don't tell me you walk around the golf course with Garryowen playing in your ears? What a way to get to the Masters. bc Nope. I really don't listen to music of any kind when I'm playing golf. I do listen to the soundtracks for SotMS or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford when I'm writing though.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 6, 2011 5:41:12 GMT -6
I had never even heard of this show, much less seen it. I have also not seen it advertised, though my watching of the History Channel-- either H1 or H2-- has declined dramatically, especially since they gave that paradigm of American "folk," Swamp People, air time. And I thought they reached new lows with Ice Road Truckers and American Axe-Men or whatever that stupidity is called. Those things belong on their mother channel, Discovery. An old-fashioned test-pattern has more historical significance than this other drek.
As for their LBH presentations, they have been a joke for a while now. That Finckle mess is the prime example, in my opinion. Next thing you know, someone will put the bee in their bonnet and they will be extolling the virtues of the Nathan Short/Rosebud saga.
What I would like to see them do is put together a compendium of ideas from Conz and "keogh" along with some of the marvels of thought and reason I have seen here, and present it as a two-hour special. They could give it real dramatic impact by presenting it in a "Homer Simpson" animation format. That ought to appeal to the Average Joe. That would have BC signing off forever.
By the way, Britt, I have gone through some of your trail brochures again... outstanding work!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|