"History" and the History Channel

[Skyraider3D]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

If they take out the steroids and "arcade" effects, put some of these funds into further research of the event in question (...)

Well that's the thing... these arcade effects are the cheap and easy bit and by adding plenty of them it's quicker to fill a feature program! I.e. it's a money saver...

I hear what you're saying though!

[edwest]

Unfortunately, that's the formula: make it cheap so you can make more profits. I enjoy occasionally watching the History Channel to see some favorite aircraft or other military subject in action. As a writer myself, I'm surprised at the sloppiness and lack of context in the narration. Some relatively quick and simple research would add more meat, and accuracy, to the subject matter. But I have to keep in mind that their audience is the average person or the sometimes history buff who might glean a tidbit or two. In the case of the average person, something vaguely interesting is now available to add to their casual discussions.

On the plus side, the fact that the History Channel exists at all is good. In a few cases, it may spark the viewer to go further. How about a Luftwaffe Channel? I think that would go well But I think as a commercial concept, most producers would pass. I mean, who wants to know who shot down who on 3 September 1944? Or which RLM color was which? Or can you tell me where this emblem came from?


Regards,
Ed

[John Vasco]

I just wish Ken Burns, who did the excellent American Civil War documentary series, would do similar on something like the Battle of Britain or Reich Defence, when we would finally get a proper rendition of the events. Still getting 1960s crap churned out on the Battle of Britain, for example.

[Nick Beale]

I will credit Channel 4 with a decent job on Andy Saunders' investigation of how Douglas Bader was shot down, which they repeated recently.

Also the BBC2 programme fronted by Jeremy Clarkson on the attack on the St Nazaire lock gates was good.

[Skyraider3D]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I will credit Channel 4 with a decent job on Andy Saunders' investigation of how Douglas Bader was shot down, which they repeated recently.

Also the BBC2 programme fronted by Jeremy Clarkson on the attack on the St Nazaire lock gates was good.

Agree on both.
Clarkson behaving mature for once... quite a revelation!

[Ruy Horta]

Clarkson was also involved in a series about the Victoria Cross, which I enjoyed. One of the subjects was his own father in law, who was awarded the VC for his actions in Arnhem.

[CJE]

You are lucky boys.
We have some programs from Channel4/BBC2/History Channel over here on two own "history" channels but most of them are disappointing to say the least (not to speak of the translation into French which is another debate).
I recently watched one of them (Line of Fire) on Stalingrad and they kept on talking of "von Paulus" all along... It's hard to believe that a couple of professional historians worked on this project!

[Ruy Horta]

Update.

I enjoyed HC's Dogfight episode dealing with the Mirage / Nesher ace Giora Epstein, in part because of Epstein's interesting personality and style.

Also because the Dassault Mirage IIIC is my all time favorite jet



(anyone remember Tanguy and Laverdure? next to Buck Danny and Storm my favorite comics)

[Jim P.]

History on the History Channel? It seems to have devolved now to Modern Marvels, Monsters, How its Made, Ice Road Truckers or guys with chain saws. What the frakall does any of that garbage have to do with history??? Even His. International is going that way........wankers.

[George Hopp]

Well, a sad highlight of any Pearl Harbour attack footage is those three Douglas Dauntlesses dropping their bombs after the shot of the Arizona blowing up.

Or, does this mean that it actually was a US attack on Pearl Harbour?