John Kettler Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Generally, these seem to be very well done, with several highly relevant to the forthcoming CMBN, to include the Canadian assault landing in DD tanks at Juno and the subsequent advance by the 54th? Brigade and 4 AD vs 112 Panzer Brigade at Arracourt. The animations are amazing, but plagued by issues such as failure to put radio antennas on Shermans (all German tanks have them depicted) and firing the complete round from the Sherman. Interviews are first rate, but footage suffers from some scarily poor selections, including smashed Stalin tanks and burning T-34s, Spitfires where Tiffies need to be shown, etc. Kursk is supposed to air on Wednesday. Those of you with FIOS and similar on demand capabilities can watch all/most of the prior episodes on the Mil Chan section. Goodies include Battle of 73 Easting, Valley of Tears, several Bulge episodes, etc. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 ...footage suffers from some scarily poor selections, including smashed Stalin tanks and burning T-34s, Spitfires where Tiffies need to be shown, etc. I've come to regard that as not only typical of History Channel productions, but as apparently obligatory. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 An opportunity for employment by someone?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 It's all about what you have access to and budget for. The sheer volume of footage you need to gather to fill a 50 minute TV slot is immense and you can't always be choosy about what you have. There would also be the calculation that 99% of your audience is beer and pretzels and won't give a damn or notice. The grogs, you can't cater for them, because they're always going to pick holes anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 But you'd think that the History Channel in their own interests would have put together an extensive film archive by now with the contents accurately catalogued and described for their producers to use. And sure, perfection is unobtainable for all the usual reasons, but it isn't wrong to expect them to at least make a decent showing. If you don't have footage of the proper tanks, for instance, for the action under discussion, put something else on the screen, like an animated map or some other kind of unit. The point is, while gaps in the documentary record are to be expected, they really shouldn't try to bullsh!t us. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Would you watch an hour of animated maps? The gaps in the footage record are massive. And a grog will always find fault anyway. If you were showing Typhoons they would point out that they were from the wrong squadron or were opersting over the wrong sort of terrain etc. There is a finite amount of WW2 footage and if you start going through your catalogue looking for +Typhoons +Falaise +shooting at Panzer V.... you quickly run out of options. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 ...if you start going through your catalogue looking for +Typhoons +Falaise +shooting at Panzer V... But it wouldn't need to be that precise. Just don't show Sturmoviks shooting at Elefants. Good god! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 But this is my point....what is the degree of imprecision you're willing to accept? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 I think you are being too kind Affy. Not only are their maps to add to the comprehension, but there are the recollections of those involved, which could be dramatised or not. I have never seen actual views. As in this view is from the xxxx battery and we have a fishing boat at .5mile out da da da etc. Or how about this is the crappy views out of a Sherman, The trouble is that the people making the programmes ARE just churning out to a coats, and to fill a schedule, - they are not trying for greatness. The fast-food approach to nourishing TV : ( 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 I don't understand why you think that TV producers are obliged to shoot for greatness or that they somehow don't have the commercial pressures that any other business faces. Turning out something to a cost is how it works. Coming up with an hour of full HD CGI tank battle to satisfy the very few grogs whingeing about the antennas not being right just isn't a viable commercial decision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The fundamental problem here is that some people apparently don't realise that the History Channel has the same relationship to history that Fox News does to news. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Affy - I never suggested CGI. Just on location, interviews etc. As for good programmes - I give you the BBC : ) Of course Time Team is not BBC but some commercial company but its production standards are high. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The fundamental problem here is that some people apparently don't realise that the History Channel has the same relationship to history that Fox News does to news. Or as, many other sources do as well.... The History Channel is meant to increase people's interest in history, and one hopes, in the same manner, to then encourage them to study things on their own. It is meant to be "educational entertainment". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Affy - I never suggested CGI. Just on location, interviews etc. As for good programmes - I give you the BBC : ) Of course Time Team is not BBC but some commercial company but its production standards are high. All of the things you mention take time and are expensive. The BBC budgets are quite frankly 20 - 30 times what the shows I worked on had to play with. The BBC pursues a quality over quantity model, which is fine for them because they have lost of other streams of content and genre to make up their air time. A cable channel that specialises in history doesn't have that luxury. Time Team is very cheap to make. A bunch of modestly paid or unpaid archaeologists grubbing about in a field in Cumbria. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share Posted March 7, 2011 Made a rather large mistake in my first post of the thread. Unit was the Second Canadian Armoured Brigade, which also figures in the Battle of Hochwald episode I saw last night. Nailbiting stuff, to include night attack through an antitank minefield, 88s in barns and even worse, such as repeated Tiffie rocket attacks on friendlies. Superb animation sequences (still no Sherman radio aerials, though), with weather, mud, proper gunsight reticles, etc. , and excellent, often horrifying, interviews with survivors from both sides. Footage was pretty good, but no mention was made of the Panzerschreck despite lots of great in action clips. Panzerfaust animation didn't show fins deploying. Oops! There was also the nonspinning 88 projectile, somewhat offset by Sherman projectiles, rather than entire rounds, headed to their targets. Michael Emrys, The Military Channel belongs to The Discovery Channel, not The History Channel. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Michael Emrys, The Military Channel belongs to The Discovery Channel, not The History Channel. Oops! Thanks for the correction. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the above post is direct evidence that Michael Emrys was indeed.... incorrect! Gasp! Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the above post is direct evidence that Michael Emrys was indeed.... incorrect! Gasp! Be consoled, KR. Compared to the vast ocean of occasions when I was right on, the mere bagatelle of a single incident of my being misinformed is but the grain of sand that becomes the seed of a pearl. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.