Ridley Scott's Gettysburg (1 Viewer)

[Combat]

History channel at 9 on Memorial Day:

Executive produced by Ridley and Tony Scott, GETTYSBURG strips away the romanticized veneer of the Civil War to present the pivotal Battle of Gettysburg in a new light--a visceral, terrifying and deeply personal experience, fought by men who put everything on the line in defense of their vision of the American future. Cinematic in scope, GETTYSBURG is an information-packed look at the turning points, strategic decisions, technology and little-known facts surrounding the battle. Developed in collaboration with highly esteemed Civil War historians, GETTYSBURG reflects hundreds of individual accounts of the battle--the unique voices of struggle, defeat and triumph that tell the larger story of a bitterly conflicted nation.

http://www.history.com/shows/gettysburg/videos/sneak-peek-gettysburg#sneak-peek-gettysburg

 

[nmrocks]

I hope this is as good as it could be.... that being said after the history channel butchering of the History of the USA I'm going in with a skeptical eye...

 

[Scott]

The preview smells a bit like that History Of Us. Ridley Scott is great with history movies but his name as producer, rather than his talent, might affect the show.

Tony Scott is no lightweight.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001716/

Guess I'll just have to watch the durn show,

 

[Combat]

Maybe they can work in a story concerning Bigfoot or a UFO sighting during Pickett's Charge. Or a fuzzy image in a Brady photograph that could be a ghost. That would no doubt increase ratings.

 

[Scott]

I just hope they don't have comments by unrelated pundits and celebrities as the Story of US had.

 

[tullock]

The crappy Confederate uniforms shown in this excerpt have convinced me to give it a wide berth.
Jeff

 

[maddadicus]

The crappy Confederate uniforms shown in this excerpt have convinced me to give it a wide berth.
Jeff

Looks like the History of Us costumer was also hired for this one. I will try to keep an open mind, but quick finger on my remote...Michael

 

[jazzeum]

If you're expecting perfection, you'll probably be disappointed. I have seen this broadly advertised. Even on Xbox 360, there's a banner for it.

Many people don't have a knowledge of history so if this gets people interested or more interested, errors in all, is that such a bad thing?

 

[Warrior]

If you're expecting perfection, you'll probably be disappointed. I have seen this broadly advertised. Even on Xbox 360, there's a banner for it.

Many people don't have a knowledge of history so if this gets people interested or more interested, errors in all, is that such a bad thing?

If you're going to do a historical topic, the least you can do is do 10 seconds of research and get the uniforms right; when I first saw the preview, I thought it was a WWII project as those uniforms are so far out in right field.

I love how uniforms, vehicles and equipment get butchered so badly in historical movies, it's almost like the people in charge have an attitude like "who cares, a tank is a tank, a gun is a gun, THAT stuff is not important, we need to just tell our story and keep the project under budget."

Incredible.

 

[jazzeum]

You're losing sight of the big picture. It's better that this be made than not because the uniforms aren't right. This is not directed at the denizens of this Forum or necessarily civil war buffs.

I don't know the right uniforms from a hole in the wall and I suspect most don't either -- or care.

If they get people interested in our nation's history or history in general, then mission accomplished. I mean there are some people who don't even know what the Vietnam War was about, let alone the Civil War. My son even told me about someone who didn't even know who Lincoln was.

 

[nmrocks]

The problem is "Hollywood". History is just a guideline to them, there smarter and will make it "better" with all the morale relativisms and political correctness, winners are flawed to the point of distraction, they make it hard to find merit in anyone or there actions. That's one reason I like foreign films, they still like happy endings and hero's that are just that. Guess it's rather naive of me...:redface2:

 

[Scott]

The problem is "Hollywood". History is just a guideline to them, there smarter and will make it "better" with all the morale relativisms and political correctness, winners are flawed to the point of distraction, they make it hard to find merit in anyone or there actions. That's one reason I like foreign films, they still like happy endings and hero's that are just that. Guess it's rather naive of me...:redface2:

That aspect changes with the times. WW II movies made during WW II had a "we're all in this together" theme including all races (white anyway, the services were segregated except the USN ) and religions within a unit. The John Ford westerns had American Indians as noble enemies. The psychological war dramas really started in the 1950s with the Korean War.

You a get a good selection of foreign war movies from NETFLIX and most are as deep and cynical and character driven as some modern US war movies. The Gung Ho ones tend to be Russian and these are still gritty with a high body count of the main characters.

I've seen two Bollywood Indian War movies that were Gung Ho AND had musical dance numbers.

There's a few Japanese made WW II movies that are deeply tragic and gritty. One I'm thinking of is Red Angel about a Japanese combat nurse in China with a drug addict doctor as "hero." The nurse survives a siege alone in base that was riddled with cholera! She's doomed.

If viewers blame "Hollywood" for movies then they have to take into consideration that the film industry is a meritocracy and OUR film industry actually exports product. You have to figure that when a film is made of a familiar story, even a fantasy story, not everyone sees their own vision of that story in the film.

 

[Warrior]

Good God that was just awful, where do I begin.........

It looked like it was filmed in Montana, not Pa, mountains everywhere, weeds, scrubs, custer last stand maybe?.

Nice uniforms on the Confederates; white shirts, no hats and vests, was this an ACW show or a western? they attacked in skirmish formation for the whole episode.

No Little Round top and wow, Jefferson Davis' nephew led Picketts Charge?

just brutal...........

 

[Toy Soldier Brigade]

I guess they were attempting to feature some lesser know aspects of the battle. Maybe high light some of the personalities you don't hear about as much. I was waiting for the Pawn Stars guy to appraise a cannon. Tomorrow it's Lee & Grant. How can they screw them up

 

[nysoldiers]

They would have been better off with computer animation.
Looks like about fifty guys from a local bar were drafted and dressed quickly to recreate Picketts charge of 12 thousand men.
No mention of Longstreet, Chamberlain, Reynolds, Bufford, Hancock^&confuse^&confuse. etc............?????

 

[marco55]

Boring,boring BORING!{eek3}
Mark

 

[Scott]

I think they were purposely trying NOT to cover the heroes of Killer Angels/Gettysburg.

There was an earnestness about the show in TRYING to get the spirit of the action. You got more information that there was a town of Gettysburg (that looked like a Wild West ghost town) than in the famous movie.

The show did have the odor of The Story of US without the full stink of the that program's economic propaganda. Then again of all the commercials where the sponsors were wedging their products into the Civil War, the Geico Cave Man insurance commercial was FUNNY!!! I have seen folks show up at reenactments with their haversacks stuffed with Pop Tarts and Slim Jims.

The experts on this show had pretty good credentials but the latest method of commenting is not a person wearing a suit calmly commenting on the subject but having that expert in open shirt REALLY excited about the subject. ( I have actually "partied" with George Wunderlich at a CW event and he's also an expert CW period musician and generally cool guy.)

 

[jazzeum]

As mentioned above, they focused on personalities we don't know much about but omitted significant aspects. Aside from how some of the bullets and cannons worked, the original movie from Turner was better.

However, I was watching with a friend (who is not a history buff) and he was completely mesmerized so you need to look at it from both angles.

 

[Scott]

As has been said, it's possible the show was trying to cover other participants than the Killer Angels/Gettysburg movie characters. The show did recap it's own footage after commercials which really is a waste. National Geographic historical documentaries are much worse in repeating scenes. Rent the Catherine the Great one and see.

I was tempted to shut the show off. There was no attempt to show trained units, just mobs of armed extras. One shot of a Union unit firing and retiring for a second rank to step up and fire, what CW/WBTS drill was that? There's waaaaay too many details to comment on.

Too bad they left Sickles at his wounding rather than showing him being taken from the field waving his cigar and encouraging his men. The program left him looking like a villain.

 

[Scott]

As mentioned above, they focused on personalities we don't know much about but omitted significant aspects. Aside from how some of the bullets and cannons worked, the original movie from Turner was better.

However, I was watching with a friend (who is not a history buff) and he was completely mesmerized so you need to look at it from both angles.

Yes Brad, that's a good point. I have said above that there was a earnestness about the show that makes up for details. Enough action and moving maps for the regular viewer.