1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is anyone watching The World Wars on History?

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by RGM1138, May 27, 2014.

  1. RGM1138

    RGM1138 I wanna Rock

    4,997
    9
    Oct 6, 1999
    Gulfport, MS
    I'm amazed by the things I've learned so far. Especially about Patton, Hitler and Churchill.
     
  2. cheesesteak

    cheesesteak Meh.

    29,364
    133
    Jul 24, 2003
    15 mins...
    I watched the first episode. I wish they made this a weekly series instead of nightly. I have to rearrange my tivo's to-do list in order to remove conflicts and try to have one tuner open. I tend to watch these documentaries later at night so I always doze off once or twice. These two hour episodes take a while for me to get through.

    I didn't know that a British soldier had Hitler in his sights during WWI but decided to not kill him. Untold millions of lives were lost because of that decision. Then again, I may not have been born if history had been altered that much.

    I also didn't know that Patton was the first guy to mount a machine gun on a jeep.

    Was that truly the origins of the Hitler 'stache? He almost died because his full mustache prevented his gas mask from sealing properly?

    My head will explode if anybody starts yelling about spoilers.
     
  3. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey

    40,090
    46
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    I recorded the series (or whatever has aired so far) and will watch at some point during the summer.
     
  4. WO312

    WO312 Active Member

    1,372
    0
    Jan 24, 2003
    Finger...
    There will be 3 episodes. Last one is tonight.
     
  5. lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Active Member

    8,080
    2
    May 6, 2002
    John's...
    I would take anything I "learned" from this program with a huge portion of Sodium Chloride or Potassium Nitrate or whatever your chosen salt is. It's chock full of technical and factual errors.
     
  6. AeneaGames

    AeneaGames Member

    325
    0
    May 2, 2009
    I've heard it was because he was a huge Charlie Chaplin fan...
     
  7. cheesesteak

    cheesesteak Meh.

    29,364
    133
    Jul 24, 2003
    15 mins...
    Can you provide a link to the list of errors?
     
  8. Cearbhaill

    Cearbhaill Garden obsessed

    15,045
    13
    Aug 1, 2004
    Raking leaves
    I had to record the later showing/s because of conflicts- we'll probably watch it over the weekend.
     
  9. lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Active Member

    8,080
    2
    May 6, 2002
    John's...
    I have no idea if such a list exists, but some of them are pointed out in this thread.

    Two technical errors:

    All planes are fighters.

    George Marshall is shown wearing 5-stars in 1941.

    Two factual errors:

    The statement that the British introduced Mustard gas to the battlefield.

    That the German bombing campaign began with the London blitz.

    They did get one big thing right, and it is something that is rarely even acknowledged:

    That Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to partition Poland and the USSR invaded Poland shortly (16 days) after Germany did so.
     
  10. cheesesteak

    cheesesteak Meh.

    29,364
    133
    Jul 24, 2003
    15 mins...
    Although they should have been accurate, things like the type of rifles used and Hitler's steel helmet seem like minor budgetary nitpicks to a non-historian like me.
     
  11. lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Active Member

    8,080
    2
    May 6, 2002
    John's...
    I'm no historian either and to tell the truth, I didn't personally notice those 2 particular errors. I did notice the ones I mentioned.

    I might be more willing to overlook the technical errors (even though they do interfere with my immersion in the show) if it weren't for the obvious factual errors. After all, this is the History channel. Shouldn't I expect a bit closer adherence to actual history? At least on a program in this format. I do not expect it on "Vikings".

    One other thing. They completely left out the Spanish Civil War. The only reason for this that I can see is that it does not fit into their narrative that the extent of Germany's rearmament and the capabilities of their equipment was a complete secret until the invasion of Poland.
     
  12. mlsnyc

    mlsnyc Member TCF Club

    308
    1
    Dec 2, 2009
    The dramatizations are just that for me, drama. (Patton really stood next to the targets during target practice?!) They're not reenactments so I can overlook inaccuracies. It'd have to be extreme for me to walk away and say no thanks. Not WWI-soldier-using-an-iPad-to-look-at-a-map extreme, but close.

    What does bother me with this and any other movie, TV show, play, etc is having non-English speakers speak to each other in English with a foreign accent instead of their native language. Is this a budget issue too? i.e. They can't afford to hire translators so they just have them speak English and fake the accent? If they had budget constraints I'd think they can look specifically for a German actor, for example, and have it be their responsibility to speak in German the lines that were written in English.

    As for content I haven't come across anything yet that I wasn't already aware of. Not because I'm a huge history buff. More like it seems what they're interested in is how these huge historical figures' characters developed rather than facts and events. Which is fine since you can find tons of other books, documentaries, etc for that. I suppose it is noteworthy they have major political and military figures providing commentary in addition to the usual scholars and authors.

    Nothing groundbreaking here but I'm always interested in new treatments of something so heavily studied and analyzed.
     
  13. lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Active Member

    8,080
    2
    May 6, 2002
    John's...
    Let me get this straight. You have no problem with the glaring technical and factual errors but it irks you that the characters are all speaking English in a production intended for English speakers? You want them to speak in whatever language the person being represented would have spoken in with the concomitant open English captions?

    They went to all the trouble and expense(?) to get real people to contribute to this, presumably to add some gravitas, and then, IMHO, threw it all away with these stupid errors. I wonder what John McCain, Colin Powell, Stanley McChrystal, et al. think of the finished product.

    As I intimated in my initial post in this thread, do not take anything you "learn" from this program to heart until you have independently verified it using a source you trust.
     
  14. mlsnyc

    mlsnyc Member TCF Club

    308
    1
    Dec 2, 2009
    As I said, to me it's a dramatization. So no, I don't have any problems with the glaring factual errors. The dramatizations in this show are no better than other cheesy docudramas that have preceded it. I took these segments as nothing more than artistic flourishes to what may or may not have occurred in real life. My big problem with any dramatization is to see non-English speakers speaking English to each other instead of their native language. That's what takes me out of what's being dramatized.

    No argument here.
     
  15. lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Active Member

    8,080
    2
    May 6, 2002
    John's...
    Having seen both the dubbed and subtitled versions of the theatrical release cut of "Das Boot", I preferred the dubbed version - but not for the reason you might think.

    The subtitled version was bowdlerized.
     
  16. Bob Coxner

    Bob Coxner Active Member

    2,045
    0
    Dec 1, 2004
    Here's a laundry list of their errors:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gla...world-wars-chock-full-major-historical-errors

    My problem is less with the errors and more with the overall strategy of the producers. It feels like History Lite. More taste, less filling. Just one of many examples: we get 20 or 30 seconds of Patton supposedly being shot at during target practice (useless info even if true) while a scene with Churchill talks about him gaining his reputation back "after Gallipoli". Except that Gallipoli was never covered. How can you discuss WWI without talking about Gallipoli? It's even made for tv drama with the charge of the Light Brigade. We get a ton of coverage of MacArthur in WWI but I never heard Black Jack Pershing mentioned even once. He led the US forces and is the highest ranking military officer in our history (even ahead of George Washington and US Grant).

    I gave up after the first episode so I can't comment on the remaining ones.
     
  17. lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Active Member

    8,080
    2
    May 6, 2002
    John's...
    Gallipoli was covered in part 1.

    The Charge of the Light Brigade? You actually think that was in WWI? :eek:
     
  18. Bob Coxner

    Bob Coxner Active Member

    2,045
    0
    Dec 1, 2004
    Historical brain fart on the Light Brigade. At least Gallipoli is not far from the Crimea. :)
     
  19. Archangel00

    Archangel00 New Member

    333
    0
    Aug 25, 2006
    Gulf Coast
    The single most amazing thing, is Japan's never before (this turd of a production) revealed mastery of time travel in bringing a 1990's era Kongo Class destroyer back in time.....:eek:

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  20. Tobashadow

    Tobashadow Read over there --->

    2,339
    0
    Nov 11, 2006
    I think this belongs here.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page