Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Inexcusable documentary gaffes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inexcusable documentary gaffes

    Just finished watching 3 videos labeled Killer Tanks and had the M3 Lee/ Grant, the Churchill and the T-34.

    The shows appeared to be British sources (that's just a guess based on the speakers, I didn't peruse the credits much). Not entirely relevant for my thread though.

    The point is, while the commentary was likely accurate and spot on, the video accompanying the dialogue was so utterly botched. One can only wonder, did anyone that knew anything, edit this film? Was there ANYone in editing that knew thing one about tanks?

    Yes this ground has been covered in the past, I've likely been on other threads in the past. But damnit, this show appears to hail from 2004, not 1974 or earlier.
    Exactly how long does it take to make a documentary? Do they do any real research into the video being used?

    Ok here's an example. If you are talking about the M3 Grant and discussing how it 'held the line' until the M4 Sherman could arrive, does it not stand to reason, that you shouldn't have %$#%%$# Shermans driving by?

    If you are talking about the hard fighting of 1941, is it asking too much to exclude vehicles and footage of vehicles that didn't exist until 1943? I actually saw a Panther drive by whilst discussing the early years in the Western Desert. Hello, how bloody distinctive can you get? The Panther is a well known tank, and it was NOT there.

    We all know footage is aplenty from the war. I've seen it. Countless hours, days worth of footage. Footage in black and white, even colour footage.
    yet they manage to so easily screw up a credible narrative, with grotesque bumbling footage.

    Ok stop the post. I went and checked, I had to check.
    Sorry Johnathan Booth, you narrated a piece of worthless garbage, I will be deleting it shortly.
    Researchers Vicki Richardson, Mike Lieghton and Barbara Oneil, you outright suck if you had anything to do with the chosen footage.
    Eagle Media, you released crap. Glad I never paid for it.
    Editors Sally Morgan and Alex Ridgeway, you are incompetent.
    Series producer Audrey Healy you produced crud.
    Discovery Networks Europe, your shows came out looking like a joke.

    A picture is worth a 1000 words they say. You would assume a video is worth millions more. Amazing though how just a few seconds worth of badly thought out footage, can render over an hours worth of work worthless and without credibility.
    Last edited by LRB; 27 Jan 09, 13:30.
    Life is change. Built models for decades.
    Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
    I didn't for a long time either.

  • #2
    Me too, me too!

    And here I thought I was the only one who was severely irked (aka P.O'd) by this sort of stuff.

    I am fairly tolerant of movies when they use say an M-48 instead of a PkwIV although there was an Italian movie where they used M-113s for British armour...

    A documentary has no excuse for this..it's supposed to be true and it's supposed to be accurate, in all aspects. After all there is film of whatever you need to show. Maybe they didn't want to pay for the archival footage.

    Given this, you were very kind in your assessment of the fraudsters who made that doc.

    Take care.
    " Gentlemen , you can't fight in here! This is the War Room" :
    President Mirkin Muffley, in Dr. Strangelove.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well...this is the same outfit that talks about jet aces while showing gun camera footage of Stukas and Bf109's being shot down.

      How much research do they do? Damned little, I would say.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm just glad I have all the pre CGI fancy schmancy stuff.

        Yeah you can see a shot in The World at War series where the invasion of Poland has a formation of King Tigers in the shot. It's not like our precious classics were perfect either.

        But we have such a great wealth of supposed information today. The iron curtain is gone, we can get into archives that film makers could only dream of in the 70s.

        And considering how much you can do with CGI, there's no justification for using archive footage carelessly to fill in gaps of the show.

        I keep hoping that when I encounter a show that looks recent ie made in the last 10-15 years, that it isn't some garbage made just to play at serious military history. Because that is all some of the stuff on sale is, just rubbish pretending to market serious history.
        Life is change. Built models for decades.
        Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
        I didn't for a long time either.

        Comment


        • #5
          I was once watching a drama-documentary by the BBC on the evacuation from Dunkirk of the BEF in 1940, when amongst stock footage of J 88's and Ju 87's attacking the beaches, they showed a clip of a formation of Soviet IL-2's supposedly also strafing the beaches

          Comment


          • #6
            I whole heartedly agree.

            That's why I loath the history channel 'whether European or US; they are too light on facts, detail & visual compatibility with the subject. They make me

            As for DVDs; you pays your money & takes your chance...

            Paul
            Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 27 Jan 09, 17:14.
            ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
            All human ills he can subdue,
            Or with a bauble or medal
            Can win mans heart for you;
            And many a blessing know to stew
            To make a megloamaniac bright;
            Give honour to the dainty Corse,
            The Pixie is a little shite.

            Comment


            • #7
              I love the one that seems to crop up any time the "impenetrable Ardennes" is mentoned where a PzMkII is crossing a small creek. Usually its from a battle of the Bulge epsiode.

              Although my absolute favorite isn't even from real battle footage. It's the "Japanese" dive bombers at Pearl Harbor. I understand why when the US government had John Ford make his rendition of "the attack at Pearl Harbor" for the US populous he had to have SBD Dauntless's in the role of "Val" dive bombers, BUT you don't have to keep showing it for 60+ years. By now the must be some Japanese footage that could be used.
              Last edited by Lance Williams; 27 Jan 09, 18:18.
              Lance W.

              Peace through superior firepower.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by les Brains View Post
                Just finished watching 3 videos labeled Killer Tanks and had the M3 Lee/ Grant, the Churchill and the T-34.

                The shows appeared to be British sources (that's just a guess based on the speakers, I didn't peruse the credits much). Not entirely relevant for my thread though.

                The point is, while the commentary was likely accurate and spot on, the video accompanying the dialogue was so utterly botched. One can only wonder, did anyone that knew anything, edit this film? Was there ANYone in editing that knew thing one about tanks?

                Yes this ground has been covered in the past, I've likely been on other threads in the past. But damnit, this show appears to hail from 2004, not 1974 or earlier.
                Exactly how long does it take to make a documentary? Do they do any real research into the video being used?

                Ok here's an example. If you are talking about the M3 Grant and discussing how it 'held the line' until the M4 Sherman could arrive, does it not stand to reason, that you shouldn't have %$#%%$# Shermans driving by?

                If you are talking about the hard fighting of 1941, is it asking too much to exclude vehicles and footage of vehicles that didn't exist until 1943? I actually saw a Panther drive by whilst discussing the early years in the Western Desert. Hello, how bloody distinctive can you get? The Panther is a well known tank, and it was NOT there.

                We all know footage is aplenty from the war. I've seen it. Countless hours, days worth of footage. Footage in black and white, even colour footage.
                yet they manage to so easily screw up a credible narrative, with grotesque bumbling footage.

                Ok stop the post. I went and checked, I had to check.
                Sorry Johnathan Booth, you narrated a piece of worthless garbage, I will be deleting it shortly.
                Researchers Vicki Richardson, Mike Lieghton and Barbara Oneil, you outright suck if you had anything to do with the chosen footage.
                Eagle Media, you released crap. Glad I never paid for it.
                Editors Sally Morgan and Alex Ridgeway, you are incompetent.
                Series producer Audrey Healy you produced crud.
                Discovery Networks Europe, your shows came out looking like a joke.

                A picture is worth a 1000 words they say. You would assume a video is worth millions more. Amazing though how just a few seconds worth of badly thought out footage, can render over an hours worth of work worthless and without credibility.
                MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY..... ESPECIALLY anything done by Michael Moore.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I wasn't aware Mike did military history documentaries?

                  Not that I want to say anything for or against him, he's just a guy with enough money to make videos of his opinions.
                  Life is change. Built models for decades.
                  Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
                  I didn't for a long time either.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    he'll do anything politico which encompass's mil and present his mindless babble of the lib-lefty-sec-prog....hence he remains a threat and a shitt*documentarian thru his distortioin and revisionism.

                    money or not.

                    b
                    CV

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Please refrain from using "lib-lefty-sec-prog" as terms like that show as much value as Mike's films

                      Those that require neat catch phrase political labels likely don't really know much about politics in my view. It al;smost sounds like the political equal of leet speak.
                      Life is change. Built models for decades.
                      Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
                      I didn't for a long time either.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        how bout i use em...seeing after all that they apply and i know what they mean and you dislike Catholics....seem fair?

                        cuz in the end what you think... let alone attempt to tell me to do.. is going to be ignored....your just not that important to me.

                        b
                        CV
                        Last edited by Centrix Vigilis; 28 Jan 09, 10:13.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by les Brains View Post
                          I'm just glad I have all the pre CGI fancy schmancy stuff.

                          Yeah you can see a shot in The World at War series where the invasion of Poland has a formation of King Tigers in the shot. It's not like our precious classics were perfect either.

                          But we have such a great wealth of supposed information today. The iron curtain is gone, we can get into archives that film makers could only dream of in the 70s.

                          And considering how much you can do with CGI, there's no justification for using archive footage carelessly to fill in gaps of the show.

                          I keep hoping that when I encounter a show that looks recent ie made in the last 10-15 years, that it isn't some garbage made just to play at serious military history. Because that is all some of the stuff on sale is, just rubbish pretending to market serious history.
                          There is an insurmountable reason for not using CGI - money.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
                            how bout i use em...seeing after all that they apply and i know what they mean and you dislike Catholics....seem fair?

                            cuz in the end what you think... let alone attempt to tell me to do.. is going to be ignored....your just not that important to me.

                            b
                            CV
                            Do you run with scissors, CV...because you don't seem to play nicely with others.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm guessing Centrix Vigilis probably wouldn't want me to call him a lib-lefty-sec-prog.

                              Frankly though, I have no idea what a Centrix Vigilis is let alone a lib-lefty-sec-prog

                              I'm also amused that he's unaware of my 'beliefs'

                              Oh well I don't mind being ignored.
                              Life is change. Built models for decades.
                              Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
                              I didn't for a long time either.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X