Last year many of us were up in arms over how terrible the History Channel’s A Story of Us was, especially those parts concerning the Civil War. Now the History Channel has done it again. Ridley Scott’s Gettysburg documentary was one of the worst Gettysburg depictions I have ever seen. The question is, which was worse?

I must admit, even though I DVR anything on TV that's associated with a Civil War Subject, lately I've been tiring of the same old documentaries we get from the History Channel which use bad amateur actors and rely on reenacting groups to fill in the ranks. And besides the occasional airing of Glory, Ron Maxwell's 2 Shaara films and the first 5 minutes of Sahara, I just assumed nobody thought American history was interesting enough to be realized on screen. So back in April, when I jumped for joy at seeing an ad on the side of my commuter bus for Ridley Scott's "Gettysburg", I thought finally someone was taking this history thing seriously!

Boy was I let down.

Even though the first few minutes of the charge of the Iron Brigade was most promising, it soon spiralled into the same drippy melodrama we've seen in countless documentaries and historical accuracy was thrown out the window or readily omitted.
I'm sick and tired of seeing the same old bad Video Game quality CGI effects, too! I didn't know Pickett's charge was conducted in California on the side of a big hill?

Scott's Gettysburg was just a waste of time. The Lee & Grant film wasn't that good either.

Well I look at it this way, these were programs both made to just quickly be used for educational purposes, especially for younger audiences who do not have hte patience to go through hours and hours of footage or battle plans. It introduces them to a subject and may try to make it seem exciting. If the viewer is drawn into and does start learning more and delving deeper it has done its job. Personally I was appalled by the lack of history that Story of Us provided but you have to keep in mind they were on a very tight budget and time schedule. Otherwise it would be probably a 24 hour long season series.

They are not made for people who are in the reenacting, maybe for the history buffs but even they will spot flaws. Just like someone said on Facebook if you master a subject all you do is pick out the flaws and not the good parts.

Since when do we fire as were marching in columns of fours; As if were doing skirmishing fire? (Federals retreating from the town in the first 10 min.) Even if they are retreating their still in a somewhat gaggle column formation.

again you are paying too much attention because you know how it works. The general person does not, nor do they care to know the knitty gritty of how the manual of arms is written or practiced. Plain and simple. It gives a general idea, and if the person who watched the show got excited they start learning the truth and most likely will gain a better understanding and maybe appreciation. I am not saying I like the shows or that I think their portrayal of things is great. I am just playing devils advocate and explaining why hollywood does what it does. I mean why don't we go out and seek the flaws out in Gettysburg, god's and generals, or multitude of other things?

As far as I know Gettysburg got many of my friends interested in the Civil war when we were younger, some people I know got into reenacting because of it. Me I find the movie too melodramatic, always have. It nearly turned me off the subject as a child.

well actually it Was Mike W. who finally got me into reenacting several seasons past to be honest. It was something o loved going to as a child for various periods, all I did prior was SCA (just putting this out there so people know where I come from)

I don't think the issue is that they got some things wrong, it is the fact that they got so many things wrong. Neither one of these shows even came close to giving a good representation of what Civil War soldiers or battles were like. Any other channel and I wouldn't have minded it so much, but you expect more (or used to expect more) from the History Channel. You also expect more from Ridley Scott. He has done several other period films that looked really good, and when reading about his work on them you come to understand that he does everything he can to make sure they are correct. There is no way that same worth ethic could have been used in this Gettysburg show. It just isn't possible. If he had put forth the same effort it would have been much better.

Also, it shouldn't matter who the target audience is when creating programs like this because history is history. You either do it right or you do it wrong. Now there are certain things you might not want to show depending on the age level of the audience, and there are some details you might not want to get into depending on the knowledge level of the audience, but that should have no bearing whatsoever on the appearance of the soldiers or the battle tactics displayed -- two things that are not hard to find out information for either I might add.

I agree with you Bill, but hollywood, nor corporate money grubbers care what you think. All of the various channels owned by networks want money, and the unthinking majority like crappy entertainment. Personally I think Scott's name was a plugin, I don't think he probably even put any actual effort into it aside from maybe funding.

You know, same reasons like Brittney spears made more money then the Beatles ever dreamed and she does not write her own music or actually sing at concerts... Etc, ad nauseum.

All I stated was that if it peaks a casual watcher into actually popping up wikipedia at the least it can at the very least push forward some form of education.

It is sad that the "History" channel does what it does, but when you look at it the way i do it could be far far far worse considering the route they are taking. That is why public broadcasting has always been my choice because actual foundations fund the programming nad can have a more direct control of the quality of programming and it usually is always for enlightment or education beyond just turning your brain cells into mush.


And I must say I really never thought the history channel did anything right, ever! All I learned I learned from PBS and public radio, screw school too. I mean even history classes at school or so god awful.

For example, in 7th grade I had a test (prior to which we were given the notes, yes given) and a question read as follows and this was just after doing a ww2 course "What was the world's Largest Naval Engagement ever undertaken?" A: Desert Storm B: Mariana's Turkey Shoot C: D-Day or D: Bull Run

I poop you not that was the question and answers, and over a third of my class failed that test and chose Desert Storm as the answer, and I was in the advanced class......


Schools do not teach how to read analog clocks anymore, or to write in cursive. They especially continue to dilute or warp the history lessons or cut them out entirely. So I think overall it could have been way worse.

I apologize about the rant lol but I was trying to look on the bright side of that show and my two cents about things in general.