Did you see it? What did you think of it? IMO not much new, but it did a fair job of explaining what a gigantic buildup took place and some of the key decisions.
The problem with most of these programs for the majority of us here is that there is nothing much new to tell, but I do think it was a good effort as you say to explain just what went into the planning. Pretty good overall
Originally posted by Lee Wisener@May 25 2004, 02:24 PM The problem with most of these programs for the majority of us here is that there is nothing much new to tell, but I do think it was a good effort as you say to explain just what went into the planning. Pretty good overall Little to say that was new, but it had some nice personal stories. Marred by some silly mistakes in the re-enactment eg last night I think they flew the present day Canadian flag over the camp where the Regina Rifles were based before D.Day. Also in the first episode, one of the US trucks had the "red bull" sign of the US 34th Infantry Division, a unit that was in Italy at this time. Tonight, when the Canadian Padre was writing to Lt Dickens mother they showed what was supposed to be his identity disc, which was an American type disc and not even the notched type! Anyone spot any more?
There is always going to be plenty. If you read the book you would know its nothing new but a different way of retelling the tale. Its all too easy to knock any production companies attempts at bringing history alive to the masses. I know its all about time and money and no doubt the extras from whichever local re-enactment society they used in addition to wardrobe as they seem to have underspent on the continuity department, probably should have pointed some of these things out - and maybe they did, but all in all I welcome all these achievements and the more I read and watch these things, the more I cannot help but feel I or perhaps we have missed out on something so great and special it defies all imagination. Ryan
Originally posted by salientpoints@May 25 2004, 04:48 PM There is always going to be plenty. If you read the book you would know its nothing new but a different way of retelling the tale. Its all too easy to knock any production companies attempts at bringing history alive to the masses. I know its all about time and money and no doubt the extras from whichever local re-enactment society they used in addition to wardrobe as they seem to have underspent on the continuity department, probably should have pointed some of these things out - and maybe they did, but all in all I welcome all these achievements and the more I read and watch these things, the more I cannot help but feel I or perhaps we have missed out on something so great and special it defies all imagination. Ryan Ryan I agree with much of what you say, and we will never know exactly what we have missed by being "born too late". My point about the mistakes is that there was just no need for them. I can understand it when they have to use the wrong tank or plane, because the right ones don't exist any more, but these mistakes? Who-ever owns the truck used for the film knows who it is badged up to. It would have been a 2 minute job to cover the badge. The correct fibre identity discs are very common. I would put money on the fact that the film company could have got hold of 50 or 100 lots just by asking. Of course, you are right. It was an achievement to have done the prog. at all. However, it is as if someone spent 5 years researching and writing a book and it hit the shops full of typos etc.
Agreed, some things are too basic a mistake. Perhaps its because continuity refers to what is going on in the picutre from scene to scene rather than historical accurateness. I didnt see all the credits but maybe they did not have an historical adviser? The same production company is showing another WW2 themed programme on Roosevelt/Churchill/Stalin called Warlords later in the year - Here is the outline: 18 June 1940. The four warlords who would reshape the world saw it at this moment very differently. In London, on this day after France surrendered to the Nazis, Winston Churchill was isolated. His and Britain's destiny were now in his hands alone. In Munich Adolf Hitler was celebrating his victory with the Italian dictator, Mussolini. Hitler was triumphant, the world at his feet. In Moscow Joseph Stalin was shocked by the speed of his collaborator Hitler's victory but delighted by the imminent fulfilment of his territorial ambitions. On this day Stalin's troops marched into Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In Washington Franklin Roosevelt stood aloof. On this day he refused Churchill's request for the loan of old American destroyers. Hitler and Stalin publicly united in triumph, Churchill without an ally, Roosevelt keeping his distance. On this day of defeat and victory the eventual outcome of the relationships between the four warlords was unimaginable. Warlords will show how the unimaginable happened. In doing so, it will give, on the 60 th anniversary of its end, a totally new perception to a television audience of the Second World War and the four titans who decided it. Warlords has two central aims. Firstly it will tell in forensic detail the story of the relationship of the mind between Churchill, Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt. The result will be a unique focus on the warlords' personalities, characters and motivations, and an original and historically justifiable interpretation which casts them as actors in a nexus of triangular affairs. Secondly, by unraveling the intricacies of this mental relationship, it will unfold the key strategic dilemmas and decisions of the war in Europe, North Africa and Russia which ultimately shaped post-1945 Europe and led to the Cold War. It will explain how it was that, in defeating Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt were ultimately out-manoeuvred by Stalin. This inexorably lays bare the ultimate question of the war; need Russia's totalitarian domination of all Eastern Europe for the second half of the 20th century ever have happened? By exploring this Warlords will reveal how the old fashioned imperialism of European nations, which Roosevelt so despised, gave way to a modern, redefined idea of imperialism. Ryan
