History Channel Ancients behaving badly-Hannibal

[Phaichtos]

Most History Channel stuff is superficial, sensational or just plain wrong.--just like CNN and FoxNews.

:lol: Agreed, but unlike *certain* networks, at least (I don't think) the History channel is trying to push any kind of agenda (except perhaps for some kind of reverence of Hitler in the late nineties... haha!) I think that overall, as a tv network in the US, they are a capitalist venture and as such they need to make money in order to "stay in business." Since they feel that what "the people" (i.e., not you and me) want to see is 300-esque, comic book style depictions of the ancient world--along with shows about lumberjacks, truck drivers, and Zeus only knows what else --that's what they're going to produce, because if more people watch that drivel, the network gets more advert revenue, which they can use to make more shows about mutant-monster-dogs roaming the Adirondacks.

[Dithrambus]

Most History Channel stuff is superficial, sensational or just plain wrong.--just like CNN and FoxNews.

:lol: Agreed, but unlike *certain* networks, at least (I don't think) the History channel is trying to push any kind of agenda (except perhaps for some kind of reverence of Hitler in the late nineties... haha!) I think that overall, as a tv network in the US, they are a capitalist venture and as such they need to make money in order to "stay in business." Since they feel that what "the people" (i.e., not you and me) want to see is 300-esque, comic book style depictions of the ancient world--along with shows about lumberjacks, truck drivers, and Zeus only knows what else --that's what they're going to produce, because if more people watch that drivel, the network gets more advert revenue, which they can use to make more shows about mutant-monster-dogs roaming the Adirondacks.

I have been at a loss when it comes to the programming, truckers and lumberjacks? Not that I have no respect for these professions, it's just that I do not get what this has to do with history, unless it's a show about the history of these lines of work. I have recently started refering to it as the History? channel.

[Phaichtos]

I have been at a loss when it comes to the programming, truckers and lumberjacks? Not that I have no respect for these professions, it's just that I do not get what this has to do with history, unless it's a show about the history of these lines of work. I have recently started refering to it as the History? channel.

Good one! I think they are just trying to compete with the Discovery channel, which sold its soul to try and copy TLC (which stopped being "The Learning Channel" a long time ago D wink:

[Dithrambus]

I have been at a loss when it comes to the programming, truckers and lumberjacks? Not that I have no respect for these professions, it's just that I do not get what this has to do with history, unless it's a show about the history of these lines of work. I have recently started refering to it as the History? channel.

Good one! I think they are just trying to compete with the Discovery channel, which sold its soul to try and copy TLC (which stopped being "The Learning Channel" a long time ago D wink:

Agreed, Nat Geo is quite interesting, yes Discovery lost my interest long ago and the Learning Channel? I have not 'learned' anything from them in quite some time!

[Alanus]

Hi guys!

Definition: The History Channel-- the only history channel where you won't find :lol: history. In this context, it's not just Hannibal but every other historical personality.
But we shouldn't exclusively pick at this channel or television alone. (I don't watch TV), but also films. Not just Hollywood but even British movies. There's a new one out, called Centurion, about the "lost" 9th Legion that was supposedly wiped out by the Caledonians. The Quisling in this flick is a Celtic woman (played by a skinny Russian) who hates Roman guts. I can't wait to see it. I need a good laugh. :lol:

[Ron Andrea]

Part of the problem seems to be a misunderstanding of historical fiction as opposed to speculative fiction or even just fiction. While the later can invent to their heart content, historical fiction is supposed to be true to its period. Today's authors and screenwriters--not to mention directors and producers--are so focused on their story that they don't care--probably don't know--whether their sets, costumes, props, etc. are correct.

Any of them reading our rants about their errors would probably think that we need to get a life. :roll:

[Phaichtos]

Haha that is true :lol:

[M. Demetrius]

would probably think that we need to get a life.

I'm sure I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Hmph. :roll:

[Alanus]

Part of the problem seems to be a misunderstanding of historical fiction as opposed to speculative fiction or even just fiction. While the later can invent to their heart content, historical fiction is supposed to be true to its period. Today's authors and screenwriters--not to mention directors and producers--are so focused on their story that they don't care--probably don't know--whether their sets, costumes, props, etc. are correct.

Any of them reading our rants about their errors would probably think that we need to get a life. :roll:

I don't think we're the first viewers to complain about it. Historical inaccuracy has a long film tradition, and similar comments must have been voiced. Maybe the prop houses have tons of 1st century Roman outfits and it's cheaper to use them, rather than hammer-out 5th century stuff for something on Attila. That one comes to mind, with Aetius running around dressed like Caesar. 8)

[Ron Andrea]

Totally agree. Economics ("What's in the prop warehouse?") probably has more to do with what we see than anything else. :?

[Alanus]

A couple of years ago, I picked up a used History Channel DVD called "The Roman Legions." The quote I remember (I used it on another thread) was, "By the year 400, only 1 Roman soldier out of 1,000 was an Italian." How they arrived at this, I'm not quite sure. How many were Bosnians or Conserative Jews? Probably about the same number. :?

Related to the last post, we should also remember that many HC documentaries use us reenactors. "The Roman Legions," I'm fairly sure, used the Ermine Street Guard so we see late Republican outfits throughout the entire span of centuries. At present, our unit-- the Legio III Cyranaica-- is mustering for a new documentary, all regulars, no auxilliaries, so that excludes me. (I'm a Roxolani archer.) My big chance to be in quasi-historical entertainment dribbles down the barbarian drain. :roll:

[Ron Andrea]

Using you reenactors probably gets them closer to authenticity--not to mention saving them money--than that mythical Hollywood prop closet.

From what I've seen on your websites, most reenactment groups have an intense commitment to getting it right, which is why tiros like myself must try your forbearance so. :roll:

[Dithrambus]

I understand that it is becoming more common for documentary producers to turn to reenactors for their productions, I believe the Greek Warriors of New York appeared in an episode of Warriors with Terry Schappert.

I have ordered several docs through my Netflix account and some are simply unbearable, Troy: Myth or reallity and Hoplite Warfare, both hosted by Shakespearean actor Brian Blessed are terrible productions and the panoplies are a joke, you can actually see the rubber spear heads flopping and the helms and armor are just as bad.

[randomperson]

Is the History Channel is more concerned about entertainment than historical accuracy, I will not be surprised if it contains elements of inaccuracies in their documentary. In order to be profitable, the History Channel need to target a large market, and their particular audience are those who love some aspect of histories but unfortunately inherits a few popular misconceptions regarding certain historical events. It would be foolish for the History Channel to "educate" its audience regarding these popular misconception at the risk that they themselves are being perceived as inaccurate.

Here is an example: a very popular misconception I recently learned is that thumbs down condemns a defeated gladiator to its death (this is not true but it was popularized by 19century painting Pollice Verso (1872)), Suppose the History Channel depicts a scene that does not involved a thumbs down before a defeated gladiator is killed, then a majority of the History Channel audience will question the scene as inaccurate and their line of thought will be something like this... "hey that can't be right, the senator/emperor needs to show a thumbs down before a gladiator is killed. It's true, I've seen it in the gladiator (2000) movie by Russell Crowe, I think the History Channel is incorrect...going to stop watching the history channel since they can't get the basics right". Interestingly by "educating" the large audience what is historically accurate, they themselves may be in risk of being labeled as historically inaccurate show... :?

[Dithrambus]

"I run an entertainment channel first and foremost, which happens to be based on history."
-- Richard Melman of the History Channel UK

There is no point complaining since we are not its target audience. The History Channnel is about making money, not education.

I believe Dan has made a good point, I guess we cannot fault Mr Melman for honesty. Still, many look to this channel for their occasional dose of historical education.