History channel productions

[Primvs Pavlvs]

The History Channel is for the average couch historian, and something to watch while eating dinner. Hell its better than Skinny Chics and Gay Guys Giving Housewives makeovers!

[Magnus]

The History Channel is for the average couch historian, and something to watch while eating dinner. Hell its better than Skinny Chics and Gay Guys Giving Housewives makeovers!

Amen brother!

[Susanne]

I'm not quite sure whether the the producers consulted people from Greek re-enactment organizations, but it seems as though they got the information on the Spartan weaponry from the Hoplite Association website.

I was told that the producers of the Greek part of the "War and Civilization" series of Discovery Channel in fact conducted lengthy discussions with the Hoplite Association, but that in the end everything they said was rejected...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes the name History Channel implies something directly, as most people, including myself, tend to take people at face value, I would expect a broadcaster to be up-front! Otherwise, it should be renamed! I don't spend much time researching channels credentials, just expect a standard of accuracy, that is blatently missing...... :?
I could do better!

[Idomeneas]

everybody could do better, in fact i dont know why they dont

[Arthes]

If these guys consulted the Hoplite Association and ignored them....well... :x x
We have Steve Senior who specialises in Spartans...and contributes toSpartanWorld
If they checked out HA website, it would also explain why the 300 Last Stand's authenticity was rather better than some...!
:wink:

[avlvs arrivs diogenes]

Chairete,
I feel your pain, Yannis, and I sympathize. As someone who has done a fair amount of extra work and consultation work for the History Channel (and Discovery and Nat'l Geographic as well), I must say that, yes, they ARE cheap and incompetent. Those of us in Legion VI in Los Angeles have taken part in a lot of these productions because we are geographically close to their bases of operations. Basically, there are about three to four production companies that make these documentaries and then sell them to the History Channel. They do not employ real scholars to do the writing or research most of the time, but professional writer/producers, who have no more knowledge of the subject than the average person who has just opened a book on the subject at hand. They then occasionally check with real scholars for support.

On more than one occasion, I have rolled my proverbial eyes at directors giving absurd commands to the extras - directions that showed they did not know anything about the period or the scholarship associated with it. My favorite moment was one scene in which we were portarying Roman soldiers guarding the cross of Jesus Christ. The director asked me to spear Jesus in the side, as per the gospel stories, and he then told the actor playing Jesus to "react" to the thrust. Obviously, the director had never read the gospels, which state that Jesus was already dead by this point. I had to correct him.

Essentially, the History Channel and the several channels like it, are only slightly better than pure entertainment. They educate the amateurs and hopefully encourage the masses to read a book. But the Hist Channel is certainly not representative of "good scholarship".

But it sure is a heck of a lot of fun being an extra on these programs - sitting around for hours, waiting for your scene, chatting with your closest reenactor friends, being fed by the caterers, and then doing about an hour or two of actual work. The worst that can happen is that they spread fake blood all over your best armor!

All my best to you, koinonoi,
Diogenes

[avlvs arrivs diogenes]

By the way, let me add to Matt's comment from earlier. That was Leg VI Victrix involved in the show he was mentioning. That was the very production I was sharing about in my earlier post for the National Geographic Channel. It was the same production company that does documentaries for the History Channel and Discovery. Essentially, they usually contact us ahead of time and give us minimal information about what they want. They'll say something like, "We need 10 Roman soldiers." We'll inquire, "What time period?" They'll say, "Whatever." So, we do our best and show up with what we can. And then, typically, they'll film us in a variety of scenes so that they can have a bunch of stock file footage, to be used for a variety of different shows in the future. So, while we are the ones to blame for that particular historical anachronism of having an Italic G at the foot of the cross, we are not the ones truly responsible. That happens all the time.

The documentary business is usually pretty small in its operation. It is not nearly as well staffed as feature film production companies. But still, they suffer from a lot of "Hollywood" ideologies and practices, which is why I like to call them "Docu-wood" of "Doccywood."

My apologies for having taken part in some of these shows. Like Ignatius of Loyola did for the Catholic Church, we try to make changes from within, influencing the Docuwood types to become more responsible as they utilize us.

The one that I would say was fairly good was "The Real Story of Alexander the Great". One of our founding members, Caius, is a Hollywood prop and set designer. They contracted with him to do the majority of the costuming for the Macedonians. Overall, I am pleased with the way that program turned out. We got about 20 people together and formed a phalanx. The special effects technicians then just cloned us a thousand times and used our images at will.

Hygiainete,
Diogenes

[hoplite14gr]

Well thanks useful insight on how standards drop and not only in film-making business.
Computer aided special effects could have helped a lot but I guess producers "have crabs in their pockets"
Kind regards

[Ironhand]

I can't even watch the History Channel anymore. I waited weeks for the Dark Ages show and they open it with a comment about stupid, smelly barbarians sacking Rome.

[perrygray]

One problem with so-called media TV is that it replaces subjectivity with objectivity. As already mentioned, entertainment is often more important than education.

I was interviewed several times by the media during my military career. Most of the time it was necessary to remain calm while being frustrated by the antics of the reporter. In retirement, I continue to deal with the media on the subject of veterans affairs. It remains necessary to be patient and be willing to educate reporters including providing information packages. This does not always result in a report that is satisfactory; however, there is a steep learning curve.

MC Bishop does not do TV, although Peter Heather, Thomas Burns and others are willing to appear. It is probably very easy to find a professor, scholar or historian to act as the subject matter expert, but it is quite another to find TV producers willing to give them enough time to educate the prospective audience.

Simply having an interest in a subject does not always qualify the person as an expert. A PhD is the goal of many professional students, it does not make superior to an amateur with years of research experience, who attends the "university of life". Some of the best experts lack the academic qualifications that often are considered essential to be granted expert status.

Sometimes even medical doctors recommend getting s second opinion.

Those of us who have attended university will have encountered well respected professors who are poor public speakers. Charisma and speaking abilities are often more important than knowledge, which helps to explain why actors are used to narrate or present documentaries.

Would any of us have expected Terry Jones and Michael Pallin of Monty Python fame to become experts on history and geography? Jones' series on barbarians was entertaining, but was it history?

Adrian Goldsworthy kindly gave me copies of several programs of a TV program for which he was one of the two military experts. The program was Time Commanders and it was a game show using the Rome Total War computer/console game to refight historical battles. A team of four friends or colleagues were the Roman commanders and the enemy force was commanded by unseen staff members.

I often wonder if reenactors, wargamers an others could do a better job. Phil Barker one of the best known wargamers has introduced many people to ancient wargaming. His books are still popular even though the information can be erroneous. That said the Society of Ancients includes many knowledgeable members and their articles are as well written and researched as those in academic journals.

Osprey Publishing is another very influential source for military history. Its books can be good, bad or indifferent. It is up to the reader to decide.

I think that the development of Ancient Warfare magazine is timely given the popularity of the subject in mainstream society. Hopefully it will be a source of which we can be proud because it is a quality product.

In the end history is still a perception of the past and there are many different opinions as to what happened. Even eyewitnesses cannot agree on what they experienced. TV programs and documentaries allow us to visit foreign lands and learn about our universe without having to leave the comfort of our homes. Encouraging people to think may be the greatest benefit derived from such things and yet often people just accept verbatim what is presented.

All of us benefit from communicating with others to broaden our knowledge. Watching TV offers a chance to compare the perceptions of others with our own. The learning process has no terminal point because we can always discover new things. What we accept or reject depends on our core believes and faith in what is fact or fiction.

[hoplite14gr]

Osprey Publishing when first appeared gave images and visualization to "boring texts". Some works are decent some are...well forget it.

But TV channels who claim to be educational have very little excuse in my opionion. The progress in computerised graphics can be used as an argument against them.

I am convinced that most of the TV channels consider their spectators "intellectually inferior" and they abide by "many will see few will understand" principle.

If they consider "educational material" non profitable why they do it in the first place?

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I wonder how expensive would graphics like those in LOTR and Alexanser would be.I mean,they do mirracles!

[Tarbicus]

The progress in computerised graphics can be used as an argument against them.

They don't cost nothing to make and are only as good as the information provided, and the will and orders of the director and producer paying, so I wouldn't rely on them too much. Believe me, I know from plenty of experience :wink:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Ha,Jim,we wrote the same time abd you replied to my question!
Don't you think that a picture of the real thing as it should be is impresive enough to convince a director promote it?Given that we're not talking about already existing kit etc.