OT: Ken Burns The Civil War PBS Documentary 1990 Language English

[RangerJoe]

Free download:

https://archive.org/details/ken.-burns. ... .Cause.avi

Ken Burns The Civil War PBS Documentary 1990

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Had the CD set, back when discs were cool. Liked the work. Too bad Burns is nothing but a _____ ___ in real life. Tossed the collection same time as purging Bruce Springsteen discs.

[flibby]

Had the CD set, back when discs were cool. Liked the work. Too bad Burns is nothing but a _____ ___ in real life. Tossed the collection same time as purging Bruce Springsteen discs.

What did he do? The only controversial thing i can find is the quilt collecting thing, which is weird, but no reason to hate a man

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Had the CD set, back when discs were cool. Liked the work. Too bad Burns is nothing but a _____ ___ in real life. Tossed the collection same time as purging Bruce Springsteen discs.

What did he do? The only controversial thing i can find is the quilt collecting thing, which is weird, but no reason to hate a man

Did I use the word "hate"? Quit trying to get me in trouble.
On the contrary, I used the word "like" in regards to the Civil War "work".
On the record, Burns got rich (very rich) presenting this "image" of the United States on a publicly (tax payer funded) News Channel.
Off the beaten' path, he says something else. While lining his pockets with wealth. I call that hypocrisy.
Bonus material: His "Baseball" documentary was awful.
This same kind of logic can be said of many Authors, Actors, Speakers.

[RangerJoe]

Had the CD set, back when discs were cool. Liked the work. Too bad Burns is nothing but a _____ ___ in real life. Tossed the collection same time as purging Bruce Springsteen discs.

What did he do? The only controversial thing i can find is the quilt collecting thing, which is weird, but no reason to hate a man

Did I use the word "hate"? Quit trying to get me in trouble.
On the contrary, I used the word "like" in regards to the Civil War "work".
On the record, Burns got rich (very rich) presenting this "image" of the United States on a publicly (tax payer funded) News Channel.
Off the beaten' path, he says something else. While lining his pockets with wealth. I call that hypocrisy.
Bonus material: His "Baseball" documentary was awful.
This same kind of logic can be said of many Authors, Actors, Speakers.

I would not call his net worth of 1.5 million USD to be "very rich" at his age, what he has produced, written, and directed. He is also part owner of a restaurant. Or is it that you are jealous?

Here is a PBS financial form for you to read:

https://d1qbemlbhjecig.cloudfront.net/p ... d%20FS.pdf

[Orm]

I've tried to watch this series about the US civil war, but I found it to be lacking both times. I suppose I will give it a third try at some point.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

[/quote]
I would not call his net worth of 1.5 million USD to be "very rich" at his age, what he has produced, written, and directed. He is also part owner of a restaurant. Or is it that you are jealous?
[/quote]

Lol, you're a funny man. Nope, not jealous of $1.5M nor $1.5B. If we're having a fruit weighing contest based on wealth, Burns would come in 2nd place, must have blown his stack on pennystocks or slot machines (or has 8 kids and 3 alimony payments). The love of money not in my wheelhouse. Money is just something I need for trade, in case I don't die tomorrow. Fame, Fortune & Success, did it do Elvis much good? You must be on the inside track auditor with PBS financials, PBS always claiming to be broke with their fundraising. Might be easier for them to have commercials and ads. Lol, and owning a Restaurant (headache), is the absolute last thing I'd want.

I'll Fly Away Someday,
-Legend

[jbmoore68]

Guess I don’t understand all these issues. I watched and enjoyed both the Civil War and Baseball documentaries and would probably watch them again.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Guess I don’t understand all these issues. I watched and enjoyed both the Civil War and Baseball documentaries and would probably watch them again.

The Civil War one was decent. Not that hard to draw still paintings, read a library book with a melodramatic voice & play banjos in the background.

The baseball was horrid. Why? The 1980s were given 0 coverage except for Bo Jackson who's career had an awful football injury. Burns acted like Bo was the decade. "Bo Knows", highlights were entertaining, but blah when you check the #s. The documentary was made by someone reading books about the 1930's baseball and kissed upto Yankees. And of course sucking up to social issues to sell more copies.

Rather watch Mel Allen's "This Week in Baseball" episodes.
Or Dean Brothers broadcasts, Vin Scully, Joe Garagiola, Jack Buck, Harry Carey and his sons. Endless radio guys like Ernie Harwell.

Burns a turd on the baseball, he did for money (knew it would sell), doubt he played little league or a church slow pitch softball picnic game based on that borefest.

Feels like a ballgame on a rainy day,
-Legend

[ernieschwitz]

To be fair... baseball is a rather boring game.

Defined as: Not a lot happening over a longer time span.

[Mobeer]

This was broadcast just recently in the UK on PBS America. I thought it was pretty good. Mauybe a bit too much sentimentality and too few maps but it gave a good overview.

[Orm]

I thought it had way to few maps, and jumped to much in time. And to many stand alone quotes. I suppose this doesn't matter if your basic understanding of the geography, and order of events, is higher than mine.

[VPaulus]

I thought it had way to few maps, and jumped to much in time. And to many stand alone quotes. I suppose this doesn't matter if your basic understanding of the geography, and order of events, is higher than mine.

I believe it was not the intention of Ken Burns to picture an exhaustive documentary about the events, filled with a lot of maps and historic details.
This documentary series, like most of his other war documentaries, is more focused on the human side of the conflict.
The way how he uses the photos, portraits, first person accounts, narration, music and the Shelby Foote excerpts is to give us that side of the war.

If what you are looking is for a dry, but with full details, ACW documentary, than yes, you won't like it.

[OldSarge]

I thought it had way to few maps, and jumped to much in time. And to many stand alone quotes. I suppose this doesn't matter if your basic understanding of the geography, and order of events, is higher than mine.

I believe it was not the intention of Ken Burns to picture an exhaustive documentary about the events, filled with a lot of maps and historic details.
This documentary series, like most of his other war documentaries, is more focused on the human side of the conflict.
The way how he uses the photos, portraits, first person accounts, narration, music and the Shelby Foote excerpts is to give us that side of the war.

If what you are looking is for a dry, but with full details, ACW documentary, than yes, you won't like it.

I think that you have it right. Burns' piece is a glimpse, perhaps a little nostalgic, of the mindset of contemporary individuals at the time. In that, I think Burns succeeded in bringing those people back to life to relate their perspectives of the period as they witnessed it unfold.

[Curtis Lemay]

Maps would have been nice, but it lacked even more than that: No real military analysis at all. Nothing about how the minie-rifle altered tactics from the muskets of Napoleon. Nothing about how steam engines made shore defenses impotent against naval forces. Viewers thus came away with little enlightenment. They only found out that war is hell.

[RangerJoe]

. . . They only found out that war is hell.

Maybe that was the point.

If you want the other stuff that you mentioned, there are other places to look.

[Orm]

I thought it had way to few maps, and jumped to much in time. And to many stand alone quotes. I suppose this doesn't matter if your basic understanding of the geography, and order of events, is higher than mine.

I believe it was not the intention of Ken Burns to picture an exhaustive documentary about the events, filled with a lot of maps and historic details.
This documentary series, like most of his other war documentaries, is more focused on the human side of the conflict.
The way how he uses the photos, portraits, first person accounts, narration, music and the Shelby Foote excerpts is to give us that side of the war.

If what you are looking is for a dry, but with full details, ACW documentary, than yes, you won't like it.

I wasn't really looking for a dry, but with full details, ACW documentary. I was looking at it to learn more about the Civil War. All aspects of it. And concluded that this was not it. For me, it even failed to give the human side of the conflict.

I liked the documentary he made about the Vietnam War better. So therefore I suspect that a higher basic knowledge is needed to appreciate this show.