Page 2 of 3
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:42 am
by L`zard
I've got to admit that my only reason for watching most of the HC programs is that it's 'free' with my cable subscription...[8|]
The depth of research is akin to 'Wading Pool'........[:'(]
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:25 pm
by decaro
I just watched the latest installment of 360 abt. Patton in Tunesia and it wasn't half-bad.
But the show keeps jumping into the future, comparing modern weapons w/their less effective WW II predecessors; the HC should have dispensed w/the 360 format and called this show "Warfare:Then and Now -Patton".
This concept would have worked better since you really don't have a true 360 environment on land.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:05 pm
by V22 Osprey
I watched Patton 360 last night, it was alright, but I wished they focused more on the actually Battle instead of going into every soldier's bio.I understand having a short Bio of Patton himself since it IS his show, but not a BIO for every Private at the Battle.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:03 am
by sol_invictus
I thought that the second show was better than the first, but the 360 format that worked so well with carier battles just doesn't work as well with ground combat imo. I find that I rarely can find a show on the HC that has any interest for me anymore. Several years ago I watched it regularly.[:(]
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 4:45 am
by LST Express
I feel asleep watching it last night. Happens when you get old, will try again later.[8D]
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:20 pm
by decaro
ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey
I watched Patton 360 last night, it was alright, but I wished they focused more on the actually Battle instead of going into every soldier's bio.I understand having a short Bio of Patton himself since it IS his show, but not a BIO for every Private at the Battle.
Of course, you're exagerating; there were only a handful of bios -- including several officers' accounts -- and the show needed them; otherwise Battle 360 would be either CGI heavy, or just another Patton documentary.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:22 pm
by SlickWilhelm
My ten year old son loves the CGI part of the 360 series(and "Dogfights"), but I thought the animation of the Vichy French planes strafing the American soldiers on the beach was poorly done. Having little computerized soldiers flattened on the ground doesn't carry the same emotional weight as does the real combat footage taken during the war.
Anyone remember the first time they saw the footage of the four British or Canadian troops on the Normady beaches trudging slowly across the beach, when two of them get hit and drop like a sack of potatoes? When I first saw that as a kid in the documentary "The World at War", it really brought home to me the brutal reality of war.
CGI can be used to good effect to explain situations and provide better detail, but it should not be used as a replacement for actual combat footage where that is available.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:18 pm
by V22 Osprey
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey
I watched Patton 360 last night, it was alright, but I wished they focused more on the actually Battle instead of going into every soldier's bio.I understand having a short Bio of Patton himself since it IS his show, but not a BIO for every Private at the Battle.
Of course, you're exagerating; there were only a handful of bios...
There may only be a handful, but they were LONG Bios.A 10 minute bio for some officer on some ship is just unnessecary.Ok, so some officer was on board one of the ships....I dont mean to be mean but I really dont care if that officer was in WWI...I just want to see the Battle.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:24 pm
by jeffk3510
ORIGINAL: Chris Trog
ORIGINAL: jeffk3510
....besides... the Royals are on tv now, no time for anything esle!
Did you guys ever get that Don Denkinger statue erected in KC?
[;)]
Top of the AL Central baby! We wont break out of the slums this year, but we are vastly improving. We need another I-70 series soon! I fear Pujols everytime he bats more than the pitcher I think...
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:06 pm
by SuluSea
I watched the first episode and it left me abit let down. Maybe I was expecting too much. I didn't see Ep. 2 yet, hopefully it picks up as the season goes on.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:24 pm
by mikul82
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
IMO, its treatment of biblical "heroes" bordered on anti-semitic.
Why did you think that?
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:53 am
by E
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
The last really good show I saw on the HC was "Dogfights," which was a good mix of CG, interviews and info
I thought it was a
horrible "mix." The ratio of dogfights to commercials & recaps was FAR, FAR too low to sustain my interest. Seemed like 3 minutes of dogfighting, 5 minutes of commercials, 2 minutes of recap, etc. *argh!* For me it was unwatchable. Even big name networks give 50%-66% of (actual) content.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:53 am
by cantona2
Just seen the promo on YouTube. Isn't the term 'America's Military Genuis' being a bit too kind to Old Blood n Guts? Seeing the tech and not being able to see the series until its on the HC in Europe 17 light years from now, wouldnt it be great to take this on with the pivotal campaigns of the war, eg France 1940, Barbarossa, Operation Bagration, Normandy etc. Not the Bulge though as its one campaign that has been overcooked by US documentaries.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:57 am
by SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
I just got round to watching some Battle 360 stuff. It is very good eye candy and includes some nice unit level details that strategic level documentaries don't have time for. But I strongly prefer war documentaries like Line of Sight with Aryk Nusbacher and the Battlefield series.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:42 am
by decaro
ORIGINAL: mlc82
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
IMO, its treatment of biblical "heroes" bordered on anti-semitic.
Why did you think that?
For one thing, when Battles BC did King David, they actually compared him, his tactics and his inner circle of warriors to the Mafia.
Also, Joshua was described as essentially "crazy for God," and Moses came-off as bloodthirsty.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:05 pm
by mikul82
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
ORIGINAL: mlc82
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
IMO, its treatment of biblical "heroes" bordered on anti-semitic.
Why did you think that?
For one thing, when Battles BC did King David, they actually compared him, his tactics and his inner circle of warriors to the Mafia.
Also, Joshua was described as essentially "crazy for God," and Moses came-off as bloodthirsty.
What conqueror wouldn't be comparable to the same? I don't get the anti-semitic part, as claiming something similar to say Genghis Khan or Alexander III wouldn't usually be considered "anti-Mongol" or "anti-Macedonian".
I can't see anyone ordering the wholesale slaughter of captured women and children as anything above "bloodthirsty" personally, no matter the reason behind it. I'm appalled that I was taught as a kid in church that these people were somehow valiant, gold-shining heroes as opposed to simply yet another ambitious, vicious conqueror with piles of bodies at their feet just like Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and etc.
Not sure how any of that could be seen as "anti semitic", like I said any more than the above about Caesar would be "Anti-Roman".
Edit: If I'm venturing into forbidden "Religion/Politics" territory here let me know, not trying to start a flame war or wreck the thread!
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:42 pm
by decaro
ORIGINAL: mlc82
... What conqueror wouldn't be comparable to the same? I don't get the anti-semitic part, as claiming something similar to say Genghis Khan or Alexander III wouldn't usually be considered "anti-Mongol" or "anti-Macedonian".
I can't see anyone ordering the wholesale slaughter of captured women and children as anything above "bloodthirsty" personally, no matter the reason behind it. I'm appalled that I was taught as a kid in church that these people were somehow valiant, gold-shining heroes as opposed to simply yet another ambitious, vicious conqueror with piles of bodies at their feet just like Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and etc.
Not sure how any of that could be seen as "anti semitic", like I said any more than the above about Caesar would be "Anti-Roman".
Edit: If I'm venturing into forbidden "Religion/Politics" territory here let me know, not trying to start a flame war or wreck the thread!
If we haven't crossed over into forbidden territory, we're very close; it's a lot like an unmarked minefield: when you know you're in it, it's usu. too late.
Conqueror? I make a distiction between an Alexander conquering the known world and Saul securing the eastern Med, but Battles BC didn't compare Julius Caesar to Don Corleone; instead they choose to compare him to King David, which struck me as odd.
There was another scene where Moses kills an Egyptian -- a Biblical fact -- but then Moses postures over his victim like the "Incredible Hulk".
Very odd.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:55 am
by mikul82
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
ORIGINAL: mlc82
... What conqueror wouldn't be comparable to the same? I don't get the anti-semitic part, as claiming something similar to say Genghis Khan or Alexander III wouldn't usually be considered "anti-Mongol" or "anti-Macedonian".
I can't see anyone ordering the wholesale slaughter of captured women and children as anything above "bloodthirsty" personally, no matter the reason behind it. I'm appalled that I was taught as a kid in church that these people were somehow valiant, gold-shining heroes as opposed to simply yet another ambitious, vicious conqueror with piles of bodies at their feet just like Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and etc.
Not sure how any of that could be seen as "anti semitic", like I said any more than the above about Caesar would be "Anti-Roman".
Edit: If I'm venturing into forbidden "Religion/Politics" territory here let me know, not trying to start a flame war or wreck the thread!
If we haven't crossed over into forbidden territory, we're very close; it's a lot like an unmarked minefield: when you know you're in it, it's usu. too late.
Conqueror? I make a distiction between an Alexander conquering the known world and Saul securing the eastern Med, but Battles BC didn't compare Julius Caesar to Don Corleone; instead they choose to compare him to King David, which struck me as odd.
There was another scene where Moses kills an Egyptian -- a Biblical fact -- but then Moses postures over his victim like the "Incredible Hulk".
Very odd.
Ha I agree with the end, the whole show's "roid rage" effect is just silly. If you thought THAT was bad, you should have seen Hanninbal screaming while wielding dual falcatas and slaying Romans left and right- in the loincloth he apparently crossed the alps in.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:00 am
by decaro
ORIGINAL: mlc82
Ha I agree with the end, the whole show's "roid rage" effect is just silly. If you thought THAT was bad, you should have seen Hanninbal screaming while wielding dual falcatas and slaying Romans left and right- in the loincloth he apparently crossed the alps in.
LOL -- "roid rage" sure sums it all up.
I saw HC's portrayal of Hannibal and his men crossing the Alps -- I would have been
very cold wearing sandals in the snow.
And somehow I doubt that, even back then, a commanding general had the time to give orders while routinely go hand-to-hand w/the opposition; Battles BC has portrayed Caesar et al as if they were action figures, not commanders directing entire armies.
RE: Patton 360
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 am
by SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
Carthaginian archives just recently declassified confirm that Hannibal personally accounted for at least 20,000 of the Romans butchered at Cannae.