Matrix Games Forums

I am not trying to get into any political debate and don't want to. I am trying to report what the series actually showed and used examples from the series. The series as Berto also said elevated the anti-war folks to hero status.

They interviewed a guy that ran to Canada. He eventually renounced his US citizenship and became a Canadian citizen. He regrets this and the documentary portrays it as the "price he had to pay for standing up for his ideals." There are also other examples I can easily cite where the series portrayed the anti-war folks as having "suffered" (term the series used).

Anyone read the Vietnam book that go along with the Burns documentary?

ORIGINAL: Orm

Anyone read the Vietnam book that go along with the Burns documentary?

warspite1

No but I bought a book for my elder warspite's history course The Vietnam War (Mark Atwood Lawrence). I saw from the reviews that this provided a good overview of the conflict. I am generally not interested in warfare post-Hiroshima, but this discussion and the Ken Burns documentary has piqued my interest so will give this a read just as soon as I have finished War In The West Volume 1 .

Egypt's Great Pyramid: The New Evidence on C4

Also available on the C4 website at the moment:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/egypts-great-pyramid-the-new-evidence

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

So I watched all of Ken Burn's Vietnam series. I give it a grade of B-. Here's why. First off I felt he covered most of the facts correctly. I think he only got things wrong on number of draftees vs. volunteers (claiming at one point the whole force in Vietnam was draftees) and being very misleading on number of blacks killed in the war. he used statistics that left out officers and prefaced it by saying "enlisted men".

The other thing he did that was unfair in my opinion is the time spent on various subjects. For example when it came to US atrocities he would spend 20-30 minutes on it but as soon as it was switched to the Weathermen or NLF atrocities there was a 1-2 minute segment that basically mention it but never got into the details he did for US stuff.

It was also clear that he sided with the war protesters point of view. He would have 3 or 4 people comment on it from the anti-war side then maybe one vet saying how badly they were treated. Or take for example the various marches on DC against the war. There would be long segments on how many people showed up etc. But then there would be 1-2 sentences on how polling viewed the data where the majority of the US population did not agree with the anti-war folks, especially their tactics.

At a B- it is worth watching. But it also does have an agenda and that is to say the anti-war folks were the "good" Americans.

Very useful Goodmongo. Thanks.

I'd hopes that Ken Burns' work wouldn't take the 'easy way' out and reproduce the facile modern view of the war that you describe. I'll have to investing my time and attention now.

I'm currently watching BBC's Rellik with Richard Dormer (Game of Thrones and Fortitude). This is a crime drama where we see the end - the shooting dead of a suspect by police - and then the events are played backwards in time. Never seen this concept before - but it really works!

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I'm currently watching BBC's Rellik with Richard Dormer (Game of Thrones and Fortitude). This is a crime drama where we see the end - the shooting dead of a suspect by police - and then the events are played backwards in time. Never seen this concept before - but it really works!

The backword narrative/structure was used before in at least two movies that I have seen, Memento and Irréversible.
In my opinion both are worth seeing, but Irréversible... let's say it's not a movie for everyone.

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I'm currently watching BBC's Rellik with Richard Dormer (Game of Thrones and Fortitude). This is a crime drama where we see the end - the shooting dead of a suspect by police - and then the events are played backwards in time. Never seen this concept before - but it really works!

The backword narrative/structure was used before in at least two movies that I have seen, Memento and Irréversible.
In my opinion both are worth seeing, but Irréversible... let's say it's not a movie for everyone.

warspite1

Just checked wiki for Irreversible [X(]. I might give that one a miss [;)]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Very useful Goodmongo. Thanks.

I'd hopes that Ken Burns' work wouldn't take the 'easy way' out and reproduce the facile modern view of the war that you describe. I'll have to investing my time and attention now.

Rereading my comment I may have left a confused stance as to how the documentary portrayed the vets that fought there. He was very sympathetic to them. He had Galloway talk about Col Hal Moore and that battle. There were plenty of spots where he praised the young men as doing their duty.

So it was very fair in those regards. It showed how the average US soldier fought bravely, especially up till 1970. How no matter how silly the order they did all they could to accomplish it.

It was only how in my opinion, and my wife who also watched it with me, that he painted with a very broad brush the atrocities that some committed. Those things happened and they needed to be included.

I think anyone interested in that war or time period should watch the documentary and judge it for themselves.

I just finished season 5 of the old BBC show 'Allo 'Allo!

Up to the end of episode 4 of the Ken Burns documentary. As someone who knew nothing about the war, this is proving excellent to watch and learn from.

One comment that annoyed me though was the anti-war bloke who rather self-righteously proclaimed that when the middle classes got involved it was a protest about self-interest and not about the injustice of the war. Presumably he asked everyone about their motivations? [8|]

Yesterday I watched documentary about Tiger 131[/u]

Watching season three of Broadchurch.

Blade Runner 2049

Being a fan of the original movie, I had the worst expectations regarding the movie. Some things are just better left untouched.
No, it's not as good as Blade Runner (how could it be), but there's an honest effort to respect the original movie.
Avoiding any spoilers, I'd just say it adds a couple of things to the original story and obviously it tries to develop it a little further.

As a curiosity, the script for Blade Runner 2049, was written by Hampton Fancher, which was the original screenwriter of Blade Runner, before Ridley Scott replaced him with David Peoples.
It's funny to see that some of the ideas that were abandoned by Ridley and David Peoples, are now in this movie.

Unfortunately, the soundtrack is miles away from the one composed by Vangelis. It's really a shame and the most negative aspect of the movie when comparing with the original.

The cinematography is as expected nowadays, a lot of CGI. Anyway, the ambiance is correct. In contrast with the original movie, Blade Runner 2049 has a lot of daylight scenes.
The general colour is much more greyish and less blueish. In the Wallace scenes, we have the same golden tones that we have in the Tyrell scenes in the original movie.

The acting is not brilliant, but it's OK, special mention to Ryan Gosling which has a good performance. Anyway, we miss you, Rutger Hauer.

In short, if you are a Blade Runner or a Cyberpunk fan, Blade Runner 2049 it's a worth seeing movie, but it won't be a classic as Blader Runner is.

Before seeing Blader Runner 2049, don't miss the 3 prequels, they are important for the movie's story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMP1YpQSGhQ

I'm about to watch "The Civil War 25th Anniversary Edition" by Ken Burns. I plan to watch it and then start a game of AGEOD's Civil War II: at least I'll know what I'm doing [:D]

The recent reintroduction of the Hastings thread has got me looking at BBC's The Normans, a three-part documentary by Professor Robert Bartlett.

Thoroughly recommended.

I was really excited to see a poster yesterday at my train station for a film called:

The Death of Stalin

However, at the bottom of the poster was the tag line - A comedy of terrors... I assumed from that that this wasn't a serious film [:D] and sure enough it is a satire.

When I got home I checked out a trailer for it - and it looks pretty funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukJ5dMYx2no

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I was really excited to see a poster yesterday at my train station for a film called:

The Death of Stalin

However, at the bottom of the poster was the tag line - A comedy of terrors... I assumed from that that this wasn't a serious film [:D] and sure enough it is a satire.

When I got home I checked out a trailer for it - and it looks pretty funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukJ5dMYx2no

Can anyone recommend a good film documentary on Stalin?

The wings of Stalin.[:D]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Up to the end of episode 4 of the Ken Burns documentary. As someone who knew nothing about the war, this is proving excellent to watch and learn from.

One comment that annoyed me though was the anti-war bloke who rather self-righteously proclaimed that when the middle classes got involved it was a protest about self-interest and not about the injustice of the war. Presumably he asked everyone about their motivations? [8|]

The series was good, but Shelby Foote's contributions made it superlative.