Wonder what thoughts are about last nights run of a BBC production of 'D-Day'? Myself, I was pleased to see reasonable control of the lovies who think degrading the image quality and shaking the camera profusely while filming equates to a convincing imitation documentary. Other than that I found it pointless insofar as what was the point they were trying to make? It clearly focussed on the British Airborne - so why not have titled it as such? They mentioned all the beaches but no opinion of each? Only Sword and Omaha got any time in the production, and, they mentioned Lovat's SS Brigade, and................. they mentioned Lovat's SS Brigade, and................ they mentioned Lovat's SS Brigade....... Who they were, what they were assigned to do, what they did, etc, were all missed. Hence why mention them at all? I so wish the lovies of the BBC would concede they are crap on history and ASK proper historians what aspects of the war could and should be given a programme, rather than decide themselves what they want to make a programme about and then find bits and pieces to endorse their own opinions. If they want to make a meaningful programme about the British Airbourne then fine. But tell the full story and how they played a part in the big picture. I can only guess they threw in a section on Omaha and some German who fired 10'000 rounds at the Americans, because they think that way they can sell it to American TV? I don't think just mentioning the Canadians landed at Juno....full stop.....will sell it to Canada? Having been repeatedly treated to lovies who think they can do history, I for one would like to see the results of historians who think they can TV for a change. No.9
Oh you shameless inebriate you all that cocoa I quite liked how they did what they did, my gripe is what was in mind when it was written? What impression is Joe Public supposed to be left with? No.9
Originally posted by No.9@Dec 12 2004, 01:20 PM I so wish the lovies of the BBC would concede they are crap on history and ASK proper historians what aspects of the war could and should be given a programme, rather than decide themselves what they want to make a programme about and then find bits and pieces to endorse their own opinions. ... Having been repeatedly treated to lovies who think they can do history, I for one would like to see the results of historians who think they can TV for a change. No.9 [post=30093]Quoted post[/post] If you'll excuse the pun, that is a rather black and white idea of how TV history is made. The BBC are in fact, in my experience, among the best at making TV History. They treat it seriously, and don't mind spending money on it. Commercial TV is very different indeed. What you and many others fail to realise is that TV is very different medium to books and magazines; you can't tell the same sort of story, and you can't fill it full of facts, other 99% of the audience switch off. If this is the docu-drama that was done for the anniversary in June, personally I thought it was quite good, given that even D Day alone is an enormous sweep of a subject.
What you and many others fail to realise is that TV is very different medium to books and magazines; you can't tell the same sort of story, and you can't fill it full of facts, other 99% of the audience switch off. Well thank you so much for that, I've often wondered why I was so dim? What you don't realise Mr Dyke, is that I freelance for TV programme production and in a capacity somewhat higher than a cable puller. No, not for the BBC (bob, genuflect, kiss my license) and not in drama, but please don't tell me I have no idea of how programmes are made and who makes the calls. For any who missed it, the BBC said: D Day Sat 11 Dec, 9:30 pm - 11:30 pm 120mins An epic drama-documentary which begins in January 1944 as the Allies and Germans race to prepare for the long awaited invasion of Europe, and leads onto the dramatic 24-hour story of June 6th - D-Day itself. The film's cast includes allied spies, British paratroopers and infantry, French Resistance workers, war photographer Robert Capa and the rival commanders Eisenhower and Rommel. Inter-weaving archive interviews and drama, D-Day tells the true stories of some of those who lived through June 6th. No it wasn't the abysmal, grainy, B&W effort shown around the anniversary, this was a different attempt, but equally abysmal for different reasons. And yes, I for one would like to see the results of historians who think they can make TV for a change instead of lovies who think they can make history. No.9
One of the worst programmes I have ever seen,the Sword Beach coverage was nothing less than laughable if it were not for the brave men that died there. terrible, just terrible. WE saw the KSLI men wandering about, with a lot of childish chatter,it was so bad it made me angry that mens memories should be treated in this way.Sapper
Originally posted by No.9@Dec 12 2004, 07:42 PM What you don't realise Mr Dyke, is that I freelance for TV programme production and in a capacity somewhat higher than a cable puller. No, not for the BBC (bob, genuflect, kiss my license) and not in drama, but please don't tell me I have no idea of how programmes are made and who makes the calls. I bow to your superior knowledge then.
Originally posted by No.9@Dec 12 2004, 08:42 PM No it wasn't the abysmal, grainy, B&W effort shown around the anniversary, this was a different attempt, but equally abysmal for different reasons. And yes, I for one would like to see the results of historians who think they can make TV for a change instead of lovies who think they can make history. No.9 [post=30108]Quoted post[/post] Wonder what it was then? The D-Day programme I have from the BBC from June is using colour... Are you in the UK? can you confirm the name of the programme? it would seem odd if we all missed something new and completely out of touch regarding timing! The one I and Paul refer to is this one: http://www.bbcshop.com/invt/bbcdvd1431 Cheers Ryan
It was just billed in my TV mag as "D-Day" and it was a repeat, having been originally shown back in June, which I suppose is why it was not heavily promoted this time. I agree it was not too good, my comments above notwithstanding, except that I had consumed enough "fruit juice" for my critical faculties to be off peak. Truth to tell, I hadn't even checked to see what was on.
Do the US TV people make better WW2 documentrys? I would be interested to know. In fact does anyone in the media really care as we do, about getting it right. Colin.
Originally posted by colinhotham@Dec 13 2004, 04:16 PM Do the US TV people make better WW2 documentrys? I would be interested to know. In fact does anyone in the media really care as we do, about getting it right. Colin. [post=30125]Quoted post[/post] It wasn't a straight documentary - it was two hours of drama-docu. I don't think US TV does drama-docu better and they do try quite hard for accuracy, but they also need production values or people will turn off. In other words, it needs to be a ripping yarn.
Angie, I think drama-documentaries are the worst kind of TV. Give me the good old WW2 news-reel footage, it does'nt lie! Colin.
Originally posted by colinhotham@Dec 13 2004, 10:44 PM Angie, I think drama-documentaries are the worst kind of TV. Give me the good old WW2 news-reel footage, it does'nt lie! Colin. [post=30138]Quoted post[/post] Hmm <_< Yes and no - we all know that a lot of newsreel footage was either sensored or recreated for the camera. Looks better though I'll grant you that. This D-Day programme was in the same vein as the earlier Dunkirk programme and the 10 days to D-Day. No doubt this is simply the current thinking in tv studios or the latest 'genre' taught at university on how to sell history to the masses. Faults aside (factual ones) as long as it gets people watching, interested and remembering they all get my vote. Cheers Ryan
I remember that when I worked for the Ministry of Defence, an officer I knew was telling us about his evening at the cinema. One of the film characters did something utterly impossible with a piece of military equipment. The officer, without thinking, said out loud "He can't do that!" Not only did he get a quick elbow in the ribs from his wife, but also tut-tuts from half the audience. None of them obviously wanted the truth to stand in the way of entertainment. If it isn't entertaining, people will not watch. I think our problem is we know too much and want to be entertained with facts.
Originally posted by angie999@Dec 14 2004, 09:08 AM I remember that when I worked for the Ministry of Defence, an officer I knew was telling us about his evening at the cinema. One of the film characters did something utterly impossible with a piece of military equipment. The officer, without thinking, said out loud "He can't do that!" Not only did he get a quick elbow in the ribs from his wife, but also tut-tuts from half the audience. None of them obviously wanted the truth to stand in the way of entertainment. If it isn't entertaining, people will not watch. I think our problem is we know too much and want to be entertained with facts. [post=30143]Quoted post[/post] I went to see a local production of "The Sound of Music" and could not resist the comment that in scene where the Von trapps were singing at salzburg and the local Nazis turned up, the gaulieter was carrying a webley and the "Nazi" troops were wearing East german uniforms, webbing and carrying AK47's
Getting back to the subject of docu-dramas or what have you. I find that the fancy camera tricks actually spoil the programme. Also, when you see them recreating "war scenes" you tend to see men in very clean and correct uniforms in places where they should be in mud up to the knees! There is also the use of original footage but present it in the wrong "time" things like later model aircraft being used when the programme is about 1940 and that sort of stuff! I have seen the footage of the, what I beleive to be, a member of the Durham Light infantry carrying a wounded comrade taken in 1916 shown during a programme about the phoney war to show the conditions in France in 1939!. Personally, i think that there is the use of recreations is because so many peole have been brought up with colour tellys and therefore are not used to black and white wartime footage. But, many of the programmes do have bad history and are down right misleading, especially on the History Channel.
Originally posted by colinhotham@Dec 13 2004, 12:16 PM Do the US TV people make better WW2 documentrys? I would be interested to know. In fact does anyone in the media really care as we do, about getting it right. Colin. [post=30125]Quoted post[/post] Hard to tell. The History Channel does some good documentaries, with re-enactors clomping around in period uniforms to illustrate the narration. The WW2 documentaries have the advantage of the ancient survivors narrating their experiences with a mix of black-and-white photos of them at the time, followed by the full-color re-enactors doing the scene the survivor is narrating. On the other hand, the big-budget movies vary in excellence from the meticulous Band of Brothers to the hilariously inaccurate Windtalkers and Pearl Harbor. When they do the lives of historic figures, they can take advantage of newsreels and TV interviews. Some of our tackier WW2 movies and shows are pretty hilarious, but not by intention. For reasons best known to the marketing geniuses, The Black Sheep Squadron found it necessary to have a 16-year-old pilot (to attract kids) and a bevy of nurses as "Pappy's Lambs," all sporting massive Farrah Fawcett 1970s-style hairdos. Supposedly the actual veterans of VMF-214 were outraged at being portrayed as misfits, outcasts, crooks, and bums -- after all, they were Marines -- and their life on the Pacific island as being alternating hair-raising aerial combat with hi-jinks with big-busted beauties back at base, replete with hot showers and Scotch.
Originally posted by morse1001@Dec 14 2004, 10:05 AM There is also the use of original footage but present it in the wrong "time" things like later model aircraft being used when the programme is about 1940 and that sort of stuff! [post=30146]Quoted post[/post] Like it last night's episode about the people learning to fly a Lancaster. They showed a wartime shot of a "Lancaster" which was a Halifax! Still, I suppose anything with two wings and four engines would do.
Like it last night's episode about the people learning to fly a Lancaster. They showed a wartime shot of a "Lancaster" which was a Halifax! Still, I suppose anything with two wings and four engines would do. [post=30155]Quoted post[/post] [/quote] The one thing about the programme is that it can never really match what actually happened during the war. Therefore it is rather false. They have picked the girl to be the WOp, now the main HF radio in the Lanc was the TR1154/55 and they used Morse code! Unless she has already been trained in morse then it would take months to get her up to the speed required. Also, using the TR1154/55 is not the easist of jobs, I did four week course to convert me to it and i was an experienced WOp! Furthermore, depending year they are suppossd to be representing then the WOps job on the Lanc during operations kept them very busy, how in the name of the wee man are they going to simulate that <_<
