The History Channel’s Gettysburg

Well stated. And I too feel bad for the talking heads. I am sure they had no idea at all what a steamer this would be.

Phil

Well said, Eric. I watched, intending to let minor inaccuracies go with the hope that a decent presentation would generate more interest in Gettysburg. Within five minutes I was disappointed and within ten minutes I was shouting at the TV. Just horrible. I can’t imagine Garry Adelman, Professor Peter Carmichael, or any of the other commentators agreeing to participate if they had any inkling of the historical inaccuracies. I can imagine they’re currently an unhappy group. I agree, don’t waste your time on this…

Eric,
I tuned in late and missed the early references about Dawes, but in its very clumsy ending, the focus shifted briefly back to Dawes who had hardly been mentioned for two reels and counted the dead of the Iron Brigade…I wondered what that had to do with anything.

Little Round Top was hardly mentioned except to say Sickles left it unguarded…but since there was no effort by the Rebel forces to take advantage of it…so what? No harm no foul, right.

I wasn’t as disappointed as most of you, because I had very little expectation of the History Channel. I was just glad to be watching a poorly done CW movie rather than Ice Road Trucker.

Tom

Eric,

Killer Angels triggered my interest in the Civil War and today I can see how many fictional and inaccurate themes that book contained. I didn’t know it at the time and fell in love with Gettysburg. Hopefully this will at least trigger interest in the battle that we all study so closely. It was made to entertain the general public, not educate historians.

I won;t comment on the uniforms, etc., as I’m not an expert but I certainly trust the opinions of Eric, JD, etc on that point.

I’ll give them a slight break on the omission of some personalities and units – everyone has their favorites and everyone will be disappointed in some way, but the leaving out of Buford on Day 1 is inexcusable.

My own interest and expertise is in medicine and in this regard I think the special was one step forward and two steps back.

My favorite part of the whole show was the animation of the “Minie ball” pasing through skin and muscle, flattening as it hit bone and then severely fracturing the bone. Personally, I’d buy a DVD of that clip.

However, they stated “medicine was still in its infancy” which is just an outright exaggeration and falsehood…they did mention the importance of amputation and availability of anesthesia, which is good, but really – not enough.

I have to say I was disappointed in the appearance of my friend George Wunderlich who I admire very much…like the other experts, I think he added some quality to an otherwise poor program, but they didn;t solicit his opinion on medicine at G’burg and he rolled out the tired brmide about “that would be 6,000,000 dead Americans today.”

I did not consider the violence as it was portrayed to be “war porn” as some might call it…frankly, I think we could do with some more realistic portrayals of the violence of the war.

My two cents

Eric–

Excellent points. I too was very disappointed, and only made it through one hour. The other hour sits on the DVD drive, unwatched.

The inaccuracies bothered me greatly, from the poor rendition of the terrain to the faulty depiction of uniforms. It isn’t too hard to find a hard-core reenactor to at least ensure you get insignia right. (Yellow chevrons on infantry?) And the omissions were also troubling–no Buford, no Chamberlain. I don’t recall hearing the name “Longstreet” in connection with July 2.

The script was trite. Really, was every move one that would have crushed the Army of the Potomac and ended the Civil War right then and there? History should tone down the melodramatics.

I also note that History appeared to “cut and paste” scenes from that other awful documentary, “America: The Story of Us.” I recall them using the same slave auction portrayal, as well as the CGI of the Minie ball being fired.

Finally, what ever happened to showing actual photographs? The Civil War was one of the first wars to be documented through a photographer’s lens. It is shame that so many priceless original images were left sitting in the National Archives, unused. Instead we get actors who look nothing like the actual combattants.

Where have all the real documentaries gone?

This was by far the worst Civil War production I have ever seen. It was so bad that it’s difficult to know where to begin in attempting to describe it. The appearance of the town, the Amos Hummiston scene, the landscape inaccuracies, the factual mistakes, the lack of troop organization, etc. Just a total piece of crap. Didn’t any historians get an opportunity to preview this before it was released? If so, why weren’t necessary changes made? I feel bad for any person who tuned in who might be new to Civil War studies. They gained no understanding of anything by watching this garbage. Extremely disappointing.

I too thought it was pretty crappy. I can’t believe that Gary Addleman knew what he was getting into. Had he known how bad this was I am sure he would not have decided to be a ‘talking head.” Like some others above have said, maybe this piece of crap will get more people interested and want to learn more of the battle. I started falling asleep when July 2 was over and decided to turn it off. Glad I got that extra bit of sleep last night as it’s been a little busy here at work.

Not much too add here that hasn’t already been said. I would ask, though: was every single Confederate introduced in this film labeled as a slaveholder? If not, a good majority were. So what was the point?
And this complaint is coming from one of those self-righteous, anti-slavery, Union sympathizer types. 🙂

No mentions, that I recall, of Buford, Reynolds, Longstreet, Hood, Chamberlain, or Hancock. There wasn’t even a depiction of Pickett (of course if there had been, he’d probably have looked like a younger and thinner Santa Claus.)
I guess they think their audience is too dumb for some historical accuracy and a learning experience. Entertainment and education are NOT necessarily polar opposites. You can have both at the same time.

Although there were some nice, individual moments, I didn’t even think the battle scenes were all that great either. Let’s hope for some better things from “Lee and Grant” tonight.

I thought the best thing the whole night was the GEICO commercial. Priceless…

I DVR’d it and will (try to) watch it tonight.

I have my blood pressure pills at the ready, as well as a stiff drink. I’ve told my wife not to be alarmed if she hears screaming emanating from the TV room.

It’s easy to nit-pick a movie and this one didn’t need that with so many obvious flows, the crossed rifles on the hats shown in the publicity photo for one.They definetly missed the Little Round Top story and why they chose Sickle over that I can’t figure. I can only hope that some kids somewhere watched this program which sparks their interest in the civil war.

This production was horrendous. I grew up around G’burg and immediately said “this terrain is all wrong”. I didn’t know where it was shot, but i could recognize neither the terrain nor the vegetation. As mentioned above the program starts in the railroad bed and gives the impression that this is were the the battle begins. Incorrect.
The errors were many and the production too sparse looking. I think they were trying to portray the “fog of war” or confusion. Instead they made an unintelligable muck up of the whole thing.
BOO!

I went to see Pirates this weekend and was surprised to see a short trailer for this during the movie previews. The History Channel seems to have put some serious $$ into promoting this …

I actually made it through about half-an-hour before I turned it off. I simply could not get interested in the program at all. I found the sepia-toned, slow-motion, gratuitously violent reenacting scenes to be very jarring and distracting. I didn’t even recognize the town of Gettysburg … I thought the CGI in general was pretty awful.

It made me wonder what sort of audience they were targeting. I can only imagine the person with a casual interest in the Civil War or Gettysburg feeling totally lost watching this show due to the disjointed nature and the complete lack of context. As far as hitting people who do have a serious interest specifically in the War or the battle of Gettysburg in particular, well, it seems to have totally missed the mark there too.

Seems like an expensive failure all around.

Everyone on this site knows enough to pick out all of the flaws. I want to know what the general public, with little or no knowledge of Gettysburg, thought of it. Did they find it interesting? Did it spur the desire for more information? If so, then it was a success. There is so little about the Civil War on TV, or even taught in schools, that I’m willing to put up with some inaccuracies if it gets people interested in this important period in our history.

I almost threw up. What worries me is that people watch these sort of productions and don’t realize they are being fed misinformation. Mentioning that Gen Meade was a West Pointer as was General Lee as if R E Lee was just another cadet in the long grey line from the USMA. The expressions of the faces on the Confederate soldiers (close-ups) made them look sub-human. I was extremely disappointed as was my neighbor who is a W and L grad. I could not watch the entire show. I got threw more than 45 minutes, though, albeit very painfully.

It was awful. It was almost as if there was no on-site historical consultant for the battle scenes. Everything about the battle scenes were wrong — the uniforms (cowboy hats on the officers, yellow trim for infantry, etc.), the terrain, the way the soldiers carried their muskets, soldiers moving like mobs of men, the accountrements, etc. Given all these issues, I am not surprised it was filmed in South Africa.

As for the writing, there was ZERO new analysis — just a regurgitation of well established information — and yet the script missed out on telling the stories of the key events and personalities of the battle. I’m still scratching my head why the program focused on Joseph R. Davis?? I learned nothing new. It was indeed “war porn,” that tried to impress the viewer by showing bullets and cannon balls moving in slow motion–the History Channel loves showing bullets in slow motion for some reason—rather than new incisive analysis or illustrative maps of the combat.

I have no problem with the program not mentioning Chamberlain and the 20th Maine. Chamberlain has received WAY too much attention over the years. Instead, lets highlight the role of other regiments like the 157th New York that lost 307/400 men on July 1, the 19th Maine for stopping Lang’s Florida Brigade on July 2 (the 1st Minn gets all the attention for stopping Wilcox’s brigade), or the stand of the 154th New York on Coster Avenue.

I’m still waiting for one TV program about the Battle of Gettysburg to mention the exploits of Ambrose Wright’s brigade on the evening of July 2. This brigade–by itself–was able to penetrate the Federal line deeper than Longstreet’s assault would do the following day.

History Channel — what a waste of millions of dollars!!

The best part was the Geico reenactor commercial. The rest was pretty bad.

My vote goes to the Geico!

I appreciate your thoughts, Eric. I had actually lasted seventy minutes through this claptrap, just hoping it would get better. General Barksdale looked like Wolvernine from X-Men. What in Sam Snead was going on in the segment about the rebel yell??!! Why did the director find it important to do a closeup of a nasty Confederate mouth (i.e. crooked teeth, wagging tongue, etc.)??!! I was then expecting Jeff Foxworthy to do a redneck joke.

I was very disappointed that they appeared to get about everything wrong. The show dropped into the battle with no explanation of the preliminary circumstances while ignoring truly heroic men in tide turning dramatic moments. A show about Gettysburg that doesn’t mention Buford, Hancock and Longstreet? A disappointing mess, not worthy of the History Channel.

Kurt – we all do agree (and I post as such as my blog) that much of the production value was compelling. I enjoyed the CGI and the in-your-face reality of much of the program.
However, the show did INDEED get just about EVERYTHING wrong. There were so many historical inaccuracies, it would be much easier and quicker to state what they got right. And the difference here is that this is History Channel – not Starz, not HBO, not Showtime. History. They are held to a higher standard. This show was billed as being a dramatic documentary (docudrama) of the battle of Gettysburg, but it was anything but that. British and South African actors were used on a South African set, and consultants who apparently knew next to nothing about the facts of the battle, campaign, or the CW in general wrote the narration. The actors looked nothing like the folks they were portraying. Hat emblems not used by the Army until 1875 were seen on nearly every Union soldier. Gen. Meade was said to have spent the entire battle 3 miles behind the lines. I could go on and on, but the fact remains that History channel is to be held to a higher standard, but they failed.
What would be said if a program on the channel said Hitler died in 1946 by eating bad sauerkraut? Or if Charles Lindberg flew a B-52? Should we change the history books, or do we discuss it?

Kurt/Gayle —
I would echo Mr. Petruzzi’s comments. The program had no real strengths and the CGI was not that impressive. If you want impressive combat scenes watch Savings Private Ryan or Band of Brothers — that is how it is done. This was amateur hour. Putting a minie ball in slow motion does not make it “compelling special effects.”

The History Channel series from about 5-6 years ago called Civil War Combat was 1000 times better and probably had 1/16 the budget of this Ridley Scott production. In Civil War Combat, the history was accurate, the casting was EXCELLENT, and one actually learned something. This Gettysburg program was complete garbage. Again, how does one produce a film on Gettysburg on not even mention John Buford, Little Round Top, Winfield S. Hancock, or Lewis Armistead??

For Gayle and others who do not have the background on the history, believe me when I tell you that there are MANY other TV programs out there that do a better job. Go netflix or buy Civil War Combat – an truly excellent series. Kurt, I’m beginning to think you work for the production company…

The production values were decent but errors overwhelmed them. The battles never felt like thousands were involved. The Pickett charge sequence focused on Joe Davis! Why? Union troops were depicted shooting Confederates just after crossing the Emmittsburg Fence in a scene that was completely wrong.

I mean no mention of Winfield Scott Hancock? Come on, thats a couple of points deducted right there.

None of the pretty stuff matters if you are thrown into the battle without any context.

‘Gettysburg’ by Maxwell is not a good comparison. At least there the Little Round Top scenes looked like they were filmed in Pennsylvania. There you could also see depicted the tension between Longstreet and Lee that was completely glossed over on the History channel documentary. And there you could see Buford portrayed and given full credit for his valiant stand. Also, in Maxwell’s ‘Gettysburg’ Barksdale actually sort of resembled Barksdale.

On the History documentary you see none of this and get visuals of cinematic slow motion killing that Sam Peckinpah mastered forty years ago with his classics ‘The Wild Bunch’ and ‘Cross of Iron’.

Chris