|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 11:39:45 GMT -5
Ok, what's with all this Da Vinci Code, Freemasons and all the rest of this junk? Yes, it's technically historical, but come on, do we have to listen to it all week?
And I don't even want to go into Ancient Astronauts. What a waste of programming that is.
I'll give them credit though, except for the Ancient Astronauts, they don't espouse the theories they show, generally they poke lots of holes in them, and their documentary on the 9/11 conspiracies was pretty great.
But still
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 11:54:52 GMT -5
My theory; people will watch it.
That's how I explain all programming that I don't understand. Like "Dancing with the Stars" and "The View"
|
|
|
Post by raynorn on Dec 2, 2010 12:24:02 GMT -5
Ok, what's with all this Da Vinci Code, Freemasons and all the rest of this junk? Yes, it's technically historical, but come on, do we have to listen to it all week? And I don't even want to go into Ancient Astronauts. What a waste of programming that is. I'll give them credit though, except for the Ancient Astronauts, they don't espouse the theories they show, generally they poke lots of holes in them, and their documentary on the 9/11 conspiracies was pretty great. But still First: Da Vinci is awesome, one of the greatest minds in history. Put the name Da Vinci in a show and I will be tempted to watch it. Second: Fremasons are also pretty interesting, any society with secrets is bound to pull in the curious. It will also generate lots of rumors which are fun for fiction and fun for historians to poke holes in. Ancient Astronauts I want to watch this just to see what people believe about this stuff . . . the brain is an interesting thing.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 12:35:45 GMT -5
First: Da Vinci is awesome, one of the greatest minds in history. Put the name Da Vinci in a show and I will be tempted to watch it. That's the problem, from my perspective. They stamp the name "Da Vinci" on it and people watch it, even though it has nothing to do with Da Vinci (or in many cases, anything actually related to history). The other thing I crack up about is all this "Doomsday Prophecy" stuff (Nostradamus Effect, etc ad nauseum). Not only is it only "history" in the barest sense of the word, a lot of what they say is poorly researched or outright inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 12:44:29 GMT -5
Oh yeah, can't forget that stuff. Not to mention all the Biblical stuff. But that stuffs fairly interesting, or can be, and the series on the 7 Deadly Sins at least focused on the historical perspectives on the sins.
And that's the thing. If it was a show on Da Vinci himself, I wouldn't mind. Heck, they've actually done that, and it was pretty interesting. The Da Vinci code is not history, not really. Which they do point out, I'll give them that.
As for Ancient Astronauts, I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't seem to believe what they're saying. That's what bugs me to death, the show seems to support that line of thought, despite it being more full of holes that swiss cheese.
|
|
|
Post by raynorn on Dec 2, 2010 12:50:10 GMT -5
. . .As for Ancient Astronauts, I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't seem to believe what they're saying. That's what bugs me to death, the show seems to support that line of thought, despite it being more full of holes that swiss cheese. They SUPPORT it?! Now I have to watch it for the unintended humor. Makes me wonder if the producer is a Scientologist. (if anyone here is a Scientologist, I am sorry, but yours is the one religion that is socially acceptable to make fun of)
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 12:54:24 GMT -5
From what I watched, they don't do much to discount it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 12:59:01 GMT -5
... besides, scientology embraces the notion that aliens visit(ed) Earth, so the joke/comment was somewhat on the nose.
I like the Biblical archaelogy stuff. I guess you could argue its not "historical" as there's little evidence for a lot of the stories in the Bible, but I like the Naked Archaelogist, Battles BC, and so on. The episode on Balaam was really cool.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Dec 2, 2010 13:00:05 GMT -5
I have not had access to cable for about 6 years now, but sometimes I channel surf when visiting my parents. I recall being amazed to find CSI: New York on the History Channel. It is fiction. On a History Channel. Fiction. That is the opposite of history!(Although I guess Gary Sinise's career counts as history. BOOM!) TLC is basically the "cake decorating and freakshow" channel. Look! This guy ordered a totally crazy cake, but the oven is broken! How are they going to make it on time? Up next: people who are obviously genetically different than you! Watch in amazement at how they think they're people too. After that, stay tuned for Irresponsible Mother of 50, followed by back to back episodes of I Obviously Don't Know What A Condom Is! TLC! The Learning Channel! Really! I want there to be a channel that is nothing but people slowly facepalming, so that at least as I channel flip I can see something sympathetic once per rotation. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 13:04:41 GMT -5
You know, for someone I disagree with almost everything fundamental with, you and I have a lot in common superficially ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 13:05:33 GMT -5
I know what you mean. Oh, one show that grinds my gears(no pun intended), is Top Gear. A car show. WTH? We have a Speed channel, stick it on there.
My favorite thing are the specials. Yesterday they focused on the Presidents, and that was pretty entertaining. Although it didn't look good for a fair number of them. History wasn't kind to some of these guys.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 13:08:59 GMT -5
The Presidents was a great series, and it was a rare instance where they at least tried to have multiple viewpoints addressed. Except for Andrew Jackson. The History Channel HATES that guy.
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 13:12:01 GMT -5
Well, they did say he did a lot of great things. As a general, he was amazing, and his presence in Washington really opened the presidency to the common man. He even got an era named after him, name one other president that managed that.
BUT, he also did a lot of things that are ambigious at best. So it's not like they don't have an excuse.
So, yeah. But they also made him the focus of his own special, so there is that.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 13:17:31 GMT -5
The fact that he has an era named after him isn't something the History Channel can change, much as they might like to I'm not saying Jackson was an all-around great guy. I think an effective leader will always, by necessity, be a controversial figure. The History Channel tends to put Jackson in a unique box, however, putting him strictly in the "villain" category (yes, while they acknowledge his military prowess, they generally do so only to point out that he was an evil Indian fighter).
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 13:25:17 GMT -5
Well....we're talking about a guy who caused the Trail of Tears after ignoring a Supreme Court ruling. It's kind of hard to make that sound good, at all.
Although your right, they weren't very fair to the guy.
Nixon got a better wrap than him, if only just. Although Nixon did open China, so you have to give him some credit.
|
|