PDA

View Full Version : History Channel Does it again



toptimlrd
03-26-2007, 09:30 PM
Did anyone see the program this weekend on the History Channel called "Full Metal Corset" about ladies posing as men during the ACW?

Maybe I was too sensitive but they once again did their best to show how not to do this. The ladies they had portraying the soldiers could not pass a 100 foot test let alone a 10 foot test in my opinion and one was posing as an officer. These were based on real ladies during the war but the actresses did not pull it off. My opinion is that if a lady can pull off the impression, bully for her. To pull it off however I should not be able to tell she is a female if I fall in beside her, I should be able to presume it is a teen boy. My fear is now we will hear "but I saw it on the History Channel" as yet another excuse.

1stWiscTrooper
03-26-2007, 10:09 PM
Robert, I saw the same show. I was sitting there laughing out of disgust. I had to shut it off, I just could take watching it anymore. My roomates didn't understand why I thought it was so bad. Definatley need to be a reenactor to understand.

Dan Chmelar

toptimlrd
03-26-2007, 10:41 PM
Robert, I saw the same show. I was sitting there laughing out of disgust. I had to shut it off, I just could take watching it anymore. My roomates didn't understand why I thought it was so bad. Definatley need to be a reenactor to understand.

Dan Chmelar


My wife (who has no plans to do a soldier impression) was wanting to watch it as well thinking it might have been a good examination of the real stories of ladies in the war disguised as men. She had pretty much the same opinion about it. Too bad they didn't concentrate more on the photographs of the real ladies that did it.

Radar
03-27-2007, 05:06 AM
Did anyone see the program this weekend on the History Channel called "Full Metal Corset" about ladies posing as men during the ACW?

Maybe I was too sensitive but they once again did their best to show how not to do this. The ladies they had portraying the soldiers could not pass a 100 foot test let alone a 10 foot test in my opinion and one was posing as an officer. These were based on real ladies during the war but the actresses did not pull it off. My opinion is that if a lady can pull off the impression, bully for her. To pull it off however I should not be able to tell she is a female if I fall in beside her, I should be able to presume it is a teen boy. My fear is now we will hear "but I saw it on the History Channel" as yet another excuse.

I totally agree, none of the women I saw could pass as men. They were obviouly female. If you look at the "real" women who served in the CW, you really can't tell a difference between them & the "real" soldiers. The CW women had more masuline features.

D'Epineuil Zouave
03-27-2007, 06:13 AM
The History Channel has little to do with history anymore. Most of there shows now seem to be along the order of the D'uh Vinci Code conspiracy mindset. Dogfights and Mail Call are the only shows I bother watching anymore.

netnet81
03-27-2007, 08:56 AM
If you take the actresses out of it and just concentrate on the information given, I think it was still pretty bad. They made it sound like it happened all the time. I realize that we can never know exactly how many women served disguised as men, but the show just seemed to make it sound too common of an occurance.

ILYankee5
03-27-2007, 09:34 AM
It just seems to me and this is my opinion, that the History Channel is trying so hard anymore not to be bias, that they are creating even more bias, or tweaking history a little bit. I am only saying this though out of love for the History Channel. I would not care if I didn't want it to change and go back to the way it was. By the way, does anyone get the magazine? I am a member of the "History Channel Club" and get the magazine. It is much better and has 10 times better articles in fact they even have some occasionally about the Civil War.:D

sbl
03-27-2007, 11:19 AM
I haven't seen the "offending" show yet but I enjoy the HC in general. Their program on the 300 Spartans which compliments the "300" movie was excellent. My 11 year old daughter got a lot out of it too. HC is a good back-up when there are "57 channels and nothing on."

redleggeddevil
03-27-2007, 01:07 PM
When is the History Channel going to be brave enough to balance the scales and tell the true story of Custer's valiant transvestite laundress? The details are available in "Son of the Morning Star", and wouldn't it be grand for our sons to have a good role model, in touch with his feminine side?

I'm waiting...

ILYankee5
03-27-2007, 01:48 PM
I'm surprised they haven't done something about that, they have Jesus having an adulterous relationship and Lincoln a homosexual.

sbl
03-27-2007, 04:21 PM
I'm surprised they haven't done something about that, they have Jesus having an adulterous relationship and Lincoln a homosexual.

No I believe the story was that Jesus was a normal guy and was Married to MM. That gay Lincoln story....well.. he did die in a Theater.

sbl
03-27-2007, 04:25 PM
When is the History Channel going to be brave enough to balance the scales and tell the true story of Custer's valiant transvestite laundress? The details are available in "Son of the Morning Star", and wouldn't it be grand for our sons to have a good role model, in touch with his feminine side?

Rudy Giuliani? No it was Mrs. Nash. What a sad story!

ILYankee5
03-27-2007, 06:31 PM
You are right Scott, mis-type on my behalf. My dad (who is a preacher) would have got onto me for that one! The one about Lincoln though.....:o

sbl
03-28-2007, 05:24 AM
ILYankee5,

I watched all those HC documentaries and more on the DeVinci Code.

As far as Lincoln whom I consider to have been "butch"..

from the Urban Dictionary ....

"Beard"

"A woman that a homosexual male dates or marries as a cover for his true sexuallity."

"Everyone knew Don was gay. His wife, Sally, was just a beard.".."


Who knew that Mary Todd was Lincoln's "beard?" ;)

Rob Weaver
03-28-2007, 06:39 AM
Although I haven't seen the specific show in question, it has the problem a lot of History Channel material does: they need to find a sensational, "sexy" angle to attract and hold what is, after all, a generalist audience. In doing so, they end up emphasizing or slanting material. How often do you find yourself saying, "Yeah, but...?" Also, if the actresses playing women can't be seen clearly as women on the small screen, you're going to lose a lot of the dramatic tension needed to carry a production in a visual medium. And really, is "I saw it on the History Channel" any worse than "I saw it on Gunsmoke?" The more things change, the more they stay the same.

sbl
03-28-2007, 09:16 AM
Rob,

Good point. I have seen numberous plays and movies where disbelief was suspended when one sex would disguise itself as the other. The audience knows but the charectors don't.

Kira Knightly in P.O.T.C., Dead Man's Chest is a recent example.

Robert A Mosher
03-28-2007, 09:16 AM
No I believe the story was that Jesus was a normal guy and was Married to MM. That gay Lincoln story....well.. he did die in a Theater.

Ahem - Scott, he died across the street from the theatre. Perhaps the History Channel didn't make that clear.

Robert A. Mosher

Rob Weaver
03-28-2007, 09:41 AM
Rob,

Good point. I have numberous plays and movies where disbelief was suspended when one sex would disguise itself as the other. The audience knows but the charectors don't.

Kira Knightly in P.O.T.C., Dead Man's Chest is a recent example.

Exactly. The audience has to be "in" on the secret from the beginning in a show like that, and there is a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief involved. How many times is a beautiful girl created onscreen simply by giving her a new hairdo and ditching her glasses. (Princess Diaries, for example?) The audience, even in a documentary, has to be able to find the major characters easily, especially on television, which is a medium which encourages distraction rather than engagement. As a result, that young soldier in uniform doesn't look like a teenaged boy, she looks like a girl in uniform. You have to offset this a bit by using photographs of verified women in uniform, but this creates another challenge in that the number of those photos is small; the photos are B/W, making a drab look on your modern TV; they're static and TV needs movement. Too much black and white still photography and you're doing Ken Burns again.

bizzilizzit
03-28-2007, 10:55 AM
Did anyone see the program this weekend on the History Channel called "Full Metal Corset" about ladies posing as men during the ACW?

The Confederate female was AWFUL - the Union female BARELY TOLERABLE. I was greatly disappointed in the program, since I've heard some of the lady historians' lectures on this topic and this would not have been how they would have depicted herstory.
The Ragged Soldier Sutlery is selling a video titled The Unsexing of Emma Edmonds written and directed by Pepita Ferrari, an award-winning maker of documentaries in Canada. I've seen this movie and it's very well done.
From personal experience, the HC has a bad habit of twisting historical facts to fit their programming format.
Elizabeth

celtfiddler
03-28-2007, 05:10 PM
It seems like the quality of their programming has been steadily dropping. The last decent civil war programs I saw on the history channel were civil war combat and Unknown Civil War.

toptimlrd
03-28-2007, 05:48 PM
Too much black and white still photography and you're doing Ken Burns again.

Wouldn't bother me at all.

sbl
03-28-2007, 07:21 PM
Kimberly,

Did you see the 300 Spartans special on HC? As I mentioned in another post, it was quite good. As far as Civil War perhaps there's a burn out from all the CW programing over the last 10 + years.

That Dog Fight show, not bad.

Rob Weaver
03-28-2007, 07:38 PM
Wouldn't bother me at all.
That documentary was epic wasn't it?

tompritchett
03-29-2007, 09:44 AM
As far as Civil War perhaps there's a burn out from all the CW programing over the last 10 + years.


I would argue instead that no-one has truly done the Civil War justice since Glory. WW II is constantly a theme on the History Channel and HC International, but "Flag of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" both did very well at both the box office and the various awards shows. I suspect that, if someone did a Civil War movie of the quality of those two movies or of the quality of "Band of Brothers" or "Saving Private Ryan", the interest would be there. I think that too many directors (e.g., Maxwell and the like) have assumed that the subject matter alone would bring in the audiences and, consequently, tried to pass off sub-standard plots, special effects and acting on the American public - a mistake that Eastwood and Spillberg did not make with their productions.

sbl
03-29-2007, 11:30 AM
Thomas,

"...all the CW programing over the last 10 + years."

I was thinking Civil War Journal , the Civil War combat series, the Smithsonian Civil war series narrated by Richard Dreyfus, the Ken Burns series (PBS), the Sex in the Civil War special based on Dr Lowrey's (sp) book.

A GOOD story would be nice.

tompritchett
03-29-2007, 05:11 PM
Thomas,

"...all the CW programing over the last 10 + years."

I was thinking Civil War Journal , the Civil War combat series, the Smithsonian Civil war series narrated by Richard Dreyfus, the Ken Burns series (PBS), the Sex in the Civil War special based on Dr Lowrey's (sp) book.

A GOOD story would be nice.

I understand what you are saying, but in a similar vein look at all the current programming that is out there at Hitler, the SS, and WW II in general. Movies such as mentioned in my earlier post have kept the interest high. After "Glory" the closest movie that we have had in terms of keeping interest up has been "Cold Mountain". Remember, we live in a culture with what seems to be a very short attention span, which is another topic in itself.

toptimlrd
03-29-2007, 05:35 PM
To springboard off of another thread, with the 150th anniversaries coming up do you thing we may see some quality stuff coming out in the near future to respark interest a la Saving Private Ryan, Flags of Our Fathers, Band of Brothers, etc.?

OVI
03-29-2007, 05:54 PM
After Gods and Generals failed at the box office (90 million to make...12 million in tickets sold), no one in Hollywood is going to finance a Civil War movie for a long time. "Cold Mountain" was not a CW movie...it was a chick flick set in the CW).

Kent Dorr
Devils Own Mess

celtfiddler
03-29-2007, 05:57 PM
Kimberly,

Did you see the 300 Spartans special on HC? As I mentioned in another post, it was quite good. As far as Civil War perhaps there's a burn out from all the CW programing over the last 10 + years.


I agree, the 300 special was pretty good. I don't think there's necessarily a burnout--more likely a lack of desire to spend the necessary funds to acquire the rights to air quality programming. The History Channel seems to prefer to bury some of their better quality programming odd hours.

Army30th
03-29-2007, 08:17 PM
That Sex in the Civil War series was pretty good. I think the presenters did very well, especially "Bizzie Lizzie". :D

At least I think it was her.........

bizzilizzit
03-30-2007, 11:37 AM
That Sex in the Civil War series was pretty good. I think the presenters did very well, especially "Bizzie Lizzie". :D

At least I think it was her.........

Thanks! I pop up in more places than you'lll ever know...
Elizabeth

bizzilizzit
03-30-2007, 11:41 AM
After Gods and Generals failed at the box office (90 million to make...12 million in tickets sold), no one in Hollywood is going to finance a Civil War movie for a long time. "Cold Mountain" was not a CW movie...it was a chick flick set in the CW).

Kent Dorr
Devils Own Mess

That "chick flick" was an excellent depiction of what some civilians endured during the CW. Unfortunately, they selected a Prima Donna for the lead - should have gone to Renee Z. All those "sub" characters were right on the money. Too bad it wasn't filmed in the US…
Elizabeth

sbl
03-30-2007, 01:09 PM
From what I saw and what I read of the fight, the Crater battle looked pretty good. I don't know if I would have leaped arse first into the fight like one charector did.

Ms. Kidman's period lingerie was waaaay wrong. Natalie Portman was very cute. If a CW/WBTS movie could have interesting actresses such as Ms. Z, and Jewel from Ride with the Devil, or even Vivien Leigh from GWTW, I'd watch. Jody Foster was pretty good in Sommersby. Most men don't go to the movies just for name actress. I'd go to see Kirsten Dunst or Halie Berry in a history movie if there were enough explosions and the corps badges were correct.

bizzilizzit
03-30-2007, 01:52 PM
I'd go to see Kirsten Dunst or Halie Berry in a history movie if there were enough explosions and the corps badges were correct.

teehee ;)
Elizabeth

OVI
03-30-2007, 06:13 PM
That "chick flick" was an excellent depiction of what some civilians endured during the CW. Unfortunately, they selected a Prima Donna for the lead - should have gone to Renee Z. All those "sub" characters were right on the money. Too bad it wasn't filmed in the US…
Elizabeth

Absolutely agree. Read the book and enjoyed the film. If it had been filmed in the US, countless hundreds of elderly, corpulent reenactors would've been clamoring for "face time" in lieu of payment for services.

Kent Dorr
Devils Own Mess

garyjd
05-09-2007, 02:26 PM
The History Channel has little to do with history anymore. Most of there shows now seem to be along the order of the D'uh Vinci Code conspiracy mindset. Dogfights and Mail Call are the only shows I bother watching anymore.


I agree. The History channel used to be one of my favorites. I still tune in hoping for something decent and I'm disappointed almost all of the time. The history theme is stretched a bit when programing is reduced to the "history of cereal" or the "history of beer". It might interest some but I do not think that's what history buffs want to watch.~Gary

sbl
05-10-2007, 04:15 AM
Gary,

I agree about some of the content but did you catch the Spanish American War program the other night? Not too bad with old Edison "re-enactment" film shot in New Jersey, real period footage, and modern reenactment footage "aged". Not bad.

vamick
05-10-2007, 07:42 AM
Absolutely agree. Read the book and enjoyed the film. If it had been filmed in the US, countless hundreds of elderly, corpulent reenactors would've been clamoring for "face time" in lieu of payment for services.

Kent Dorr
Devils Own Mess


Some of it was filmed in the US and you can tell the difference if you live in VA/NC..that snowy mountain top scene..well that definately was NOT tha Blue Ridge! *hahaahaha... but those Romainian soldire extras looked real good to me....as for Ms Kidman's undergarments...well I found them very interesting! and non authenictisittyy authenn...realism was tenthousands oof leagues from my mind!;) ;) ;)

GMitchell
1st Stuart horse artillery

reb64
05-10-2007, 06:36 PM
From what I saw and what I read of the fight, the Crater battle looked pretty good. I don't know if I would have leaped arse first into the fight like one character did.

Ms. Kidman's period lingerie was waaaay wrong. Natalie Portman was very cute. If a CW/WBTS movie could have interesting actresses such as Ms. Z, and Jewel from Ride with the Devil, or even Vivien Leigh from GWTW, I'd watch. Jody Foster was pretty good in Sommersby. Most men don't go to the movies just for name actress. I'd go to see Kirsten Dunst or Halie Berry in a history movie if there were enough explosions and the corps badges were correct.


The crater battle was great for many reasons, but the opening shots showed a huge cannon in the CS lines. I know, not accurate but movie was still good. Just saying to myself when I saw it, if they had had one, fire that puppy away. What was it doing silent? This gun could have made a difference (acting out a change to history in my head).

ginny74
05-11-2007, 04:59 PM
I have to say that I thought Gettysburg was amazing. If you've ever read the book, there were many scenes taking dialog right from the book. On the other hand, Gods and Generals is quite a different story. I am certainly not saying that it was a bad film, because I enjoyed it a lot, but it didn't seem to have the same substance and drama as Gettysburg. I hope everyone can understand what I'm trying to say.

Graves Mercantile
05-14-2007, 12:16 PM
Did anyone see the special on spiderman on the history channel? It's wasn't on the history of spiderman, but rather on the possibility of genetically altering humans to have spider like qualities. Huh?! When did this become history worthy? Heck, I wouldn't even put it on the science channel, because it involved a lot of hypothetical and wishful thinking on the part of "scientists". What has happened to the history channel?!

sbl
05-14-2007, 03:03 PM
Nathan,

It's possible that Columbia Pictures is somehow related to AETN, (Arts and Entertainment)...I'm looking....

Parault
05-14-2007, 06:43 PM
Yes I watched the special three hour show on the Spanish-Amercian War. I thought it was prety good. I did notice that the Battleship scenes were all done on the U.S.S. Olympia. I enjoyed the show