RE: Patton 360 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

mikul82 -> RE: Patton 360 (4/22/2009 12:24:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
IMO, its treatment of biblical "heroes" bordered on anti-semitic.


Why did you think that?



E -> RE: Patton 360 (4/22/2009 3:53:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

The last really good show I saw on the HC was "Dogfights," which was a good mix of CG, interviews and info


I thought it was a horrible "mix." The ratio of dogfights to commercials & recaps was FAR, FAR too low to sustain my interest. Seemed like 3 minutes of dogfighting, 5 minutes of commercials, 2 minutes of recap, etc. *argh!* For me it was unwatchable. Even big name networks give 50%-66% of (actual) content.



cantona2 -> RE: Patton 360 (4/22/2009 7:53:13 AM)

Just seen the promo on YouTube. Isn't the term 'America's Military Genuis' being a bit too kind to Old Blood n Guts? Seeing the tech and not being able to see the series until its on the HC in Europe 17 light years from now, wouldnt it be great to take this on with the pivotal campaigns of the war, eg France 1940, Barbarossa, Operation Bagration, Normandy etc. Not the Bulge though as its one campaign that has been overcooked by US documentaries.



SS Hauptsturmfuhrer -> RE: Patton 360 (4/22/2009 8:57:12 AM)

I just got round to watching some Battle 360 stuff.  It is very good eye candy and includes some nice unit level details that strategic level documentaries don't have time for.  But I strongly prefer war documentaries like Line of Sight with Aryk Nusbacher and the Battlefield series.



Joe D. -> RE: Patton 360 (4/22/2009 2:42:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlc82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
IMO, its treatment of biblical "heroes" bordered on anti-semitic.


Why did you think that?


For one thing, when Battles BC did King David, they actually compared him, his tactics and his inner circle of warriors to the Mafia.

Also, Joshua was described as essentially "crazy for God," and Moses came-off as bloodthirsty.



mikul82 -> RE: Patton 360 (4/22/2009 7:06:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlc82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
IMO, its treatment of biblical "heroes" bordered on anti-semitic.


Why did you think that?


For one thing, when Battles BC did King David, they actually compared him, his tactics and his inner circle of warriors to the Mafia.

Also, Joshua was described as essentially "crazy for God," and Moses came-off as bloodthirsty.


What conqueror wouldn't be comparable to the same? I don't get the anti-semitic part, as claiming something similar to say Genghis Khan or Alexander III wouldn't usually be considered "anti-Mongol" or "anti-Macedonian".

I can't see anyone ordering the wholesale slaughter of captured women and children as anything above "bloodthirsty" personally, no matter the reason behind it. I'm appalled that I was taught as a kid in church that these people were somehow valiant, gold-shining heroes as opposed to simply yet another ambitious, vicious conqueror with piles of bodies at their feet just like Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and etc.

Not sure how any of that could be seen as "anti semitic", like I said any more than the above about Caesar would be "Anti-Roman".



Edit: If I'm venturing into forbidden "Religion/Politics" territory here let me know, not trying to start a flame war or wreck the thread!



Joe D. -> RE: Patton 360 (4/22/2009 9:42:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlc82

... What conqueror wouldn't be comparable to the same? I don't get the anti-semitic part, as claiming something similar to say Genghis Khan or Alexander III wouldn't usually be considered "anti-Mongol" or "anti-Macedonian".

I can't see anyone ordering the wholesale slaughter of captured women and children as anything above "bloodthirsty" personally, no matter the reason behind it. I'm appalled that I was taught as a kid in church that these people were somehow valiant, gold-shining heroes as opposed to simply yet another ambitious, vicious conqueror with piles of bodies at their feet just like Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and etc.

Not sure how any of that could be seen as "anti semitic", like I said any more than the above about Caesar would be "Anti-Roman".

Edit: If I'm venturing into forbidden "Religion/Politics" territory here let me know, not trying to start a flame war or wreck the thread!


If we haven't crossed over into forbidden territory, we're very close; it's a lot like an unmarked minefield: when you know you're in it, it's usu. too late.

Conqueror? I make a distiction between an Alexander conquering the known world and Saul securing the eastern Med, but Battles BC didn't compare Julius Caesar to Don Corleone; instead they choose to compare him to King David, which struck me as odd.

There was another scene where Moses kills an Egyptian -- a Biblical fact -- but then Moses postures over his victim like the "Incredible Hulk".

Very odd.



mikul82 -> RE: Patton 360 (4/23/2009 3:55:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlc82

... What conqueror wouldn't be comparable to the same? I don't get the anti-semitic part, as claiming something similar to say Genghis Khan or Alexander III wouldn't usually be considered "anti-Mongol" or "anti-Macedonian".

I can't see anyone ordering the wholesale slaughter of captured women and children as anything above "bloodthirsty" personally, no matter the reason behind it. I'm appalled that I was taught as a kid in church that these people were somehow valiant, gold-shining heroes as opposed to simply yet another ambitious, vicious conqueror with piles of bodies at their feet just like Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and etc.

Not sure how any of that could be seen as "anti semitic", like I said any more than the above about Caesar would be "Anti-Roman".

Edit: If I'm venturing into forbidden "Religion/Politics" territory here let me know, not trying to start a flame war or wreck the thread!


If we haven't crossed over into forbidden territory, we're very close; it's a lot like an unmarked minefield: when you know you're in it, it's usu. too late.

Conqueror? I make a distiction between an Alexander conquering the known world and Saul securing the eastern Med, but Battles BC didn't compare Julius Caesar to Don Corleone; instead they choose to compare him to King David, which struck me as odd.

There was another scene where Moses kills an Egyptian -- a Biblical fact -- but then Moses postures over his victim like the "Incredible Hulk".

Very odd.


Ha I agree with the end, the whole show's "roid rage" effect is just silly. If you thought THAT was bad, you should have seen Hanninbal screaming while wielding dual falcatas and slaying Romans left and right- in the loincloth he apparently crossed the alps in.



Joe D. -> RE: Patton 360 (4/23/2009 12:00:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlc82
Ha I agree with the end, the whole show's "roid rage" effect is just silly. If you thought THAT was bad, you should have seen Hanninbal screaming while wielding dual falcatas and slaying Romans left and right- in the loincloth he apparently crossed the alps in.


LOL -- "roid rage" sure sums it all up.

I saw HC's portrayal of Hannibal and his men crossing the Alps -- I would have been very cold wearing sandals in the snow.

And somehow I doubt that, even back then, a commanding general had the time to give orders while routinely go hand-to-hand w/the opposition; Battles BC has portrayed Caesar et al as if they were action figures, not commanders directing entire armies.



SS Hauptsturmfuhrer -> RE: Patton 360 (4/23/2009 12:26:03 PM)

Carthaginian archives just recently declassified confirm that Hannibal personally accounted for at least 20,000 of the Romans butchered at Cannae. 



mikul82 -> RE: Patton 360 (4/23/2009 3:58:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer

Carthaginian archives just recently declassified confirm that Hannibal personally accounted for at least 20,000 of the Romans butchered at Cannae. 


I hear he killed them all with a donkey's jawbone at that.



mikul82 -> RE: Patton 360 (4/23/2009 4:01:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlc82
Ha I agree with the end, the whole show's "roid rage" effect is just silly. If you thought THAT was bad, you should have seen Hanninbal screaming while wielding dual falcatas and slaying Romans left and right- in the loincloth he apparently crossed the alps in.


LOL -- "roid rage" sure sums it all up.

I saw HC's portrayal of Hannibal and his men crossing the Alps -- I would have been very cold wearing sandals in the snow.

And somehow I doubt that, even back then, a commanding general had the time to give orders while routinely go hand-to-hand w/the opposition; Battles BC has portrayed Caesar et al as if they were action figures, not commanders directing entire armies.


Despite myself, I've actually found the show pretty interesting in regard to much lesser heard of (in depth of any sort at least) battles, such as those of Joshua or David, so long as I just listen to it while doing something else and try to not actually watch any of it.

Watching Caesar or Hannibal get the "300" treatment is just more than I can bear though, turns me into an instant elitist I guess.



Joe D. -> RE: Patton 360 (4/23/2009 4:39:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlc82

... Watching Caesar or Hannibal get the "300" treatment is just more than I can bear though, turns me into an instant elitist I guess.


Other posters have said the same; it looks like the HC is just using the wrong venue to present its material, i.e., Patton (360) makes a poor stand-in for the Enterprise.



RedArgo -> RE: Patton 360 (4/24/2009 3:48:13 PM)

I finally watched the 2nd episode of Patton last night. I liked it, but like others have said between the commercials and recaps it is probably a 35 minute show at most.

One question I have is where is the Allied air power? Was is really not present or did the program just not show it? They showed the German dive bombers, but not one allied plane that I remember. Another question I have is how effective were tank destroyers? It seems like without a turret it would be hard to aim at a moving target.

The Battles BC show is just unnessarily gory in my opinion. It doesn't add anything to the show and I won't let my kids watch it even if they wanted to.

Bill



Joe D. -> RE: Patton 360 (4/24/2009 7:11:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedArgo

... One question I have is where is the Allied air power? Was is really not present or did the program just not show it? They showed the German dive bombers, but not one allied plane that I remember. Another question I have is how effective were tank destroyers? It seems like without a turret it would be hard to aim at a moving target


There's Allied air power in the Tunesia episode; in fact, Truscott's troops get on a WW I destroyer to raid and capture a French airfield so that Allied fighter-bombers can operate in the AO.

My dad was w/the 643 TD Regt; those primitive TDs w/the gun mounted on a half-track were state-of-the art compared to the towed French 75 dad had after D-Day.

It wasn't til after the "Bulge" that the M-10 and Hellcat TDs were deployed in theater; I recall that the latter was eventually fitted w/a 90 mm gun: it was very effective, even at distance.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125