MovieChat Forums > Mankind: The Story of All of Us (2012) Discussion > Okay...

Okay...

posted 11 years ago by donnamela
10 replies | jump to latest

Okay, so I agree with the majority of posters that this show is more cinematic than informative. I felt like I was watching Kingdom of Heaven last night rather than a documentary. But hey, at least it's historically inclined. It's kind of broken my heart to see the channel degenerate to what it is now, with shows that have absolutely nothing to do with history and are pretty asinine to boot. (I still can't comprehend this phenomenon of channels no longer showing relevant programming. Look at the Travel Channel - it's all about eating and ghosts!). Anyway, I was happy to see them at least making an effort. It's obvious that they're trying to attract people who might not normally be inclined to learn about history. I'm a complete history nerd but even if I weren't, I would be enjoying this show and maybe even noting down some of the things they mention to look up on my own. I don't know... since I've studied a lot of the stuff featured in the program, it's cool to see it depicted so "epically". I'm used to my old-school documentaries featuring interviews with dusty old history professors, photographs, and maybe a low budget reenactment here and there -- and while I like those, and they're probably more informative than this show, what's wrong with having something entertaining once in a while? Like I said, at least it's about history.

[–] Yorick_Brown 11 years ago

I felt like I was watching Kingdom of Heaven last night rather than a documentary. But hey, at least it's historically inclined.

Right. Why is that a bad thing? At least you get it.

The lone neon lights and the ache of the ocean
And the fire that was starting to go out...

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

It may not be scrupulously accurate, but I'm looking up things that the show brought up and learning more about history. Isn't that the idea? To give some broad brushstrokes and then someone can start filling in the blanks? I mean, who really expects an entire accurate account of the history of manking in only six segments of ninety minutes each?

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

Agreed... an accurate account of the "History" of Mankind would take many Seasons... heck it's taken them 6 Seasons and counting so far, to tell the "History" of the Ax Men... but seriously... at least they are doing what they were designed to do, with this 6 episode blurb... "History" programming on a channel they still have the nerve to call HISTORY....

"I don't argue with idiots, they bring me down to their level and beat me with experience"

[–] radyla 11 years ago

That is great, if more people would do their own research to gain a better understanding. Unfortunately, relatively few will do this, and since the program's presentation is grossly biased, the casual viewer will take away a distorted version of the truth.

[–] netsez00 11 years ago

Unfortunately you're correct, how many people think they know about Nixon because they watched that stupid movie. That is why I always do my own research after watching television.

[–] lantzn 9 years ago

That's pretty much what 70s school history books did. Taught us a bunch of wrong information and we've spent the past 40 years finding out what really happened. It did make some of us curious about history.

[–] rixter 11 years ago

This is the downside of having 500 channels. They have to show anything they can to fill air time. These days, redneck programming rules. I guess we have to be thankful there is a History Channel, flawed as it is. Sometimes, I wish we still had only 12 channels.

[–] SouthernDrawl 11 years ago

The scholarship was terrible. You could say "based on actual events". Most people who watch may not realize how loose the producers were with key facts and badly they connected segments.

This is history for the uneducated who don’t know or want to know actual history.

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

"This is history for the uneducated who don’t know or want to know actual history."

Right on Southern !!!!! .... or in other words the channel that still has the nerve to call itself HISTORY.. "Target Audience"

"I don't argue with idiots, they bring me down to their level and beat me with experience"

[–] rixter 11 years ago

You are right! Let's start a letter-writing campaign to end the History Channel because of it's more fluff than fact. I propose they replace it with another redneck channel, since that seems to be the most popular genre now. How about the Redneck History Channel, where we learn all about the interbreeding of families in the hills? Or the Hillbilly Cooking Channel. Learn how to cook opossum and raccoon dishes for your guests. Maybe, the Redneck Sports Network, featuring the World Series of Tobacco Spitting. Anything is better than The History Channel. Damn it's faults!