another expensive failure, short on history - Mankind: The Story of All of Us (2012) Discussion

[–] carolinasu8 11 years ago

First, how can you fairly judge something without seeing it in it's entirety?

Also, in order to be entertaining, which is what television is intended to be, history has to be a little more than just facts read through a voice actor. Go watch "The Invention of Lying" and you'll see what I mean. And after all, it's the History Channel, not PBS.

In the 2nd ep, which you probably aren't watching, they mention that 1/3 of the world is Christian, so I'd say that makes the "Christian religious dogma," as you referred to it, pretty significant in history.

Offensive to who exactly? I didn't realize everyone watching had the exact same beliefs.

reply

[–] hhaayy 11 years ago

>>"how can you fairly judge something without seeing it in it's entirety?"

I did watch the first 2 episodes in their entirety, as aired on HISTORY. I also watched the first part "Inventors", as aired on HISTORY UK. I think that qualifies me to fairly judge what I've seen.

>>"And after all, it's the History Channel, not PBS"

True. However, the implication is that History (f/k/a The History Channel) is incapable of presenting a quality history program because it is not PBS. I suppose, if we're comparing History with say...Disney Channel, that distinction would be quite valid. Would it surprise you to learn that History's parent company (A&E) is owned by The Walt Disney Company?
Hey, I think you do have a valid point.

Speaking of PBS, NOVA's "Becoming Human" (2009) presented the story of early human development with superior writing and style, while also employing CGI, talking heads, drama, and music. This also got quality treatment in the PBS series "The Human Spark" (2010), "Alice Roberts' Origins of Us (2011)" and The Incredible Human Journey (2009) from BBC. Of course, this is still only the beginning of the story of 'mankind'. From there, the archaeological and written history of civilization enters the story. Some recent examples of quality big-picture documentaries on this are: Richard Miles' Ancient Worlds (2010), Andrew Marr's History Of The World (2012), Man on Earth (2009), plus other series and specials written by Michael Wood, Neil Oliver, Joseph Campbell, Bettany Hughes, etc.

>>"In the 2nd ep, which you probably aren't watching, they mention that 1/3 of the world is Christian, so I'd say that makes the "Christian religious dogma," as you referred to it, pretty significant in history."

I agree. The world's religions have played a significant role in the shaping of human civilization. This episode jumped right into the Jesus story, 33 AD/CE, and I think this was a premature and unfortunate leap on the time-scale. History (channel), like a demagogue, conveniently plays up the Christian-favored mythos over fact. As a viewer, I find it lazy and insulting.

I'll probably watch the rest of the series but expect I'll remain disappointed. If my cable co. took History out of my channel package, it's unlikely I would pay to get it back.

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

"If my cable co. took History out of my channel package, it's unlikely I would pay to get it back."

hhaayy.... Agreed... nor would I even miss it...

Oh and to the two losers that posted between me and hhaayy... sorry I can't see your on-topic comments...

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

reply

[–] unclegerald2004 9 years ago

I agree with you. the Disney Corporation is not in the business of education, their educational Programs to teach kids are counterproductive since they put too much value into entertainment than education.

This series makes too many claims that are not supported by facts, and doesn't give a history of mankind as much as it hops around to the most trendy flashy visuals to keep people entertained.

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

"Most of our audience don’t normally watch history, and are more used to Hollywood movies and computer games" - Ben Goold, executive producer at Nutopia, November, 2012.

That perception explains a lot. If they create programming for that type of viewer, that is what they'll get - dim people looking for entertaining distractions like LOUD NOISES set to overly-dramatic score/script w/Hollywood-style editing........."

hhaayy.... that is exactly the target audience of the channel that still has the nerve to call itself HISTORY... only thing is change "don't normally" to "don't"... but yours is right on... my bet is most of the "Fans" of cheaply produced "Reality" garbage were tuned to another cheaply produced, Bright Lights and Loud Noises....

The useless POS channel and their CEO want these "History" bones they toss out to fail... that way they can say, "Hey, we show "History" programming and everybody finds fault with them... but we have no complaints (because we just ignore complaints) about all the other quality programming on our channel"

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

reply

[–] sparky2212 11 years ago

Right, and MTV doesn't show music videos anymore, so what?

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

"Right, and MTV doesn't show music videos anymore, so what?"

Right, so what... this discussion is about a show on the channel that still has the gall to call itself HISTORY... I'm sure that over on the MTV Boards they discuss that issue...

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

reply

[–] sparky2212 11 years ago

Again, so what? History channel can call itself whatever it wants. If someone started a channel, and they named it the 'I am a pretentious d#ck' channel, and for years showed programming based on being a pretentious d#ck, that channel would be fully within its rights (and in accordance with the FCC) to start showing programming that was say, open minded and rational, and not have to change their name. Especially if the new programs found an audience and were monetarily beneficial. They could show both, pretentious d#ck shows and open minded rational shows. They could even rely heavily on the newer format.

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

sparky... you just don't get... when a channel calls itself HISTORY... it's first and only obligation is to the viewer that has an interest in "History", and tunes to that channel to watch "History" programming....

Those that have no interest in "History", never watched the channel, degraded the channel by calling it "The Hitler Channel", etc.. are not their concern nor is the type of programming... flashing lights, loud noises.. that they prefer..

Since I can see that this discussion is going to go in circles... and I'm not going to convince you that the channel, like their POS CEO, is a steaming crock of poop... and since they have decided to take the cheaply produced garbage programming path, and consider "History" programming to be "Special" and not the norm... thereby admitting that they failed as the "History" channel...that they must change their name.. because. the channel is a disgrace to the word "History" as it is now... since you aren't going to concede to this..

And since you aren't going to change my opinion of this sell-out, POS of a channel... I consider my end of this "discussion" at an end... but one thing...
why do people that support the current garbage programming on the channel. suddenly have this deep concern about the financial success and well-being of the channel ?

Think about it... if it had stayed true to itself and it's faithful core audience... as it should have... and went under because it could make it on "History" programming... would you have given a rat's furry behind then ?

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

reply

[–] sparky2212 11 years ago

Write them a letter and let them know of your displeasure. Look Ltraz, I am not trying to convince you that I am right and you wrong, in fact I think some of their programming is silly. Isn't it funny how this show totally negates everything said on Ancient Aliens? I just do not understand your outrage over it. Also,I do not think you are giving H channel its fair dues. Yes, their programming has moved to some 'different' shows. But, even hit shows like Pawn Stars have a historical element to them. Look at how Rick gets a boner every time a civil war gun comes in, or a WWII map, or a 57 Ford? That is all history. American pickers, they buy old signs and oil cans and old motorcycle parts. That stuff has historical merit. It might not be Napoleon or The Inquisition, but it is History. Also, look at some of the projects H has taken on recently. Hatfield and McCoys? I didnt watch it, so I cannot comment on its historical accuracy. But I applaud them for getting big name actors and making a fairly big budget movie to tell an American story. What about 'The Men who Built America'? Yes I found some things I take issue with, but history is told from a point of view. If you take two history teachers from say, the 60's, one Dem and one Rep, I am sure they would teach civil rights a little bit differently, from their point of view. I am tired of typing, so in close I hope you can chill out, and appreciate the fact we live in a time and place so awesome that we can argue over the historical merits of a channel that calls itself, History.

reply

[–] Doc80 11 years ago

Don't even bother talking to him. He's a pretentious a**hole who doesn't even watch the channel that he continually bashes. He doesn't seem to get the fact that hardly anyone was watching the channel when it was practically Hitler 24/7. So they started showing some reality programming and people started watching. Now they can actually show really good history programming from time to time as well. It's the same reason that movie studios produce big budget blockbusters. By doing that, they can get the money to make those award winning movies that don't make a lot of money. It all balances out. At least most of the reality shows on the History Channel have at least a little something to do with some kind of history, which is a lot more than can be said about other channels.

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

I see you still have the scripted company line down pat... spoken like a true bobblehead... right down to the "at least a little something to do with some some kind of history" bullspit .. plus throw in the usual name calling... thanks for keeping the thread on-topic like you always do....

....oh and BTW... and since like always, since you have nothing to say.. welcome to my IGNORE LIST loser

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

reply

[–] Doc80 11 years ago

Nice to see that he is both a loser who can't stop bashing something that he admits to not watching but he is also a liar. He told me he put me on ignore months ago but I am assuming he is the one who responded to me. Since I put him on ignore, I can't confirm that but I am pretty confident it is him.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

Thank you Brooklyn... yep, when you hang your shingle out proclaiming yourself the HISTORY CHANNEL... your only obligation is to provide people who tune to your channel to watch "History" programming... "History" programming...

If a time comes when you choose not to do this... you tell your faithful core audience that you can no longer do this, and close up shop... don't put a plate of dog poop in front of me and hand me a bottle of steak sauce...

Yes there is an audience for "History" programming... just google "HISTORY CHANNEL SUCKS" sometime, and see that there are quite a few people out there that are not happy with what Ms Dubuc has done to their once favorite channel...

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

reply

[–] Stickman38 11 years ago

It's been an entertaining series but it's too bad they got the Crusades wrong. Muslims started it by sacking Jerusalem, in fact, Islam was spread by the sword, yet, they made no mention of this. But yeah, I feel like I'm watching a epic film rather than a historical documentary. lol!! gotta love history channel.

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 11 years ago

Islam was spread by the sword, yet, they made no mention of this.

They did. The doc showed that Islam united the warring Arabian tribes and they spread from east to west.

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

reply

[–] wlbennett 11 years ago

hey got the Crusades wrong. Muslims started it by sacking Jerusalem

This argument would carry more weight if there wasn't 400 year gap between the Muslim conquest Jerusalem and the Roman Catholic response. The Muslims took Jerusalem from The Byzantine Empire as part of their empire expansion. The Byzantines were Eastern Orthodox Christians and their territorial losses weren't of great concern to Roman Catholic Eastern Europe.

"The most exciting happiness is the happiness generated by forces beyond your control." Ogden Nash

reply

[–] rixter 11 years ago

Boy, there sure are some pretentious d0uchebags in this post. If you don't like the History Channel, then don't watch it. It's better than most of the $hit on TV. If you don't think it's real history then go to a college to hear a lecture on the subject. Oh, and try to stay awake if you can. It always amuses me when these pseudo-intellectuals chime in with their pretentiousness. Inferring that people who enjoy a certain movie or TV show are idiots, tasteless, cretins, Neanderthals, etc. They remind me of those wine snobs who wouldn’t let $10 wine touch their lips to save their lives.

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

Another great post by a to this Board... and you remind me of a shill, that was PM'd over here by Doc.. spoken like a true "History-hater", to keep this thread off-topic and spout off the usual shill rhetoric.... "pretentious" must be the Shill word of the day..

"If you don't like the History Channel, then don't watch it."... now there's an original statement... did you think that up all by your lonesome ? Hey, if you don't like to read negative opinions about your POS channel... don't read negative threads...

"It always amuses me when these pseudo-intellectuals chime in with their pretentiousness. Inferring that people who enjoy a certain movie or TV show are idiots, tasteless, cretins, Neanderthals, etc"

First of all... it is you that is "chiming" in with your company line bullspit.. you are rudely interupting those of us who are discussing what a POS your channel is.... second of all... now really... how does anybody saying what a POS your channel is, stop you or prevent you in any way from your "enjoying" the cheaply produced garbage programming ? If you were a true "Fan" you wouldn't be reading this thread, and more importantly... you wouldn't give a rat's furry behind about what us "non-fans" have to say....

Third of all... like Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory... oh BTW, I bet I have learned more watching Big Bang these last 5 years, than you or any of the "target audience" has learned watching the garbage on the channel that still has the nerve to call itself HISTORY... anyway, as Sheldon would say..
you "infer"... it would be we who would "imply" if we were implying... but see unlike you... my posts are directed at the shows and the channels... you my dear Shill are the one doing the "implying" about those who don't agree with your scripted, bobblehead, company line opinion...

And Fourth of all... since you have nothing to add to the discussion at hand..
welcome to my IGNORE LIST ....hey Doc call in your next loser...loser

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

reply

[–] rixter 11 years ago

Newbie? You've only been a IMDB member since 2010. You're still sucking on the proverbial tits on IMDB. I'm no newbie. I've been a member on these boards since 1999, but you could have found that out if you did any decent research. And I checked your posts. Let's take a look at some of yours lately: Whisker Wars, Moonshiners, Gold Rush, Hardcore Pawn, and, GULP, Here Comes Honey Boo Boo? How are things in the trailer park? Welcome to my IGNORE LIST []

reply

[–] Doc80 11 years ago

Just put the dillweed on block like I did. I would actually be happy to discuss things with him if he didn't bash shows that he doesn't watch. It's only logical that you cannot judge something if you have never seen it and since he says he hasn't watched the channel in years, everything he says is worthless. Unless of course he is watching it, in which case he is a loser because he is watching something he hates, just so he can bash it.

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

"This message has been hidden because the poster is in your ignore list"

"This message has been hidden because the poster is in your ignore list"

Two more loser shills bite the dust... but they got to spit out their last hateful venom before they go... to justify their paycheck and their taking another thread off-topic....

I always wait for the response from the stooge that I have told was going on my Ignore List, before I activate... I do this to see how they spin things and lie, in their last spit of hate filled gibberish... and you two losers didn't disappoint

Now...rixter... or should I say ... yes I do know ... that you have been with IMDb since 1999.... but ... your off-topic rant was your FIRST post to THIS BOARD.. "Mankind..."... and like all first time posters to a Board... you post to a negative thread.. to stir up trouble...

And Doc... I remember quite well wasting my time engaged in an off-topic, circle jerk with you some time ago... this is the first time you have responded... yes check where I post... all the garbage, cheaply produced, so-called reality shows on Cable TV today Boards... but like all spinners, you fail to mention that all my posts are in the negative threads... unlike you, I do not rudely interupt "Fan" discussions.. like you do our discussions....

Also... whose the liar ? I doubt very much that you placed me on your Ignore List... ain't no shill placing me on Ignore... that would take me off your scope and cost you a paycheck.... and in your response to Sparky telling him not to waste his time with me... you knew exactly who he was talking to... what did you do... take me off Ignore to check out my posts ? Doc... you are a hateful little shill aren't you....

This life is too short to argue over this garbage... if you like it.. good... talk it over with others who like it... if you're pissed off with the cesspool that Cable TV has become... even better... let us discuss it without interference from you and yours...

Now, back to the topic... Yes OP, "Mankind.." is another expensive failure from the channel that still has the nerve to call itself HISTORY... but then it was designed to be a failure by the "History-hating" CEO... to support the "illusion" of success of the cheaply produced, non-history, garbage that has taken over the channel.. ..

"I put out expensive "History" programming and everybody complains about it... they want to see cheaply produced garbage about toothless, inbred nitwits... what can I say ?"

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

reply

[–] rixter 11 years ago

To Ltrazordaddio: Interesting that you would call me a newbie to a post that was created November 18th on a show that premiered November 13th. What exactly do you consider a newbie? Anything after your post? Gee, I am truly sorry that I didn't post at Tue Nov 20 2012 20:16:42, one second right after you. Can I join your little discussion club? Pretty please? Is it OK if some of us disagree with you? I know the rest of us aren't as smart as you are, but please bear with us. We're only mere mortals.

reply

[–] dmad1000 11 years ago

"This life is too short to argue over this garbage"

Yet you do it.
Every day.
of every week

For months.

Are you psychotic or just a truly dedicated troll?

I shudder to imagine your life.

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

hey dmad... GFY jackoff !!!!!!!!! Great 5th post to IMDb... be advised the topic of thread is "another expensive failure, short on history"... it doesn't matter a rat's a$$ what I am.. so don't be a rude pryck plant.. like the one who told you to post here.. please keep the thread on Topic..... if you don't like what I post... put me on Ignore, just like I just did with you, you basement dwelling Shill

Be advised that I don't argue this dumb $hit.. nothing to argue about as far as I'm concerned.... the channel sucks and that's it... it's you scumbag Shills that come to me and try to start a circle jerk argument to take the threads off topic....

And as far as being a Troll... once again "YOU" came to me on a negative thread.. "YOU" are the one trolling and looking to disrupt... I did not come to "YOU" and post on a Fan thread and interupt the discussion with off topic garbage like you... you POS.... ... bye bye Shill....

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

reply

[–] Grizzleberries 11 years ago

Are trolls like this really the pinnacle of human evolution? Is this what we have become? *beep*...

reply

[–] Traianus 11 years ago

"Most of our audience don’t normally watch history, and are more used to Hollywood movies and computer games" - Ben Goold, executive producer at Nutopia, November, 2012.

That perception explains a lot.

What Ben is stating there is not a perception. It's a fact.

An awful lot of people who are kind of interested in history watch the History Channel. Most people who are really, really interested in history read history books. While there are a lot of people are people who are kind of interested in history, most people are not people who are really, really interested in history.

If the History Channel designed its programming around the nuanced, tit-for-tat accuracy details of history that historians are interested in and debate, there would be no History Channel. It would not be watchable for most people. The History Channel is a business and is trying to make money by attracting the most viewers and advertisers possible. It's no different from anything else. If MTV focused on the specifics of music that great musicians focus on, there would be no MTV. If the Golf Channel focused on the real fundamentals of golf (grip, stance, etc.), there would be no Golf Channel.

reply

[–] Ltrazordaddio 11 years ago

I can't understand then... why people who don't have an interest in "History", and didn't watch it when it was THE HISTORY CHANNEL... would care if it failed.
So what if there would be no HISTORY CHANNEL.. no great loss.

I don't watch the Hunting channels... I wouldn't give a rat's a$$ if one of them failed.... sounds to me that most of the now ardent supporters of the channel that is a disgrace to the word "History", have some vested interest in it to support the garbage programming on it now....

The point is... if you can't survive by being true to your "Brand"... in this case providing "History" programming to people with an interest in "History", and who tune to a channel called HISTORY, and expect to see "History" programming...

If you can't do that, or choose not to because of the "History-hating" agenda of your CEO... change the name... to maybe CRAPtv, and be done with it...

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

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] olivr942 11 years ago

There's no reason why entertainment has to be substituted for history or vice versa. The execution and direction from the top has just been poor, which is bad considering this is meant to be a history channel documentary.

I mean the show could be much better if it was less biased towards America/the West and exercised greater proportionality when discussing our history. This comes out in Episode 9. Yes there's always going to be some subjectivity involved but I'm sure it could be narrowed down if they tried. I know that they aren't going to shed light on the more controversial events which make the US look less glamorous and noble.

In terms of interviews I am perplexed at some of the people they have giving their opinions. Not only do they have no credibility in discussing historical events they haven't researched, but the broadness of their statements doesn't seem to add much to the show. Perhaps it's a case of getting camera-friendly people to interview, I don't know.

reply

[–] netsez00 11 years ago

They did discuss Africa as a whole, I even remember hearing the line 'this was Africa's golden age'. They did cover the Americas, they covered the incas and tonight should have the Aztecs, plus Columbus discoverying the Americans. In addition they did say that the Middle East was an early hotbed of creativity, they mentioned Arabic numbers, alphabet, the zero and algebra.

They did discuss Africa as a whole, I even remember hearing the line 'this was Africa's golden age'. They did cover the Americas, they cover the incas and tonight should have the Aztecs. In addition they did say that the Middle East was an early hotbed of creativity, dimension Arabic numbers, alphabet, the zero an algebra.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] netsez00 11 years ago

If you have seen up to the plague then you saw they spent time with the incas. In last night's show they covered the Aztecs quite well, and spent quite a time whith the native Americans.

Let's be fair though, by the time the new world was discovered by Europeans in 1492, Europe the Middle East and the Far East were doing amazing things but the Americans still did not even have the wheel.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] netsez00 11 years ago

'It was one of the largest cities in the world and had aqueducts with fresh water. The people bathed twice a day - that was unheard of in Europe.'

You must be joking, whoever made that statement Must not have heard about the roman aqueduct, all the running water in the city, indoor plumbing, baths with both hot and cold running water, flushable toilets. Rome was a city of a million people.

'Rome's first aqueduct supplied a water-fountain sited at the city's cattle-market. By the 3rd century AD, the city had eleven aqueducts, to sustain a population of over 1,000,000 in a water-extravagant economy; most of the water supplied the city's many public baths. Cities and municipalities throughout the Roman Empire emulated this model, and funded aqueducts as objects of public interest and civic pride, "an expensive yet necessary luxury to which all could, and did, aspire."[1]

You want to compare Rome with Teotihuacan at 500 AD? Good luck.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] VaderLordVader 11 years ago

I personally wish, that they would've spent a little less time on the plague, and maybe include, the French Revolution or Napoleon. They didn't even touch on the Renaissance, and that was a HUGE part of our history. I would've maybe enjoyed a bit more on the Aztecs, because I find their culture incredibly interesting. But the good thing is, it's touching on some points that I know little about. And it's got me re-interested in things, that I knew about, but had kind of forgotten about, IE: the Aztecs. And I'm really interested about the Romans, so I'm going forth, and learning more about them. It has me excited about history, which, I don't think people get excited enough about. The thing that I really appreciate, is that it puts a visual in to what I learned about back in 10th Grade history class. It's one thing to read it out of a history book, and have names and dates, and maybe a picture or two, but it's completely different to see it. And that's one of the best things about this series. History becomes tangible for me. Is the information completely accurate? Probably not. But I am so glad that I can see it. This is when I wish that time travel existed. Because I would love to travel back to the days of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, to Shakespeare's day. And maybe stop by the Ancient Egyptians and the Ming Empire. It's so interesting, and it has me excited and interested in history.

I'm giving my kudos to the History Channel on this one. I'm thoroughly enjoying it!

"A bomb in the lasagna?! Great Scott!"

reply

[–] swizzlestick 11 years ago

I've generally enjoyed the series (although I've been irritated by the History channel's utterly maddening configuration of the episodes -- cramming some together into single time slots, erratic replays, poor web listings, and so on).

That said, I agree with some of the complaints about the historical skew. There's far too much weight on mankind's recent history: More than half the series is devoted to the past 500 years, at the expense of earlier human periods, including prehistory.

I'm sure the producers assume that viewers are more interested in those 500 years, in seeing a portrayal of our own time and culture, and that assumption is probably right. But I personally find it more intellectually stimulating -- and psychologically intriguing -- when one's own time and culture is "put in its place," so to speak. In that regard, the American Pilgrims, say, should just be a blip on the radar, if anything at all.

It's more illuminating to see ourselves, our culture, fitted into the broader context of humanity's story, to see what "we" look like when painted with broad strokes. Amplifying that modern "we" into a big starring role might please our egos, but it ultimately hinders our understanding of who we actually are.

reply