NF 'Legends & Lies' Returns With a Riveting Look at The Civil War

Non-Fiction
LOL I did notice that! I also want to compliment them on the actor portraying Lincoln. Looks a lot like him and its how I would have imagined he sounded like.
He is wonderful, isn't he? He is a local reenactor, and I got the chance to see him deliver a speech in person. My girls and I stood there, totally fascinated. Some reenactors look the part but aren't the best actors. Some are great actors but don't quite look the part.

He had both the impression and the acting down perfectly.

When he was done, I said to the girls, "He's the best Lincoln I've seen yet." I had no idea he was a professional and had been doing this for years.

Edit: He's in this thread.
 
He is wonderful, isn't he? He is a local reenactor, and I got the chance to see him deliver a speech in person. My girls and I stood there, totally fascinated. Some reenactors look the part but aren't the best actors. Some are great actors but don't quite look the part.

He had both the impression and the acting down perfectly.

When he was done, I said to the girls, "He's the best Lincoln I've seen yet." I had no idea he was a professional and had been doing this for years.

Edit: He's in this thread.

I remember these pictures!
How wonderful! I haven't watched the episode yet but this will definitely give me something to look forward too now!
 
He is wonderful, isn't he? He is a local reenactor, and I got the chance to see him deliver a speech in person. My girls and I stood there, totally fascinated. Some reenactors look the part but aren't the best actors. Some are great actors but don't quite look the part.

He had both the impression and the acting down perfectly.

When he was done, I said to the girls, "He's the best Lincoln I've seen yet." I had no idea he was a professional and had been doing this for years.

Edit: He's in this thread.
You know LoriAnn he seemed familiar to me and I just assumed I saw him on another show somewhere. I think I saw him in those pictures and that's why lol. Thanks for sharing that again.
 
I just watched some of the Gettysburg episode. It was decent. I’m certainly no expert, but hasn’t A.P. Hill wearing a red shirt been proven wrong?
Also Longstreet was wearing a kepi instead of a cowboy style hat. Is there any fact to that?
 
Anyone care to come back here and recant their ignorant and biased statements regarding the channel producing this excellent and accurate series (other than the true but irrelevant gripes about wardrobe)?
Perhaps some of those posters should check their own biases and do a little self evaluation about the false media that misled them to believing the lies.
I find it shameful that people would belive conservatives would be pro slavery and pro confederate. Quite the contrary. Fox News was accurate regarding the myth of the lost cause and the stain of slavery as anyone who actually watches the channel would expect.
I wont hold my breath, though. Most probably didnt even watch but will still form opinions, as usual. :rolleyes:
 
Anyone care to come back here and recant their ignorant and biased statements regarding the channel producing this excellent and accurate series (other than the true but irrelevant gripes about wardrobe)?
Perhaps some of those posters should check their own biases and do a little self evaluation about the false media that misled them to believing the lies.
I find it shameful that people would belive conservatives would be pro slavery and pro confederate. Quite the contrary. Fox News was accurate regarding the myth of the lost cause and the stain of slavery as anyone who actually watches the channel would expect.
I wont hold my breath, though. Most probably didnt even watch but will still form opinions, as usual. :rolleyes:

Or some people just genuinely don't agree with you and just don't think of it as excellent and/or accurate. You might consider such people (on either end of the spectrum since we can see complaints from both ends) are in fact fully genuine rather than dismiss them based on your own view (which really says nothing about another's view which could legitimately differ greatly). I find it best to assume people are genuine in their beliefs unless specifically found otherwise.

I have not seen it myself so I can't comment on it directly (and haven't posted on this thread until now). I have no respect for the channel, though am willing to give anything a chance of being different, though refused to give the channel my view/ratings (I believe in voting with our dollars, such as products you support by companies or views/ratings for TV), though with some youtube alternate options maybe I'll give it a watch. Sometimes things can surprise, both in good and bad ways, I mean History channel is a good example, some genuinely excellent shows with solid history, then things like Ancient Aliens *shrug* which is fine from an entertainment perspective but clearly does not belong alongside serious historical documentaries. So I definitely am of the mind of shows like these should be considered within the channel they are on but judged on their own merits and those specifically involved.

I will point out that the brand associated with these is tied to an individual (I will leave unnamed) that has many historical critiques in works he's associated with. It is not unreasonable to apply that as a baseline to a work associated with such a brand (in fact might be argued unreasonable to not do so). That doesn't mean this might not be of a higher quality to other works, but I think people have more than fair reasons to be skeptical of this program.

It is good to see Civil War enter modern media and especially if it educational on Lost Cause mythos. I'll reserve any personal commentary on it until/if after I watch it.
 
Or some people just genuinely don't agree with you and just don't think of it as excellent and/or accurate.
Its as accurate as we are going to get on primetime tv in this era, thats for certain. Especially with time and budget constraints.
The problem is people basing their opinion about a show on a channel. Grow up.
And again I find it incredibly shallow and childlike even to believe that the channel and those watching it would support or diminish the effects of slavery or take sides with the confederacy over the union. Absolutely idiodic.
 
Its as accurate as we are going to get on primetime tv in this era, thats for certain. Especially with time and budget constraints.
The problem is people basing their opinion about a show on a channel. Grow up.
And again I find it incredibly shallow and childlike even to believe that the channel and those watching it would support or diminish the effects of slavery or take sides with the confederacy over the union. Absolutely idiodic.

You criticize others for throwing out generalizations while throwing out a lot of generalizations yourself, along with a lot of personal level type insults to such people and say "grow up". Might I suggest you take your own advice, that from your perspective two wrongs don't make a right and that you are applying equally unreasonable generalizations the other way.

Additionally when a channel has a long documented history of being immensely inaccurate in it's representation of history it is not indeed unreasonable for someone to then apply that history towards additional content that choose to be broadcast on that channel. That of course doesn't mean that such content is of the same historically biased quality, though again one could and should easily understand why someone might be skeptical. Keep in mind that there are those that have watched this content and do not agree with your rosy assessment, even in this thread. Again you might consider such people genuine and not generalize them away.
 
You criticize others for throwing out generalizations while throwing out a lot of generalizations yourself, along with a lot of personal level type insults to such people and say "grow up". Might I suggest you take your own advice, that from your perspective two wrongs don't make a right and that you are applying equally unreasonable generalizations the other way.

Additionally when a channel has a long documented history of being immensely inaccurate in it's representation of history it is not indeed unreasonable for someone to then apply that history towards additional content that choose to be broadcast on that channel. That of course doesn't mean that such content is of the same historically biased quality, though again one could and should easily understand why someone might be skeptical. Keep in mind that there are those that have watched this content and do not agree with your rosy assessment, even in this thread. Again you might consider such people genuine and not generalize them away.
You have zero credibility here as you are obviously biased against the channel based on nothing other than your political views and whatever your media sources feed you. Why should I easily understand those being skeptical? Thats obviously your opinion and you simply expect people to accept it? You are giving excuses for people who are basing opinions of a show without actually watching it and insinuating that people at that channel and those who watch would be in favor of slavery and the confederacy. Sorry but im calling that what it is...childish and irresponsible.
And have you read the thread? It would be one thing if people "who watched the content and do not agree with your rosy assessment" actually watched the entire series and then gave their critique, but they didnt. The negative posts were here early in the series after a few episodes and really had nothing to do with the show but the channel, and then crickets. So what you argue there isnt accurate either.
I do not mind if people dont like the show or find it innacurate, fine. But some of the posts in this thread about the channel and their expectations were flat wrong and i wondered if we would see those posters back admitting it. But of course we wont. Theyll just go on believing fox news diminishes slavery and favors the confederacy.:rolleyes:
 
Or some people just genuinely don't agree with you and just don't think of it as excellent and/or accurate. You might consider such people (on either end of the spectrum since we can see complaints from both ends) are in fact fully genuine rather than dismiss them based on your own view (which really says nothing about another's view which could legitimately differ greatly). I find it best to assume people are genuine in their beliefs unless specifically found otherwise.

I have not seen it myself so I can't comment on it directly (and haven't posted on this thread until now). I have no respect for the channel, though am willing to give anything a chance of being different, though refused to give the channel my view/ratings (I believe in voting with our dollars, such as products you support by companies or views/ratings for TV), though with some youtube alternate options maybe I'll give it a watch. Sometimes things can surprise, both in good and bad ways, I mean History channel is a good example, some genuinely excellent shows with solid history, then things like Ancient Aliens *shrug* which is fine from an entertainment perspective but clearly does not belong alongside serious historical documentaries. So I definitely am of the mind of shows like these should be considered within the channel they are on but judged on their own merits and those specifically involved.

I will point out that the brand associated with these is tied to an individual (I will leave unnamed) that has many historical critiques in works he's associated with. It is not unreasonable to apply that as a baseline to a work associated with such a brand (in fact might be argued unreasonable to not do so). That doesn't mean this might not be of a higher quality to other works, but I think people have more than fair reasons to be skeptical of this program.

It is good to see Civil War enter modern media and especially if it educational on Lost Cause mythos. I'll reserve any personal commentary on it until/if after I watch it.

You criticize others for throwing out generalizations while throwing out a lot of generalizations yourself, along with a lot of personal level type insults to such people and say "grow up". Might I suggest you take your own advice, that from your perspective two wrongs don't make a right and that you are applying equally unreasonable generalizations the other way.

Additionally when a channel has a long documented history of being immensely inaccurate in it's representation of history it is not indeed unreasonable for someone to then apply that history towards additional content that choose to be broadcast on that channel. That of course doesn't mean that such content is of the same historically biased quality, though again one could and should easily understand why someone might be skeptical. Keep in mind that there are those that have watched this content and do not agree with your rosy assessment, even in this thread. Again you might consider such people genuine and not generalize them away.

This.
 
You have zero credibility here as you are obviously biased against the channel based on nothing other than your political views and whatever your media sources feed you. Why should I easily understand those being skeptical? Thats obviously your opinion and you simply expect people to accept it? You are giving excuses for people who are basing opinions of a show without actually watching it and insinuating that people at that channel and those who watch would be in favor of slavery and the confederacy. Sorry but im calling that what it is...childish and irresponsible.

What I'm hearing is that since I'm calling a channel you like having a serious issues with historical accuracy and representation that you are claiming I have zero credibility. You are also making claims on my political views while I haven't shared any of my political views (which would be against the rules if not carefully carved out to Civil War relevance... and even then potentially). So you are making many assumptions based on information I have never posted on this forum. I would suggest you might assume less since you might be surprised how many of those assumptions might be incorrect. All I'll say in regards to this is I give every mainstream news TV Station a pretty low bar when it come to historical accuracy (again I will not comment on politics beyond that since that's inappropriate in this forum, but my bar is pretty low in general for them all lol). This is not out of some malice towards a single Station or all of them, that they have proven to have a bad track record when validated in regards to history (there is plenty of material out there, evaluation by historians, I highly recommending doing research).

As far as

"insinuating that people at that channel and those who watch would be in favor of slavery and the confederacy"

That's not at all what I gathered from many posters. For one it's dangerous to generalize all the people who don't like this show as that, just like it would be dangerous to generalize all viewers of channel. I will say in my own anecdotal experience I have in fact known avid viewers of the channel that ascribe to similar beliefs you suggest are insinuated, though I would never personally generalize all viewers of a channel to something that specific and I didn't get that from most (maybe any, I'd have to re-read the thread) posters here. It feels like your are trivializing the multiple views expressed that don't like the content via your own personal opinion on the content as if that's an absolute disproof. It just doesn't add up to me and I don't like either group over generalized.

In any case we are all biased in our own way and whether you give me credibility or not is absolutely of no concern to me. I never post or discuss to convince anywhere or to establish any credibility. Take what I say with a grain of salt, just please don't generalize what I say based on pure assumptions and some web of clustering with someone else.


And have you read the thread? It would be one thing if people "who watched the content and do not agree with your rosy assessment" actually watched the entire series and then gave their critique, but they didnt. The negative posts were here early in the series after a few episodes and really had nothing to do with the show but the channel, and then crickets. So what you argue there isnt accurate either.

I have read the thread and have been following, wondering if it was worth giving some time to even consider this material. The reality is there is more material out there than time. I have a queue of books, audio books, lectures, etc on Civil War history. The same is true I'm sure for you and every other poster here. We are not the average viewer of any of these channels in regards to Civil War history. Honestly I've been underwhelmed with *most* historical representation on any mainstream news channel (and the one we're referring to is the most popular and most mainstream). I've even become very disillusioned with other mainstream History centric channels, like History (though there are some exceptional programs from time to time, it being less of a single source and narrative than any of the news channels, so the quality varies greatly). Despite all that I can find specific hosts and shows I like on each major news channel. I won't ignore the channel something is on, that is a part of their decision and the history of said channel and it's record on a specific context should be a factor, but I will personally only make judgement calls on something specifically I have consumed and given a fair evaluation, I have not with this specific show. At least yet. Enough people I respect have said at least decent things about I might give it a go.

Obviously some of the posters who didn't like the content didn't watch the whole thing since it hadn't been released fully yet. So I don't know how that's a fair metric. I'd be curious on their perspectives of the newer content, though if they didn't like earlier content I don't know if that view would change.

I do not mind if people dont like the show or find it innacurate, fine. But some of the posts in this thread about the channel and their expectations were flat wrong and i wondered if we would see those posters back admitting it. But of course we wont. Theyll just go on believing fox news diminishes slavery and favors the confederacy.:rolleyes:

By your determination they are flat wrong, but you might be surprised that others might not hold to the same determination you have of their expectations. Thats kind of the point.
 
"Thats not at all what I gathered from many posters" does this statement mean you gathered it from some posters? Because I sure did. I did not say that all critical posters were this childish or shallow, in fact I used the word "some" when asking if any posters would like to do the responsible thing and admit their biases and uneccesary postings were wrong.

Lets recap.
1) I have no problem with people being critical of the show for reasons regarding the actual show.
2) I do have a problem with the posters/posts bashing this show because of the channel it was on and insinuating it would be pro confederate and soft on slavery etc. if you dont see those posts it means you are either blind, playing stupid, have posters blocked, or are also biased and letting it cloud your judgement. I dont believe you are blind or stupid so its one of the others.
3) my original post calling out negative posters was intended for group number 2, not 1.

I completely stand by my statement that those posters are childish. Completely uncalled for and the assumption that conservatives are pro confederate is utter nonsense and ignorant.

Are we clear that Im not ranting against all negative opinions of the show?
Have a good day, I hope you see the series.
 
"Thats not at all what I gathered from many posters" does this statement mean you gathered it from some posters? Because I sure did. I did not say that all critical posters were this childish or shallow, in fact I used the word "some" when asking if any posters would like to do the responsible thing and admit their biases and uneccesary postings were wrong.

Lets recap.
1) I have no problem with people being critical of the show for reasons regarding the actual show.
2) I do have a problem with the posters/posts bashing this show because of the channel it was on and insinuating it would be pro confederate and soft on slavery etc. if you dont see those posts it means you are either blind, playing stupid, have posters blocked, or are also biased and letting it cloud your judgement. I dont believe you are blind or stupid so its one of the others.
3) my original post calling out negative posters was intended for group number 2, not 1.

I completely stand by my statement that those posters are childish. Completely uncalled for and the assumption that conservatives are pro confederate is utter nonsense and ignorant.

Are we clear that Im not ranting against all negative opinions of the show?
Have a good day, I hope you see the series.

I thought the program sucked.

But then, I was in my child-like phase of the day. :wink:
 
The short preview clips are pro CSA and do include a lot of the usual myths... as I already mentioned.
Just like the channels coverage of what is happening in the world today.... Biased (like all american TV news is) and right wing.

But having watch some of the actual program I do agree that is is more balanced.

And I do think this sort of makes sense.
A preview that is shown during the normal programming have to be made to get the standard viewers to watch the show. and they have very limited time to do so.
So it makes sense that it give a presentation that will fit how most ordinary conservative Americans understand the topic.
(like praising Jackson, when he simply did not do a good job at that specific campaign)
Then later the actual show can give are more balanced coverage of the topic.

Oh, and I do think a number of the people who where critical of the program similar based it on the preview and not on the full program....
 
Last edited:
The short preview clips are pro CSA and do include a lot of the usual myths... as I already mentioned.
Just like the channels coverage of what is happening in the world today.... Biased (like all american TV news is) and right wing.

But having watch some of the actual program I do agree that is is more balanced.

And I do think this sort of makes sense.
A preview that is shown during the normal programming have to be made to get the standard viewers to watch the show. and they have very limited time to do so.
So it makes sense that it give a presentation that will fit how most ordinary conservative Americans understand the topic.
(like praising Jackson, when he simply did not do a good job at that specific campaign)
Then later the actual show can give are more balanced coverage of the topic.

Oh, and I do think a number of the people who where critical of the program similar based it on the preview and not on the full program....
I take considerable offense to your ascertation that conservatives would be pro confederate.
Its hilarious, you are pretty against this biased station but have some considerable biases yourself.
Im not a democrat, im a true blue conservative, just like Lincoln.
 
Back
Top