MovieChat Forums > Battlefield (1995) Discussion > Such an high rating?

Such an high rating?

posted 13 years ago by DigIt
5 replies | jump to latest

This series is such an accumulation of pretentious and unaccomplished documents, so badly edited and wishfully collected, I really doubt anyone giving such high praise to it has seen the whole episodes, or has any full knowledge of the subject!

The documents: quite often they use the same filmed segments to illustrate any battle anywhere in the world; they have no idea on how to distinguish and identify historic documents.

The editing: the graphics and sounds of the whole series are of such low and unprofessional quality that is astonishing! Such a bore is almost unbearable.

At maximum I will give this series a 6/10 for the idea, but I assure you better spend the time required to watch all this c**p watching History Channel or reading WWII books and testimonies instead.

[–] dlmiley 9 years ago

I am not sure you are referring to the original Battlefield series broadcast on PBS in 1995. The series was extremely well written and produced. It featured excellent graphics (for the time) and offered valuable details including a prelude to battle before describing the actual battle in detail in 5 phases. So I am not sure what you mean by "pretentious and unaccomplished documents". I happened to be re-watching the Battle of France and Battle of Midway and came upon your unfair comments and had to reply. And by the way, the current History Channel has descended into reality junk like "Pawn Stars", so I avoid it like the plague!

[–] DigIt 9 years ago

I'm referring to the original production in 30 parts that was aired on Discovery Channel, distributed on VHS and finally on DVD: I'm not sure if PBS has used the same material or just adopted the same title though.
If the text and narration could be acceptable what is really appalling is the inconsistent use of the original footage (used again and again just to illustrate an aerial attack, or any field battle anywhere and at anytime with the same images) as well as blatant technical errors regarding strategy and tactics that are inconsistent with the many proved sources available to any historian and that were even accessible watching other much better series from the History Channel, the Thames or the BBC.
The editing was so bad that coupled with the awful music commentary made me doze off unrelentingly and I'm a very passionate WWII buff.
Here is the list of the infamous (for me at least) episodes:
The Battle of France
The Battle of Britain
The Battle of Midway
The Battle of Stalingrad
The Battle of Normandy
The Battle of Berlin
The Battle for North Africa
The Battle of the Atlantic
The Battle for Russia
The Battle for Italy
The Battle of Leyte Gulf
The Battle of the Rhine
Scandinavia - The Forgotten Front
Campaign In The Balkans
The Battle For The Crimea
The Battle Of Kursk
Arnhem
The Battle For The Mediterranean
Manchuria - The Forgotten Victory
The War Against The U-Boats
The West Wall
Monte Cassino
The Siege Of Leningrad
The Battle For Caen
El Alamein
Destination Okinawa
Air War Over Germany
Guadalcanal
The Battles For Tunisia
Pearl Harbour

If these titles seem to promise the fundamental coverage of some salients events, nonetheless the final impression is you're watching the same all over again, thanks to their failure in editing and presenting the subject matter in any possible interesting way to appeal a viewer who has any interest in it, not to say of a casual viewer.
After all to justify such high ratings here I really hope we are not talking of the same series and that I've commented on another one by mistake...

[–] dlmiley 9 years ago

The first ones on your list:
The Battle of France
The Battle of Britain
The Battle of Midway
The Battle of Stalingrad
The Battle of Normandy
The Battle of Berlin
The Battle for North Africa
The Battle of the Atlantic
The Battle for Russia
The Battle for Italy
The Battle of Leyte Gulf
The Battle of the Rhine

They were broadcast on PBS and I thought that they were pretty well done. I liked them enough to buy the series on tape when they were released by Time Life; I then re-purchased them on DVD. True, they don't really tell anything that new but I didn't think that the editing was bad or any of the facts incorrect. The narrator discussed the weapons and tactics in a fair and concise manner. And as I said, most people liked the graphics and maps. So, I don't really understand your criticism of them. The rest of the items on your list are the secondary series most of which I bought on DVD, much to my chagrin. I must admit that they were a disappointment. I agree with you that they were poorly produced and were not on par with the original series. I fell asleep during some of them.

[–] indy_go_blue44 8 years ago

I own Battlefield (series 1 apparently), Battleline and Battle Ground and what you're describing sounds like the latter two. The Battlefield series is much much better than the latter two, which as you say features what seems to be a lot of generic film that I've seen in several other series and don't relate to the episode (snowing at Kursk?) Other than the music, which is enough in the background not to bother me but is awfully redundant through 12 disks, this is one of the better sets for in-depth info that I've ever seen. I wish someone would do the American Civil War the same way.

[–] CoSMiGoNoN (77) 6 years ago

I agree. The 1st three seasons were excellent, but after tht it went downhill pretty fast. I'm on season 5 and I'm just gonna stop watching, it's so bad and boring it's unbearable.