Film God's and General's

[Thor]

John,

No offense intended. There were just a lot of things about this "prequel" that were sloppy. For example, in God's and Generals they had Joshua Chamberlain giving this droning, theatrical speech about Caeser, etc. and acting every bit the stern, experienced leader -- while in Gettysburg he was portrayed as a green, humble new commander, unsure of himself or at least displaying gentle, quiet leadership.

The rub? The battle of Fredericksburg (Gods and Generals) happened BEFORE Gettysburg -- thus Chamberlain's character was developing IN REVERSE. Totally inconsistent.

Plus, in G&Gs, they had a character getting whacked at the battle of Chancellorsville who had been the "rats" guy at Gettysburg ("Wer'e fighting for our rats.") It would have been tough for that guy to be at Gettysburg if he was killed a few weeks earlier at Chancellorsville. :)

G&G was just not up to par with the earlier Gettysburg by the same director and author. Even the author's son was disgusted with G&G and the sloppy job they did on the production.

Historically accurate, perhaps. But G&G was like a giant donut with a hole in the center that skipped HUGE, significant ACW battles/events during the period the movie covered, and it failed to remain consistent with its earlier (note: date-later) companion film, "Gettysburg."

For ardent fans and buffs of the ACW, like myself, it was a huge disappointment. Gettysburg had initiated a renaissance in interest in the ACW here in the US in the 90s and there were great expectations that G&G, produced by the same folks, would expand that interest much further into a populace largly ingorant to one of the most significant events in our nation's history.

Unfortunately, G&G had the opposite effect -- and likely killed public interest in the genre for some time to come. Ted Turner put up $90 million of his vastly shrunk personal fortune (down to 300 million from 10 Billion at one point) to finance the film and it grossed about 7 million I think.

Haven't heard much from Ted since. Maybe he's still drunk sitting around a campfire somewhere with a bunch of ACW reinactors singing "The Bonnie Blue Flag" . . . .

Ken Burns said the civil war was about freeing the slaves. The truth is far from that. The issue was much more complex and even Lincoln said that he would compromise on slaverly to preserve the union.

Gettysburg is a great film that explores with amazing accuracy that fascinating battle. There are also numerous subtle and accurate references in the Gettysburg dialog to other significant ACW events. If you have not seen that film, definately check it out. :thumbs_up:

Again, no offense intended John, although surely caused. My apologies. :bow:

But having majored in military history in college and studied it avidly for decades, I have found that the ACW provides an incredible opportunity to study the effect of weaponry, command decisions, communications, logistics, terrain and tactics on battle outcomes.

To me, it's a shame and inexcusable that G&G did not offer a quality sequel to Gettysburg and ingnite an even greater interest in the subject among the American public. :censored:

Because history speaks softly to those who will listen . . . and loudly to those who will not.

Best Regards,
Mark~Thor