The Vietnam War

I've seen several references to Burns losing his fastball. I haven't seen it. The first few minutes of episode one with the film reversed was stirring.

 

The episodes I have seen (not all yet) have been excellent.

 

I've watched every episode and think the whole thing's been outstanding.

I don't get the losing-fastball thing either. Burns' fastball still looks fine to me. Maybe some say that because we've figured out his storytelling formula, repeated in each documentary, and they've seized on that repetition as an excuse for criticism. But if that formula still produces fascinating, educational and riveting historical content, who the hell cares?

There's no need to change your stuff (although he did tweak it this time with those chronological jumps) when your stuff is this good.

 

I'm two episodes in, and have found it to be excellent. I do admit to loving pretty much everything Burns produces. And I find this particularly informative because Vietnam is a bit of a weak point in my knowledge of history.

As far Burns losing his fastball? Nah. I think it's reasonable to perhaps think that, but it's tough to be compared against yourself, especially with masterpieces like The Civil War, Baseball, The War, The Roosevelts, etc.

The style is certainly different because there's so much live-action footage.

 

In the last episode or two of binge-watching BB, I was caught in this strange netherworld of simultaneously not wanting it to end and a feeling of relief that we wouldn't be slaves to it anymore.

 

Well after Ozymandias cracks you in the side of the head with a sledgehammer, you're just thinking, "THERE'S MORE?!?!?"

 

No discussion on Vietnam is complete without this history lesson....

 

I hope that makes it into Burns' show.

 

Ken Burns has chronicled the Civil War, baseball, jazz, World War II, the national park system, prohibition, the Roosevelts and cancer.

He's 64 years old. His big projects take between 5-10 years to complete. He has perhaps two or three of those monumental projects left in him if he desires.

What would you like to see him tackle? What big American story from the 19th or 20th Century deserves that kind of microscope and the spotlight from a pop historian that can spark people's interest in learning more about it?

Or does Lynn Novick receive the torch from here on out and run with it?

 

So much talk about Ike and Kennedy, but Truman also deserves some blame. If only he'd let McCarthy go into Korea and blow up those Commie bastards/pipsqueaks, the Vietnemense would have gotten the hint and let us take over.

 

For chrissakes, are you really repeating this blunder again?

For the second time, MacArthur, not McCarthy.

 

Forget it. He's rolling!