PDA

View Full Version : Ken Burns' BASEBALL - 1994-present will air Sept 28-29 on PBS


Fenway
06-21-2010, 09:20 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/ksherrington/stories/061710dnsposherrington.1cb787d.html

Already I can hear WSI complaints that the 2004 Red Sox get a full chapter and the 2005 White Sox ignored :tongue:

WhiteSox5187
06-21-2010, 09:28 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/ksherrington/stories/061710dnsposherrington.1cb787d.html

Already I can hear WSI complaints that the 2004 Red Sox get a full chapter and the 2005 White Sox ignored :tongue:

It is insane, the '05 Sox were the better team. They should also mention that that '04 Red Sox team was maybe the most juiced team in baseball.

Having said that, I look forward to it.

Brian26
06-21-2010, 09:29 PM
Count me as looking forward to it.

A lot has happened in the past 16 years. The strike, Ripken, McGwire vs. Sosa, the Yankees dynasty, 9/11, Bartman, the Red Sox and White Sox winning titles. Actually, you could argue that '94 to '05 was one of the most dynamic periods in MLB history.

Fenway
06-21-2010, 09:42 PM
Given that Burns focused on 2 teams in the first 9 innings you know he will give 04 extra treatment - heck he lives in New Hampshire.

But I will let you in on how he gets to the White Sox - ALDS Game 3 - bottom 6th :)

Roids will be a huge part of the 4 hours as will Cal and Selig.

thomas35forever
06-21-2010, 09:53 PM
I've never seen the original documentary, but since this one will be about baseball as I've known it, I'll have to make a point to tune in.

TommyJohn
06-21-2010, 10:53 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/ksherrington/stories/061710dnsposherrington.1cb787d.html

Already I can hear WSI complaints that the 2004 Red Sox get a full chapter and the 2005 White Sox ignored :tongue:I already wrote that in my blog on June 12. Predicting what the doc will have is like predicting a Mariotti column-just way too easy. Here is what I said:

Ken Burns' sequel to Baseball will be on September 28 and 29. Oh, boy. I can't wait. Not. Let's see-we'll get this.


2004 Boston Red Sox win World Series!!!
Stephen King, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Dennis Leary, Ben Affleck, Dan Shaughnessy, and all long-suffering Boston fans will chip in and reveal their innermost thoughts about the Sawx winning it all, and how time stood still, and how they cried thinking of Gramps, Granny, Uncle Chowder, Aunt Clammy and all those dearly-departed loved ones who had their hearts permanently shattered by Johnny Pesky, Bob Gibson, the Big Red Machine, Bucky Dent, Bill Buckner, etc., etc., etc. George Will will chip in his thoughts and drone about how watching the 2004 Red Sox win it all made him hope against hope that their NL blood brothers the Cubs would be next, and how he is still waiting.

And here is what we will see about the 2005 White Sox ending a longer drought:



























































































Not that I am bitter or anything.

Count me as not interested in seeing one second of it. Squeaky Kenny can take his beloved, juiced up Red Sox and shove them.

TDog
06-21-2010, 11:19 PM
With the criticism, the justified criticism that Ken Burns' documentaries have been subject to due to the lack of attention paid to Hispanics in American history, you would think that Burns would not leave himself open to renewed protests by giving only lip service to the first major league baseball team to win the World Series while being led by a Latin American manager.

Burns had to add segments at the end of his World War II documentary episodes in response to such criticism. The 2005 White Sox aren't a story because they have a Venezuelan manager. But that is part of the story.

I've seen Ken Burns interviewed, and I agree with him that the history of baseball reflects the post-Civil War history of America. But there are people out there who believe he is blind to a segment of America.

SI1020
06-22-2010, 07:37 AM
I have to tread carefully so just let me say that I often find Ken Burns painfully banal. He manages to both trivialize and distort the weighty subjects he attempts to tackle. I realize he has achieved demigod status in the eyes of many.

Hitmen77
06-22-2010, 08:20 AM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/ksherrington/stories/061710dnsposherrington.1cb787d.html

Already I can hear WSI complaints that the 2004 Red Sox get a full chapter and the 2005 White Sox ignored :tongue:
Whatever.

I guess Ken Burns has a different view of what makes baseball great. In his view (shared by many, no doubt), it's all about the glories of a few select "storied" teams (as seen through celebrities like Billy Crystal and Doris Kearns Goodwin). I don't share that view. IMO, MLB is great when there is great success and competition throughout the league and across the country. It's not about the same tired old rich teams.

To be honest, aside from the Civil War series, I haven't been impressed with his dry, overly-self-dramatic documentaries.

I didn't like his original "Baseball" documentary either. It's not just White Sox fans, I have heard others complain that his famous Baseball show was really just about New York and Boston teams.....and what NY and Boston celebrities think about their teams.

I love baseball. I just don't like Ken Burns' "Baseball".

Count me as looking forward to it.

A lot has happened in the past 16 years. The strike, Ripken, McGwire vs. Sosa, the Yankees dynasty, 9/11, Bartman, the Red Sox and White Sox winning titles. Actually, you could argue that '94 to '05 was one of the most dynamic periods in MLB history.

....and if it's not about NY or Boston, it won't be that important. The last 15 years has indeed been a dynamic period in baseball. Too bad it won't get noticed if the team isn't NY or Bos (or a scant few others like the Cubs).

A lot has happened since 1994 that I'm sure won't be important to Ken Burns. All four 1990s expansion teams winning at least one pennant....including World Series wins for the Marlins and D'Backs. One of MLB's original teams - the White Sox - ending a 88 year title drought and 46 year pennant drought. The Angels finally winning a World Series. The Braves with 14 straight division titles, 5 pennants and 1 WS win....and their legendary rotation.

Are they going to talk about players like Griffey, Pujols, Thomas, etc. since they don't play on important teams?

Count me out. I've got better things to do with my time than to watch yet another show that treats Yankees-Red Sox as the only thing that matters in MLB.

Hitmen77
06-22-2010, 08:23 AM
count me as not interested in seeing one second of it. Squeaky kenny can take his beloved, juiced up red sox and shove them.

+1

Railsplitter
06-22-2010, 09:31 AM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/ksherrington/stories/061710dnsposherrington.1cb787d.html

Already I can hear WSI complaints that the 2004 Red Sox get a full chapter and the 2005 White Sox ignored :tongue:
That's not too far-fetched. My college roomie was from Alton and wasn't thrilled about the 1960's Cardinals getting short-shifted.

tstrike2000
06-22-2010, 10:51 AM
I'd imagine even if the '05 Sox aren't mentioned too much, the '94 Sox and Expos may get mentioned as arguably two of the best teams that year with the strike ending what might have been.

Oblong
06-22-2010, 02:05 PM
I get over it because I realize that Ken Burns' Baseball isn't targeted for Baseball fans. He has to play a social angle to it which is why the Red Sox in 2004 will get more attention than the White Sox in 2005, even though the wait was longer for the franchise. People who don't follow baseball as close as we do know about the "Curse", they remember the 75 and 86 World Series, they saw Grady and Pedro in '03. Then there's the element of the comeback in 2004, being down 3-0. That makes a nice story to tell people who are not into baseball.

As a baseball fan and a non White Sox fan I can tell you that I can appreciate the 2005 White Sox because I thought they were the best team all year and had some of the best ptiching I've ever seen. That's the story of the team. There wasn't the glamour of the mid 90s Braves teams with Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, etc. but for one year they were just as good. The moments that the position players had were nice but with a great staff anybody would have had them. I like good pitching. You don't need Ken Burns to validate that.

TDog
06-22-2010, 03:13 PM
I get over it because I realize that Ken Burns' Baseball isn't targeted for Baseball fans. He has to play a social angle to it which is why the Red Sox in 2004 will get more attention than the White Sox in 2005, even though the wait was longer for the franchise. ...

The documentary series doesn't just play up the social angle. It is the social angle. The series is about how baseball reflected the changes in America, not about who won or lost. It is on PBS, not on ESPN.

Medford Bobby
06-22-2010, 04:13 PM
It's got to BE great if Keith Olberman has some commentary in it......:scratch:

TommyJohn
06-22-2010, 06:37 PM
Whatever.

I guess Ken Burns has a different view of what makes baseball great. In his view (shared by many, no doubt), it's all about the glories of a few select "storied" teams (as seen through celebrities like Billy Crystal and Doris Kearns Goodwin). I don't share that view. IMO, MLB is great when there is great success and competition throughout the league and across the country. It's not about the same tired old rich teams.

To be honest, aside from the Civil War series, I haven't been impressed with his dry, overly-self-dramatic documentaries.

I didn't like his original "Baseball" documentary either. It's not just White Sox fans, I have heard others complain that his famous Baseball show was really just about New York and Boston teams.....and what NY and Boston celebrities think about their teams.

I love baseball. I just don't like Ken Burns' "Baseball".



....and if it's not about NY or Boston, it won't be that important. The last 15 years has indeed been a dynamic period in baseball. Too bad it won't get noticed if the team isn't NY or Bos (or a scant few others like the Cubs).

A lot has happened since 1994 that I'm sure won't be important to Ken Burns. All four 1990s expansion teams winning at least one pennant....including World Series wins for the Marlins and D'Backs. One of MLB's original teams - the White Sox - ending a 88 year title drought and 46 year pennant drought. The Angels finally winning a World Series. The Braves with 14 straight division titles, 5 pennants and 1 WS win....and their legendary rotation.

Are they going to talk about players like Griffey, Pujols, Thomas, etc. since they don't play on important teams?

Count me out. I've got better things to do with my time than to watch yet another show that treats Yankees-Red Sox as the only thing that matters in MLB.Couldn't have stated it better myself.

In my blog I wrote a while ago about how it is my dream (fantasy, actually) to answer Burns with an epic documentary of my own:"Baseball In Chicago" which would cover the game as played in our fair city from the formation of the first professional team until the present day. The Cubs and Negro Leagues would be included. The tagline: "For those of you who thought that Baseball was only about New York and Boston."

GoSox2K3
06-23-2010, 10:49 AM
I get over it because I realize that Ken Burns' Baseball isn't targeted for Baseball fans. He has to play a social angle to it which is why the Red Sox in 2004 will get more attention than the White Sox in 2005, even though the wait was longer for the franchise. People who don't follow baseball as close as we do know about the "Curse", they remember the 75 and 86 World Series, they saw Grady and Pedro in '03. Then there's the element of the comeback in 2004, being down 3-0. That makes a nice story to tell people who are not into baseball.

As a baseball fan and a non White Sox fan I can tell you that I can appreciate the 2005 White Sox because I thought they were the best team all year and had some of the best ptiching I've ever seen. That's the story of the team. There wasn't the glamour of the mid 90s Braves teams with Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, etc. but for one year they were just as good. The moments that the position players had were nice but with a great staff anybody would have had them. I like good pitching. You don't need Ken Burns to validate that.

I don't think anyone here is asking for the White Sox getting equal attention as the Red Sox. I don't have a big problem with the 04 Red Sox getting more attention than the 05 White Sox. What I do have a problem with is that I expect the 05 White Sox will get just about ZERO attention. That's the issue.

Yes, the Red Sox story plays well to a national audience, but there is a great story there with the White Sox long suffering fan base and finally coming out to win the World Series. Yes, Boston and NY have the biggest following, but if Ken Burns or anyone else think that means that the baseball universe revolves around BOS and NY and that the White Sox amazing win in 2005 is nothing and doesn't deserve a mention, then I'm not interested in sharing that narrow view of "what makes Baseball great".

Also, if Ken Burns' goal is to only tell people things that people who don't know much about baseball have already heard about, then he's not a very good documentarian.

Oblong
06-23-2010, 11:57 AM
But he doesn't mention every WS winner. It's not an encyclopedia. The '02 Angels never won a WS and I doubt they'll get mentioned either. There's so much to cover in this time frame that doesn't even have to do with the World Series. A documentary isn't about throwing a shout out to each franchise to make sure they are accounted for.

Hitmen77
06-23-2010, 12:08 PM
But he doesn't mention every WS winner. It's not an encyclopedia. The '02 Angels never won a WS and I doubt they'll get mentioned either. There's so much to cover in this time frame that doesn't even have to do with the World Series. A documentary isn't about throwing a shout out to each franchise to make sure they are accounted for.

The Angels aren't an original franchise with a history going back to 1901 and an 88 year title drought.

The problem is, anything past the Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers (and maybe a couple of others) gets dumped into the "only mentioned if we have to do a shout out to everyone" bin.

Hey, it's Burns' documentary. He can talk about whatever the hell he wants and I'm sure he'll get a lot of viewers. But, like I said, if the view is that anything outside of 4 (or so) main teams is irrelevant and would only come up if we have to treat this like an encyclopedia, then it's not for me because IMO it has a narrow view of what baseball is all about.

This is the tail wagging the dog here. It isn't that things the Yankees and Red Sox, etc. do happen to be the only relevant things that happen in baseball. The logic is that it's only relevant in baseball if it has to do with NY, Bos, etc.

SI1020
06-23-2010, 12:14 PM
The Angels aren't an original franchise with a history going back to 1901 and an 88 year title drought.

The problem is, anything past the Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers (and maybe a couple of others) gets dumped into the "only mentioned if we have to do a shout out to everyone" bin.

Hey, it's Burns' documentary. He can talk about whatever the hell he wants and I'm sure he'll get a lot of viewers. But, like I said, if the view is that anything outside of 4 (or so) main teams is irrelevant and would only come up if we have to treat this like an encyclopedia, then it's not for me because IMO it has a narrow view of what baseball is all about. He took the same narrow elitist approach in his Jazz documentary. Jazz. Baseball. History. Three of the things I love most in life. To Ken Burns and his legion of fans I say thanks but no thanks.

Brewski
06-23-2010, 12:40 PM
He took the same narrow elitist approach in his Jazz documentary. Jazz. Baseball. History. Three of the things I love most in life. To Ken Burns and his legion of fans I say thanks but no thanks.

Elitist? Narrow-minded, slow-moving, boring, yes. This guy can suck the life out of great events. Elitist? What does that mean?

Fenway
06-23-2010, 12:54 PM
The acclaimed filmmaker and lifelong Red Sox fan on why Joe Torre's brilliant leadership of the New York Yankees reminds him of Abraham Lincoln (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/06/15/VI2010061504774.html)

Ken Burns, Cal Ripken: An extra 'inning' win on PBS (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/06/ken_burns_cal_ripken_the_tenth.html)‎

SI1020
06-23-2010, 01:48 PM
Elitist? Narrow-minded, slow-moving, boring, yes. This guy can suck the life out of great events. Elitist? What does that mean? Read Fenway's post underneath yours.

TommyJohn
06-23-2010, 06:07 PM
The acclaimed filmmaker and lifelong Red Sox fan on why Joe Torre's brilliant leadership of the New York Yankees reminds him of Abraham Lincoln (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/06/15/VI2010061504774.html)

Ken Burns, Cal Ripken: An extra 'inning' win on PBS (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/06/ken_burns_cal_ripken_the_tenth.html)‎

I am not clicking that link. No way.

rainbow6
06-23-2010, 06:54 PM
Interesting thread...

I have always resented the coverage of the East coast teams on ESPN.

However, the 'Baseball' documentary has always held a special place in my heart. Up until a few years ago, I used to count down to spring training by watching an episode a week until pitchers and catchers report.

Never got tired of it.

I never once considered the coverage of NY or Boston as "biased" while watching. Perhaps I'm a White Sox fan (or at least was before '05) with low self esteem but I guess I didn't really expect any segments on my team considering their lack of any significant post season history.

The '77 Southside Hitmen? The Wiinning Ugly team that lost in the first round? The teams in the 50's the finished second to the Yankees?

It didn't seem like fodder for a national documentary.

I though the segment on the '86 Red Sox was riveting.

I'm looking forward to the next installment - but I will be annoyed if the '05 team is not given it's due.

TommyJohn
06-23-2010, 07:07 PM
Interesting thread...

I have always resented the coverage of the East coast teams on ESPN.

However, the 'Baseball' documentary has always held a special place in my heart. Up until a few years ago, I used to count down to spring training by watching an episode a week until pitchers and catchers report.

Never got tired of it.

I never once considered the coverage of NY or Boston as "biased" while watching. Perhaps I'm a White Sox fan (or at least was before '05) with low self esteem but I guess I didn't really expect any segments on my team considering their lack of any significant post season history.

The '77 Southside Hitmen? The Wiinning Ugly team that lost in the first round? The teams in the 50's the finished second to the Yankees?

It didn't seem like fodder for a national documentary.

I though the segment on the '86 Red Sox was riveting.

I'm looking forward to the next installment - but I will be annoyed if the '05 team is not given it's due.

fair enough, but ask yourself this: What is so goddamn riveting, compelling, interesting, and dramatic about the ****ing 1986 Red Sox as opposed to say, oh, every other team that ever lost the ****ing World Series? Answer: Nothing. So they came down to the last strike. BIIIG deal.

WhiteSox5187
06-23-2010, 07:14 PM
fair enough, but ask yourself this: What is so goddamn riveting, compelling, interesting, and dramatic about the ****ing 1986 Red Sox as opposed to say, oh, every other team that ever lost the ****ing World Series? Answer: Nothing. So they came down to the last strike. BIIIG deal.

'86 has always gotten a lot of attention and was one of the best World Series played in terms of pure drama. I don't mind the '75 or '86 World Series getting lots of attention, those were two very good World Series.

I liked the way the first Baseball series was done, the Sox got a lot of coverage for 1906 and 1919 which are probably the two most significant moments in Sox history. As for the east coast bias during the rest of it, Christ, there was no baseball west of the Mississippi until 1957 and for better or worse, the baseball universe was centered around New York in the late '40s and early '50s with three of the best teams in baseball located around there.

Now, I'll be very disappointed if this series gives a ton of attention to the Red Sox with little going to the White Sox or other teams.

rainbow6
06-23-2010, 07:26 PM
fair enough, but ask yourself this: What is so goddamn riveting, compelling, interesting, and dramatic about the ****ing 1986 Red Sox as opposed to say, oh, every other team that ever lost the ****ing World Series? Answer: Nothing. So they came down to the last strike. BIIIG deal.

I guess I'm agreeing with you. I was actually questioning if I had become so used to the Yankees/Red Sox coverage that I never considered the bias of the film.

Perhaps I had empathy for some of the interview subjects and lived vicariously through their stories.

SI1020
06-23-2010, 09:57 PM
fair enough, but ask yourself this: What is so goddamn riveting, compelling, interesting, and dramatic about the ****ing 1986 Red Sox as opposed to say, oh, every other team that ever lost the ****ing World Series? Answer: Nothing. So they came down to the last strike. BIIIG deal. Amen.

Hitmen77
06-24-2010, 07:50 AM
'86 has always gotten a lot of attention and was one of the best World Series played in terms of pure drama. I don't mind the '75 or '86 World Series getting lots of attention, those were two very good World Series.

If we're talking about very good, dramatic World Series, what about 2002? The Angels never winning one and the Giants never winning one in S.F.? The series itself was riveting. It went to game 7. The Giants were up 3 games to 1 and leading 5-0 in the 8th inning of Game 6....and lost the Series.

...but we heard from another poster that this WS isn't noteworthy. Why? Because NY or Boston didn't play in it? Because there isn't some stupid, fabricated "curse" story to go along with the Giants' futility and blowing this series?

I liked the way the first Baseball series was done, the Sox got a lot of coverage for 1906 and 1919 which are probably the two most significant moments in Sox history. As for the east coast bias during the rest of it, Christ, there was no baseball west of the Mississippi until 1957 and for better or worse, the baseball universe was centered around New York in the late '40s and early '50s with three of the best teams in baseball located around there.Don't tell that to the St. Louis Cardinals (or St. Louis Browns for that matter). I know they're just west of the Mississippi, but I thought they were the best example of great, noteworthy baseball teams getting essentially ignored in Burns' "Baseball".

Now, I'll be very disappointed if this series gives a ton of attention to the Red Sox with little going to the White Sox or other teams.Maybe this new show should be titled "Ken Burns' Red Sox and Yankees Baseball - 1994-present" :redneck

I know the only noteworthy thing the White Sox did in 2005 was end the hopes of Red Sox nation to repeat. I know this because Chris Berman told me so.

Oblong
06-24-2010, 08:05 AM
If we're talking about very good, dramatic World Series, what about 2002? The Angels never winning one and the Giants never winning one in S.F.? The series itself was riveting. It went to game 7. The Giants were up 3 games to 1 and leading 5-0 in the 8th inning of Game 6....and lost the Series.

...but we heard from another poster that this WS isn't noteworthy. Why? Because NY or Boston didn't play in it? Because there isn't some stupid, fabricated "curse" story to go along with the Giants' futility and blowing this series?

I know the only noteworthy thing the White Sox did in 2005 was end the hopes of Red Sox nation to repeat. I know this because Chris Berman told me so.

The point of his documentary isn't to talk about the in game action. I'm not saying I like it or that it makes a good presentation. Did he talk about the 1991 WS in his original series? I don't remember.

It's called Baseball and it's on PBS. It's not "A cataloged history of the World Series"

If I were to briefly summarize the story of baseball from 1994-Present I'd highlight these points, in no particular order:

1) Labor situation cancelling 1994 WS and the ensuing peace since
2) Steroids/PED and offensive explosion
3) Plethora of new stadiums and soaring attendance
4) Yankee dominance and increasing payroll imbalance, throw in 9/11 and that WS because it's a great story
5) Expansion of the game, both in # of teams and representation of players from other countries, Latin America and overseas.

How long is this going to be? An hour? 2 hours? There really isn't the time to play lip service to individual team's success stories. Pretty much any WS winner (and loser) has a story to tell.

Hitmen77
06-24-2010, 08:38 AM
The point of his documentary isn't to talk about the in game action. I'm not saying I like it or that it makes a good presentation. Did he talk about the 1991 WS in his original series? I don't remember.

It's called Baseball and it's on PBS. It's not "A cataloged history of the World Series"

If I were to briefly summarize the story of baseball from 1994-Present I'd highlight these points, in no particular order:

1) Labor situation cancelling 1994 WS and the ensuing peace since
2) Steroids/PED and offensive explosion
3) Plethora of new stadiums and soaring attendance
4) Yankee dominance and increasing payroll imbalance, throw in 9/11 and that WS because it's a great story
5) Expansion of the game, both in # of teams and representation of players from other countries, Latin America and overseas.

How long is this going to be? An hour? 2 hours? There really isn't the time to play lip service to individual team's success stories. Pretty much any WS winner (and loser) has a story to tell.

....except if the Red Sox are in that World Series, that is.

.....and you bring up a very valid point about why this isn't simply a history of the World Series. But I'm still going to point out the obvious that Burns is focused on the narrow prism of 2 teams and that doesn't make this a very good documentary of "Baseball".

We can go around in circles all day on this issue. The old "you can't cover everyone" argument has been used for years to stonewall anyone who dares challenge the NY-Bos centric view of the Baseball world. If you're just going to repeat that, then we're just going around in circles. 'well, what about the 1985 WS? Should we cover that too? If not, stop criticizing his shows.'

Burns can cover whatever teams he wants in his documentary, but I'm sorry he's not an untouchable institution that is above criticism. I don't have to like his work and I can voice my criticism and I'm not backing down from my opinion.

PS: I agree with your suggested highlight points above.

Hitmen77
06-24-2010, 08:43 AM
The acclaimed filmmaker and lifelong Red Sox fan on why Joe Torre's brilliant leadership of the New York Yankees reminds him of Abraham Lincoln (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/06/15/VI2010061504774.html)

Ken Burns, Cal Ripken: An extra 'inning' win on PBS (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/06/ken_burns_cal_ripken_the_tenth.html)‎

Pick the smilie that best fits this statement by Burns:

:rolleyes:

:shakehead:
:gah:
:sleep:

:lol:

:screwloose:
:kneeslap:
:roflmao:
:rolling:
:drunken:
:kukoo:
:thud:

Oblong
06-24-2010, 09:14 AM
....except if the Red Sox are in that World Series, that is.

.....and you bring up a very valid point about why this isn't simply a history of the World Series. But I'm still going to point out the obvious that Burns is focused on the narrow prism of 2 teams and that doesn't make this a very good documentary of "Baseball".

We can go around in circles all day on this issue. The old "you can't cover everyone" argument has been used for years to stonewall anyone who dares challenge the NY-Bos centric view of the Baseball world. If you're just going to repeat that, then we're just going around in circles. 'well, what about the 1985 WS? Should we cover that too? If not, stop criticizing his shows.'

Burns can cover whatever teams he wants in his documentary, but I'm sorry he's not an untouchable institution that is above criticism. I don't have to like his work and I can voice my criticism and I'm not backing down from my opinion.

PS: I agree with your suggested highlight points above.

I don't mean to give the impression that I like that he'll focus on the 04 Red Sox. I can just understand why he would. Personally if I were in his shoes and trying to make what I think he wants to make, I'd leave it out because like I said, there's only so much time and I'm sure everybody knows about the 2004 Red Sox. Tell us something different. Find something. It's there.

Did anyone watch "America: The Story of Us" on the History Channel? What I liked about that is it wasn't just a history lesson that anybody who's studied history knew about. They focused on small details that had lasting impacts. (For example, the invention of barbed wire and how it pretty much stopped the "Cowboy" in his track) I'd like "Baseball" to be something like that. We don't need a lesson on the 2004 Red Sox because we've all seen it. So has the rest of America.

Fenway
06-24-2010, 09:35 AM
I don't mean to give the impression that I like that he'll focus on the 04 Red Sox. I can just understand why he would. Personally if I were in his shoes and trying to make what I think he wants to make, I'd leave it out because like I said, there's only so much time and I'm sure everybody knows about the 2004 Red Sox. Tell us something different. Find something. It's there.

Did anyone watch "America: The Story of Us" on the History Channel? What I liked about that is it wasn't just a history lesson that anybody who's studied history knew about. They focused on small details that had lasting impacts. (For example, the invention of barbed wire and how it pretty much stopped the "Cowboy" in his track) I'd like "Baseball" to be something like that. We don't need a lesson on the 2004 Red Sox because we've all seen it. So has the rest of America.

Burns focused on Brooklyn/LA and Boston. Nobody can argue that New York after World War II was the heart of baseball with 3 teams. Brooklyn then finally wins in 1955 and 3 years later they are in LA. Because of Robinson the Dodgers were a solid choice.

Boston - 67 was a great story, the 75 Series, Bucky Dent and Buckner.

So what he did was pick one team from each league. Burns stated that Brooklyn and Boston were very good in keeping old photos and films.

I have seen about 30 percent of Extra Innings. He does focus on San Francisco losing in 2002 and the White Sox get their due. I have not seen but I understand he did interview Bartman.

Hitmen77
06-24-2010, 10:05 AM
I don't mean to give the impression that I like that he'll focus on the 04 Red Sox. I can just understand why he would. Personally if I were in his shoes and trying to make what I think he wants to make, I'd leave it out because like I said, there's only so much time and I'm sure everybody knows about the 2004 Red Sox. Tell us something different. Find something. It's there.

Did anyone watch "America: The Story of Us" on the History Channel? What I liked about that is it wasn't just a history lesson that anybody who's studied history knew about. They focused on small details that had lasting impacts. (For example, the invention of barbed wire and how it pretty much stopped the "Cowboy" in his track) I'd like "Baseball" to be something like that. We don't need a lesson on the 2004 Red Sox because we've all seen it. So has the rest of America.

I haven't seen the History Channel "America" show. It sounded interesting, but I haven't gotten around to DVR'ing it....I haven't had time to watch a series like that this spring.

So, you recommend it? It sounds like you liked it.

Burns focused on Brooklyn/LA and Boston. Nobody can argue that New York after World War II was the heart of baseball with 3 teams. Brooklyn then finally wins in 1955 and 3 years later they are in LA. Because of Robinson the Dodgers were a solid choice.

Boston - 67 was a great story, the 75 Series, Bucky Dent and Buckner.

So what he did was pick one team from each league. Burns stated that Brooklyn and Boston were very good in keeping old photos and films.

I have seen about 30 percent of Extra Innings. He does focus on San Francisco losing in 2002 and the White Sox get their due. I have not seen but I understand he did interview Bartman.

If that's the case, that's fine. I'm not waiting for the White Sox to get equal coverage. I know that's unrealistic and that every fan base will always clamor for more time for their team. I guess I've just had enough of all the times the White Sox got zero coverage because they just don't matter (according to the national media).

Interesting that he was actually able to interview Bartman. I thought that guy just tried to disappear. Wow, I really feel sorry for that guy.

I still probably won't watch it just because Ken Burns just annoys me.:redneck I like National Parks and all, but I just couldn't make it through his National Park series.

Fenway
06-24-2010, 10:33 AM
The 2004 ALCS was drama that may never be equaled. Games 4 and 5 were just compelling theater.

Then you have Schilling and the bloody sock.

I understand perfectly that fans west of the Hudson are sick of BOS-NYY but you also have to admit they have had some memorable games.

NY is baseball crazy and one big difference with Chicago is that the Hispanics in NY are really into the game. Likewise in Boston where all games are on Spanish radio.

It never ceases to amaze me at how well Boston travels well. A huge number of Boston fans in Denver the past 2 days and I expect the same in San Francisco.

GoSox2K3
06-24-2010, 10:44 AM
The acclaimed filmmaker and lifelong Red Sox fan on why Joe Torre's brilliant leadership of the New York Yankees reminds him of Abraham Lincoln (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/06/15/VI2010061504774.html)

Ken Burns, Cal Ripken: An extra 'inning' win on PBS (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/06/ken_burns_cal_ripken_the_tenth.html)‎

Yeah, because leading the Union to victory and saving our beloved nation is just like Joe Torre managing the best players money can buy on baseball's richest team.:rolling:



Fenway, are you just trying to get a rise out of us? :poke: :stirpot:
:wink:

TDog
06-24-2010, 12:49 PM
fair enough, but ask yourself this: What is so goddamn riveting, compelling, interesting, and dramatic about the ****ing 1986 Red Sox as opposed to say, oh, every other team that ever lost the ****ing World Series? Answer: Nothing. So they came down to the last strike. BIIIG deal.

This post demonstrates a prejudice against the Red Sox.

What makes it more interesting, interesting enough that it transcends the sport, is the dramatic event that can be seen as a turning point between inevitable victory and defeat. It wasn't just a matter of a team being one strike away in a Game 7. It was a Game 6, and something unbelievable happend to a team that had not won the World Series since 1918 but twice had lost in seven games.

Similarly, the Cubs losing the 2003 NLCS when they had a one-game cushion and were five outs away with a three-run lead after not having won a World Series since 1908 is riveting, compelling etc. There was a Steve Bartman reference on The Daily Show within the last week.

This is drama worthy of Shakespearean tragedy, not just for the series but for the history the series brought with it.

By the same token, if the Red Sox lose in 2004 after going up three games, it is a better story. As it was, the story was a release of frustration. If Juan Uribe had thrown that last ground ball away in 2005 leading to the Astros winning Game 4 in 2005 in the bottom of the ninth and the Astros had won the next three games, it would have been a more interesting World Series.

Of course, for White Sox fans there was a release of frustration, but it was a different frustration. The Red Sox had come so close, only to have things taken away from them. The dark years of the White Sox, were shrouded in scandal.

If the Cubs ever get to the World Series, it will be a much better, more dramatic story if they lose, especially if they lose as they did in the NLCS in 1984 and 2003, which is how the Red Sox lost it in 1986.

SI1020
06-24-2010, 03:49 PM
This post demonstrates a prejudice against the Red Sox.
It's not a prejudice against the Red Sox. It's a natural revolt against a mindset that is sanctimonious and elitist. Preaching down to us hicks from west of New Jersey. Forcing me to embrace that special angst that makes the Red Sox and their fans so superior to the rest of us. I actually like the city of Boston and the contribution the Red Sox have made to baseball history. It's just that there's more to baseball than just the Red Sox and the Yankees. Just as there is far more to jazz than Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and Ella Fitzgerald. In his own heavy handed way Burns manages to trivilalize the greatness of those teams and performers by giving so many others such short shrift. That and I think if I ever have to listen to Doris Kearns Goodwin again I just may lose it.

TDog
06-24-2010, 04:03 PM
It's not a prejudice against the Red Sox. It's a natural revolt against a mindset that is sanctimonious and elitist. Preaching down to us hicks from west of New Jersey. Forcing me to embrace that special angst that makes the Red Sox and their fans so superior to the rest of us. I actually like the city of Boston and the contribution the Red Sox have made to baseball history. It's just that there's more to baseball than just the Red Sox and the Yankees. Just as there is far more to jazz than Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and Ella Fitzgerald. In his own heavy handed way Burns manages to trivilalize the greatness of those teams and performers by giving so many others such short shrift. That and I think if I ever have to listen to Doris Kearns Goodwin again I just may lose it.

I have been critical of Ken Burns in this thread. But your argument is that the 1986 Red Sox failure is not worthy of the attention it has received is a losing one.

SI1020
06-24-2010, 04:09 PM
I have been critical of Ken Burns in this thread. But your argument is that the 1986 Red Sox failure is not worthy of the attention it has received is a losing one. It deserves attention, not obsession.

TDog
06-24-2010, 04:47 PM
It deserves attention, not obsession.

It got about the same attention that Fred Merkle not touching second base in an apparent win against the Cubs got in 1908. The Merkle play (which earned the rookie the nickname "Bonehead") forced a one-game playoff at the end of the season that the Cubs won to go to the last World Series they would ever win. There weren't people who witnessed the 1908 play to interview. Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS will probably receive similar coverage.

Game 6 of the 1986 World Series is one of the games that defines the frustration of baseball. It deserved the attention it got.

What happened to the Giants in 2002 was frustrating as well, but there was no single grand event that triggered a tragic demise making it less dramatic.

The Red Sox 2004 run was actually more dramatic than the run of the 2005 White Sox, although I would argue the White Sox run was more heroic.

Fenway
06-24-2010, 04:54 PM
http://www.florentinefilms.com/ffpages/WN-frameset.html

Burns doesn't except e-mail but will take calls or smail mail


FLORENTINE FILMS
P.O. Box 613
Walpole, NH 03608
USA
tel: (603) 756-3038