Bannockburn: The Real Bravehearts
The production of this show is terrible. It reminded me of cartoons in the 70's. When the scene in the castle is shown, the cheap production is obvious placing poorly cut images of the actors on poor quality computer images. Combined with the cheap attempt to gain interest by cartoonish blood splatters across the screen, this was very disappointing.
What a shame. A great story and awful production. Who thought showing juvenile, cartoon blood was a good idea? And why, when they were showing the few diagrams that show the battle did they flash them on the screen and then splash them with blood.
Really poorly done and disappointing coming from National Geographic.
What a shame. A great story and awful production. Who thought showing juvenile cartoon blood was a good idea? And why when they were showing the few diagrams that show the battle did they flash them on the screen and then splash them with blood. Really poorly done and a shame that National Geographic allowed it.
I was so disappointed I was really looking forward to a good show and then this happened, they should hang their heads in disgrace.
Why this push to do horrible "mock-u-mentory" crap to tell a story??? HORRIBLY done!! Actually embarrassing!
at least they are not in Kilts,,, my Scot ancestors were Kirkpatricks,,,, I have them back to about 1500,,, don't know if they connect to Sir Roger de Kirkpatrick of Closeburn who was to of made sure John "the Red" Comyn was killed,,,
This show might be historically correct but it is visually repulsive. I mean really, splashing the screen with drawn in blood splatters every few seconds! What is that about? Twenty minutes into the show and I am ready to quit watching. I will read the books again, forget this stupid show. What a waste. The cinematography would be better suited to "Sin City" rather that a historical documentary. YUCK!
Maybe Jimmy, they claim it because they can PROVE it....I can. He is my 23rd great grandfather through the Livingstons. It has been traced back with documentation....and I'm sure Midge can prove it too. So, I guess that makes her my cousin 17 times removed....LOL. You can only claim it, if you can PROVE it.
Robert de Bruce was my seventeenth great grandfather and wasn't portrayed correctly in Braveheart. I'm hoping this will be more accurate.
James Douglas was tall, lean, but well built and strong, had black hair (hence the term black Douglas) and talked with a lisp. He was popular with the ladies and he was considered handsome even though black hair was not a token of beauty in those days. I really wish these dim wits would research a character before they cast them. Or do they think we are all so ignorant that we wont know any better, BIG MISTAKE BOYS!
My ancestor, Sir Robert Boyd, was a commander on the battle field at Bannockburn. I just returned from celebrating the 700th anniversary of the battle in Scotland. I can't wait to see this!
@Scott Tolbert I was wondering the same thing. This is what I found: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/27762/Princes-war-tutor-sex-swap.html
@d fry I agree. Over the top.
@Midge Detwiler No he wasn't your grandfather x 17. You know whose grandfather he is? Robert the Bruce, his grandson. Why do so many Americans claim they're descended from Wallace and Bruce! The Bruces are around today in large numbers, Robert the Bruce today is still the Earl of Carrick, his grandson Robert, also, held the Bannockburn 700th anniversary commemoration. You are not related to them. They are all accounted for and still a very wealthy family.
@John Boyd That's crazy, wonder if I might be related?
@John Boyd My ancestor Sir James Douglas was a commander at Bannock Burn also. I love all things Scottish and want to go there before I die. Writing a story where Douglas makes an appearance in it. More fiction history than factual history I am afraid. Shout out anyone with info on living arrangements made for these young lords in France could really use that.
Thanks for the link. I thought I recognized him. He does seem less confident in his new form. It does not diminish his knowledge but is surprising. No judgement in my eyes for him, although I do not understand it.
@Jimmy Irwin @Midge Detwiler It is reasonable to assume that the ancestor of King Robert the 1st of Scotland, the original Robert de Bruys, a Norman knight of the 11th cent., has thousands of descendents in the U.K., Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere. It is a good thing that people care enough about their ancestry to at least try and discover who those ancestors were, even if it is very difficult to prove who all those ancestors were when going back hundreds of years into the past.