This guy is a complete tosser. Just because Stephen Ambrose got some of his judgments wrong, does it mean he is right? In the book Band of Brothers, Ambrose even states that he realises some of the information could be misgiven, because there are 10 different accounts for the one story, so which one does he use?
But here is the Mark Bando character, mouthing off that he has it all correct, when some of the men themselves cant remember it. He basically bad mouthed ambrose, saying he never tried to correct his miss-judgments...EH HELLO!!!! Is it just me, or did Ambrose re-write Pegasus Bridge, because he was given the wrong info?
And what he says about the series of BOB, that it was completely "Hollywood-ised". Does everybody think that because its a wee bit different, that its hollywoodised deliberately, to make it better, or do they not realise that maybe it HAD to portrayed that way, or the info was miss-given. It maybe that it could not have been put in because of politics, very delicate politics. "Where Eagles Dare" was deffinately Hollywood-ised. Everyone knows it is, because its simply impossible (i havent acctually seen the movie, i heard about it on 100 Greatest War Movies).
Im not even going to begin on what this guy (mark bando) says about technical issues with the film.
Rant over.


Oh and one other thing, he says "probably" all the time, "this was PROBABLY removed", and "this PROBABLY never reached them till 1943"
Reassuring i must say.

quote:

Originally posted by Karabiner_409:
This guy is a complete tosser.

Mark Bando has a lot of credibility. He has a passion for the subject, so his review of Band of Brothers was for those interested, not to hurt people's feelings. He's done a lot of research, interviews, and travel. He has several books on the subject as well.

His review was a little anal, but he gives a complete review of factual items, he never says it a bad movie.

Maybe you should read one of Bando's books before you pass such judgements based on his critique of a TV series.

Mark Bando is considered an expert on the 101st Airborne Division and has spent his life interviewing WWII 101st vets, attending their reunions and researching battles and locations.

Band of Brothers would have had to been a complete mirror image of the real thing in order to get a 10 average. But I still believe his 8.5 average is a little low. Maybe 8.8-9.0 would be more reasonable. Bando has high standards, and I gaurantee you no 101st Airborne related series or movie will ever come close to perfect in his eyes.

And besides, a lot of the mistakes in BOB were availability limitations. The small netting for the helmets in the Holland episode, the use of Korean era M1 Garands(WWII era Garands are hard to come by in large portions).

Without these guys doing the research and publishing books and pictures, we new guys would have very little to learn or read from.

I aint saying he isnt credible or a **** historian. But he slates Ambrose, undenyably, but he says he got alot of his work wrong. Who could honestly say they could ever get 100% of their work correct? There are always conflicting ideas. And it also seems to me like he is taking advantage of Ambroses death, trying to fill his gap, he cant say Ambrose was corporate, if he is trying to fill his void in the market. I just think his judgment of BOB was a bit harsh. There will never ever be a program/film that has absolutely every historical matter down to a tea. Its impossible.
And one thing, he says that Jake Powers mentioned a good point about "Currahee". When Pvt White doesnt change to his PT gear, Jake said that he would have been thrown out of the Airborne. Lipton simply leaves him be. Do u not think that this is either a) to let u know that Lipton is going to be a good man or (b) he did acctually get thrown out, because there is no mention of him in them rest of the series?
Its small judgments like that that get to me.

Good points.

He is highly critical of Ambrose and his work. And it's wrong because Ambrose is no longer alive to defend himself and maybe prove Bando wrong.

And also there are time limitations in the series. So of course not everything can be explained thoroughly in the series (for example Pvt White's departure in the Airborne, and the lack of info on the lesser known characters).

Bando doesn't know the limitations that comes with making a mini-series, or a war/historical film in general. Not everything can be done 100% right.

quote:

Originally posted by Karabiner_409:
I aint saying he isnt credible or a **** historian.

The problem is your orginal post

This guy is a complete tosser.

With that kind of opening line, it doesn't lend much credibility to your comments or statements.

To me Ambrose has always been history "lite" it's a good starting point, and he's a decent story teller. But for factual information on U.S. Airborne operations of WWII there are much better authors and experts out there. Bando for one, Michel De Trez for another. The books of Don Burgett and George Koskimaki, both vets of the 101st from WWII are also excellent, as is the divisional history, Rendezvous With Destiny. Burgett by the way, is a frequent contributor to the "Trigger Time" forum.

When judging Ambrose's work you also have to look at the charges of plagiarism, and the hatchet job he did on the pilots of Troop Carrier Command (who tried for years prior to Ambrose's death to get the record set straight regarding some of his incorrect assertions in both Band of Brothers and D-Day)and the British coxswains of the Royal Navy who crewed many of the landing craft that carried U.S. troops ashore on June 6th.

Here are just a few of the websites which expose Ambrose


This website information an example of Ambrose's plagiarism
http://quinnell.us/society/history/ambrose.html

another with examples
http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/17/0117ambrose.html

another with examples
http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/09/0109ambrose.html

and still another with more examples
http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=499

and finally a lenghty list of Ambrose books and a list of the books he plagiarized.
http://hnn.us/articles/504.html