Forums at The Military Horse

While more or less off topic, I thought I would note that the History Channel is running the Young Indiana Jones series weekly. Here, in the Mountain Time Zone, it runs at 6:00 am on Saturday. It can be viewed anywhere you might be in the US on Saturday morning, although the time obviously would vary.

Some of you may remember this series. It ran a decade or more ago on television, and was based on George Lucas' vision that he could use his popular movie character to introduce actual 20th Century historic events and persons to a young audience. The series was very well done, up until its final year. In the final year Lucas no longer controlled production, and it had switched networks, and it really declined.

Anyhow, the History Channel is re-running it, although I don't know if they are doing so in order. I've seen two that were run so far, with one being on Austria before WWI, and the other being about the South Pacific. Going back to my memory on the show, if a person saw them all, you would be introduced to Theodore Roosevelt, T. E. Lawrence and Gertrude Bell, amongst others. The Mexican Revolution, World War One, and the Russian Revolution were amongst the topics addressed.

I also see, from their website, that the series is out in a new DVD collection. I'm pretty cheap about buying DVD collections, but if I wasn't so cheap, I'd be tempted to buy them. Anyhow, given that television is generally produced with production values apparently picked up from the depravity ward of a psychiatric hospital, these really stand out as some genuinely good tv from the last 20 years. I still think most young adults would like them, and my kids liked the most recent episode, which they watched with me, after getting up, for some reason, at 6:00 am.

Pat

I really liked that series as it was done so well until the end when, as you said, it got off course.

Thet really went out of their way to get the uniforms and things correct. I believe I might concider buying that DVD.

Jim

Pat: Simon Wincer directed several of these, & in the one about the Australian Light Horse, he reused the entire climactic charge from his 1987 "The Lighthorsemen"! Catherine Zeta-Jones plays a spy! Long before her marriage to Michael Douglas! It also seemed to borrow a bit from "40,000 Horsemen"? While they were generally excellent, I feel they did mess up history some, by ascribing so much to young Indiana Jones, an American! Americans having virtually nothing to do with some few of the historical occurrences involved? Fiction surplanting fact again! Grant.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Grant</i>
<br />Pat: Simon Wincer directed several of these, & in the one about the Australian Light Horse, he reused the entire climactic charge from his 1987 "The Lighthorsemen"! Catherine Zeta-Jones plays a spy! Long before her marriage to Michael Douglas! It also seemed to borrow a bit from "40,000 Horsemen"? While they were generally excellent, I feel they did mess up history some, by ascribing so much to young Indiana Jones, an American! Americans having virtually nothing to do with some few of the historical occurrences involved? Fiction surplanting fact again! Grant.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't recall seeing the one on the Light Horse, but now that I've read your description, I'm particularly inclined to buy it.

Regarding the insertion of India Jones in all these events, which is improbable, I think that may be what made the series. After all, the India Jones movies themselves require us to make a fair suspension of awareness when we watch them, but they're fun, so we do. The series required less of that, as the historical events were all real events, keeping in mind that the insertion of the character, Flashman-like, into all of them gives us the vehicle to keep engaged in them. And, of course, they were actually aimed at young Americans, so the use of a central, youthful, American character was necessary.

Having said all that, the early 20th Century does oddly give us some figures who seem to have met everyone, and who went everywhere. Theodore Roosevelt, for example (who shows up in the series, with a 10 year old Indy) gives one example, as does T. E. Lawrence.

Pat

You mean Flashy ain't real?

Frank

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">While they were generally excellent, I feel they did mess up history some, by ascribing so much to young Indiana Jones, an American! Americans having virtually nothing to do with some few of the historical occurrences involved? Fiction surplanting fact again! Grant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As Pat points out there were a lot of young Americans looking for advanture in those days. Americans were involved, on their own, in many or all of the events depicted in the series. I admit that the odds of one person being in all those places is unlikely, but I viewed Jones as merley showing that Americans were there and it made the series flow.

Jim

Yes! They are all fun & extremely well done, so well worth owning copies on DVD & watching them. I think the title was "Daredevils of the Desert", in itself a great story! Grant.

Im a big fan of the Films and a slight fan of the TV shows.
Like anything George Lucas does it tends to be rehashed,tweaked,rerealesed and remastered beyond recognition.
The original tv shows followed a very differant aproach to the current dvd release.
The original show are bookended by an Iniana Jones that is 100 years old.
I actually prefer this format to the rehashed stuff.
The 1st season was released on video way back when and then rereleased as The Complet Adventurse of Indiana Jones,this rerelease suffers from some pretty clunky editing (joining 2 unrelated stories to form a minimovie)
The new dvd version is packaged like an educational tool (nothing wrong with that) but for me the apeal of Indiana Jones wasnt the brains.

Sam Cox

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Sam Cox</i>
<br />Im a big fan of the Films and a slight fan of the TV shows.
Like anything George Lucas does it tends to be rehashed,tweaked,rerealesed and remastered beyond recognition.
The original tv shows followed a very differant aproach to the current dvd release.
The original show are bookended by an Iniana Jones that is 100 years old.
I actually prefer this format to the rehashed stuff.
The 1st season was released on video way back when and then rereleased as The Complet Adventurse of Indiana Jones,this rerelease suffers from some pretty clunky editing (joining 2 unrelated stories to form a minimovie)
The new dvd version is packaged like an educational tool (nothing wrong with that) but for me the apeal of Indiana Jones wasnt the brains.

Sam Cox
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ron, are you sure they've been reworked? I'm going on very dim recollection on this, but I think that the bookending aspect of it wasn't uniformly done. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think might not have been universally been done (again I could be wrong) throughout the series, but it was done if the very first episodes. I'm not certain that the ones currently on tv are actually re-edited, although they may be different in terms of their order. That is, I think they may have been run on tv, originally, in a different order.

The one they showed this Saturday was a two hour long episode that I remember being advertised on the original running, but which I didn't see (actually, I didn't see any of the ones they showed so far). I recall this one being advertised, however, as it featured Chicago in the jazz age, and it had a cameo role by Harrison Ford in the title role (as it is presented as a recollection).

The educational tool aspect of it is actually a feature of the original series, at least in intent. They were always very interesting, but Lucas actually conceived of the series as a way to appeal to young viewers, whom he felt were not studying history, as they found it was dull. His expressed point was that it was exciting, which he set out to prove. In that, he did a pretty good job with this series, save for the last year, which wasn't well done (and by which time Lucas was no longer involved).

Anyhow, I haven't seen the originals since they originally ran, but in watching these over the past three Saturdays, I've been impressed. Indeed, apparently the appeal to young viewers works, as my son and my daughter (ages 6 and 10), who granted have an unusual interest in history for kids, have been eager to watch them.

Pat

Gday Pat

The 1st season had bookends,with the rerelease the bookends all disapear(not including the Harrison cameo).The 2nd season wasnt bookended with old Indy

With the 1st Stateside video release they morphed episodes from season 1 and 2.

The 3rd season (only 4 episodes of movie length) has been pretty much left alone.I think Sean Patrick Flannery was well cast just poorly directed.

Continuity issues always plagued the show (writers,directors)and the results apear on screen.
When Young Indy was good it was very good but when it was bad.............

Sam Cox

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Sam Cox</i>
<br />
When Young Indy was good it was very good but when it was bad.............
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Very true, particularly with the last season. I'd regard the first couple of seasons as quite good, and the last pretty iffy.

Pat

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Sam Cox</i>
<br />

With the 1st Stateside video release they morphed episodes from season 1 and 2.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you know if the current US DVD does that? I think it's a new product. And can you elaborate on that?

Pat

yes the us dvd does that

if you saw the 1st run (1992 if i recall)you may remember that each episode of season 1 was about 45 minutes of air time with 15 minutes of adds

the pic up shots that join stick out mainly because of the silly wig that Flanneruy wears

Sam Cox

Does anyone know the name of the film that they used for the gas attack from the trebches episode?
It was pretty cool,gas caped cavalry

anyone?

Sam

Sam Cox

Grant wrote:Pat: Simon Wincer directed several of these, & in the one about the Australian Light Horse, he reused the entire climactic charge from his 1987 "The Lighthorsemen"! Catherine Zeta-Jones plays a spy! Long before her marriage to Michael Douglas! It also seemed to borrow a bit from "40,000 Horsemen"? While they were generally excellent, I feel they did mess up history some, by ascribing so much to young Indiana Jones, an American! Americans having virtually nothing to do with some few of the historical occurrences involved? Fiction surplanting fact again! Grant.

Just saw that one today. Nicely done, with lots of horsey action.

I'd forgotten that you indicated who played the spy. I was trying to figure out who the actress was. She was familiar, but much younger than her later roles, so I did not know who it was.

I keep missing the one on the French Foreign Legion but caught the last half this morning. I thought there was some nice stunt work done at a full gallop. But was a little dismayed at the portrayal of Lowell Thomas as sort of a twit. There was a nice 1/2 follow up program on him though that I thought was pretty good. I always enjoyed his stories and never missed his radio program right through the 70's. I recall his very last one when he signed off 'so long' leaving off ' until tomorrow'. Of the numerous books he wrote my favorites were the two on Count Felix Luckner, and his more serious 'Book of the High Mountains'.

Sandy

selewis wrote:I keep missing the one on the French Foreign Legion but caught the last half this morning. I thought there was some nice stunt work done at a full gallop. But was a little dismayed at the portrayal of Lowell Thomas as sort of a twit. There was a nice 1/2 follow up program on him though that I thought was pretty good. I always enjoyed his stories and never missed his radio program right through the 70's. I recall his very last one when he signed off 'so long' leaving off ' until tomorrow'. Of the numerous books he wrote my favorites were the two on Count Felix Luckner, and his more serious 'Book of the High Mountains'.

Sandy

I wasn't even aware there was one about the Foreign Legion. Hopefully that one will be coming up.

I don't know much about Thomas, other than that my initial impression of him was formed as a small child when his television series was still on. At that time, I had a bit of a grandfatherly image of him.

Given that, I was surprised to later learn that the reporter character portrayed in Lawrence of Arabia is intended to actually be Thomas. That character is portrayed as a highly cynical individual.

In later reading on Lawrence, Thomas figures prominently, as he brought Lawrence to the world's attention. In at least Wilson's approved biography, Thomas comes across as pretty calculating, in that he recognized that Lawrence made a dramatically visual story. Lawrence, in turn, seems to have recognized that Thomas was good for promotional purposes, which he courted in part because it brought the Arab cause to international attention, and in part because at the time he seems to have wanted attention. In the latter is correct, he got over that quickly and very soon after the war craved anonymity.

As I recall Thomas' comment on the Lean movie was to the effect that the only accuracy in it was the sand and the horses.

Sandy

Following up on Sandy's observation on Thomas's portrayal, in the episode on Beersheeba I thought that Meinertzhagen was portrayed as somewhat foppish.

I don't really know what Meinertzhagen's character was really like. In the portrayal of him in the movie The Light Horsemen, he comes across as sort of the stereotypical upper class English Army officer, as portrayed by Anthony Andrews. In the Capstick's biography of him, he comes across as a fairly typical English Army officer, but somewhat eccentric. The biography by Capstick is not, however, in my opinion, very good. I know there's a new biography out as Grant has reviewed it, and I saw it the other day in Barnes and Noble. That biography apparently suggests that he was a man of real talents, but a chronic liar.

On a couple of random observations, it was interesting to note how closely some plot elements of the YIJ episode were lifted from The Light Horsemen. Perhaps this was so the scenes from the film could be inserted so effortlessly. I wonder when The Light Horsemen was first available in the US? I have to think that it came after the tv series.

In the YIJ episode they comment on how hot it is, but at the same time, wherever they filmed it was cold. You can see the actor's breath when they're speaking, so it was pretty cool. I wondered about that, but Beersheeba was attacked in October, so I suppose it could have been somewhat cool during some of the day.

An interesting fact that was inserted in the tv episode, but which is missing in the film, is that Beersheeba was only 35 KM from Gaza. In terms of horse transportation, that's significant, but not really all that far. In the tv episode the British/Australian forces are portrayed as worrying that the Turks would rush up reinforcements from Gaza if they figured out what was going on, which I suppose could have been a real concern. In the film I was left with the impression that the distance was greater, but that may because you pick up a sense of desert travel in WWI from the earlier film Lawrence of Arabia, in which the stretch of desert crossed in order to attack Aquaba (sp?) is portrayed as being quite distant.

selewis wrote:As I recall Thomas' comment on the Lean movie was to the effect that the only accuracy in it was the sand and the horses.

Sandy

There's been a lot of comments of that type, but then if you read Seven Pillars of Wisdom, it comes across as very close to what Lawrence related. Indeed, Wilson's biography on Lawrence is truly excellent, and many of the details in the film are pretty darned close to it, with the book being a more recent work.

Seven Pillars of Wisdom is a first rate book, and I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the topic. It was originally not written for general publication, and it was only through the influence of Lawrence's friends that he consented to its being published. Lawrence was extremely self analytical, and guilt ridden, and that's worth noting in regards to his book. The book, like the Lean film, had been criticized as being not representative of the actual events, but those who criticize both are often very vague in why they feel that way.

Now, some 90 years after the events portrayed, in which all the central characters of the book and the film are now dead, they both seem to stand the test of time and accuracy to me. It must be kept in mind that the film is a film, but still, I suspect it was a whole lot more accurate that its critics liked to admit.

At the time the film came out, and particularly at the time Seven Pillars was released, there were quite a few people who had a very vested interest in maintaining that they were inaccurate. Ironically, this was true of both sides in the long past conflict. To the British, Lawrence was a bit of an embarrassment, as he was a near renegade by the end of WWI, and was openly advocating a position that was contrary to the stated British one in regards to the future of the Middle East. He loomed large, at that time, as a hero of the Arab cause, but he was also an embarrassment to the Arabs, as he was not an Arab, and the Arabs could hardly argue that they'd fought for their independence based on the efforts of a fairly small number of men, lead by a serving British officer. He was an embarrassment to Thomas, as he no longer wanted Thomas' publicity, and Thomas had ridden Lawrence to fame. And he was an embarrassment to the Turks, whom he had helped to defeat, after the story of his rape while a prisoner was disclosed.

Since that time, nearly everyone who has had a vested interest in his story has worked to maintain that significant elements of it just aren't true. Some British and Arab historians have maintained that his efforts were insignificant in terms of the actual war in the desert, which certainly isn't how they felt about it at the time. Arab states formed out the results of WWI have argued that the real effort was much more Arab than Lawrence's backers assert. The Turks have maintained that the rape never happened.

The problem with all this is that facts are stubborn things. I don't doubt that Thomas made that comment. But then he'd have to, wouldn't he, if his own story was to stay intact?