The other night, the History Channel’s primetime offering was Forrest Gump. Now, I realize there are only so many documentaries about Hitler to fill the programming day, but Forrest Gump? It’s not 1994 anymore, so I won’t rehash the debate about whether or not FG is a good movie (hint: it’s not), but it’s definitely bad history. What’s next, explaining Watergate by showing the movie Dick? (It’s a wonderful satire, but also very bad history.) Explaining the Elizabethan Era by showing Shakespeare in Love? And if (as seems inconceivable), the History Channel ever runs out of World War II documentaries, will they start showing Disney’s Bedknobs & Broomsticks? C’mon, gang, I know it seems appealing to chase ratings with crowd-pleasing movie favorites, but ultimately, compromising your mission and your reputation for historical accuracy just for a quick ratings fix seems self-defeating and stupid. But then, as a wise historical figure once said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”
Posted December 18 2007 — 5:55 PM EST
- Brandy teases new music: 'An album is definitely in the works'
- Exclusive 'Walking Dead' reunion of deceased characters
- Supermodels become superheroes in Marvel's new collaboration
- EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: 'Outlander' season 2 trailer, premiere date revealed
- EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: 'Grey's' star explains social media brand
- Kristen Stewart and Nicholas Hoult are dystopian lovers in new 'Equals' trailer
- Ryan Reynolds pranked Blake Lively while she was in labor
- Exclusive Look at 'The Walking Dead' Midseason Return
- 30 Exclusive First Look Photos at the New Wizarding World of Harry Potter
- This Is What the Grammys Looked Like in 1996
- 'Beautiful Girls': Where Are They Now?
- 15 Musicians Who Banned Candidates From Using Their Songs
- See '90s Stars at the 1996 'Broken Arrow' Premiere