Editing Please!

Saw this episode listing in a forum post "Dear History Channel, Will Fact Check for Food!"

Figuring it was probably a post about how everything cannot be attributed to aliens (or secret societies) I read the post for the lols (seriously, History Channel, if you want to keep that moniker QUIT WITH THE ALIEN BULLSHIT!   *ahem* ).  n

Anyway, it was not a complaint about aliens, masons, or the Knights Templar.  But it did list a recent episode summary.  And...um...  I think the term 'great' does not apply to all of these men. There are better word choices.  How about 'powerful positions'...'prominent', 'influential', even 'pivotal' or... in a couple of cases -  'genocidal f&ck#*s!.'

Episode Blurb:

An assassination in Sarajevo sparks a global war. For the next 30 years, deadly fighting rages across Europe, Africa, China and the Pacific.  Hitler. Churchill. De Gaulle. MacArthur. Patton. Stalin. Mussolini. We know them as legends. But they first learn what it will take to rise to greatness as young soldiers, fighting for their lives on the frontlines.

No Position On the Article, But...

I have no position on the article (as I haven't read it) but TVGuides talk of it reminds me of a conversation I had with my younger nephew where I said that the movie "Knocked Up" was a pothead slacker's fantasy.  Nephew gave me sort of blank look and I said point blank, "THAT guy would never get THAT girl.  Never."

I hope that he didn't think I was making that statement based on looks.  I wasn't making the statement based on looks.

Since this was a few years ago now, I cannot remember what all I said but I hope that I explained that the reason I said this was because the female character was drawn as being career oriented and ambitious and the Rogen character was an aimless slacker (who needed a shower) who had no direction or purpose in life other than to sit on a sofa smoking pot and watching soft porn!  These two people would never function together.  It would be a miserable disaster.

Anyway, TVGuide's article:

Movie Critic Responds to Seth Rogen:

A Washington Post writer says she understands why her article about Santa Barbara killer Elliot Rodger offended and upset Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow.

Over the weekend, Ann Hornaday published a piece about the horrific YouTube manifesto Rodger uploaded prior to murdering six people. In the article, Hornaday spoke about Rodger's privileged lifestyle and Hollywood before calling out Rogen's latest film, Neighbors. "[Rodgers] unwittingly expressed the toxic double helix of insecurity and entitlement that comprises Hollywood's DNA," she wrote. "How many students watch outsized frat-boy fantasies like Neighbors and feel, as Rodger did, unjustly shut out of college life that should be full of 'sex and fun and pleasure'? How many men, raised on a steady diet of Judd Apatow comedies in which the shlubby arrested adolescent always gets the girl, find that those happy endings constantly elude them and conclude, 'It's not fair'?"  {...}

On Tuesday, Hornday followed up with another article, explaining that she understood the criticism. "As un-fun as it is to be slammed by famous people, I could understand Apatow and Rogen's dismay," she wrote. "Why would a movie reviewer even weigh in on the Isla Vista tragedy in the first place? ... Movies aren't accurate reflections of real life, as I wrote in the essay. But there's no doubt they powerfully condition what we desire and feel we deserve from it. I was not using the grievous episode in Isla Vista to make myself more famous; nor was I casting blame on the movies for Rodger's actions. Rather, in my capacity as a movie critic, I was looking at the video as a lens through which to examine questions about sexism, insecurity and entitlement, how they've threaded their way through an entertainment culture historically dominated by men and how they've shaped our own expectations as individuals and a culture."