Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

[GoTigers]

Just a heads up if it hasn't been mentioned yet. The next chapter of Ken Burns documentry "baseball" premiers this week. The top of the tenth is on Tuesday and the bottom of the tenth is on Wednesday.

[sox83cubs84]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

I hope it isn't as New York/Boston biased as his original.

Dave Miedema

[karamaxjoe]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

The '10th Inning' is brutally biased as expected. My team waits longer than the Red Sox to win the big one and all Burns can give the WHITE Sox is 14 seconds.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/100922_ken_burns&sportCat=mlb

[cjclong]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

Look, perhaps it is unfortunate, but some teams are simply more interesting to a majority of the public than others. This is a program for the public , not a documentary on all the baseball teams.

[sox83cubs84]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

Look, perhaps it is unfortunate, but some teams are simply more interesting to a majority of the public than others. This is a program for the public , not a documentary on all the baseball teams.

True, but the public doesn't begin and end with New York, Boston, and California. Why market it as a documentary (whther that's what it is or not) if you're going to limit the discussion of the end of the second longest World Championship drought to a friggin' 14 SECONDS, while spending abundantly more time on the Red Sox.

I'm glad I didn't choose to watch this, and with what I know about it now, I have no plans to. I don't need to get my pacemaker working overtime.

Dave Miedema

[Fnazxc0114]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

Im glad my team isnt interesting, it makes a lot cheaper as a collector.

[r_phelps]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

I like the film it took me back to when I was younger. I'm interested to see what tomorrow will be with this Ken Burns guy when he discusses pitchers. I think it was laid out nicely but really seemed to avoid the whole cocaine and mets thing while going on about everything else contraversial in the time period.

[ironmanfan]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

I like the film it took me back to when I was younger. I'm interested to see what tomorrow will be with this Ken Burns guy when he discusses pitchers. I think it was laid out nicely but really seemed to avoid the whole cocaine and mets thing while going on about everything else contraversial in the time period.

I don't think you are going to see much on the "whole cocaine and the Mets thing," as that was primarily in the mid 1980's and this new portion of the documentary covers the 1994 strike to the present...

[Wise_Cracker]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

The '10th Inning' is brutally biased as expected. My team waits longer than the Red Sox to win the big one and all Burns can give the WHITE Sox is 14 seconds.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...s&sportCat=mlb

So you made up your mind without watching the show? I think the 'biased shoe' might be on the other foot.

Nobody likes the White Sox They have as much appeal as jock itch and athlete's foot.

I suspect any ball player over the last 15 years would readily hesitate to appear on camera with the remote possibility of being asked a question about the 'Juiced Era'.

Though, I certainly would have liked to see what RC might have to say ...


If tonight is as good as last night is should be a good show.

[cjclong]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

Nobody can cover everything about baseball from the early 1990's to the present in 4 hours. A person doing a documentary has to pick and chose, especially when covering a general topic like the "steroid era." Burns, as I said , has picked topics, players and teams that are of most interest to the public in general And since he is the one making the video he gets to chose. If you want a hour of the White Sox , Marlins or Rays in the World Series get a mlb video.

[karamaxjoe]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

It's just an opinion fellas. Ken Burns can make any type of documentary he chooses and spend four hours on the Red Sox if he feels that's the right thing. I just felt he forgot about the other team that waited longer to win the World Series. Their's also no need to insult the White Sox or the rest of MLB, but then again that's what an east coast fan would do.

[Mark17]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

Well, I loved part 1. Especially the focus on Joe Torre and his career as Yankee manager. The film captured EXACTLY how I personally feel about the Yankees of that time: I love Joe Torre, I admire Derek Jeter, and other than that.... I hate the Yankees. So when they show those Yankee championships through Torre's eyes, that was really, really cool for me.

Burns weaves a tale. He's a storyteller. He can't simply cut up the film into equal segments, covering each season proportionally, and have an integrated, interesting production. So he chooses some people, some events, some teams, and in that way the film has a natural flow to it.

He also gives a lot of focus to Latin American baseball, just as he did previously with extensive coverage of the Negro Leagues. This also is to his credit, as it paints baseball as the universal pasttime it is, and not just the collection of millionaires who are in the majors at some given time.

Sure, I wish more teams/players/topics were covered, but that's just another way of saying I could watch Ken Burns' baseball films all day long and not be bored. What he does choose to cover, he does very, very well. He's a great filmmaker.

[rj_lucas]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

Sadly, I felt like it missed the mark in every way. The warmth and charm of the original was completely absent. Where the original focused on the players and historical anecdotes that give the game it's unique and enduring appeal, the Tenth Inning struck me as a pedantic and haphazard collection of news accounts, dressed up in purple prose to make them feel epic.

While I'm not fan of Barry Bonds, I found it troubling that Burns presumed to know Bonds' internal motivation at every turn and presented it as absolute fact. It's one thing to do that for Ty Cobb, given the perspective of history and a substantial body of biographical research. It's quite another to do it for a living person, for the sole purpose of making it fit your pre-conceived narrative.

And while I understand that Burns does not present his works as the definitive histories of his subjects, they're documentaries nonetheless, and as such his editorial choices are absolutely baffling.

For example, while I don't slight the attention paid to Ichiro Suzuki, how is it that Albert Pujols, as the best offensive player of the last fifty years and with one of the greatest rookie seasons in history, does not merit a single mention over the course of a four hour program?

East Coast bias is one thing, but for someone who is ostensibly a historian to cast a blind eye to the history being made right in front of their face is both puzzling and inexcusable.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[cjclong]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

I think on the issue of Ichiro that was an example of oriental position players coming to America, something unique in the games history. Viewers get to say what they whished had been covered and Burns gets to make the film. Just proves you can never please everyone so please yourself. You'll always find a critic.

[sylbry]

Re: Ken Burns - Baseball, "10th Inning" premier Wed

Sadly, I felt like it missed the mark in every way. The warmth and charm of the original was completely absent. Where the original focused on the players and historical anecdotes that give the game it's unique and enduring appeal, the Tenth Inning struck me as a pedantic and haphazard collection of news accounts, dressed up in purple prose to make them feel epic.

While I'm not fan of Barry Bonds, I found it troubling that Burns presumed to know Bonds' internal motivation at every turn and presented it as absolute fact. It's one thing to do that for Ty Cobb, given the perspective of history and a substantial body of biographical research. It's quite another to do it for a living person, for the sole purpose of making it fit your pre-conceived narrative.

And while I understand that Burns does not present his works as the definitive histories of his subjects, they're documentaries nonetheless, and as such his editorial choices are absolutely baffling.

For example, while I don't slight the attention paid to Ichiro Suzuki, how is it that Albert Pujols, as the best offensive player of the last fifty years and with one of the greatest rookie seasons in history, does not merit a single mention over the course of a four hour program?

East Coast bias is one thing, but for someone who is ostensibly a historian to cast a blind eye to the history being made right in front of their face is both puzzling and inexcusable.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

I agree completely. The original 9 were fantastic. This one felt more like an MLB film.

Regarding Ichiro and the increase of Japanese players, I expected to see something on other like Dice-K, Hideki Matsui, ect... But no, just Ichiro.

So many events and players were left out. What about the White Sox winning in 2005? No mention of that. The congressional hearing, little. (Palmeiro was shown stating he never used steriods but Burns failed to mention that Rafael then failed a steriod test a few months later.) Roger Clemens and his roid and legal issues, none. And how can you discuss Bonds without mentioning Balco or the investigation? The Mitchell Report?

It felt like a collection of World Series recaps combined with a few stories of individuals.

I think more attention was paid to Latin American players who didn't pan out than Latin American players who became a huge success.

In my opinion Ken Burns was lazy.