Ken Burns' National Parks Documentary

[s1m0n]

John Muir seems to be one remarkable dude! Why don't we learn about him in school? His importance and contribution is breathtaking, as is the man himself. I plan to do some serious research on him. I have been aware of his life, but this series has brought him to life for me and I am fascinated.

Now that both he and Roosevelt are out of the picture, I wonder what the remaining days will show us. I will be watching!

He founded the Sierra Club, which is now the oldest organization in the US dedicated to the cause of environmentalism. My family were members for a while when I was a kid, and Muir was *very* well remembered in their magazine.

[khl]

Walden, what do you mean "Civil War documentary format?" Maybe it's more a Ken Burns format?

He's in a rut. I think it worked for that series, but it seems like a poor fit for a series on the National Parks.

If you mean the format of having various individuals speaking the lines of the persons in questions (Muir, Rosevelt, etc.) and then contemporary commentators having something to say here it there, the format still works for me. (For many of the PBS type documentaries involving "history" and individuals, the Burn's style seems to be the norm now. Maybe that's a rut--maybe not.)

I read a bit of a review the other day that said something to the effect that with something on National Parks, you know there's going to be good pictures. The question will be is something more added. For my part, I've been intrigued by the twist and turns of the history and the unique individual personalities. It's a good story.

[susnfx]

I'm finding it fascinating. I had no idea Mather came up with using a landscape designer for the roads in all the parks--no wonder many of them are so fantastic! They mentioned the mile-long tunnel in Zion Park but not the "windows" in the tunnel. I'm wondering if those were Mather's idea. Huge cutouts where there were actually parking spaces and you could get out and look out over this magnificent spectacle. The windows are closed to traffic now and you can no longer stop and look out of them. Too much traffic.

(I also enjoy living in a state where there are five national parks in the southern half of the state--deservedly so!)

Susan

[Charlene]

The pictures are beautiful and the history is interesting. The music is pretty but depressing, in my opinion. That type of music was suitable for the civil war series but there should be more upbeat music for this one.

However, I get tired of being preached to and told how much better these places would be without development. When I go someplace, I want good roads to get there. I want nice restrooms with indoor plumbing, flush toilets, running water, and electricity - which means all the infrastructure necessary to support that. I want a snack bar where I can get a quick meal without having to cart all my food around with me - and someplace to eat inside away from the yellowjackets. I want decent, clean, affordable lodging with four strong walls, my own bathroom, clean beds, and air conditioning or heating as necessary for comfort. I like having the boardwalks at Yellowstone to show where it's safe to walk without having to worry about breaking through the crust into a thermal pool and having my skin peel off my bones.

So all the tree huggers can go sit off in the woods and keep their food away from bears and wolves and bees and snakes. I'll stay in the developed areas, thank you very much.

[dwest]

Always safer in the back country away from all the other Humons in the "developed" areas, that's why park law enforcement has increased a thousand fold over the last few years. Granted I appreciate the boardwalks at Yellowstone, but I've seen more bear damage to the idiots who only stay in the campgrounds 'cause they can't follow the guidelines or are illiterate or both. There are also the idiots who think it is cute to feed the wildlife and the idiots who are upset because they don't like the wildlife in "their" parks. I don't want to forget the idiots who think it is neat to introduce new species to the parks or protect invasive non-native species("wild" horses) in the park or those who think they should be able to hunt and kill in the parks or remove wild animals for personal gain. Give me a grungy tree-hugger any day of the week. Boy! I wish I was at Jordan Pond House where I could sit down and have someone bring me a nice spot of tea while overlooking the Bubbles and the pond.

[Denny]

it would be nice to be able to get to the trail head again....

[chas]

Boy! I wish I was at Jordan Pond House where I could sit down and have someone bring me a nice spot of tea while overlooking the Bubbles and the pond.

I'll be up a hundred miles or so from Jordan Pond this weekend for the Maine Marathon. One thing that's always amazed me about Acadia is that it's so damn crowded, but if you go off on a trail, about a hundred steps from the parking lot, it's amazingly deserted. Most of the trails are only a couple of miles long, but 99% of the people who visit don't bother with 99% of the interesting stuff. Gimme a lodge with a family of beavers or a pond shoreline with a bunch of sundews and pitcher plants over Thunder Hole any day.

I watched the first episode of the Burns series, and, while I do find the videography spectacular, I found the verbal content really dull. Just not my cuppa.

[khl]

This year my wife and I spent our summer vacation/sabbatical from late May to late July in the general area of the Tetons and Yellowstone. Went into the parks an average of once a week (sometimes more, sometimes less). It was fun to see them at the different stages from spring to summer. Here's a link to photos (a few are duplicates and I haven't edited out all that I would like, but some might like them anyway):
http://picasaweb.google.com/keith1171/T ... N_v0Kel2QE#

If I could live another life or inhabit some alternate reality, I'd chose to be a park ranger.

[swizzlestick]

So all the tree huggers can go sit off in the woods and keep their food away from bears and wolves and bees and snakes. I'll stay in the developed areas, thank you very much.

In most of the parks, the park service attempts to provide a good experience for those visitors who either cannot or choose not to "rough" it. I certainly have no problem with that. But national parks are mostly wild places. That is their essence and I, for one, will feel better knowing that such wild places exist and are being protected even when I am unable to take advantage of it.

Over-development would give us a government run version of Disneyland. And knowing our government's track record, we should be very, very afraid of that.

[swizzlestick]

If I could live another life or inhabit some alternate reality, I'd chose to be a park ranger.

It does sound nice. But I imagine directing traffic, arresting criminals and protecting idiots from themselves could get old.

Maybe the off season would be worth it.

[caedmon]

A great series. And it look fantabulous in high-def. Ken Burns has gotten pretty good at this stuff, I must say.

[Whistling Archer]

We Tivoed them all. We are watching bits at a time. The music does sound some like the Civil War doc. But it also sounds like my fav. Ken Burns Doc. "Lewis & Clark Corp Of Discovery" I guess its Bobby Hortons style that comes thru. I bet the average bird that watches this one , wont even remember the music from previous.
All his work I have seen is good, My wife loved the Jazz series, but she had to watch it by herself
I Never did care a lot for Jazz, sorry Jazz lovers, no offence
Steve

[The Weekenders]

I don't care much for the WAY National Parks are administered compared to California State Parks. The "village" system of national parks is bizarre to me. At King's Canyon, you can pay $6 to take a shower between the hours of 9 to 5, after you surrender your id for their towels, which is truly weird. The bathrooms at the campsites have no electricity or showers. A state park doesn't have a "village," even the very popular ones. The bathrooms have power 24/7 and quarter-operated showers. It sounds like a small thing, but when you are talking about taking the family to car-camp, I would infinitely prefer a state park, at least in my state. The only advantage to national parks is that you can gather firewood from all the deadfall. State parks make you pay six or seven bucks for a package of green firewood in an orange sack and firewood gathering is prohibited (even though sassy rustics like me do it anyway, discreetly).

After five days at Kings Canyon and a few at Grand Canyon, I really dread the prospect of going to another National Park, compared to state, even though there are wonderful things to see. And I dissent that they are "more wild" than our state parks. They are much more human-controlled and restrictive in my experience. The hand of big government is present everywhere. And I do acknowledge that these places are dealing with huge crowds, but then, try Julia Pfeiffer or Humboldt Redwoods for busy state parks.

I have had upclose relations with the National Park Service for the past few years in my work on the Anza Trail and I can honestly say, it is a very strange organization with weird employment and career practices. And, if you believe Bill Bryson and his very funny book about hiking the Appalachian Trail, there is a dark side to the NPS wildlife practices.

But hey, on point, I am glad they were saved and that we developed a national culture of preserving them (a la the movie). As for Ken Burns, well, it's a formula that's kind of tired but he has been groundbreaking and I give him a lot of credit. And yes, the music is borderline annoying on this particular series.

[dwest]

And, if you believe Bill Bryson and his very funny book about hiking the Appalachian Trail, there is a dark side to the NPS wildlife practices.

Many federal agencies have a "dark side" often the result of small minded politicians bowing and scraping to smaller minded constituents who want to force the federal government to do exactly what they want regardless. The whole USFS is the "dark side" as is the BLM.

[chas]

I don't care much for the WAY National Parks are administered compared to California State Parks. The "village" system of national parks is bizarre to me. At King's Canyon, you can pay $6 to take a shower between the hours of 9 to 5, after you surrender your id for their towels, which is truly weird. The bathrooms at the campsites have no electricity or showers. A state park doesn't have a "village," even the very popular ones. The bathrooms have power 24/7 and quarter-operated showers. It sounds like a small thing, but when you are talking about taking the family to car-camp, I would infinitely prefer a state park, at least in my state. The only advantage to national parks is that you can gather firewood from all the deadfall. State parks make you pay six or seven bucks for a package of green firewood in an orange sack and firewood gathering is prohibited (even though sassy rustics like me do it anyway, discreetly).

I wonder it it's an East-vs-West thing or something, but the National Parks I'm familiar with all have bathhouses with power 24/7, and I don't think they allow gathering of firewood (either that or it's always so picked over that it's not worth it). They don't have showers at all; one has to go outside the park confines to coin-op places. There are always firewood places close-by, too, which will sell you about one fire worth of wood for $2-3. If I'm not going too far, I bring my own, otherwise I pay for it.

Many state parks still have johnny houses only (and some of those are REALLY disgusting), although many aren't that rustic any more.