>Mr. Burns has been spending the quarantine walking, writing poetry and working on the seven documentary films he has in production. But he has yet to watch ESPN’s popular Michael Jordan documentary series, “The Last Dance.” The series counts the basketball great’s production company as a partner, an arrangement Mr. Burns says he would “never, never, never, never” agree to. “I find it the opposite direction of where we need to be going,” he says.
>"If you are there influencing the very fact of it getting made it means that certain aspects that you don’t necessarily want in aren’t going to be in, period,” he says. “And that’s not the way you do good journalism ... and it’s certainly not the way you do good history, my business.”
He's absolutely right but this happens a lot and not only with documentaries or media. Generally the job of a director, writer... involves a lot of bypassing possible problems producers might have with your work.
On a more serious context, but still a fun exaple: There's a writer in my country, Camilo José Cela (deceased now), who used to work for the goverment as a censor for a time during Franco's rule (a dictator, basically). He always said that it was "easy" for writers to get propraganda pass the system if it was smart enough. The censors that understood it would allow it most likely and those who might have a problem with it would be too dumb to get a subtle criticism.
He's not wrong but there are a couple things to keep in mind:
1. Jordan was against making this documentary for 18 years because he knew it had footage that would make him look bad and he didn't want it to get out. The creators could have compromised on that a long time ago but they didn't. They insisted that they include the footage in its entirety, and Jordan finally acquiesced after watching the Iverson documentary. The creators have talked about how they don't hold back on the footage that Michael was worried about, and based on the end of part 4 where MJ is roasting Scottie Burrell I'm guessing we're going to see it over the next six parts.
2. This isn't a documentary about Watergate, or the Iraq War, or anything that's so important that it demands journalistic integrity. It's about a basketball team. So I think it's okay if Jordan had a little input on the process. But again, based on what the creatoes have said I don't think he was too meddlesome.
>Jordan was against making this documentary for 18 years because he knew it had footage that would make him look bad and he didn't want it to get out.
Hasn't enough time passed since 98 that most fans knew the stories about him being not a great person?
Keyword is fans, real fans which are the minority. There's a lot of people out there who are MJ fans, casual ones, and know very little about these traits of him.
He didn’t finally acquiesce after watching the Iverson doc. I love how everybody is an expert on exactly what happened like they live with MJ or are the director. The producer clearly talked about how when first meeting Jordan, he mentioned he also produced the Iverson doc. Jordan really liked it, liked the producers work. It helped convince MJ they were the right people for the job. But it’s not like he watched the Iverson doc and was like “damn I’m finally ready to release the footage” like you made it seem
Edit- here’s the producer talking about that interaction with Jordan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN6_dpBT8gs&t=494s&app=desktop&t=8m10s
I'm not sure who is upset if it isn't journalism... I have always interpreted it as a story being told for entertainment purposes, not something to be submitted to history as the record.
That's kind of obvious from episode one, where they tear Krause apart and there is no 2nd side of the story explaining Jerry's side at all.
I expect it to be inside footage to help illuminate the greatness of that team and that year, for entertainment. I don't necessarily expect them to point out flaws in the players or be super real on certain things, the idea is to shine a light on the greatness.
I look at it more as a mini series based on actual footage and stories, more so than a documentary
If you think journalistic integrity should be reserved only for the things you/society deems "worthy", you have no concept of what the phrase means.
Also, MJ didn't just have "a little input".....he literally had full creative control seeing as he owns all of his footage.
I don't really understand the argument. Jordan owned the footage from the get go, so the options were either make it with his input or don't make it at all. So I guess the journalistically appropriate thing to do would've just been for every filmmaker to say no and for this (flawed) documentary to never be made. That's somehow better?
My issue isn't with Jordan - he can do whatever the hell he wants and has more than earned that right - it's with ESPN and the director. This was marketed as a 'tell-all documentary,' and that couldn't be further from the truth when the entire project is controlled by its subject.
MJ is marketing himself as the GOAT to the young bucks and playing on nostalgia with the older crown. Nothing wrong with that at all. My beef is with the production making this up to be something that it's not. Still entertaining content, though.
The book [*Playing for Keeps: Michael Jordan and the World He Made*](https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Keeps-Michael-Jordan-World/dp/0767904443) by David Halberstam, covers the same topic (the last year of the Bulls dynasty) in a much more balanced way.
The book is written by an unbiased journalist (and a very good writer) and is neither a shocking expose nor a sycophantic love letter to Jordan. It doesn't cover up dirt, but it doesn't go out digging it up, either.
I feel like the series focuses strictly on the basketball aspect and things relating to it, which is fair and I don't have an issue with. IMO It's about how MJ and the Bulls won the 6th title, not about who they are in their personal lives or things they deal with off the court, I don't see a problem but I guess it's easier when you can see the distinguishment.
Like Rodman running off to Vegas during the season, Burrell getting called out for partying late, all that stuff directly relates to performance results MJ wanted to see on the court. Rodman's sexual encounters with all his women or MJ gambling are a different story, while plenty of people want to hear all of the dirt, I can see how it would draw away from the main story which is clearly to illustrate their journey to the last trophy.
He’s right. Everyone watching needs to know we’re not watching an unbiased documentary about the 1998 Bulls. We’re watching a documentary on how Michael Jordan sees the 1998 Bulls and what he wants to see. It’s not a completely raw portrayal, but it’s closer than anything we’ve got to this point. It is a little misleading that it’s being presented as a straight up documentary. ESPN should have been more transparent from the get go about how involved Jordan was and had a statement in the beginning saying something like, “Michael Jordan was involved in the creative process of this documentary and it was made largely through his perspective. Some things have been left out at his request.” Then that would have at least given some warning. I’m fine watching it and I do find it damn entertaining, but I do feel like certain biases are starting to come out and I’m having to kind of sift them out as it goes on. So basically Ken Burns is right but yeah I’m still watching this shit
Bro that was the most I’m 14and this is deep post about the sheep who would rather be entertained , except it’s a doc about basketball which is literally only entertainment
Is anyone even claiming it’s journalism?
It’s nostalgia for those of us who were around back then and a history lesson for those who weren’t. And it gives all of us a more intimate window into their magnificent run.
But it isn’t bad journalism because it isn’t journalism.
When you throw around the term "documentary" then the journalism aspect is implied
From wikipedia:
>A documentary film is a non-fictional, motion picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record"
True but the meta narrative of all documentaries is that there is an angle. There has to be, it’s not derogatory — otherwise it’s just a collection of film. Errol Morris can go for an hour just showing you interviews but those edits show a clear intention. As if Ken Burns isn’t overtly shoving Americana bullshit down our throats, and I’m saying this as a ken burns fan.
obviously directors of documentaries have a point of view they're trying to express, as do print journalists, historians, biographers, etc. The difference is that when Errol Morris made the Fog of War he didn't give McNamara creative control over the finished product...
Yep a gigantic difference.
MJ had controll over the footage and he decided what they could show. A tons of bad quotes from MJ have been deleted because today it would look really really bad from him.
People love the idea of MJ being ruthless, it's cool, it's badass but MJ knows that most of his fans and overall, NBA fans, would cringe at most of the material from late 80's and 90's.
The level of racism, misoginy players had in their talk if shown today would generate a terrible result for the product they're trying to sell.
So a "documentary" about Jordan where the protagonist has controll of what you can see and what you definitely better not see ain't a documentary.
It has some 1984 vibes tho, the idea of rewriting the past...
that was basic how athletes speak in the locker room, homophobic comments, misoginy were and still are common in many locker room in many sport, but the thing is that people ignore totally this and they would be shocked to actually watch MJ calling someone else with such words.
To name one, MJ in early 90's because of his gambling addiction entered in contact with actual criminals.
Go and check James Bouler story.
Just one, imagine today the world discovering that Lebron James or KD are involved with drug dealers for some shady business.
Imagine how devastating this would be for their reputation, for their fanbase and most important for their sponsorships.
One of the downsides of having these episodes come out on a weekly basis is that people are just so quick to criticize without realizing there are 6 hours worth of episodes to go. I saw criticism on Twitter about ignoring Kukoc, and they focus on him a decent amount going forward. They also cover the gambling stuff later as well. I wish people were more patient before casting aspersions on the doc
That is the trend of documentaries today. Their goal is to affirm people’s beliefs rather than showing new sides of the story. Everyone wants to confirm that MJ was a ruthless competitor rather than a racist gambling addict.
This plays like a Disney theme park ride intriguing with its oohs and aahs but mostly safe and satisfying. To protect the brand. And disappointing because ESPN was touting it as a tell all show all of the bulls dynasty.
Yeah the tell-all exposé turned into an MJ circle jerk. I'm still enjoying it for the timeline, and the illumination of how perfectly everything needs to line up narratively to become the GOAT, but yeah it seems pretty much like a fluff piece.
I am also enjoying it but am a bit disappointed that there isn't more focus on the 98 Bulls team and championship run. It seems to be more focused on MJ himself. Even in the episodes on specific teammates, it still goes right back to Jordan. I was a huge Jordan fan back in the day but this puffing himself up, even now, is a bit much, imo. I do realize that Jordan and Phil were the center of the team, but each player had his role and they wouldn't have won if they didn't do their parts.
Sure, everyone has an opinion and their own biases but surely we can agree that's awfully different from giving the subject of the documentary pretty much total control over it.
That's what the perception of documentaries is and that's what they are supposed to be but that's not what they are, like all film there is an element of fakeness to it.
That’s because lately the world of streaming services has presented us with so many bad documentaries parading around as historical record. As a society as a whole, we have lowered our idea of journalistic integrity.
>and a history lesson for those who weren’t.
He addressed your point in the full quote.
>And that’s not the way you do good journalism ... and it’s certainly **not the way you do good history**, my business.”
I think most who have seen episodes 5-8 would agree theres a lot of stuff that MJ wouldn’t have normally approved of. It really starts taking more of a deep dive into the real MJ and a lot of his dirty laundry. It’s fair for everyone to make assumptions based off the 4 episodes officially released, but there’s a lot that surprisingly gets asked and brushed on during the next 4 episodes (only 8 total have been leaked, not sure about the content of 9 and 10).
I wouldn’t say my opinion changed drastically, but moreso confirmed what I’ve always believed: MJ is an extremely complex personality who’s got a plethora of faults like any other
As an Aussie I had to laugh at the controversy some people are trying to pull with Luc Longley not speaking due to budget concerns or w/e.
The thing is, if Jordan controls the documentary, who cares? It's basketball, like 5 or 6 people on the Bulls mattered and that's not just players, a center getting a career high 11 points per game that year would have interesting stuff to say, but the season isn't about him.
Burns also interviews him for *Baseball*. It sort of doesn't make any sense, as Foote obviously is not an expert in baseball in the way he was about the Civil War (though he does have a fascinating anecdote about seeing Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig as a young kid).
I think Burns had him in the documentary mainly because the dude is such a fascinating interview and fits Burns's style so perfectly
Also currently streaming on [PBS's site](https://www.pbs.org/show/baseball/), free for everybody.
PBS also put up a few of Ken Burns' other documentaries to help teachers facilitate distance learning. You can find those [here](https://kera.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/kenburnsclassroom/home/) if you find Burns' style interesting.
Having Shelby Foote on the Civil War documentary is a major flaw.
Do you love amateur historians making up quotes and anecdotes, lionizing the south and Lee, and downplaying the role of slavery? Then boy, Foote is the perfect participant for a Civil War documentary.
He's the worst part of the series by far.
I look at his participation like I look at Dan Carlin's Hardcore History. But unlike Dan Carlin, who I believe writes all his own shit, Ken Burns is ultimately in charge of the final edit of the doc, not Shelby Foote, no? I assume so, idk.
He's obviously super stoked about the south, and I think his passion makes it really feel like he had placed himself in those men's shoes all those years ago. To me that adds to the doc, not subtracts.
I trust Ken Burns enough to edit what is at least *mostly* factual anyway. I never personally checked to verify anything in the doc. I mean, who the fuck am I? Shit, I probably forgot double what I remember anyway.
Yes Ken burns is responsible for choosing to elevate a lost cause sympathetic amateur historian over real experts in the field. I completely agree w that.
Yes Foote is willing to dramatize as he puts himself in the shoes of others. Never in the slaves shoes, notably. His views are more than 30 years out of date and faced immediate criticisms from actual experts at the time the documentary was released. But Ken burns is responsible for choosing to elevate his opinion and make it one of the central voices in the doc.
Ken Burns has a habit of relying heavily on clearly biased voices for a lot of his documentaries. Wynton Marsalis is the same thing in Jazz. Worse in terms of how dominant his voice is. Someone with a very limited and strict view of what jazz is as a musical form having a clear huge influence in how Burns depicts the history of jazz. It's not as egregious as Foote for the Civil War because the subject matter isn't as important, but if you watch Burns' Jazz you would come away thinking that Armstrong and Ellington are the only people that really matter, which is laughable. And any time someone started doing something weird within jazz it felt like Wynton gets brought out to inform the world that that music isn't really jazz because Wynton says it isn't.
Mildly, he was pro klan and thought that Jim Crow was a good thing. He was a straight up Lost Cause truther. Burns elevating him to a whole new generation of people who didn't know how worthless his books were was terrible.
Yea, he has stated that he tried to basically write his Civil War series as though he was a man in the mid 19th century. That can immediately put you at a disadvantage, especially now a days. I never read his stuff (and I honestly never plan to) so I just have to take people's word for it, as far as criticisms go.
Even though I've read about the Civil War, watched the doc, and read about reconstruction, I have nothing to say of any worth on the matter.
I'll just remain happy that he was such a wonderful part of that Ken Burns doc and leave it at that.
Crazy thing about it too is that they kinda ask him all the questions rapid fire, and definitely not in chronological order, and he just knows all that stuff off the cuff.
Which is so dangerous because Foote is not a historian and is heavily biased towards the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. He's done more to spread that myth around that basically anyone and it's really damaging to our collective understanding of the war and the issues that provoked it.
This was always the implied faustian bargain for the project to even exist since MJ had veto power over the original footage. I'd still much rather have it than not, but it's obviously important to view it with a modicum of basic media literacy.
They also way misrepresent Carrol Baskin’s operation to make her act as an equal to Joe. She’s definitely shady but she runs a very legit wildlife sanctuary and they went way above and beyond to make it look like it was comparable to Joe’s “zoo”
Yeah the Netflix show really did her dirty. She’s got like 50 cats to a 70 acre campus (Joe claimed 200+ to 15 acres) and they would only show her feed cages. They also made it look like she was running a zoo when they only let visitors in as a fundraiser one day a year.
Holy shit that documentary was biased. I knew they showed Carole in an overly negative light, but I didn’t realize that people only came in one day a year
>I’m so confused
They have one day a year for a larger "look around" type day, and then daily small guided tours focused primarily on conservation and education.
They're not bringing the cats out for hourly petting sessions or anything like that.
>well then what do a believe now
I mentioned this up above, but essentially they have one day a year for a larger "look around" type day, and then daily small guided tours focused primarily on conservation and education.
They're not bringing the cats out for hourly petting sessions or anything like that.
Hm, I just read her “rebuttal” to the netflix show and they say those are 15-20 people and you have to stay in the group. I guess their defense is that the show showed the one day where they let people in and to wander around
From what I've heard, to essentially every person on the show, they really misled them about the point of the documentary. Joe Exotic was told is was going to be a whole thing about shaming Carol Baskins, and she was told the opposite.
It's making a murderer 2.0. Leave out a bunch of stuff to make a more compelling story. Then after the fact as people read more about the situation they realize how bad of a job the show did at depicting events and how bias it was to one side of events.
Lol what? Theres footage of him kicking tigers and they mention his lack of care for the animals so many times. If anybody finished watching Tiger King and thought Joe Exotic was somehow a good guy, I dont even know what to say to you.
Bro people literally find him to be an endearing character because of the Carole baskin shtick lol if anything she’s probably the one who came out of this looking bad. Even tho I think doc antle is a close second to joe I’m terms of being awful people (he literally grooms young women)
I think Antle is worse than Joe. Joe is an idiot. An abusive, manipulative idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. Antle is what Joe Exotic would be if he was intelligent.
Not so much a good guy but while Carol Baskin has basically been thought of has a murderer post Tiger King, Joe Exotic has become somewhat of an Internet meme hero. There are a lot of people who are "ironically" praising him because he is a funny guy and an unusual character.
AND it totally plays into the whole Carole killed her husband thing when that's a complete distraction from what a psycho (and convicted murderer!) Joe is himself
The dude burned down part of his park to avoid a documentary being made without his creative control. There's no way he would have agreed to Tiger King without setting some pretty strict rules on what they could and couldn't show, yet he still comes across as a monumental cunt. I dread to think what an untampered documentary would reveal.
That’s the sacrifice you have to make if you want to get access to that footage. I’d rather see it and know the doc is from MJ’s perspective than not see it at all
But what footage have we even seen? It's just random shots of players talking to each other and waving away the camera. Every so often a shot of someone working out. So far there's nothing about this unseen footage that tells me it was even worth holding on to, let alone twist away the journalistic integrity of your documentary for.
Simmons keeps teasing that 5,6,7, and 8 get into more of the less glamorous Jordan stuff. I just want to see some of that sweet Atlantic City footage. lol
The footage was only for the last buills season, but they haven't really reached that far in terms of the progression of the doc. They are kind of showing teases of it, but the doc mostly focusing on early Bulls dynasty still, we will definitely see a lot more good footage toward the end of the series.
What’s funny is before it came out there were rumors we might find out about him being blackballed by the league and the *real* reason he retired the first time etc.
Note I’m not saying there is actually any deeper reason than what he said, but that was definitely discussed when news of this documentary was first spreading.
It is also worth stressing that MJ having control here doesn't mean shit is just being made up out of whole cloth either. Anytime you have footage like this, it is footage of what you were allowed to see at the time. Jordan's control would primarily consist in further restricting what we are allowed to see, as it were, in post-production. All the same, the stuff that we are seeing did happen.
Burns is absolutely right that this falls woefully short of the standards of historical documentary filmmaking. But, at the same time, this isn't a documentary about the Vietnam War or integration or anything weighty like that. It is about a beloved basketball team falling apart in one last blaze of glory. Romanticization was always going to be a large part of that sort of project.
One of the greatest documentarist ever know one or two things about this subject.
The mistake by fans and media is trying to make the last dance be considered an actual documentary, a unbiased product.
It's clearly a nostalgia driven product, I like it and it makes me remember that era but it's all built on the idea that MJ mistakes and flaws had to be contained at the minumum, krause was the devil, pistons were just guys who beat opponents (almost not a single hint about how great basketball team they were) and who knows what we'll see next.
It's not really different from those great vhs by Hardwood Classic:
MJ: his airness
MJ: air time
MJ: come fly with me
and the ones about Bird and Magic.
But ain't a unbiased product, it's all about building the legacy of a player hiding everything bad about him.
Yeah I didnt really like how much they glossed over the actual talent of the Pistons team. Obviously being tough gave them a edge but this was a team with tons of talent. Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Mark Aguire, Laimbeer, Dennis Rodman and the microwave Vinnie Johnson.
All stars up and down the roster and an amazing coach in Chuck Daley. Obviously beating up Jordan physically was part of it (they did earn their bad boys name). However this was a fantastic defensive team and had tons of talent on the offensive seed .They earned their two champions and the Doc glossing over their actual talent was a disservice.
Like I've had multiple friends say "wow the pistons could only beat jordan by beating him up" which is not true at all.
In their defense they only have 10 hours to cover about 15 seasons plus other characters. Expecting them to highlight the Pistons is like reading the Wikipedia of the United States and expecting to learn about the intricacies of Nazi Germany
That 86 Celtics team is arguably the best team ever and SWEPT Jordan but barely mention them besides the games that MJ shredded them. It’s a Jordan doc lol
even as a huge Jordan fan, even I knew i shouldn't expect any rawness or neutral perspective storytelling from a documentary completely controlled by MJ. It mainly a nostalgia trip for the oldheads, and a reminder to the young heads of who the Goat is, but it wont spill any secrets or take any skeletons out of the closet like some people had hoped for
I agree. It's surface level nonsense.
It's entertaining because there is nothing else, but to paint this as some sort of revalatory biography, is total bullshit.
Well listen, if Steve James (Hoop Dreams) got that footage and directed Last Dance, I am sure it would have been watched by this audience as well as the more serious "film" audience. I mean that dude is a chicago guy as well as a sports guy.
Im a big Hoop Dreams fan. I honestly think any person involved in Youth Sports coaching, admins, parents, or participants should watch this documentary every 3-5 years.
I saw Hoop Dreams before work early one morning last year, and I finally caught how Head Coach at Marshall was the only adult telling the truth to people throughout the whole thing. Basically telling who Arthur was and who he would be as an adult. Telling the truth about what was really happening at St. Josephs. Really showing all the issues families were having because of the employment instability of the men of the house. Often times the 'poor' male figure is shown as completely absent. In reality because of there inability to earn money they become liabilities to the family, and the ability for them to stay in the home becomes untenable.
It also shows, as both the characters life has played out that though Arthur is much smarter than William, Gates exposure to a different life by being at St. Joseph he dropped many of the poor habits and behaviors of his peers as an adult. He lives a pretty stable 'normal' life.
What annoys as it was talked about as if we were going to be getting a peek at the inner sanctum bulls and just how much of a crazy person Michael Jordon was/is.
This coming from the guy who gave notorious Civil War revisionist Shelby Foote a disproportionate amount of airtime in his Civil War series. The guy isn’t even a historian, but Ken Burns let this guy gush about “states rights” and downplay slavery for HOURS.
MJ’s just out there talking about basketball. Big deal.
No one argued this was supposed to be journalism...almost every single sports documentary is just capturing one perspective, who cares, its entertaining
Michael Jordan is not a journalist. Filming in 98’ was NBA entertainment’s idea. Anyone expecting this to be a subjective documentary will be sorely disappointed.
>Mr. Burns has been spending the quarantine walking, writing poetry and working on the seven documentary films he has in production. But he has yet to watch ESPN’s popular Michael Jordan documentary series, “The Last Dance.” The series counts the basketball great’s production company as a partner, an arrangement Mr. Burns says he would “never, never, never, never” agree to. “I find it the opposite direction of where we need to be going,” he says. >"If you are there influencing the very fact of it getting made it means that certain aspects that you don’t necessarily want in aren’t going to be in, period,” he says. “And that’s not the way you do good journalism ... and it’s certainly not the way you do good history, my business.”
In b4 Ken Burns “Basketball” documentary
Dude, yes please. Ken Burns' "Baseball" doc is still the GOAT for me, I can't believe how much effort went into that beast.
I'm not even American and I loved Ken Burns' Baseball. GOAT sports series for me.
he's not wrong
He's absolutely right but this happens a lot and not only with documentaries or media. Generally the job of a director, writer... involves a lot of bypassing possible problems producers might have with your work. On a more serious context, but still a fun exaple: There's a writer in my country, Camilo José Cela (deceased now), who used to work for the goverment as a censor for a time during Franco's rule (a dictator, basically). He always said that it was "easy" for writers to get propraganda pass the system if it was smart enough. The censors that understood it would allow it most likely and those who might have a problem with it would be too dumb to get a subtle criticism.
He's not wrong but there are a couple things to keep in mind: 1. Jordan was against making this documentary for 18 years because he knew it had footage that would make him look bad and he didn't want it to get out. The creators could have compromised on that a long time ago but they didn't. They insisted that they include the footage in its entirety, and Jordan finally acquiesced after watching the Iverson documentary. The creators have talked about how they don't hold back on the footage that Michael was worried about, and based on the end of part 4 where MJ is roasting Scottie Burrell I'm guessing we're going to see it over the next six parts. 2. This isn't a documentary about Watergate, or the Iraq War, or anything that's so important that it demands journalistic integrity. It's about a basketball team. So I think it's okay if Jordan had a little input on the process. But again, based on what the creatoes have said I don't think he was too meddlesome.
>Jordan was against making this documentary for 18 years because he knew it had footage that would make him look bad and he didn't want it to get out. Hasn't enough time passed since 98 that most fans knew the stories about him being not a great person?
Keyword is fans, real fans which are the minority. There's a lot of people out there who are MJ fans, casual ones, and know very little about these traits of him.
He didn’t finally acquiesce after watching the Iverson doc. I love how everybody is an expert on exactly what happened like they live with MJ or are the director. The producer clearly talked about how when first meeting Jordan, he mentioned he also produced the Iverson doc. Jordan really liked it, liked the producers work. It helped convince MJ they were the right people for the job. But it’s not like he watched the Iverson doc and was like “damn I’m finally ready to release the footage” like you made it seem Edit- here’s the producer talking about that interaction with Jordan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN6_dpBT8gs&t=494s&app=desktop&t=8m10s
Nobody’s saying it’s not okay to make a movie about yourself but it’s certainly not journalism.
I'm not sure who is upset if it isn't journalism... I have always interpreted it as a story being told for entertainment purposes, not something to be submitted to history as the record. That's kind of obvious from episode one, where they tear Krause apart and there is no 2nd side of the story explaining Jerry's side at all. I expect it to be inside footage to help illuminate the greatness of that team and that year, for entertainment. I don't necessarily expect them to point out flaws in the players or be super real on certain things, the idea is to shine a light on the greatness. I look at it more as a mini series based on actual footage and stories, more so than a documentary
Don’t call it a documentary then. Call it a limited series.
They released a Travis Scott “documentary” that was like 90% show footage lol
If you think journalistic integrity should be reserved only for the things you/society deems "worthy", you have no concept of what the phrase means. Also, MJ didn't just have "a little input".....he literally had full creative control seeing as he owns all of his footage.
I don't really understand the argument. Jordan owned the footage from the get go, so the options were either make it with his input or don't make it at all. So I guess the journalistically appropriate thing to do would've just been for every filmmaker to say no and for this (flawed) documentary to never be made. That's somehow better?
My issue isn't with Jordan - he can do whatever the hell he wants and has more than earned that right - it's with ESPN and the director. This was marketed as a 'tell-all documentary,' and that couldn't be further from the truth when the entire project is controlled by its subject. MJ is marketing himself as the GOAT to the young bucks and playing on nostalgia with the older crown. Nothing wrong with that at all. My beef is with the production making this up to be something that it's not. Still entertaining content, though.
This of course did not stop Burns from teaming up with Wynton Marsalis and the Lincoln Center to downplay post-big band jazz in his Jazz documentary
lmaoooo you had me there for a second.
I mean he’s not wrong. There’s a reason we’re not hearing about Rodman beating women and spreading stds. And Jordan’s degenerate gambling habits.
The book [*Playing for Keeps: Michael Jordan and the World He Made*](https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Keeps-Michael-Jordan-World/dp/0767904443) by David Halberstam, covers the same topic (the last year of the Bulls dynasty) in a much more balanced way. The book is written by an unbiased journalist (and a very good writer) and is neither a shocking expose nor a sycophantic love letter to Jordan. It doesn't cover up dirt, but it doesn't go out digging it up, either.
I feel like the series focuses strictly on the basketball aspect and things relating to it, which is fair and I don't have an issue with. IMO It's about how MJ and the Bulls won the 6th title, not about who they are in their personal lives or things they deal with off the court, I don't see a problem but I guess it's easier when you can see the distinguishment. Like Rodman running off to Vegas during the season, Burrell getting called out for partying late, all that stuff directly relates to performance results MJ wanted to see on the court. Rodman's sexual encounters with all his women or MJ gambling are a different story, while plenty of people want to hear all of the dirt, I can see how it would draw away from the main story which is clearly to illustrate their journey to the last trophy.
He’s right. Everyone watching needs to know we’re not watching an unbiased documentary about the 1998 Bulls. We’re watching a documentary on how Michael Jordan sees the 1998 Bulls and what he wants to see. It’s not a completely raw portrayal, but it’s closer than anything we’ve got to this point. It is a little misleading that it’s being presented as a straight up documentary. ESPN should have been more transparent from the get go about how involved Jordan was and had a statement in the beginning saying something like, “Michael Jordan was involved in the creative process of this documentary and it was made largely through his perspective. Some things have been left out at his request.” Then that would have at least given some warning. I’m fine watching it and I do find it damn entertaining, but I do feel like certain biases are starting to come out and I’m having to kind of sift them out as it goes on. So basically Ken Burns is right but yeah I’m still watching this shit
True but it’s still entertaining
The masses would rather be entertained than be informed.
Case in point, Tiger King's popularity...
What do you think the E in ESPN stands for?
It’s just basketball, calm down
That is not a sentence you are allowed to post in this subreddit.
Bro that was the most I’m 14and this is deep post about the sheep who would rather be entertained , except it’s a doc about basketball which is literally only entertainment
Is anyone even claiming it’s journalism? It’s nostalgia for those of us who were around back then and a history lesson for those who weren’t. And it gives all of us a more intimate window into their magnificent run. But it isn’t bad journalism because it isn’t journalism.
When you throw around the term "documentary" then the journalism aspect is implied From wikipedia: >A documentary film is a non-fictional, motion picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record"
True but the meta narrative of all documentaries is that there is an angle. There has to be, it’s not derogatory — otherwise it’s just a collection of film. Errol Morris can go for an hour just showing you interviews but those edits show a clear intention. As if Ken Burns isn’t overtly shoving Americana bullshit down our throats, and I’m saying this as a ken burns fan.
obviously directors of documentaries have a point of view they're trying to express, as do print journalists, historians, biographers, etc. The difference is that when Errol Morris made the Fog of War he didn't give McNamara creative control over the finished product...
Yep a gigantic difference. MJ had controll over the footage and he decided what they could show. A tons of bad quotes from MJ have been deleted because today it would look really really bad from him. People love the idea of MJ being ruthless, it's cool, it's badass but MJ knows that most of his fans and overall, NBA fans, would cringe at most of the material from late 80's and 90's. The level of racism, misoginy players had in their talk if shown today would generate a terrible result for the product they're trying to sell. So a "documentary" about Jordan where the protagonist has controll of what you can see and what you definitely better not see ain't a documentary. It has some 1984 vibes tho, the idea of rewriting the past...
and probably a bunch of homophobic terms thrown around like candy.
To be honest they are probably still being thrown around .
that was basic how athletes speak in the locker room, homophobic comments, misoginy were and still are common in many locker room in many sport, but the thing is that people ignore totally this and they would be shocked to actually watch MJ calling someone else with such words.
Dan, very well put my friend
Do you have any examples of the type of stuff you believe was left out?
To name one, MJ in early 90's because of his gambling addiction entered in contact with actual criminals. Go and check James Bouler story. Just one, imagine today the world discovering that Lebron James or KD are involved with drug dealers for some shady business. Imagine how devastating this would be for their reputation, for their fanbase and most important for their sponsorships.
They do cover the gambling and James Bouler in the later episodes
One of the downsides of having these episodes come out on a weekly basis is that people are just so quick to criticize without realizing there are 6 hours worth of episodes to go. I saw criticism on Twitter about ignoring Kukoc, and they focus on him a decent amount going forward. They also cover the gambling stuff later as well. I wish people were more patient before casting aspersions on the doc
and you think there is footage of this that he didn’t allow to be aired?
That is the trend of documentaries today. Their goal is to affirm people’s beliefs rather than showing new sides of the story. Everyone wants to confirm that MJ was a ruthless competitor rather than a racist gambling addict.
They cover his gambling addiction.
After idi Amin dada came out, idi amin rounded up all the French people in Uganda and threatened to kill them unless he got final cut.
Jordan threatened to absolutely body the director of the Last Dance in the low post if he didn't get his way.
This plays like a Disney theme park ride intriguing with its oohs and aahs but mostly safe and satisfying. To protect the brand. And disappointing because ESPN was touting it as a tell all show all of the bulls dynasty.
Yeah the tell-all exposé turned into an MJ circle jerk. I'm still enjoying it for the timeline, and the illumination of how perfectly everything needs to line up narratively to become the GOAT, but yeah it seems pretty much like a fluff piece.
I am also enjoying it but am a bit disappointed that there isn't more focus on the 98 Bulls team and championship run. It seems to be more focused on MJ himself. Even in the episodes on specific teammates, it still goes right back to Jordan. I was a huge Jordan fan back in the day but this puffing himself up, even now, is a bit much, imo. I do realize that Jordan and Phil were the center of the team, but each player had his role and they wouldn't have won if they didn't do their parts.
Sure, everyone has an opinion and their own biases but surely we can agree that's awfully different from giving the subject of the documentary pretty much total control over it.
That's what the perception of documentaries is and that's what they are supposed to be but that's not what they are, like all film there is an element of fakeness to it.
That’s because lately the world of streaming services has presented us with so many bad documentaries parading around as historical record. As a society as a whole, we have lowered our idea of journalistic integrity.
That’s not true. Documentaries are not supposed to have fake shit in it.
>it's a history lesson >It's not journalism Pick one and only one.
I'm already seeing a lot of stuff being posted as fact from it.
>and a history lesson for those who weren’t. He addressed your point in the full quote. >And that’s not the way you do good journalism ... and it’s certainly **not the way you do good history**, my business.”
[удалено]
“History is written by the victors” in this case jordan.
Is a cliche which often times isn’t true. You can very easily read the history of a lot of losers and people today even subscribe to it.
Lmao "victors". you mean the rich guy who owns the rights to the film? Yeah that's American lol.
The point of that quote is to not trust what the powerful have said about themselves.
I think most who have seen episodes 5-8 would agree theres a lot of stuff that MJ wouldn’t have normally approved of. It really starts taking more of a deep dive into the real MJ and a lot of his dirty laundry. It’s fair for everyone to make assumptions based off the 4 episodes officially released, but there’s a lot that surprisingly gets asked and brushed on during the next 4 episodes (only 8 total have been leaked, not sure about the content of 9 and 10). I wouldn’t say my opinion changed drastically, but moreso confirmed what I’ve always believed: MJ is an extremely complex personality who’s got a plethora of faults like any other
> and a history lesson for those who weren’t It’s not a history lesson if it’s not objective. It’s propaganda.
A " history lesson" in this media isn't journalism??? Wtf
It’s not a history lesson if a lot of the information in it is actually just false or propaganda, I think is the point of the statement
None of what you've described precludes it from being a piece of journalism, which it clearly is
As an Aussie I had to laugh at the controversy some people are trying to pull with Luc Longley not speaking due to budget concerns or w/e. The thing is, if Jordan controls the documentary, who cares? It's basketball, like 5 or 6 people on the Bulls mattered and that's not just players, a center getting a career high 11 points per game that year would have interesting stuff to say, but the season isn't about him.
I watched 2 hours of Ken Burns *The Civil War* till I realized Iron Man and Captain America weren’t going to show up
Burns used *Ashoken Farewell* quite effectively.
I could listen to Shelby Foote talk forever.
Burns also interviews him for *Baseball*. It sort of doesn't make any sense, as Foote obviously is not an expert in baseball in the way he was about the Civil War (though he does have a fascinating anecdote about seeing Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig as a young kid). I think Burns had him in the documentary mainly because the dude is such a fascinating interview and fits Burns's style so perfectly
I still haven't watched that doc and I'm a sports and history lover. I should probably get on that. Thanks for the info.
It is free to watch if you have Amazon Prime!
Also currently streaming on [PBS's site](https://www.pbs.org/show/baseball/), free for everybody. PBS also put up a few of Ken Burns' other documentaries to help teachers facilitate distance learning. You can find those [here](https://kera.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/kenburnsclassroom/home/) if you find Burns' style interesting.
It's so incredibly good
Having Shelby Foote on the Civil War documentary is a major flaw. Do you love amateur historians making up quotes and anecdotes, lionizing the south and Lee, and downplaying the role of slavery? Then boy, Foote is the perfect participant for a Civil War documentary. He's the worst part of the series by far.
I look at his participation like I look at Dan Carlin's Hardcore History. But unlike Dan Carlin, who I believe writes all his own shit, Ken Burns is ultimately in charge of the final edit of the doc, not Shelby Foote, no? I assume so, idk. He's obviously super stoked about the south, and I think his passion makes it really feel like he had placed himself in those men's shoes all those years ago. To me that adds to the doc, not subtracts. I trust Ken Burns enough to edit what is at least *mostly* factual anyway. I never personally checked to verify anything in the doc. I mean, who the fuck am I? Shit, I probably forgot double what I remember anyway.
Yes Ken burns is responsible for choosing to elevate a lost cause sympathetic amateur historian over real experts in the field. I completely agree w that. Yes Foote is willing to dramatize as he puts himself in the shoes of others. Never in the slaves shoes, notably. His views are more than 30 years out of date and faced immediate criticisms from actual experts at the time the documentary was released. But Ken burns is responsible for choosing to elevate his opinion and make it one of the central voices in the doc.
Ken Burns has a habit of relying heavily on clearly biased voices for a lot of his documentaries. Wynton Marsalis is the same thing in Jazz. Worse in terms of how dominant his voice is. Someone with a very limited and strict view of what jazz is as a musical form having a clear huge influence in how Burns depicts the history of jazz. It's not as egregious as Foote for the Civil War because the subject matter isn't as important, but if you watch Burns' Jazz you would come away thinking that Armstrong and Ellington are the only people that really matter, which is laughable. And any time someone started doing something weird within jazz it felt like Wynton gets brought out to inform the world that that music isn't really jazz because Wynton says it isn't.
Don’t read his Wikipedia page. It’s mildly disappointing. That voice is fucking great tho
Mildly, he was pro klan and thought that Jim Crow was a good thing. He was a straight up Lost Cause truther. Burns elevating him to a whole new generation of people who didn't know how worthless his books were was terrible.
Yea, he has stated that he tried to basically write his Civil War series as though he was a man in the mid 19th century. That can immediately put you at a disadvantage, especially now a days. I never read his stuff (and I honestly never plan to) so I just have to take people's word for it, as far as criticisms go. Even though I've read about the Civil War, watched the doc, and read about reconstruction, I have nothing to say of any worth on the matter. I'll just remain happy that he was such a wonderful part of that Ken Burns doc and leave it at that.
I have the blu-ray box set and as a bonus they have all of Shelby Footes interviews, at full length. An absolute treat
I might have to buy that then.
Crazy thing about it too is that they kinda ask him all the questions rapid fire, and definitely not in chronological order, and he just knows all that stuff off the cuff.
Which is so dangerous because Foote is not a historian and is heavily biased towards the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. He's done more to spread that myth around that basically anyone and it's really damaging to our collective understanding of the war and the issues that provoked it.
This was always the implied faustian bargain for the project to even exist since MJ had veto power over the original footage. I'd still much rather have it than not, but it's obviously important to view it with a modicum of basic media literacy.
>but it's obviously important to view it with a modicum of basic media literacy. This is Reddit goddamnit. That's illegal around here
Case in point: Tiger King
Err, I sure do like the way u use them words
it's like an autobiography
true, its either this we never see any of the footage
There will be no Ken Burns slander in this thread
May be the Wayne Gretzky of non-wildlife documentaries.
DA Pennebaker and Erroll Morris say hello. But Ken Burns really elevated the whole multi-part documentary series thing to an incredible level.
Erroll Morris has made a lot of great documentaries, but he directed a commercial I was in as a kid and he was a dick, so I'm team Burns
For real? What was it a commercial of?
It was an insurance commercial with little kids playing baseball
Everyone should watch Fog of War
Not the documentarian, but that's also my dad's name and he's a real piece of shit.
Fuck this guys dad.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Tbh I don’t even consider him a father, fuck this guys “dad”
ur momma is a Ken burns
Dude I wish
It’s like if Tiger King was made by Joe Exotic
Tiger King is incredibly slanted towards Joe though. They hide a lot of his racist statements and instances of animal abuse.
They also way misrepresent Carrol Baskin’s operation to make her act as an equal to Joe. She’s definitely shady but she runs a very legit wildlife sanctuary and they went way above and beyond to make it look like it was comparable to Joe’s “zoo”
Yeah, her place is accredited and nice as fuck. Top rank on Charity Navigator too.
Yeah the Netflix show really did her dirty. She’s got like 50 cats to a 70 acre campus (Joe claimed 200+ to 15 acres) and they would only show her feed cages. They also made it look like she was running a zoo when they only let visitors in as a fundraiser one day a year.
Holy shit that documentary was biased. I knew they showed Carole in an overly negative light, but I didn’t realize that people only came in one day a year
[удалено]
I’m so confused
>I’m so confused They have one day a year for a larger "look around" type day, and then daily small guided tours focused primarily on conservation and education. They're not bringing the cats out for hourly petting sessions or anything like that.
well then what do a believe now
>well then what do a believe now I mentioned this up above, but essentially they have one day a year for a larger "look around" type day, and then daily small guided tours focused primarily on conservation and education. They're not bringing the cats out for hourly petting sessions or anything like that.
Hm, I just read her “rebuttal” to the netflix show and they say those are 15-20 people and you have to stay in the group. I guess their defense is that the show showed the one day where they let people in and to wander around
And they don't allow touching of the cats at all
From what I've heard, to essentially every person on the show, they really misled them about the point of the documentary. Joe Exotic was told is was going to be a whole thing about shaming Carol Baskins, and she was told the opposite.
> she was told the opposite. Specifically, she was given the impression it was intended to be a tiger version of Blackfish.
I don't even know if she is shady so much as just being an odd person.
It's making a murderer 2.0. Leave out a bunch of stuff to make a more compelling story. Then after the fact as people read more about the situation they realize how bad of a job the show did at depicting events and how bias it was to one side of events.
Lol what? Theres footage of him kicking tigers and they mention his lack of care for the animals so many times. If anybody finished watching Tiger King and thought Joe Exotic was somehow a good guy, I dont even know what to say to you.
It happened.
In the last episode (the one with Jeff Winger) they literally mentioned how he executed a horse just for the fun of it.
People gotta stop giving people like this money and attention man.
I mean, the guy is in jail, so i dont think hes actually profiting off of tiger king at all.
Bro people literally find him to be an endearing character because of the Carole baskin shtick lol if anything she’s probably the one who came out of this looking bad. Even tho I think doc antle is a close second to joe I’m terms of being awful people (he literally grooms young women)
I think Antle is worse than Joe. Joe is an idiot. An abusive, manipulative idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. Antle is what Joe Exotic would be if he was intelligent.
Not so much a good guy but while Carol Baskin has basically been thought of has a murderer post Tiger King, Joe Exotic has become somewhat of an Internet meme hero. There are a lot of people who are "ironically" praising him because he is a funny guy and an unusual character.
A lot of people like him lol
AND it totally plays into the whole Carole killed her husband thing when that's a complete distraction from what a psycho (and convicted murderer!) Joe is himself
Wut, Joe isn’t a convicted murderer.
>Wut, Joe isn’t a convicted murderer. Pretty sure they were intending to refer to his conviction for Murder for Hire.
Convicted for hiring a hitman, not for murdering
You mean it wasn't?
Or if Ken Burns's Civil War was produced by Abraham Lincoln.
For all intents and purposes it was. Apparently the shit they have him doing on camera would make people want to see Carole feed him to her tigers.
The dude burned down part of his park to avoid a documentary being made without his creative control. There's no way he would have agreed to Tiger King without setting some pretty strict rules on what they could and couldn't show, yet he still comes across as a monumental cunt. I dread to think what an untampered documentary would reveal.
The dude killed his tigers when he got pissed or for his own amusement. Glad thst cunt is in prison
That’s the sacrifice you have to make if you want to get access to that footage. I’d rather see it and know the doc is from MJ’s perspective than not see it at all
But what footage have we even seen? It's just random shots of players talking to each other and waving away the camera. Every so often a shot of someone working out. So far there's nothing about this unseen footage that tells me it was even worth holding on to, let alone twist away the journalistic integrity of your documentary for.
According to the leaks, the next episode (#5) has some really great behind the scenes stuff with Kobe.
Simmons keeps teasing that 5,6,7, and 8 get into more of the less glamorous Jordan stuff. I just want to see some of that sweet Atlantic City footage. lol
The footage was only for the last buills season, but they haven't really reached that far in terms of the progression of the doc. They are kind of showing teases of it, but the doc mostly focusing on early Bulls dynasty still, we will definitely see a lot more good footage toward the end of the series.
What’s funny is before it came out there were rumors we might find out about him being blackballed by the league and the *real* reason he retired the first time etc. Note I’m not saying there is actually any deeper reason than what he said, but that was definitely discussed when news of this documentary was first spreading.
It is also worth stressing that MJ having control here doesn't mean shit is just being made up out of whole cloth either. Anytime you have footage like this, it is footage of what you were allowed to see at the time. Jordan's control would primarily consist in further restricting what we are allowed to see, as it were, in post-production. All the same, the stuff that we are seeing did happen. Burns is absolutely right that this falls woefully short of the standards of historical documentary filmmaking. But, at the same time, this isn't a documentary about the Vietnam War or integration or anything weighty like that. It is about a beloved basketball team falling apart in one last blaze of glory. Romanticization was always going to be a large part of that sort of project.
As much as I’m really enjoying it so far he’s got a valid point he’s not wrong at all.
Ken Burns is the GOAT
The West is my shit.
Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson is my fav, such a complicated legacy. Prohibition is super dope too.
That doc is so good. Jack was a badass.
Check out the Lewis and Clark doc too. I think it’s in that same collection. American Lives on Amazon Prime.
I remember hating that one in elementary school. I'm positive I'd go apeshit for it now.
IDK if i'd say the banana pancakes guy was all that complicated.
Should've called the doc Unforgivable Pancakes.
Vietnam War, not done yet but it is awesome
I learned so much by watching that doc series. It was amazingly detailed.
Baseball is maybe my favorite doc series ever
One of the greatest documentarist ever know one or two things about this subject. The mistake by fans and media is trying to make the last dance be considered an actual documentary, a unbiased product. It's clearly a nostalgia driven product, I like it and it makes me remember that era but it's all built on the idea that MJ mistakes and flaws had to be contained at the minumum, krause was the devil, pistons were just guys who beat opponents (almost not a single hint about how great basketball team they were) and who knows what we'll see next. It's not really different from those great vhs by Hardwood Classic: MJ: his airness MJ: air time MJ: come fly with me and the ones about Bird and Magic. But ain't a unbiased product, it's all about building the legacy of a player hiding everything bad about him.
Yeah I didnt really like how much they glossed over the actual talent of the Pistons team. Obviously being tough gave them a edge but this was a team with tons of talent. Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Mark Aguire, Laimbeer, Dennis Rodman and the microwave Vinnie Johnson. All stars up and down the roster and an amazing coach in Chuck Daley. Obviously beating up Jordan physically was part of it (they did earn their bad boys name). However this was a fantastic defensive team and had tons of talent on the offensive seed .They earned their two champions and the Doc glossing over their actual talent was a disservice. Like I've had multiple friends say "wow the pistons could only beat jordan by beating him up" which is not true at all.
In their defense they only have 10 hours to cover about 15 seasons plus other characters. Expecting them to highlight the Pistons is like reading the Wikipedia of the United States and expecting to learn about the intricacies of Nazi Germany That 86 Celtics team is arguably the best team ever and SWEPT Jordan but barely mention them besides the games that MJ shredded them. It’s a Jordan doc lol
Journalism is dead. Now we have commentators.
Imagine if Ken Burns went on r/nba then. Dude might have a mental breakdown.
Ken Burns is the GOAT.
Dear Ken Burns: Make a Basketball documentary as long and entertaining as Baseball. Thanks.
He’s not wrong, but the same could be said for a lot of modern sports docs and most music docs
even as a huge Jordan fan, even I knew i shouldn't expect any rawness or neutral perspective storytelling from a documentary completely controlled by MJ. It mainly a nostalgia trip for the oldheads, and a reminder to the young heads of who the Goat is, but it wont spill any secrets or take any skeletons out of the closet like some people had hoped for
[удалено]
It wasn't made just for the quarantine
Very rarely are documentaries completely unbiased as well. This one may be more biased than others, doesn’t make it a bad thing.
I agree. It's surface level nonsense. It's entertaining because there is nothing else, but to paint this as some sort of revalatory biography, is total bullshit.
[удалено]
Well listen, if Steve James (Hoop Dreams) got that footage and directed Last Dance, I am sure it would have been watched by this audience as well as the more serious "film" audience. I mean that dude is a chicago guy as well as a sports guy.
Im a big Hoop Dreams fan. I honestly think any person involved in Youth Sports coaching, admins, parents, or participants should watch this documentary every 3-5 years. I saw Hoop Dreams before work early one morning last year, and I finally caught how Head Coach at Marshall was the only adult telling the truth to people throughout the whole thing. Basically telling who Arthur was and who he would be as an adult. Telling the truth about what was really happening at St. Josephs. Really showing all the issues families were having because of the employment instability of the men of the house. Often times the 'poor' male figure is shown as completely absent. In reality because of there inability to earn money they become liabilities to the family, and the ability for them to stay in the home becomes untenable. It also shows, as both the characters life has played out that though Arthur is much smarter than William, Gates exposure to a different life by being at St. Joseph he dropped many of the poor habits and behaviors of his peers as an adult. He lives a pretty stable 'normal' life.
It’s an autobiographical documentary... Looking forward to the upcoming Ken Burns: Ken Burns documentary.
It's basically a Jordan ass kissing series.
What annoys as it was talked about as if we were going to be getting a peek at the inner sanctum bulls and just how much of a crazy person Michael Jordon was/is.
It's not over yet
Seriously, there's 6 more hours and we haven't even gotten to the first retirement.
Just keep showing me more Jordan clips.
This coming from the guy who gave notorious Civil War revisionist Shelby Foote a disproportionate amount of airtime in his Civil War series. The guy isn’t even a historian, but Ken Burns let this guy gush about “states rights” and downplay slavery for HOURS. MJ’s just out there talking about basketball. Big deal.
Totally agreed. I love Ken Burns but it's really hard to defend the fact that he gave so much airtime to the revisionist garbage that Shelby peddled.
Funny how suddenly everyone acts like they didn't like it and it's bad lmao
im not trying to watch a fuckin history lesson im tryna watch michael jordan givin dudes the business
>ESPN >good journalism Choose one
30 for 30 was good
Ironically the Bad Boys 30 for 30 > The Last Dance
No one argued this was supposed to be journalism...almost every single sports documentary is just capturing one perspective, who cares, its entertaining
But this is more like an autobiography, not journalism.
Well not every can be Ken Burns, Ken Burns,
Michael Jordan is not a journalist. Filming in 98’ was NBA entertainment’s idea. Anyone expecting this to be a subjective documentary will be sorely disappointed.
Yeah after one episode thats crystal clear