Well, I showed both Gettysburg and Gods and Generals to my 8th grade Social Studies class and G&G kept them moderately interested (with a running historical commentary from me). They never forgot the scenes of the 20th Maine piling up bodies for protection and the sounds of bullets hitting dead flesh. It also graphically communicated the Union rout at Chancelorsville and the death of Jackson. As an educational aid, it served a purpose. I got pretty good test scores on the Civil War from the questions on Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, death of Jackson, Gettysburg, and Pickett's Charge.
Personally, I still found Gods and Generals to be a major disappointment as entertainement. Jeff Shaara just isn't as good a writer as his dad, Michael Shaara. To be fair, nothing tops Gettysburg for Civil War drama though.
Well said! I think the biggest problem with Gods and Generals overall was the lack of focus. The focus was so broad!!! Lots talk about battles, then causes, then Jackson's sex life, then Chamberlain's distraught wife and poor teaching abilities, a discussion on slavery, etc... The actual battle scenes, especially Fredericksburg, were well done. I love the whole 45min. sequence of Fredericksburg. I thought it was well laid out, focused, dramatic, accurate, and had plenty of action. Whereas Gettysburg was perfect because its focus was limited in scope. It simply focused on the battle and both minor and major players in it with no less and no more.
"Perserverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages."
~General George Washington