Not Hemingway. I nominate Robert Ruark
True. That’s why it’s on The Travel Channel and not PBS. 
One thing about it is that it does have kernels of actual history. I like hearing about things I hadn’t heard of before. It’s funny though, that they often don’t have the actual artifact. 'And they used a device just like the one on display. 
(It’s a bit of a joke with us, like David Attenborough’s 'This polar bear will die. schtick.)
I watched some ultra low budget recently made movie called “The Filthy Thirteen” which is supposedly based on actual American paratroopers who dropped into D-Day, and clearly the person who supplied the arms to the soldiers was just giving them whatever weapons they had in their gun closet, because apparently on D-Day American paratroopers dropped with hunter style bolt action and cowboy style lever action rifles, and occasionally someone had what looked like a .22 pistol.
Considering his sniping and stalking skills, Carlos Hathcock?
At least it wasn’t on The History Channel because they probably would had on this guy:
I’ve often wondered how those people who do the “historical re-enactments” on Mysteries at the Museum feel as they are melodramatically acting out these great (or not so great) historical events, without even getting any dialogue, so all they can do is gesture and contort their faces. Did they once have ambitions to be serious actors, and this was the best job they could get?
On the other hand, Don Wildman seems to have a pretty sweet gig. He’s only on camera for a couple of minutes, and the rest of the time he’s in a recording studio somewhere, gravely reading out the narration. He can probably do a month’s worth of episodes in an afternoon. I’m sure he’s not getting rich off of this show, but it looks to be a pretty easy way to earn a steady paycheck.
I’m watching The Cars That Made the World right now. I really like the series, but I can’t help noticing that neither Rolls nor Royce nor any of their employees have British accents.
Actually, all of the actors have American accents, no matter which country they’re supposedly from.
Maybe this is better than having them do terrible faux accents, but it still requires that I temporarily suspend my sense of disbelief.
Probably so. There are an awful lot of unemployed (and under-employed) actors out there, and a non-speaking role at least means a paycheck.
My guess would be that the roles are non-speaking, because a speaking role would entail a higher pay rate.
I worked with Don Wildman a few years back. He’s a great guy and really interested in whatever the show he’s doing is about. He gets into the topic and asks intelligent questions instead of just relying on what the researchers and writers give him.
Just remember they’re reenacting events. In this case, I would expect the events to be accurate.
Good point. This series, like the similar ones about food, toys, machines, et cetera, are pretty well researched and written. They’re one of History Channel’s few bright spots, IMHO.
I just wish they’d quit saying “game changer” and “iconic”! Those expressions have been done to death the last couple of years! 
That’s actually nice to hear. No shade on Don Wildman; I have no reason to believe he’s anything but a decent and thoroughly professional guy. But I’ve heard that a lot of performers enjoy jobs that are mostly voice-over work, since they don’t have to worry about costumes or makeup or stuff like that.
Yep, I have nothing but praise for Don. I’d be happy to work with him again any time.
Plus, it has so many details that are completely without any reliable evidence and a ton of old wives’ tales type stories incorporated in them. I don’t care about anachronisms in the reenactments (especially guns – I really don’t care) but at least get the actual story right.
I’m assuming this is the typical tragejctory for the careers of most actors. Bad documentaries, or they end up like Skipper Dan working the jungle cruise at Disney World.
Here are more related thoughts from a thread back in April: Lazy media people and imagery and footage
At least he’s doing 34 shows every day.
A friend of mine is an actor. He got his degree in theater, though he wound up working in transportation logistics as his full-time job, he always kept a foot in acting, mostly doing community theater and such.
A decade ago, at the encouragement of some of the people he knew in community theater (he was probably one of the best actors in the small pond of community theater in his area), he and his wife moved here, to the Chicago area, explicitly so that he could try to break into being a full-time actor. He’s done a fair amount of stage acting here (all for smaller theaters), a couple of web series, a few TV ads, and a few non-speaking/background roles in TV shows shot in Chicago.
He’s not been able to move up to the next level, and I get the impression that not only is the competition intense, but he may simply not be skilled enough (or lucky enough) to break through.
Every time I see a successful actor making big bucks I think of them as lottery winners. They may be talented, and likely had familial connections to the industry that helped, but they’re lucky.
I know two people who were once professional actors working in New York. Neither of them are professional actors anymore, and neither is in New York. One is my minister; the other is a contractor. Both of them act in, and occasionally direct, shows in the local community theater, which is how I got to know both of them.
Edited to add: I forgot one other guy, who was once a professional dancer on Broadway. He is now a lawyer, and occasionally choreographs shows in that same local community theater.