i imagine that dry tortugas (which sounds like it should be a mario kart level) isn't a place you visit because you happen to be in the area. did you make a dedicated trip?

i've been to carlsbad caverns tens of times, yet never gone to the guadalupe mountains, just over an hour south from carlsbad. big bend was another place that lots of people from hobbs went. my best chance of going was back when i was a boy scout. now it'll be more difficult.

other than that, i've only been to a handful of parks. arcadia was the only thing worth doing a rotation in bangor, me.

I made a dedicated trip to the Everglades, and the Dry Tortugas was tacked on as a side trip.

congratulations ken burns! i was often hoping that someone would redefine "boring."

JBG, you clearly are uneducated about national parks (unless perhaps you've been to the Saugus Iron Mill-- which, then in case, perhaps boredom could be a word of choice).

While I agree with Slater that national parks are not boring, I might agree with JBG that documentary movies about them might possibly be boring. Now a series of murder mysteries set at national parks...

Boredom redefined:

http://epc.buffalo.edu/authors/goldsmith/goldsmith_boring.html

The documentary has the potential to be really interesting-- there's a lot more to the stories of national parks than people think (Lewis and Clark, kicking off tribes, exploitation by oil and mineral companies, purposeful feeding of wildlife, CCC involvement). The Bush Presidency has been one of the more historically dull times for the Park Service.

Of course, this is not to say Ken Burns documentaries aren't without some boring parts-- he can get carried away. But I think he will do a good job with this.

It's bad enough that Burns' documentaries have covered action events that took place before such actions were filmed, and thus we're stuck with still photographs. But the story of national parks is the story of largely static tracts of land that cannot be adequately captured by film, and policy arguments that can't even adequately be captured by photography. I can see this much better as a coffee table book. Nothing strikes me with anticipatory boredom so much as the prospect of a slow pan over an internal memo.

Again, Slater, to be clear, I find national parks interesting, and I find policy debate interesting. I just don't think I'll find movies about the two interesting (in the latter case, having seen Lions for Lambs I know I don't). Now big, chunky biographies on the other hand...

It's not what a film is about, it's how it's about it.

I don't think the Burns film will be about policy. I recently read a brief history of Yosemite and the Sierras, and there's quite a bit of fascinating stuff, clashing personalities, etc. Do you know, for example, the story about how John Muir was camping in Yosemite Valley when the Lone Pine (7.6-8 Richter) earthquake hit? His account of witnessing the valley's changes at that time is a good read. Or how about the rivalry between Muir and Josiah Whitney (chief of the California Geological Survey, and the namesake of Mt. Whitney). You're expecting a run through of the Secretary of Interior's in-box. I'm expecting much more.

Well, I'm exaggerating for effect. But I think you hit the nail on the head -- it's a good read

The Killer Angels is supposed to be a good read as well, but that doesn't say anything about Burns's Civil War doc.

I agree with crazymonk, Jon... National Parks have a very diverse and fascinating history... they collectively amount to a lot of land, a lot of people, a lot of time and issues. It's like saying a documentary about Arkansas wouldn't be interesting. It might not say have the historical appeal of Gangs of New York... The thing is that most people know *very little* about the history of national parks and the communities around them... There should be TONS of interesting photographs (I've seen many in my day digging through books in NPS libraries and online).