hey there everyone, I have stumbled upon several posts on here praising the former as one of the most brilliant documentaries ever, not just about the great war - how does the latter compare? are the differences superficial and both provide good history, or is one significantly different/more in depth/whatever than the other? i have some idea about the conflict so a 'ww1 for dummies' approach isn't necessarily what i'm looking for but at the same time i don't think i would find a droning voice going on about fact and figures entertaining or enlightening
One of the major differences is the amount of living veterans that were involved in The Great War film that, sadly but understandably, weren't around in 2003.
Ironically (given the major rules of this sub) nothing beats a first hand account. It was also one of (if not the first?) television documentaries to feature WW1 veterans. Like you said, a droning voice isn't as interesting as an actual veteran.
On the other hand, The First World War had another 40 years of gathered material and information previously not available or known in 1964.
Both are amazing and must-sees for those interested in the reality of WW1 and international conflicts.