A few thoughts.
1. I really enjoyed the program and they chose fantastic courses to profile.
2. I do wish they had talked more about what makes architecture work (strategy, how architects create interest, purpose of hazards, and even things like drainage) but there's only so much you can do in an hour. It's a great intro to the topic.
3. I'd have liked to have heard more about Nicklaus' progression from player to architect. They scratched to surface of it, but I suspect he could find a lot to say about that topic.
4. I think we probably need a full-length documentary dedicated just to Pete Dye.
5. The biggest thing for me was a better appreciation of guys like Fazio and RTJ. They catch a lot of flak on this board, but they do some work well worth studying. I think Fazio would've been the wrong guy to design a course at Bandon, but I also think Doak or Coore & Crenshaw would've been poor choices to design Shadow Creek (and probably would've turned the project down).
It seems like there's a small but vocal minority on this board who believe Fazio, RTJ, and a handful of other architects have never done a single decent golf course and barely understand architecture. The truth is that those guys have done some very good work and deserve study, even if some of their courses were economically difficult. There's room for more than just one style of golf architecture, even if we all have a style we prefer more than others.