Is there anything worth watching on the TV?

[MrGongGong]

I wonder if someone could ask MrP ?
He always seemed to have some good suggestions

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Fargo (C4) - based on the film and sort of Twin Peaks-ish;

but plenty of worthwhile stuff over the last few weeks. A few that come to mind: Plantagenets, Paxo's WW1 series. British Gardens in Time. The Georgians. Ian Hislop's Olden Days. Prof Richard Fortey on Mushrooms.

[Thropplenoggin]

I wish I could concur with the general love-in for BBC 4 docs. I find them poorly scripted (repetitive, babyish explanations), over-reliant on mooning shots of arm-waggling presenters in cathedrals (or looking out to sea, in the case of the one on Shipwrecks), and with an over-use of soundtracks to the detriment of being able to hear the presenter (Olden Days). For some faddish reason, the titles all seem to consist of lists of three (X, X, and X: ... ) I pine for the 'olden days' of presenterless documentaries and can't believe how poor these modern ones are, which all seem to use the same format. I don't need to see the person experiencing 'awe' in a cathedral to understand it is awesome: my license fee could be spent otherwise. Camera-crew yes, presenter no.

However, I do concur with Gamba that the first installment of Hinterland was far better than average.

[Beef Oven!]

I watch Match Of The Day about 25 times per year and almost nothing else - the odd music programme, Question Time, about 10 times per year. But the licence fee is worth it for Radio 3 alone.

[mercia]

I pine for the 'olden days' of presenterless documentaries

It's surprising how far back presented documentaries go. Attenborough was always in front of camera, and one thinks of presenter-centred series like Civilization and Ascent of Man, though I suppose it could be argued that Clark and Bronowski were giving very personal points of view so had to be visible (?). But I prefer voiceovers too.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's surprising how far back presented documentaries go. Attenborough was always in front of camera, and one thinks of presenter-centred series like Civilization and Ascent of Man though I suppose it could be argued that they were giving very personal points of view so had to be visible (?). But I prefer voiceovers too.

I have been on film-making courses. An often-quoted recommendation was "avoid "talking heads" - let the images speak for themselves, with an audio commentary when necessary."

[johnb]

I have been on film-making courses. An often-quoted recommendation was "avoid "talking heads" - let the images speak for themselves, with an audio commentary when necessary."

Well that puts people as diverse as AJP Taylor and Jonathan Meades in their places.

Surely one reason for this advice is that people these days are not expected to think. They are there to be seduced into a semi-somnambulant state by music backgrounds, quick fire visual images, banal scripts, silly presenters, etc.

Perhaps I am unusual (OK, I know I'm "odd") but I notice that when there is speech with background music I find it almost impossible to concentrate on the words - I am lulled into some trance-like state where the whole thing washes over me.

Talking heads can be good, as long as they have something intelligent to impart. The tragedy is that, instead, we are fed the likes of Lucy Worsley's pantomime performances. (Odd, on the rare occasions I have heard her talking on the radio she seems much, much better.)

[Ferretfancy]

Walking backwards while talking and waving your arms about is quite difficult, I know, I've tried it. I don't really have a problem with on screen presenters, except art historians who never let you see the paintings properly. Alastair Sook is one exception, but then he's so cute!

[Honoured Guest]

Some of the Storyville (BBC4 and BBC2) and True Stories (More 4 and Channel 4) single documentaries, several of which also have cinema distribution, would appeal to people bored by standard tv documentary formats.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well that puts people as diverse as AJP Taylor and Jonathan Meades in their places.

I recall Heather Couper's Channel Four series on the Solar System. There were far too many pictures of Heather Couper waving her arms around, and far too few images of the Solar System. An occasional glimpse of the presenter is probably all that is needed.

[Serial_Apologist]

I recall Heather Couper's Channel Four series on the Solar System. There were far too many pictures of Heather Couper waving her arms around, and far too few images of the Solar System. An occasional glimpse of the presenter is probably all that is needed.

Too few stars, then

[Wallace]

Thank you all for the suggestions. I will do some recording and downloading - if I am not too late.

Hinterland BBC4
Byzantium: A Tale of Three Cities BBC4
British Gardens in Time BBC4
The First Georgians. BBC4
The Magic of Mushrooms BBC4
Generation War BBC2
The Plantagenets, BBC2
Britain’s Great War BBC1

I have found the ubiquitous Lucy Worsley a good reason for missing her programmes, but will try again.

Jonathan Meades wrote that he writes the scripts for his TV programmes because he wants to read them and to watch the programmes. He went on: “If that sounds selfish and immodest so be it. But it is surely more honest to write for an audience of one whose peccadillos and limitations I understand than for an inchoate mass of opinionated individuals whose multiple and conflicting tastes I can only guess at and which I have, above anything else, to be indifferent to. ...... This is a pretty basic point which the cretinocracy that has seized control of television cannot begin to understand. ..... In the name of populism or ‘accessibility’ the cretinocracy has all but destroyed a medium which was for thirty or so years an instrument of beneficent cultural diffusion.” (From the introduction to “Museum Without Walls”)

The BBC plans to remake Civilisation. It is impossible. Why? Because the full title of the original programme was “Civilisation: A Personal View by Kenneth Clark”. He died in 1983. How can they remake a programme giving the personal view of someone who is dead? Instead we will have “Civilisation: Dumbed Down for the 21st Century” It will begin with the unfortunate presenter telling us that in the next three programmes (because the BBC thinks that the attention span of today’s audience would not stretch to 13 episodes) he/she will be trying to find out what the crucial stages were in the development of western civilisation – the riposte to which is if you don’t know already, why the b***** h*** are you presenting the programme? That the original programme provided a personal view was what gave it the edge. The remake should be 13 x 1 hours and be both written and presented by a distinguished academic. No one else should be seen or heard. Oh, and put it on BBC1 at prime time. That should frighten the horses.

[Serial_Apologist]

How can they remake a programme giving the personal view of someone who is dead?

Step 1: conduct a seance

[teamsaint]

Step 1: conduct a seance

Step 2.
Get a ghost writer.

[Serial_Apologist]

Step 2.
Get a ghost writer.