Fed up with BBC 2 and BBC 4 house-style?

[ardcarp]

Well, you know what I mean. Any sort of documentary programme (almost certainly a repeat) seems to have its own set of rules.
It's presenter-dominated (so often Lucy Worsley or Neil Oliver) with far too many shots of them driving somewhere, walking somewnere or talking to camera over their shoulder. Then there's the vocabulary. They're going to 'discover' something (what...hasn't anyone before?) or they're 'heading' somewhere (has the verb 'to go' disappeared?).

But here's the good news. There was a programme on BBC4 at 9pm yesterday called Nomad. It was different. A bit wacky, and rather refreshing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008rqv

It must be a repeat, because the website suggests a BBC2 origin,

[french frank]

Fed up with BBC 2 and BBC 4 house-style?

Long ago. Though coincidentally, one of the last programmes I saw when iPlayer was still available to non licence-holders was a travel programme. Can't remember the presenter but not a BBC 'personality'.

But here's the good news. There was a programme on BBC4 at 9pm yesterday called Nomad. It was different. A bit wacky, and rather refreshing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008rqv

Something I would want to watch - but not enough to get a television for.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Well, you know what I mean. Any sort of documentary programme (almost certainly a repeat) seems to have its own set of rules.
It's presenter-dominated (so often Lucy Worsley or Neil Oliver) with far too many shots of them driving somewhere, walking somewnere or talking to camera over their shoulder. Then there's the vocabulary. They're going to 'discover' something (what...hasn't anyone before?) or they're 'heading' somewhere (has the verb 'to go' disappeared?).

But here's the good news. There was a programme on BBC4 at 9pm yesterday called Nomad. It was different. A bit wacky, and rather refreshing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008rqv

It must be a repeat, because the website suggests a BBC2 origin,

All good points . “I’m going on a journey …” etc Presenter -led docs tend to be cheaper to make even if you factor in the presenter cost. They can be pre - scripted and shot to a formula . The Storyville strand usually has minimal commentary one off feature docs - often of very high quality and higher budget. Although as a genre they (feature docs) seem to be produced globally in quantity they are not picked up by broadcasters because they don’t pull in the viewers so much . Lucy Worsley in particular is very popular and brings an audience with her.

[kernelbogey]

i assume there is a film and tv school where some of the visual cliches are taught and made sacrosanct - the presenter finishes talking to camera by walking out of shot; the ubiquitous hand gestures; the talking to camera while driving, as though talking to a passenger....

Not to mention scripts written as though aimed at bright seven year olds.

It was why, when I saw Jonathan Meades's programmes for the first time, his visual style was so refreshing.

[oddoneout]

Well, you know what I mean. Any sort of documentary programme (almost certainly a repeat) seems to have its own set of rules.
It's presenter-dominated (so often Lucy Worsley or Neil Oliver) with far too many shots of them driving somewhere, walking somewnere or talking to camera over their shoulder. Then there's the vocabulary. They're going to 'discover' something (what...hasn't anyone before?) or they're 'heading' somewhere (has the verb 'to go' disappeared?).

But here's the good news. There was a programme on BBC4 at 9pm yesterday called Nomad. It was different. A bit wacky, and rather refreshing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008rqv

It must be a repeat, because the website suggests a BBC2 origin,

If the actual content is sufficiently interesting and the time wasting links aren't a significant proportion of the programme length (padding out 30 mins content to make a 60 mins broadcast) I find I can usually ignore those bits. I agree though it would be better if there were none or far fewer of them. It also depends on the presenter - if said person already starts with a high irritation factor then my tolerance of the nutrient free content is less.

[Ein Heldenleben]

i assume there is a film and tv school where some of the visual cliches are taught and made sacrosanct - the presenter finishes talking to camera by walking out of shot; the ubiquitous hand gestures; the talking to camera while driving, as though talking to a passenger....

Not to mention scripts written as though aimed at bright seven year olds.

It was why, when I saw Jonathan Meades's programmes for the first time, his visual style was so refreshing.

No there is nothing like that . The reason presenters walk out of shot is to provide a cutting or edit point.
Driving ptcs are a complete pain in the proverbial to do - sorry you don’t like them - try directing them.
Some scripts are at that level , others aren’t.
Meades is a master …but a lot of his impact comes from the excellent directors ( and camera teams ) he works with.

[gurnemanz]

Well, you know what I mean. Any sort of documentary programme (almost certainly a repeat) seems to have its own set of rules.
It's presenter-dominated (so often Lucy Worsley or Neil Oliver) with far too many shots of them driving somewhere, walking somewnere or talking to camera over their shoulder. Then there's the vocabulary. They're going to 'discover' something (what...hasn't anyone before?) or they're 'heading' somewhere (has the verb 'to go' disappeared?).

But here's the good news. There was a programme on BBC4 at 9pm yesterday called Nomad. It was different. A bit wacky, and rather refreshing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008rqv

It must be a repeat, because the website suggests a BBC2 origin,

Not aware of such a house style. Documentaries by whomever broadcast can have annoying presentational features with Ch 4, Sky Arts and others just as potentially guilty in my experience. BBC2's just finished Art That Made Us ( "landmark" series - grrr!) has been quite original in approach, presentation and perspective (also encompassing music - some lovely Dunstable from Marian Consort in Part 3) and so far (I'm only up to part 3 of 8) has been worth watching. It doesn't have one presenter but frequent chipping in from a variety of academics (OU co-production), active artists (some admittedly annoying) and performers - indeed probably an excess of talking heads, which interrupts the flow somewhat.

Neil Oliver thankfully seems to have disappeared to be a shock jock elsewhere. I have in the past been a bit allergic to Lucy Worsley, especially if she dresses up in period costume, but her current effort has had something to offer so far. She is a serious scholar, well able to read and interpret newly unearthed historical source documents, yet, as in the witches programme, still capable of moving herself almost to tears.

With their budget, I suppose repeats are inevitable but, being positive, one might have missed it the first time and some things are actually worth watching again.

[DracoM]

I absolutely long for Oliver to walk into a manhole as he walks endlessly looking back at 'us' over his shoulder.
Stopped watching any of 'his' progs - just cannot bear that style.
Brian Cox getting v.close to the same stylistic habit..

[oddoneout]

I absolutely long for Oliver to walk into a manhole as he walks endlessly looking back at 'us' over his shoulder.
Stopped watching any of 'his' progs - just cannot bear that style.
Brian Cox getting v.close to the same stylistic habit..

Well he's gone to GBNews...

[oddoneout]

Not aware of such a house style. Documentaries by whomever broadcast can have annoying presentational features with Ch 4, Sky Arts and others just as potentially guilty in my experience. BBC2's just finished Art That Made Us ( "landmark" series - grrr!) has been quite original in approach, presentation and perspective (also encompassing music - some lovely Dunstable from Marian Consort in Part 3) and so far (I'm only up to part 3 of 8) has been worth watching. It doesn't have one presenter but frequent chipping in from a variety of academics (OU co-production), active artists (some admittedly annoying) and performers - indeed probably an excess of talking heads, which interrupts the flow somewhat.

Neil Oliver thankfully seems to have disappeared to be a shock jock elsewhere. I have in the past been a bit allergic to Lucy Worsley, especially if she dresses up in period costume, but her current effort has had something to offer so far. She is a serious scholar, well able to read and interpret newly unearthed historical source documents, yet, as in the witches programme, still capable of moving herself almost to tears.

With their budget, I suppose repeats are inevitable but, being positive, one might have missed it the first time and some things are actually worth watching again.

Both of which are why I appreciate BBC4.

[Pulcinella]

With all the 'in the last episode', 'in this episode', and 'in the next episode' segments, you get to watch everything twice first time round anyway!

[Serial_Apologist]

With all the 'in the last episode', 'in this episode', and 'in the next episode' segments, you get to watch everything twice first time round anyway!

I'd wondered how I could be getting so many day jar views lately.

[oddoneout]

I'd wondered how I could be getting so many day jar views lately.

But no night jars?

[Bryn]

But no night jars?

What about Autumn Watch?

[johncorrigan]

I found Professor Hannah Fry's documentary in the Horizon string on the stats around Cancer very interesting indeed. I like her approach. She was diagnosed with cervical cancer a couple of years ago aged 36, and was trying to make sense of the figures. The programme aired last week, and it wasn't a repeat.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0017wzq/horizon-2022-making-sense-of-cancer-with-hannah-fry