I had a bit of a bad experience with Larry Lamb, it was called "Triangle," only a couple of episodes mind, but that was enough for a lifetime.
Actually I did have a quick look, but I thought it a bit, "same old, same old."
"The presenters may change over the years but the story remains the same."
I started watching this but gave up as I've already started watching Rome: a history of the eternal city on bbc4 and looks like it's covering the same ground.
I have to say Simon Sebag Montefiore is likely to offer more of a challenge for viewers than Lamb who comes across a bit low rent.
I started watching this but gave up as I've already started watching Rome: a history of the eternal city on bbc4 and looks like it's covering the same ground.
I have to say Simon Sebag Montefiore is likely to offer more of a challenge for viewers than Lamb who comes across a bit low rent.
With a few notable exceptions, I've always considered that if the makers think a documentary needs a well known "face" to hold the viewers' attention, then the contents can be suspect. It's the reason some comedians seem to get the job. I much prefer a narration rather than an "in your face" presenter, between the camera and the subject.
Some of these presenters, even the more knowledgeable use every opportunity to spend too much time in front of the camera "bangin' on." That's why I won't watch people like Dan Cruickshank.
One of the more recent documentaries I enjoyed, was the C4, "The most dangerous place in the world to be a pilot."
That was excellent, with just a voice-over and much of the information provided by the participants.
With a few notable exceptions, I've always considered that if the makers think a documentary needs a well known "face" to hold the viewers' attention, then the contents can be suspect. It's the reason some comedians seem to get the job. I much prefer a narration rather than an "in your face" presenter, between the camera and the subject.
Some of these presenters, even the more knowledgeable use every opportunity to spend too much time in front of the camera "bangin' on." That's why I won't watch people like Dan Cruickshank.
One of the more recent documentaries I enjoyed, was the C4, "The most dangerous place in the world to be a pilot."
That was excellent, with just a voice-over and much of the information provided by the participants.
Agree with your point about the comedians (with the obvious exception of Mark Williams and Industrial Revalations), I enjoy Cruickshank and Schama because they have authority on the subject they are discussing and they demonstrate passion towards it - but one must be aware their shows are very much opinion pieces.
The off screen narration can be good if objectivity is what your after but can be a bit text book and mono tone.
I guess it depends on how much you know about a subject on what is best.
Agree with your point about the comedians (with the obvious exception of Mark Williams and Industrial Revalations), I enjoy Cruickshank and Schama because they have authority on the subject they are discussing and they demonstrate passion towards it - but one must be aware their shows are very much opinion pieces.
The off screen narration can be good if objectivity is what your after but can be a bit text book and mono tone.
I guess it depends on how much you know about a subject on what is best.
Cruickshank also annoyed me, by making little references to his sexual orientation in a programme, as if the viewers cared one way or another.
Another reason why I won't watch his programmes.
He's not the only one. A few once they feel they've established themselves in the public eye, have done it.
I started watching this but gave up as I've already started watching Rome: a history of the eternal city on bbc4 and looks like it's covering the same ground.
I have to say Simon Sebag Montefiore is likely to offer more of a challenge for viewers than Lamb who comes across a bit low rent.
I disagree. He skipped from the times of the KIngs to Julius Caesar without even a mention of the great characters in between.
I remember a Rome documentary from channel 5 back in 1997 shortly after the channel had started - which aired at 8pm - and they showed re-enactions of full-frontal orgies and stuff inbetween the talking heads. It was like a clip from Caligula.
Of course it was all in the interest of historical accuracy and to convey the events in a realistic manner...
I still laugh when I think of what Ch5 got away with back then.
With a few notable exceptions, I've always considered that if the makers think a documentary needs a well known "face" to hold the viewers' attention, then the contents can be suspect. It's the reason some comedians seem to get the job. I much prefer a narration rather than an "in your face" presenter, between the camera and the subject.
Some of these presenters, even the more knowledgeable use every opportunity to spend too much time in front of the camera "bangin' on." That's why I won't watch people like Dan Cruickshank.
One of the more recent documentaries I enjoyed, was the C4, "The most dangerous place in the world to be a pilot."
That was excellent, with just a voice-over and much of the information provided by the participants.
Some excellent points there.
Re: the bold bit... I don't blame the presenter when we see too much of them, how can it be their fault? No, I blame the stupidity and poor judgement of the 'director' who I can only assume are inexperienced and following the crowd as showing faces is what all the down-market TV (soaps, reality, game shows) do. I spend half the time on documentary programmes shouting at them to show us the thing/object/view/place we should be looking at and get the damn presenter's grinning face out of shot!
It drives me mad!
PS I haven't seen this programme on Rome. I saw this thread saying it was at 8pm and turned to five but it was last night.
Re: the bold bit... I don't blame the presenter when we see too much of them, how can it be their fault? No, I blame the stupidity and poor judgement of the 'director' who I can only assume are inexperienced and following the crowd as showing faces is what all the down-market TV (soaps, reality, game shows) do. I spend half the time on documentary programmes shouting at them to show us the thing/object/view/place we should be looking at and get the damn presenter's grinning face out of shot!
It drives me mad!
PS I haven't seen this programme on Rome. I saw this thread saying it was at 8pm and turned to five but it was last night.
I believe some of these presenters think whatever they are presenting, can be a "stepping stone" to the next presenting job, so try extra hard to get themselves noticed, which can ruin the enjoyment of the viewer. None of them can understand "less is more."
I remember a Rome documentary from channel 5 back in 1997 shortly after the channel had started - which aired at 8pm - and they showed re-enactions of full-frontal orgies and stuff inbetween the talking heads. It was like a clip from Caligula.
Of course it was all in the interest of historical accuracy and to convey the events in a realistic manner...
I still laugh when I think of what Ch5 got away with back then.
That must have been the inspiration for the Spartacus TV series then.
I remember a Rome documentary from channel 5 back in 1997 shortly after the channel had started - which aired at 8pm - and they showed re-enactions of full-frontal orgies and stuff inbetween the talking heads. It was like a clip from Caligula.
Of course it was all in the interest of historical accuracy and to convey the events in a realistic manner...
I still laugh when I think of what Ch5 got away with back then.
Ah Caligula, the Bob Guccione version. Plenty of ful frontal action including the delightful Helen Mirren in her younger days letting it all hang out
Another RomeTV series with plenty of famous actors who let it all hang out was full of full frontals
Comments
Nice little double for a Friday night.
Actually I did have a quick look, but I thought it a bit, "same old, same old."
"The presenters may change over the years but the story remains the same."
I have to say Simon Sebag Montefiore is likely to offer more of a challenge for viewers than Lamb who comes across a bit low rent.
With a few notable exceptions, I've always considered that if the makers think a documentary needs a well known "face" to hold the viewers' attention, then the contents can be suspect. It's the reason some comedians seem to get the job. I much prefer a narration rather than an "in your face" presenter, between the camera and the subject.
Some of these presenters, even the more knowledgeable use every opportunity to spend too much time in front of the camera "bangin' on." That's why I won't watch people like Dan Cruickshank.
One of the more recent documentaries I enjoyed, was the C4, "The most dangerous place in the world to be a pilot."
That was excellent, with just a voice-over and much of the information provided by the participants.
Agree with your point about the comedians (with the obvious exception of Mark Williams and Industrial Revalations), I enjoy Cruickshank and Schama because they have authority on the subject they are discussing and they demonstrate passion towards it - but one must be aware their shows are very much opinion pieces.
The off screen narration can be good if objectivity is what your after but can be a bit text book and mono tone.
I guess it depends on how much you know about a subject on what is best.
Cruickshank also annoyed me, by making little references to his sexual orientation in a programme, as if the viewers cared one way or another.
Another reason why I won't watch his programmes.
He's not the only one. A few once they feel they've established themselves in the public eye, have done it.
I disagree. He skipped from the times of the KIngs to Julius Caesar without even a mention of the great characters in between.
He has a 2500 year history to cover in less than 180 minutes, remember he's got to go right through to present day Rome
Of course it was all in the interest of historical accuracy and to convey the events in a realistic manner...
I still laugh when I think of what Ch5 got away with back then.
Re: the bold bit... I don't blame the presenter when we see too much of them, how can it be their fault? No, I blame the stupidity and poor judgement of the 'director' who I can only assume are inexperienced and following the crowd as showing faces is what all the down-market TV (soaps, reality, game shows) do. I spend half the time on documentary programmes shouting at them to show us the thing/object/view/place we should be looking at and get the damn presenter's grinning face out of shot!
It drives me mad!
PS I haven't seen this programme on Rome. I saw this thread saying it was at 8pm and turned to five but it was last night.
Well, he should know all about it......he was there from the begininng.
I believe some of these presenters think whatever they are presenting, can be a "stepping stone" to the next presenting job, so try extra hard to get themselves noticed, which can ruin the enjoyment of the viewer. None of them can understand "less is more."
That must have been the inspiration for the Spartacus TV series then.
Ah Caligula, the Bob Guccione version. Plenty of ful frontal action including the delightful Helen Mirren in her younger days letting it all hang out
Another RomeTV series with plenty of famous actors who let it all hang out was full of full frontals