If they do their job well they enhance the programme, if they don't they get in the way. It's a subjective judgement though, isn't it? Some I love, some I loathe, and I bet they'd be different from yours, or even my husband's.
I'm not a lover of tedious documentaries with nice soothing voiceovers - far too often the televisual equivalent of those incredibly annoying Relaxing Music CDs, which send my blood pressure through the roof with sheer anodyne tedium.
If they do their job well they enhance the programme, if they don't they get in the way. It's a subjective judgement though, isn't it? Some I love, some I loathe, and I bet they'd be different from yours, or even my husband's.
I'm not a lover of tedious documentaries with nice soothing voiceovers - far too often the televisual equivalent of those incredibly annoying Relaxing Music CDs, which send my blood pressure through the roof with sheer anodyne tedium.
One of the best "voice overs" was that of Lawrence Olivier's in the "World at War" series of documentaries, made decades ago.
If this was to be remade, you'd have Peter and Dan Snow prancing about and waving their hands in the foreground.
My mother couldn't bear World at War as she found Olivier impossibly affected - just goes to show how individual it all is. I thought it was excellent.
I'm always mildly amused by people claiming that presenters know nothing about the subjects they present on, as if a lot of them have no life, interests or fields of expertise beyond standing in front of a camera. Which may be a fair point in some cases, but not the majority.
My mother couldn't bear World at War as she found Olivier impossibly affected - just goes to show how individual it all is. I thought it was excellent.
I'm always mildly amused by people claiming that presenters know nothing about the subjects they present on, as if a lot of them have no life, interests or fields of expertise beyond standing in front of a camera. Which may be a fair point in some cases, but not the majority.
Hi Polina!
Err.
So you're mildly amused, by complaints from these people, but sometimes they're right?
Like... When they flag them up?
I'll try to get my head around that.
The mind-set at the BBC is "ratings," so the person chosen to present a programme is usually one they think will attract a demographic who will be as interested in the presenter as the topic. They aren't always the best person to present these programmes.
It's endemic in TV broadcasting, even in sport where people like Clare Balding are used to present sports about which they know nothing.
Given this, many people who might be interested in the topic, sometimes get irritated by the posturing of the "celebrity" who can get in the way.
A classic example is Griff Rhys Jones and "Rivers." An excellent topic, but far too much of GRJ, his "funny voices" and his boring dog.
I've said for years that the BBC is "Fixated with the cult of the presenter." As are to an extent other channels.
They worked out years ago, if they used highly paid well-known "faces" to present a programme, they could get away with poor production values on programmes they fronted. It's a form of "obfuscation."
Huge savings can be made that way, some viewers watch these programmes 'cos they like these people more than the content. If the ratings are acceptable in one programme fronted by that person, they'll look round for another. That's why we have people like Hammond, Griff Rhys Jones, Clare Balding, Ben Fogle, etc., etc., presenting programmes on topics they know sod-all about. "Because some viewers like them." As many like me say, "Oh no! Not him/her again!"
They recently used Clare Balding to present the World Swimming Championships. She knows nothing about swimming. Hammond was used for a documentary on the D-Day landings. Why?
At one time, these people weren't allowed to do TV commercials, now they're all over the place, so we get doubly sick of people like Hammond.
In programmes where they have two, three or more presenters, the contents can be really dire. That's most of "Cheap Tat Daytime TV."
My pet hate presently is "Countryfile" or should I say "The Julia Bradbury Show!" It's now a dumbed-down mixture of "Blue Peter," "It's a Knockout," and "Playschool." I don't need to see these people swinging on ropes, or particularly, trying their hand at "country crafts" etc., I don't care how succesful at it they are, I'd rather see an expert do it.
Big mistake last week, the producer included "Cowes Week"
Probably thought it was a cattle show. Simon LeBon.. into farming is he?
I'm quite interested in sailing, but it is as far removed from "Country" as space travel.
I record that programme and pick out the "proper" "country bits" which only make up about 20% of the programme now.
I've said for years that the BBC is "Fixated with the cult of the presenter." As are to an extent other channels.
They worked out years ago, if they used highly paid well-known "faces" to present a programme, they could get away with poor production values on programmes they fronted. It's a form of "obfuscation."
Huge savings can be made that way, some viewers watch these programmes 'cos they like these people more than the content. If the ratings are acceptable in one programme fronted by that person, they'll look round for another. That's why we have people like Hammond, Griff Rhys Jones, Clare Balding, Ben Fogle, etc., etc., presenting programmes on topics they know sod-all about. "Because some viewers like them." As many like me say, "Oh no! Not him/her again!"
.
Spot on , these national bores on fat contracts are just viewer turn offs to me. Same 6 bloody faces doing everything , its just threadbare. Its like anything else , they asume that unless its got a 'name' in it or fronting it , nobody will tune in.
They will get their heads around it one day , that the likes of Klass, Hammond, Knowles , Ant /Dec , Philip Schofield , Fern Briton etc are what drive viewers away. 2 weeks in a seaside guest house run by Joseph Fritzel is more appealing than enduring 30-50 of the national bores on fat contracts. I always assume its just me that blurts out when a national bore of a fat contract appears on my screen 'FFS not that effing bastard again , is that c*** never off?'
When Mylene Klass is on you just know full well that you are at the threshold of hell.
I like Richard Hammond on the whole, though I agree that at times he tries too hard and, aside from Top Gear, the BBC have difficulty finding shows for him to front that suit his personality..
He is better at fronting documentary style shows, imo, and doesn't seem very comfortable in situations where he has to interact with kids/contestants, etc...I don't find him in the least bit smug though.
I wouldn't have any other trio presenting TG - I think they all gel very well together.
Having said all that though, I do find his hair very irritating:D
I also think it has taken him a lot longer to recover from his accident than has been admitted - sometimes something just seems a little "off" with him.
I like Richard Hammond on the whole, though I agree that at times he tries too hard and, aside from Top Gear, the BBC have difficulty finding shows for him to front that suit his personality..
He is better at fronting documentary style shows, imo, and doesn't seem very comfortable in situations where he has to interact with kids/contestants, etc...I don't find him in the least bit smug though.
I wouldn't have any other trio presenting TG - I think they all gel very well together.
Having said all that though, I do find his hair very irritating:D
I also think it has taken him a lot longer to recover from his accident than has been admitted - sometimes something just seems a little "off" with him.
Now I've no problem with you liking Richard Hammond
But to repeat what you posted;
the BBC have difficulty finding shows for him to front that suit his personality..
What many of us would ask; "ffs why are they trying? Use someone else!"
they have no doubt locked themselves into a 2 or 3 year contract, paying him a fortune and now looking to maximise their 'return' on that
Having bought into the 'cult' of the (so called) celebrity, they are stuck with him (them) and therefore so are we
Yes, this is a natural conclusion, but go back a year and there was all this fuss about money over his Top Gear fee.
If he were threatening to walk away, then it seems unlikely the BBC would pay him more if he were tied into a protracted contract term.
I still thing the whole business is "ratings driven" rather than finding a job for them (as it was with Norton, where we know he got a "signing on fee" and then they started looking around for programmes for him).
The BBC think he'll add viewers to anything he presents, even a sodding dog show.
Er.. Oh yes! Thart's what he used to do, didn't he?
Oh no! That was Paul Martin wasn't it?
...Strange you never see both of them at the same time...
Err.
So you're mildly amused, by complaints from these people, but sometimes they're right?
Like... When they flag them up?
I'll try to get my head around that.
The mind-set at the BBC is "ratings," so the person chosen to present a programme is usually one they think will attract a demographic who will be as interested in the presenter as the topic. They aren't always the best person to present these programmes.
It's endemic in TV broadcasting, even in sport where people like Clare Balding are used to present sports about which they know nothing.
Given this, many people who might be interested in the topic, sometimes get irritated by the posturing of the "celebrity" who can get in the way.
A classic example is Griff Rhys Jones and "Rivers." An excellent topic, but far too much of GRJ, his "funny voices" and his boring dog.
Sorry, Doghouse, I'm not being clear.
My point is that the same tired old comment about The Presenter Knowing Nothing of The Subject seems to be trotted out with equal seriousness whether it be as you say Clare Balding speaking about sports that she doesn't understand, or Armando Ianucci presenting a documentary on the subject of his PhD. There do seem to be some viewers for whom the presenter is perceived as having no life, past or interest outside the confines of the programmes they present, which says more about the ignorance of the viewer than the presenter and in my view makes them look foolish.
Personally I think they often make surprisingly good choices - documentaries fronted by Hislop and Clarkson have been very well done IMHO. And despite your well-documented dislike of Griff, I think he does a good job and as this show seems to have delivered reasonable ratings I have no doubt he will do more.
My point is that the same tired old comment about The Presenter Knowing Nothing of The Subject seems to be trotted out with equal seriousness whether it be as you say Clare Balding speaking about sports that she doesn't understand, or Armando Ianucci presenting a documentary on the subject of his PhD. There do seem to be some viewers for whom the presenter is perceived as having no life, past or interest outside the confines of the programmes they present, which says more about the ignorance of the viewer than the presenter and in my view makes them look foolish.
Personally I think they often make surprisingly good choices - documentaries fronted by Hislop and Clarkson have been very well done IMHO. And despite your well-documented dislike of Griff, I think he does a good job and as this show seems to have delivered reasonable ratings I have no doubt he will do more.
Ian Hislop has made several good documentaries; I enjoyed those on; WW1 War Memorials; The Scout Movement and Victorian Schools, but then he's a well read and educated man and very conversant with his topics.
Some other well known presenters having a passable "interest" in a subject seems enough for some producers. Wasn't impressed with Clarkeson.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Sunday's programme on "Rivers" wasn't too bad. Not too many "silly voices" but I couldn't see the point of featuring GRJ's inanimate "dog on wheels" and when he got out his ukulele and started singing, that was enough for me.
It also seems as mentioned by one commentator to be "in his contract" that he must fall over at least once in every programme.
Too much "Me! Me! Me!"
Now I've no problem with you liking Richard Hammond
But to repeat what you posted;
the BBC have difficulty finding shows for him to front that suit his personality..
What many of us would ask; "ffs why are they trying? Use someone else!"
Ouch! I walked right into that one!:D
I'd assumed, as others have said, that he was on a contract with the BBC - I know he had signed a golden handcuffs deal before his accident, but I'm not sure how long for.
Maybe Top Gear is separate from that?
I agree with what you say about the stupidity of looking for programmes for presenters though, rather than the other way around - it seems to happen everywhere at the moment - Phillip Schofield is another one who seems to have programmes invented especially for him lately!
I'd assumed, as others have said, that he was on a contract with the BBC - I know he had signed a golden handcuffs deal before his accident, but I'm not sure how long for.
Maybe Top Gear is separate from that?
I agree with what you say about the stupidity of looking for programmes for presenters though, rather than the other way around - it seems to happen everywhere at the moment - Phillip Schofield is another one who seems to have programmes invented especially for him lately!
This "fixation" all channels have with certain people isn't just restricted to presenters, it applies to actors too. Many producers choosing "characters" rather than actors, so new blood doesn't often get much of a chance so there's a "safe sameness" in many productions.
I coined the phrase "The Magic (cast) Roundabout" to describe this a while back.
I can understand the commercial channels being "ratings driven" so they go down that route. But why does the BBC?
Whatever we say, the government won't scrap the licence fee. Mark Thompson threw teddy out of the cot when he didn't get the increase he wanted, but instead of cutting back the excesses he's fed us with more repeats, more peak-time lifestyle and reality programmes, more; "Krazy Kar Kop Kapers," and programmes on other public services.
"Cheap Daytime Tat TV" is now bleeding into the evening schedules.
This 2004 Mark Thompson promise for less of all that and more drama and comedy was all lies.
In the end all channels are often catering for a similar narrow demographic and there are now licence payers like me who hardly watch much TV and particularly not BBC1 as it has become so "dumbed down."
they have no doubt locked themselves into a 2 or 3 year contract, paying him a fortune and now looking to maximise their 'return' on that
Having bought into the 'cult' of the (so called) celebrity, they are stuck with him (them) and therefore so are we
Almost far more irritating than ANY presenter is the way all TV films and documentaries are saturated to the gunnels with overbearing, loud and mostly inappopriate music which practically obliterates most of the commentary and is gradually and inexorably leading me to not watching much on TV at all because of this disease.
I'm a huge Richard Hammond fan - have been for about three-ish years now.
But I'm not that devoted that I'll stick my fingers in my ears and go "la-la-la" really loudly when people criticise him, or bite their heads off. I've read through all the posts and I have to say that there are some things that I actually really agree with.
...
Richard can be funny - very funny, but usually when he's not trying to be. When he's trying to be funny, or he's been scripted to be funny, he just can't really pull it off - he's no comedian.
'''
But that being said, I thought "Engineering Connections" was excellent. As was his Evel Knievel documentary, and his Timewatch edition on the massacre at Omaha Beach. It's in shows like this that he really shines. And he's still great in Top Gear.
...
As for his health - I do worry about that. Sometimes he seems fine, at other times you look at him and wonder if he has ever and will ever truly recover from the brain damage he suffered three years ago. Or maybe he's just tired....I agree that he's stretching himself rather thin. It'd be nice if he'd take time out to spend with his wife and girls, it's not as if he needs the money!
And as for the hair...it's fine long-ish, but it looked terrible last night!! He's obviously receding so scraping it back like that doesnt help, really does it!!
I'm thinking mid-life crisis, maybe he'll settle when he hits 40 in December.
I'll keep watching Hammond anyway...even though I'm really beginning to prefer May...
Great post! I don't watch his other shows but I agree with all you say above.
I like Richard Hammond on the whole, though I agree that at times he tries too hard and, aside from Top Gear, the BBC have difficulty finding shows for him to front that suit his personality..
He is better at fronting documentary style shows ...I don't find him in the least bit smug though.
I wouldn't have any other trio presenting TG - I think they all gel very well together.
Having said all that though, I do find his hair very irritating
I also think it has taken him a lot longer to recover from his accident than has been admitted - sometimes something just seems a little "off" with him.
and with this.
I thought the Evel Knievel programme was excellent. Richard was allowed to put quite a lot of himself into it and as a result it didn't seem fake. No contrived "funnies" either.
From things he's let slip about spatial awareness problems and depression/mood swings, it seems clear Hammond has not fully recovered from his devastating injury so I do try to cut him a bit of slack. I think the hair is getting silly now but I believe the wooden beads he always wears were a gift from his kids with some kind of family meaning behind them.
I'm finding his Top Gear persona a bit :sleep: - when he got in the cherry picker that was so not funny. I do think the roles of the three of them have descended rather into cliche. I think May's solo work is always watchable, he is interested and knowledgeable. "On the Edge of Space" was superb.
Ian Hislop has made several good documentaries; I enjoyed those on; WW1 War Memorials; The Scout Movement and Victorian Schools, but then he's a well read and educated man and very conversant with his topics.
Some other well known presenters having a passable "interest" in a subject seems enough for some producers. Wasn't impressed with Clarkeson.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Sunday's programme on "Rivers" wasn't too bad. Not too many "silly voices" but I couldn't see the point of featuring GRJ's inanimate "dog on wheels" and when he got out his ukulele and started singing, that was enough for me.
It also seems as mentioned by one commentator to be "in his contract" that he must fall over at least once in every programme.
Too much "Me! Me! Me!"
You have the advantage over me there, Doghouse, I've not been able to see the last one yet. (I'm surprised you watch considering you always claim he is an instant turnoff!) I don't find him an egotistical personality though, so I suspect I will find it very entertaining.
Cadbury seems to have been rather worryingly popular....
You have the advantage over me there, Doghouse, I've not been able to see the last one yet. (I'm surprised you watch considering you always claim he is an instant turnoff!) I don't find him an egotistical personality though, so I suspect I will find it very entertaining.
Cadbury seems to have been rather worryingly popular....
Polina as I've said before I don't mind what you watch so I would never express surprise at any of your choices. Though why you should be surprised at what I watch or don't watch, does surprise me.
I saw some of this as I was exposed to some "passive viewing"
I can only assume the pointless inclusion of the "dog on wheels" which naturally does nothing and obviously would rather not be there, was an idea of the producer's in an attempt to help retain the attention of some of the viewers who'd hopefully find it more interesting than the presenter.
Really liked him at one time, but lately finding him a little irritating.
The hair is indescribably awful and reminds me of Spandau Ballet around 1984!!
I do wonder if he has recovered as well from the accident as we were led to believe, as sometimes he looks fine, but other times really ill and didn't seem to do too much in the last series of Top Gear.
Have to say that I definitely am finding James May much more attractive these days and I like watching any other programme he presents as the enthuasim just shines through and makes what I would usually consider to be a boring subject really interesting because he is so enthaustic about it.
Re other presenters/documentaries. I cannot watch many documentaries these days as I find the Docu/drama insulting to my intelligence, not as I am particularly intelligent, I hasten to add, but I have enough imagination to be able imagine scenes without having actors bringing them to life for me, I suppose this is down to making TV more exciting and catering to people with the attention span of a gnat!!
I dont want to sound snobby or anything, but I really wish presenters would just do voiceovers, give us pictures and written word and leave the action to the actual drama. Channel 4 are the worst for this, many times I have switched off to watch a good documentary and had to switch it off because of the reconstructions.
I'd never heard of Richard Hammond til his car crash, and now there's no escape from the bloke. Don't see the attraction, and am unsure how a high-speed car crash has turned into a career opportunity.
Comments
I'm not a lover of tedious documentaries with nice soothing voiceovers - far too often the televisual equivalent of those incredibly annoying Relaxing Music CDs, which send my blood pressure through the roof with sheer anodyne tedium.
One of the best "voice overs" was that of Lawrence Olivier's in the "World at War" series of documentaries, made decades ago.
If this was to be remade, you'd have Peter and Dan Snow prancing about and waving their hands in the foreground.
I'm always mildly amused by people claiming that presenters know nothing about the subjects they present on, as if a lot of them have no life, interests or fields of expertise beyond standing in front of a camera. Which may be a fair point in some cases, but not the majority.
Hi Polina!
Err.
So you're mildly amused, by complaints from these people, but sometimes they're right?
Like... When they flag them up?
I'll try to get my head around that.
The mind-set at the BBC is "ratings," so the person chosen to present a programme is usually one they think will attract a demographic who will be as interested in the presenter as the topic. They aren't always the best person to present these programmes.
It's endemic in TV broadcasting, even in sport where people like Clare Balding are used to present sports about which they know nothing.
Given this, many people who might be interested in the topic, sometimes get irritated by the posturing of the "celebrity" who can get in the way.
A classic example is Griff Rhys Jones and "Rivers." An excellent topic, but far too much of GRJ, his "funny voices" and his boring dog.
This is a very good post indeed.
Spot on , these national bores on fat contracts are just viewer turn offs to me. Same 6 bloody faces doing everything , its just threadbare. Its like anything else , they asume that unless its got a 'name' in it or fronting it , nobody will tune in.
They will get their heads around it one day , that the likes of Klass, Hammond, Knowles , Ant /Dec , Philip Schofield , Fern Briton etc are what drive viewers away. 2 weeks in a seaside guest house run by Joseph Fritzel is more appealing than enduring 30-50 of the national bores on fat contracts. I always assume its just me that blurts out when a national bore of a fat contract appears on my screen 'FFS not that effing bastard again , is that c*** never off?'
When Mylene Klass is on you just know full well that you are at the threshold of hell.
He is better at fronting documentary style shows, imo, and doesn't seem very comfortable in situations where he has to interact with kids/contestants, etc...I don't find him in the least bit smug though.
I wouldn't have any other trio presenting TG - I think they all gel very well together.
Having said all that though, I do find his hair very irritating:D
I also think it has taken him a lot longer to recover from his accident than has been admitted - sometimes something just seems a little "off" with him.
Now I've no problem with you liking Richard Hammond
But to repeat what you posted;
the BBC have difficulty finding shows for him to front that suit his personality..
What many of us would ask; "ffs why are they trying? Use someone else!"
they have no doubt locked themselves into a 2 or 3 year contract, paying him a fortune and now looking to maximise their 'return' on that
Having bought into the 'cult' of the (so called) celebrity, they are stuck with him (them) and therefore so are we
Yes, this is a natural conclusion, but go back a year and there was all this fuss about money over his Top Gear fee.
If he were threatening to walk away, then it seems unlikely the BBC would pay him more if he were tied into a protracted contract term.
I still thing the whole business is "ratings driven" rather than finding a job for them (as it was with Norton, where we know he got a "signing on fee" and then they started looking around for programmes for him).
The BBC think he'll add viewers to anything he presents, even a sodding dog show.
Er.. Oh yes! Thart's what he used to do, didn't he?
Oh no! That was Paul Martin wasn't it?
...Strange you never see both of them at the same time...
Sorry, Doghouse, I'm not being clear.
My point is that the same tired old comment about The Presenter Knowing Nothing of The Subject seems to be trotted out with equal seriousness whether it be as you say Clare Balding speaking about sports that she doesn't understand, or Armando Ianucci presenting a documentary on the subject of his PhD. There do seem to be some viewers for whom the presenter is perceived as having no life, past or interest outside the confines of the programmes they present, which says more about the ignorance of the viewer than the presenter and in my view makes them look foolish.
Personally I think they often make surprisingly good choices - documentaries fronted by Hislop and Clarkson have been very well done IMHO. And despite your well-documented dislike of Griff, I think he does a good job and as this show seems to have delivered reasonable ratings I have no doubt he will do more.
Ian Hislop has made several good documentaries; I enjoyed those on; WW1 War Memorials; The Scout Movement and Victorian Schools, but then he's a well read and educated man and very conversant with his topics.
Some other well known presenters having a passable "interest" in a subject seems enough for some producers. Wasn't impressed with Clarkeson.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Sunday's programme on "Rivers" wasn't too bad. Not too many "silly voices" but I couldn't see the point of featuring GRJ's inanimate "dog on wheels" and when he got out his ukulele and started singing, that was enough for me.
It also seems as mentioned by one commentator to be "in his contract" that he must fall over at least once in every programme.
Too much "Me! Me! Me!"
Ouch! I walked right into that one!:D
I'd assumed, as others have said, that he was on a contract with the BBC - I know he had signed a golden handcuffs deal before his accident, but I'm not sure how long for.
Maybe Top Gear is separate from that?
I agree with what you say about the stupidity of looking for programmes for presenters though, rather than the other way around - it seems to happen everywhere at the moment - Phillip Schofield is another one who seems to have programmes invented especially for him lately!
This "fixation" all channels have with certain people isn't just restricted to presenters, it applies to actors too. Many producers choosing "characters" rather than actors, so new blood doesn't often get much of a chance so there's a "safe sameness" in many productions.
I coined the phrase "The Magic (cast) Roundabout" to describe this a while back.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=magic+%28cast%29+roundabout
I can understand the commercial channels being "ratings driven" so they go down that route. But why does the BBC?
Whatever we say, the government won't scrap the licence fee. Mark Thompson threw teddy out of the cot when he didn't get the increase he wanted, but instead of cutting back the excesses he's fed us with more repeats, more peak-time lifestyle and reality programmes, more; "Krazy Kar Kop Kapers," and programmes on other public services.
"Cheap Daytime Tat TV" is now bleeding into the evening schedules.
This 2004 Mark Thompson promise for less of all that and more drama and comedy was all lies.
http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/3990
In the end all channels are often catering for a similar narrow demographic and there are now licence payers like me who hardly watch much TV and particularly not BBC1 as it has become so "dumbed down."
Almost far more irritating than ANY presenter is the way all TV films and documentaries are saturated to the gunnels with overbearing, loud and mostly inappopriate music which practically obliterates most of the commentary and is gradually and inexorably leading me to not watching much on TV at all because of this disease.
:mad:
Digressing slightly...
Here's another, a forty-two-year-old who needs a haircut.
I blame his mother for letting him go to see Mel Gibson in Braveheart..
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44473000/jpg/_44473949_neiloliver203.jpg
Great post! I don't watch his other shows but I agree with all you say above.
and with this.
I thought the Evel Knievel programme was excellent. Richard was allowed to put quite a lot of himself into it and as a result it didn't seem fake. No contrived "funnies" either.
From things he's let slip about spatial awareness problems and depression/mood swings, it seems clear Hammond has not fully recovered from his devastating injury so I do try to cut him a bit of slack. I think the hair is getting silly now but I believe the wooden beads he always wears were a gift from his kids with some kind of family meaning behind them.
I'm finding his Top Gear persona a bit :sleep: - when he got in the cherry picker that was so not funny. I do think the roles of the three of them have descended rather into cliche. I think May's solo work is always watchable, he is interested and knowledgeable. "On the Edge of Space" was superb.
You have the advantage over me there, Doghouse, I've not been able to see the last one yet. (I'm surprised you watch considering you always claim he is an instant turnoff!) I don't find him an egotistical personality though, so I suspect I will find it very entertaining.
Cadbury seems to have been rather worryingly popular....
Polina as I've said before I don't mind what you watch so I would never express surprise at any of your choices. Though why you should be surprised at what I watch or don't watch, does surprise me.
I saw some of this as I was exposed to some "passive viewing"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=passive+viewing
I can only assume the pointless inclusion of the "dog on wheels" which naturally does nothing and obviously would rather not be there, was an idea of the producer's in an attempt to help retain the attention of some of the viewers who'd hopefully find it more interesting than the presenter.
Cadbury's usually pretty happy to be where Griff is. More likely Griff economising on dog sitting fees!
The hair is indescribably awful and reminds me of Spandau Ballet around 1984!!
I do wonder if he has recovered as well from the accident as we were led to believe, as sometimes he looks fine, but other times really ill and didn't seem to do too much in the last series of Top Gear.
Have to say that I definitely am finding James May much more attractive these days and I like watching any other programme he presents as the enthuasim just shines through and makes what I would usually consider to be a boring subject really interesting because he is so enthaustic about it.
Re other presenters/documentaries. I cannot watch many documentaries these days as I find the Docu/drama insulting to my intelligence, not as I am particularly intelligent, I hasten to add, but I have enough imagination to be able imagine scenes without having actors bringing them to life for me, I suppose this is down to making TV more exciting and catering to people with the attention span of a gnat!!
I dont want to sound snobby or anything, but I really wish presenters would just do voiceovers, give us pictures and written word and leave the action to the actual drama. Channel 4 are the worst for this, many times I have switched off to watch a good documentary and had to switch it off because of the reconstructions.
By people Polina, you of course mean you?
I'm not posting "against" anyone, I'm posting my observations on his presentation style.
Cadbury looks happy to be with GRJ as he probably thinks that every time they get out of the canoe, they're going home.