I watched all this but am not a fan of these dramatisations with historical authors as talking heads. Dan Snow on his yacht didn't really add anything and the acting in the dramatised bits was very hammy. Anita Dobson utterly unconvincing as Elizabeth.
It's a great story and the new info was interesting but it would be far better done without the dramatisation and pointless sailing scenes. One hour would have been more than enough, three hours far too long.
I watched all this but am not a fan of these dramatisations with historical authors as talking heads. Dan Snow on his yacht didn't really add anything and the acting in the dramatised bits was very hammy. Anita Dobson utterly unconvincing as Elizabeth.
It's a great story and the new info was interesting but it would be far better done without the dramatisation and pointless sailing scenes. One hour would have been more than enough, three hours far too long.
I thought it actually added to the programme, but hey! each to their own
Meller and that loud woman (forgotten her name) are at least two others, probably more though. It's not always on TV you see people get radio spots as well.
It seemed to be alright but why oh why do the BBC indulge Dan Snow. I know a lot about railways and his series was absoutely dreadful. So why should I believe this?
I really should watch this, as I love history and history documentaries fascinate me, but I just can't get past the fact that Dan Snow is presenting it. There are only two TV historians I dislike, Dan Snow and David Starkey. I just find Dan Snow really irritating, unengaging and not always accurate. (His humourless appearance on Have I Got News For You was just downright painful, but that's another matter.)
I think there must be so many more talented TV historians or even potential TV historians out there. It wouldn't be too bad if he was just doing a voice-over, but if there's extensive footage of him on his modern yacht, then I would probably end up fast forwarding most of the programme!
I really should watch this, as I love history and history documentaries fascinate me, but I just can't get past the fact that Dan Snow is presenting it. There are only two TV historians I dislike, Dan Snow and David Starkey. I just find Dan Snow really irritating, unengaging and not always accurate. (His humourless appearance on Have I Got News For You was just downright painful, but that's another matter.)
I think there must be so many more talented TV historians or even potential TV historians out there. It wouldn't be too bad if he was just doing a voice-over, but if there's extensive footage of him on his modern yacht, then I would probably end up fast forwarding most of the programme!
Sadly, he's a product of the historical endemic nepotism in the TV industry. His dad "worked him in" with his programmes before he branched out on his own. Dimbleby did it with his kids sixty years ago.
As I've mentioned before, when it comes to progress in a career, "pull is so much more effective than push."
Sadly, he's a product of the historical endemic nepotism in the TV industry. His dad "worked him in" with his programmes before he branched out on his own. Dimbleby did it with his kids sixty years ago.
As I've mentioned before, when it comes to progress in a career, "pull is so much more effective than push."
I agree with you re the nepotism as I am unsure of how Dan Snow would have got the programmes he has without it. I always used to enjoy the programmes Peter Snow did though. Oh and don't get me started on David Dimbleby and Question Time, Another programme I should really enjoy but can only occasionally bear to watch because of DD's 'chairmanship'. Unfortunately the last one I tuned in to had David Starkey on as well. I somehow just about managed to endure it til the end. :eek:
Anyway, I am getting very off topic now. Back to the Armada.
While I didn't watch (for obvious reasons) all this Armada talk has reminded me of a TimeWatch documentary some years ago. It concerned the exploration of a shipwreck off Guernsey and recovery of some cannon. The ship sank in a storm a few years after the Armada and it's armament of identical cannon came as a surprise and may account for the destructive power of the English ships in the battle. A replica of the cannon was made and fired with quite spectacular results. I've just checked and it's available on YouTube if anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzWtPe1TkgA
Sadly, he's a product of the historical endemic nepotism in the TV industry. His dad "worked him in" with his programmes before he branched out on his own. Dimbleby did it with his kids sixty years ago.
As I've mentioned before, when it comes to progress in a career, "pull is so much more effective than push."
BIB, so you don't think it's possible that the son became interested in history and so on because his dad worked in TV as a reporter? There are many other professions where father / daughter follows in the parent's footsteps.
Just as much as no son would do what dad did if he wasn't interested.
BIB, so you don't think it's possible that the son became interested in history and so on because his dad worked in TV as a reporter? There are many other professions where father / daughter follows in the parent's footsteps.
Just as much as no son would do what dad did if he wasn't interested.
My point is that there are limited opportunities to get into that sort of job.
I don't think he's anything special, he had a distinct advantage over god knows how many other hopefuls who may be just as able or more so, but without the "connections," their chances are very slim.
It'd be hard to male a rickets of it with that sort of connection.
I too have learned to avoid anything with Dan Snow in it. I find him charmless and patronising. I can't see that he would have got anywhere on television without the careful 'leg-up' from his father - those history programmes that Peter co-hosted with his son - and the expensive connections - his father-in-law is the Duke of Westminster. His appearance on HIGNFY confirmed all my worst suspicions.
I could just about stand Armada because Dan was heavily diluted by proper experts who used up a fair bit of screen time. Anita Dobson was a bit Horrible Histories crossed with Catherine Tate's Nana, and I do hope they were fake teeth.
I too have learned to avoid anything with Dan Snow in it. I find him charmless and patronising. I can't see that he would have got anywhere on television without the careful 'leg-up' from his father - those history programmes that Peter co-hosted with his son - and the expensive connections - his father-in-law is the Duke of Westminster. His appearance on HIGNFY confirmed all my worst suspicions.
I could just about stand Armada because Dan was heavily diluted by proper experts who used up a fair bit of screen time. Anita Dobson was a bit Horrible Histories crossed with Catherine Tate's Nana, and I do hope they were fake teeth.
Dan Snow has a First in Modern History from Balliol so he does know a bit about the subject. You would think he failed O Level History from some of the comments here.
Dan Snow has a First in Modern History from Balliol so he does know a bit about the subject. You would think he failed O Level History from some of the comments here.
I don't think anyone said he didn't have any knowledge of history, but that's beside the point.
The programme isn't "his," he is just the presenter. The information came from a number of authors of books who have studied this particular period of our history. We can't blame him for the level at which it was pitched. But I do find him rather bland.
It actually didn't need a presenter, a narration would have been sufficient, nor did we need to see endless clips of him sailing his boat.
The point some of us are trying to make, is that his connections must have helped him get a job in TV. I mean, come on, suddenly turning up in programmes presented by his father? As I said, it's the Dimbleby situation all over again. He got his whole family into his holiday programmes in the fifties.
Dan Snow has a First in Modern History from Balliol so he does know a bit about the subject. You would think he failed O Level History from some of the comments here.
It's not his knowledge that's the problem for me, so much as his 'out of my way, oiks' manner. So he has a First in History? That's hardly rare, and he's not an academic with a doctorate or a Chair. That puts him in the ranks of 'popular TV subject expert', along with Lucy Worsley, Neil Oliver, Bettany Hughes etc. Most of these 'populars' are successful because they are good at engaging the audience and have a lot of televisual charm. In my view, Dan Snow does not come across well on television and seems surprisingly lacking in humility and charm. I don't think the BBC would have looked at him twice if not for the Snow connection.
I can't comment on his grasp of train history, but I note that 1588 is pushing it on the 'Modern History' front, and he seems, remarkably, to be also an expert on the Celts and the Normans, not to mention the Terracotta Army. To my joy, he dropped out of the Heathrow Live programme at the last moment. Being condescended to on a subject I really do know about by Demigod Dan was more than I could bear to think about.
Nepotism is an ugly thing from an outsider's POV but when given the chance we'd probably do the same whatever the working circumstances. It's human nature.
It's not his knowledge that's the problem for me, so much as his 'out of my way, oiks' manner. So he has a First in History? That's hardly rare, and he's not an academic with a doctorate or a Chair. That puts him in the ranks of 'popular TV subject expert', along with Lucy Worsley, Neil Oliver, Bettany Hughes etc. Most of these 'populars' are successful because they are good at engaging the audience and have a lot of televisual charm. In my view, Dan Snow does not come across well on television and seems surprisingly lacking in humility and charm. I don't think the BBC would have looked at him twice if not for the Snow connection.
I can't comment on his grasp of train history, but I note that 1588 is pushing it on the 'Modern History' front, and he seems, remarkably, to be also an expert on the Celts and the Normans, not to mention the Terracotta Army. To my joy, he dropped out of the Heathrow Live programme at the last moment. Being condescended to on a subject I really do know about by Demigod Dan was more than I could bear to think about.
I would have thought the ability to communicate and 'good at engaging the audience and have a lot of televisual charm' are the most important qualities.
I don't see that having a degree in 'Modern' History is any problem.
I have never thought he was surprisingly lacking in humility and charm' but it is all a matter of opinion.
The point some of us are trying to make, is that his connections must have helped him get a job in TV. I mean, come on, suddenly turning up in programmes presented by his father? As I said, it's the Dimbleby situation all over again. He got his whole family into his holiday programmes in the fifties.
Just like that useless David Attenborough, who'd never have got anywhere without his family connections.
I rather enjoyed the series, despite the presence of all the usual suspects in TV historical documentaries these days - namely ropey dramatisations with actors, presenter on pointless location shoots, pseudo-scientific analysis of weaponry and five minutes of recapping at the start of ever episode.
I enjoyed it. I didn't realize the Isle of Wight was in such danger and didn't know it was a religious crusade sanctioned by the Pope.
I thought Anita Dobson's portrayal was good - didn't Queen Elisabeth have wooden teeth in the end? In any case if there were any real teeth left I bet they were in a bad way.
It was interesting to me that Sir Francis Drake had attacked Spanish shipping in Cadiz harbour previously and did a bit of pirating too. Having been to Cadiz I could picture it.
The differences between the ships and the crews and how all was organized was interesting too.
I even looked up the word Armada in my Spanish dictionary and learnt it means Fleet - all these years I never knew that......^_^
Comments
Portillo and who else?
Does Portillo actually have a job at the BBC or is he commissioned to do programmes that the BBC buy?
It's a great story and the new info was interesting but it would be far better done without the dramatisation and pointless sailing scenes. One hour would have been more than enough, three hours far too long.
I thought it actually added to the programme, but hey! each to their own
Meller and that loud woman (forgotten her name) are at least two others, probably more though. It's not always on TV you see people get radio spots as well.
I think there must be so many more talented TV historians or even potential TV historians out there. It wouldn't be too bad if he was just doing a voice-over, but if there's extensive footage of him on his modern yacht, then I would probably end up fast forwarding most of the programme!
So did I. I suppose he could have stood in a field, or in the studio instead.
He has honed his skills a bit. I found him calmer this time, less boyishly enthusiastic.
Elizabeth was indeed horrendous. And only 55 in 1588.
Sadly, he's a product of the historical endemic nepotism in the TV industry. His dad "worked him in" with his programmes before he branched out on his own. Dimbleby did it with his kids sixty years ago.
As I've mentioned before, when it comes to progress in a career, "pull is so much more effective than push."
I agree with you re the nepotism as I am unsure of how Dan Snow would have got the programmes he has without it. I always used to enjoy the programmes Peter Snow did though. Oh and don't get me started on David Dimbleby and Question Time, Another programme I should really enjoy but can only occasionally bear to watch because of DD's 'chairmanship'. Unfortunately the last one I tuned in to had David Starkey on as well. I somehow just about managed to endure it til the end. :eek:
Anyway, I am getting very off topic now. Back to the Armada.
BIB, so you don't think it's possible that the son became interested in history and so on because his dad worked in TV as a reporter? There are many other professions where father / daughter follows in the parent's footsteps.
Just as much as no son would do what dad did if he wasn't interested.
My point is that there are limited opportunities to get into that sort of job.
I don't think he's anything special, he had a distinct advantage over god knows how many other hopefuls who may be just as able or more so, but without the "connections," their chances are very slim.
It'd be hard to male a rickets of it with that sort of connection.
Oh hang on!
There's Chloe Madeley, isn't there?
I could just about stand Armada because Dan was heavily diluted by proper experts who used up a fair bit of screen time. Anita Dobson was a bit Horrible Histories crossed with Catherine Tate's Nana, and I do hope they were fake teeth.
Dan Snow has a First in Modern History from Balliol so he does know a bit about the subject. You would think he failed O Level History from some of the comments here.
I don't think anyone said he didn't have any knowledge of history, but that's beside the point.
The programme isn't "his," he is just the presenter. The information came from a number of authors of books who have studied this particular period of our history. We can't blame him for the level at which it was pitched. But I do find him rather bland.
It actually didn't need a presenter, a narration would have been sufficient, nor did we need to see endless clips of him sailing his boat.
The point some of us are trying to make, is that his connections must have helped him get a job in TV. I mean, come on, suddenly turning up in programmes presented by his father? As I said, it's the Dimbleby situation all over again. He got his whole family into his holiday programmes in the fifties.
It's not his knowledge that's the problem for me, so much as his 'out of my way, oiks' manner. So he has a First in History? That's hardly rare, and he's not an academic with a doctorate or a Chair. That puts him in the ranks of 'popular TV subject expert', along with Lucy Worsley, Neil Oliver, Bettany Hughes etc. Most of these 'populars' are successful because they are good at engaging the audience and have a lot of televisual charm. In my view, Dan Snow does not come across well on television and seems surprisingly lacking in humility and charm. I don't think the BBC would have looked at him twice if not for the Snow connection.
I can't comment on his grasp of train history, but I note that 1588 is pushing it on the 'Modern History' front, and he seems, remarkably, to be also an expert on the Celts and the Normans, not to mention the Terracotta Army. To my joy, he dropped out of the Heathrow Live programme at the last moment. Being condescended to on a subject I really do know about by Demigod Dan was more than I could bear to think about.
I would have thought the ability to communicate and 'good at engaging the audience and have a lot of televisual charm' are the most important qualities.
I don't see that having a degree in 'Modern' History is any problem.
I have never thought he was surprisingly lacking in humility and charm' but it is all a matter of opinion.
Nevertheless I enjoyed it.
He admitted to getting his job by "default."
I thought Anita Dobson's portrayal was good - didn't Queen Elisabeth have wooden teeth in the end? In any case if there were any real teeth left I bet they were in a bad way.
It was interesting to me that Sir Francis Drake had attacked Spanish shipping in Cadiz harbour previously and did a bit of pirating too. Having been to Cadiz I could picture it.
The differences between the ships and the crews and how all was organized was interesting too.
I even looked up the word Armada in my Spanish dictionary and learnt it means Fleet - all these years I never knew that......^_^