ROME ch 5 at 8pm

HotgossipHotgossip Posts: 22,385
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I love Larry Lamb and he's exploring the 3000 year old story of the rise of the Roman Empire.

Comments

  • BigOrangeBigOrange Posts: 59,653
    Forum Member
    Followed by Alex "Hotel inspector" Polizzi's Secret Italy.

    Nice little double for a Friday night.
  • StrakerStraker Posts: 79,567
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Have they commissioned "Youth Hostelling with Chris Eubank" yet?
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    On programmes about Rome why do they always have to spend 10 minutes walking about in the sewers ?
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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."
  • dosanjh1dosanjh1 Posts: 8,727
    Forum Member
    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.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dosanjh1 wrote: »
    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.
  • dosanjh1dosanjh1 Posts: 8,727
    Forum Member
    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.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dosanjh1 wrote: »
    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.
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    dosanjh1 wrote: »
    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.
  • dosanjh1dosanjh1 Posts: 8,727
    Forum Member
    SULLA wrote: »
    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
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,895
    Forum Member
    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. :D
  • elfcurryelfcurry Posts: 3,232
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,075
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hotgossip wrote: »
    I love Larry Lamb and he's exploring the 3000 year old story of the rise of the Roman Empire.

    Well, he should know all about it......he was there from the begininng. :)
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    elfcurry wrote: »
    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.

    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."
  • montyburns56montyburns56 Posts: 2,011
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    roger_50 wrote: »
    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. :D

    That must have been the inspiration for the Spartacus TV series then. :D
  • BryanandLucBryanandLuc Posts: 1,056
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    roger_50 wrote: »
    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. :D


    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
Sign In or Register to comment.