|
||||||||
The Reassembler - James May rebuilds old stuff on BBC Four |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#126 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 37,019
|
May's demeanour is television gold. He has such a relaxed, affable manner that he could read the phone book and produce an entertaining half-hour.
Agree with the consensus - These need to be 45-60 minutes next time. It'd cost them buttons to extend the running time as it requires no extra filming just a little longer in the edit suite. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#127 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 64,238
|
I think he is fabulous and there would definitely be mileage in some longer editions next time.
There are all too few programmes of this kind around these days. |
|
|
|
|
|
#128 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,519
|
James May is just brilliant! He used to piss Clarkson off big time when he started to explain the nuts'n'bolt of stuff on Top Gear!
I really hope he does another series of these; shame he couldn't have used a genuine Strat though .. Tokai and Squire don't really cut it with the purists! |
|
|
|
|
|
#129 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
|
It seemed to me that the only reason he used a Tokai was to explain the different screw and that he was lucky to have a suitable screwdriver and to show the clip about Japan being the pioneers of copies.
Still decent though. Hardly much of a change to a regular guitar in the overall scheme of things. If it was longer he could have shown the differences in different guitar types and some of the more odder designs. Also, I can't remember how long he said it took altogher (10hours?) but tuning it up from scratch would have taken an age to get the height and intonation right. Another point there could have been to explain string gauges and why you might want more or less height between the strings and frets. |
|
|
|
|
|
#130 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 134
|
I found the guitar episode a bit disappointing.
I had a first go at guitar maintenance and improvement recently and had my Strat in pieces. I basically reassembled it in a similar manner and the only really important part was setting the bridge and getting the intonation and action right. The programme basically gave the impression that screwing it all back together gets you a playable guitar when you have to spend a little time on getting it right. It would only have taken a couple of minutes and it's worth explaining a bit more about how it works as an instrument. The guitar he reassembled probably got a proper set up from the guy who helping him to 'play'. Don't get me wrong I like James May and the concept of the series but it just felt like lacklustre treatment of the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
#131 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,847
|
With these sort of programmes, the producers are of the opinion the "face in front of the camera" is as important as the actual content. The ratings prove they are right.
These people don't really need to have too much in-depth knowledge of the subject, but will appear to capable, due to the way the programme is assembled. Likewise, anything that the producer considers too technical, or though essential, might appear to be boring to the watching public, enough to make them change channels, will be omitted. So you'll always get what is considered an acceptable compromise. The "give away" is always in the credits. I don't watch this programme, but if you take Car S.O.S. which is presented by two people of whom one is seen to be doing the work, the credits list up to half a dozen mechanics who do the stuff you don't see. |
|
|
|
|
|
#132 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
|
Quote:
With these sort of programmes, the producers are of the opinion the "face in front of the camera" is as important as the actual content. The ratings prove they are right.
These people don't really need to have too much in-depth knowledge of the subject, but will appear to capable, due to the way the programme is assembled. Likewise, anything that the producer considers too technical, or though essential, might appear to be boring to the watching public, enough to make them change channels, will be omitted. You are being unfair to James May as he clearly does have an in depth knowledge of the subjects concerned. At least enough to understand the fundamental principles involved and be able to make historical asides about the device. This did not appear to be scripted. They basically left him to chat as he assembled the machines with two cameras to capture the "action". Quote:
So you'll always get what is considered an acceptable compromise.
The "give away" is always in the credits. I don't watch this programme, but if you take Car S.O.S. which is presented by two people of whom one is seen to be doing the work, the credits list up to half a dozen mechanics who do the stuff you don't see. |
|
|
|
|
|
#133 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,847
|
Quote:
James May frequently referred to the number of hours he had spent so far, so clearly in a 30 min programme we can't see everything and there was no pretence that we had. But the pace of what we did see was slow and deliberate, and the content technical. It wasn't as you appear to imagine it to be.
You are being unfair to James May as he clearly does have an in depth knowledge of the subjects concerned. At least enough to understand the fundamental principles involved and be able to make historical asides about the device. This did not appear to be scripted. They basically left him to chat as he assembled the machines with two cameras to capture the "action". Why do you pontificate about programmes you don't watch? You said at the beginning of the thread that you weren't watching this as May isn't your cup of tea. Why not watch an episode on iplayer? Only 30 minutes long. Then you can criticise it properly, because you will not have to assume what it contained. I really don't mind one way or another, what others think about programmes, you're welcome to any opinion on any programme, I mean how can it make any difference to me? This is an edited programme, or do you think it was "One take May?" I'm not saying he has no knowledge but they can make anyone seem like an expert in anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
#134 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 134
|
I think allafix is correct to say that the producer decides how technical the programme gets in the edit but James May is usually good on technical matters and he has a musical background so I was doubly disappointed,
My favourite technical presenter is Fred Dibnah and while he knew all about knocking down chimneys he was only an enthusiast when it came to his programmes on steam engines etc |
|
|
|
|
|
#135 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
|
I realise that the thing with him 'playing' the guitar was done for comic effect but given his musical background I'm surprised he can't play or learn something simple.
Him playing, even badly, Smoke on the Water would have been good. |
|
|
|
|
|
#136 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 134
|
Agreed
|
|
|
|
|
|
#137 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
|
Quote:
Tell me, why are you often concerned about what I think of things on the telly?
I really don't mind one way or another, what others think about programmes, you're welcome to any opinion on any programme, I mean how can it make any difference to me? This is an edited programme, or do you think it was "One take May?" I'm not saying he has no knowledge but they can make anyone seem like an expert in anything. You keep popping up in this thread talking about "this sort of programme" and why you don't watch them. Since you don't watch them, how can you possibly know what they are all like. This show in particular exhibits none of the traits you talk about. If it was someone like Len Goodman fronting it you might have a point. But it isn't and you don't. Of course it's edited, I never said it wasn't. However, as mistakes and problems in the assembly, as opposed to verbal fluffs, etc, are shown then editing is mainly down to time constraints, not showing May as an infallible expert. |
|
|
|
|
|
#138 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
|
Quote:
I think allafix is correct to say that the producer decides how technical the programme gets in the edit but James May is usually good on technical matters and he has a musical background so I was doubly disappointed,
My favourite technical presenter is Fred Dibnah and while he knew all about knocking down chimneys he was only an enthusiast when it came to his programmes on steam engines etc |
|
|
|
|
|
#139 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
|
Quote:
I realise that the thing with him 'playing' the guitar was done for comic effect but given his musical background I'm surprised he can't play or learn something simple.
Him playing, even badly, Smoke on the Water would have been good. |
|
|
|
|
|
#140 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 134
|
sorry - your posting was a bit confusing because of the two lots of posted text.
I doubt though that they let him chat for a solid 7 hours or even filmed all of it - the soundguy's arms would have fallen off! |
|
|
|
|
|
#141 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 134
|
This could be taken a step further by conspiracy nuts - we didn't see him do everything so maybe it was someone else. The BBC could be lying to us!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#142 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,847
|
Quote:
I'm not concerned at all. I only challenge you if you make some sweeping comment on the basis of no evidence whatsoever other than your own prejudgment. you are entitled to your opinion if it is informed. If you haven't watched a programme your opinion of it is uninformed.
You keep popping up in this thread talking about "this sort of programme" and why you don't watch them. Since you don't watch them, how can you possibly know what they are all like. This show in particular exhibits none of the traits you talk about. If it was someone like Len Goodman fronting it you might have a point. But it isn't and you don't. Of course it's edited, I never said it wasn't. However, as mistakes and problems in the assembly, as opposed to verbal fluffs, etc, are shown then editing is mainly down to time constraints, not showing May as an infallible expert. Most of my conversations have been with other contributors about the technical aspects of particular projects, which had nothing to do with you, or what May was doing. Let's move on. It's hardly important is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
#143 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
|
Quote:
sorry - your posting was a bit confusing because of the two lots of posted text.
I doubt though that they let him chat for a solid 7 hours or even filmed all of it - the soundguy's arms would have fallen off! |
|
|
|
|
|
#144 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
|
Quote:
Sorry, but I can't take your unnecessary concerns about my opinions seriously. You're just going to have to put up with them.
Most of my conversations have been with other contributors about the technical aspects of particular projects, which had nothing to do with you, or what May was doing. Let's move on. It's hardly important is it? The post I initially quoted was not a technical discussion. It was your critique of why "shows like this" aren't what they seem. Yet you frequently say on threads like this you don't watch such shows. So how do you form your opinion of them? We can move on when you accept your opinions on this show are assumptions, since you state you don't watch this show or others you assume it is like. |
|
|
|
|
|
#145 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,156
|
Quote:
With these sort of programmes, the producers are of the opinion the "face in front of the camera" is as important as the actual content. The ratings prove they are right.
These people don't really need to have too much in-depth knowledge of the subject, but will appear to capable, due to the way the programme is assembled. Likewise, anything that the producer considers too technical, or though essential, might appear to be boring to the watching public, enough to make them change channels, will be omitted. So you'll always get what is considered an acceptable compromise. The "give away" is always in the credits. I don't watch this programme, but if you take Car S.O.S. which is presented by two people of whom one is seen to be doing the work, the credits list up to half a dozen mechanics who do the stuff you don't see. The older chap, who works for Fuzz, Phil? has even sold an old Triumph Stag roof to Fuzz, so he's hardly hidden. |
|
|
|
|
|
#146 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 134
|
Digital devices can play havoc with the quote system... And yet I'm not sure I'd be interested in watching a show where James May reassembles a mobile phone.
For anyone interested in people looking at electronics there's a really good Youtube channel called Techmoan - a middle aged bloke from Wigan who likes HiFi, dash cams and exotic old tech - sounds dry or niche but he makes good videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5I...W9gZPVkvzM8_Cw EDIT - a case in point- I clicked reply with quote and it didn't work just now |
|
|
|
|
|
#147 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
|
Quote:
I found the guitar episode a bit disappointing.
I had a first go at guitar maintenance and improvement recently and had my Strat in pieces. I basically reassembled it in a similar manner and the only really important part was setting the bridge and getting the intonation and action right. The programme basically gave the impression that screwing it all back together gets you a playable guitar when you have to spend a little time on getting it right. It would only have taken a couple of minutes and it's worth explaining a bit more about how it works as an instrument. The guitar he reassembled probably got a proper set up from the guy who helping him to 'play'. Don't get me wrong I like James May and the concept of the series but it just felt like lacklustre treatment of the subject. And to add to an earlier discussion, James May is perfect as a presenter for this - he has the technical/engineering interest and background, he's a skilled presenter (i.e. not wooden), he draws people in, he's affable, very relaxed (and relaxing to listen to), and obviously interested in the item that he is reassembling. |
|
|
|
|
|
#148 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,462
|
Quote:
Again, a victim of the chosen length of the programme (and associated editing). Maybe a 40-min programme (as I suggested earlier) would have allowed more freedom to explain such details.
And to add to an earlier discussion, James May is perfect as a presenter for this - he has the technical/engineering interest and background, he's a skilled presenter (i.e. not wooden), he draws people in, he's affable, very relaxed (and relaxing to listen to), and obviously interested in the item that he is reassembling. It would go well in another BBC Four Goes Slow season. |
|
|
|
|
|
#149 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
|
Quote:
A 40 minute programme would not fit well into the schedule except on commercial channels where they could make up to an hour with twenty minutes of adverts.
It would go well in another BBC Four Goes Slow season. That would fit the schedules. Although on BBC Four, they shouldn't be too tied to schedule points as they can (and often do) fill out the odd 5 or 10 mins with a themed extract from a music programme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#150 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,546
|
Quote:
I'm sure that the producer could find enough interesting material for a 45-min programme then.
.The show has already covered, electronics, engines, and a musical instrument. All things that James has an interest in. Before long the show would start repeating itself. I'd love to see, e.g. a grand piano, snooker table , jet engine assembled, but has James the skill or inclination to do it ? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:55.




That would fit the schedules. Although on BBC Four, they shouldn't be too tied to schedule points as they can (and often do) fill out the odd 5 or 10 mins with a themed extract from a music programme.