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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Agreed

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.

I didn't say that, that was Doghouse.

I saw that as a deliberate joke, a double bluff. We know he's musical, so it's conceivable he could have played it with some coaching. Just when you are thinking it might possibly be him they show it wasn't.

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!

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!!

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?

Well if you used the quote system there would be no confusion. No I agree, he wouldn't have chatted all that time and I doubt they filmed everything. There would be a lot of tedious and repetitive bolt tightening going on. The assembly would have been planned out, and the important points to make decided on in advance.

They aren't unnecessary concerns. This is a discussion about this show, not celebrity fronted documentaries in general (not that this show fits that genre). Usually in the TV forum people who discuss shows have actually watched them. You don't seem to think that's important.

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.

It seems you haven't watched Car SOS either, the other mechanics who work for/with Fuzz are regularly seen beavering away in the background, especially when the project is nearing the end.
The older chap, who works for Fuzz, Phil? has even sold an old Triumph Stag roof to Fuzz, so he's hardly hidden.

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

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.

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.

I'm sure that the producer could find enough interesting material for a 45-min programme then. 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.

Like what ?

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 ?