On 14/02/2013 16:54, Sacha wrote:
On 2013-02-14 10:08:56 +0000, Granity said:
'Martin[_2_ Wrote:
;978163']On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:30:55 +0000, Janet Tweedy
wrote:
-
On 13/02/2013 10:57, David Hill wrote:-
This is now so far off topic an of little interest to all but a couple
of people, can't we let it die a death?-
still doesn't explain why they thought it was a Good Idea haeing yet
ANOTHER Chris Beardshaw appearance in a perfectly good gardening
programme. I shall now tape BG and skip his part...................-
LOL we will do the same.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
Reading through this thread I've come to the conclusion that most of you
only watch gardening programmes so that you can criticise . If the
presenter is not dressed like a scarecrow with mud and cow $hit on his
boots and doesn't speak with a broad local accent, preferably a northern
one, then he's/she's no good.
You are criticising Monty Don for being rude, you have no way of knowing
what the conversation between the two was immediately before the bit you
saw because it probably ended up on the cutting room floor. If you take
something out of context then it can sound rude, nice, stupid etc.
That's a problem with the editor/director not the presenter.
Since you all seem to know exactly how a gardening programme should be
presented, I'll issue a challenge. All of you get together for a weekend
and make a gardening programme and put it on U-Tube so the rest of us
can look at it and praise/criticise it and the presentation as required.
Don't you think the people who watch the programmes and actually do
garden, are those most qualified to criticise? Certainly, changes were
made to GW because so many people disliked the format of 3 or 4
presenters all pretending to be the best of friends in a shed. And when
plenty was said on here (and elsewhere) about the way Chelsea was being
turned into a celeb slot, that format altered for the better, too.
Of course, you may well be right that the problems start with the
editing and direction, much of which seems to be done by people who know
little about gardening and care less about the target audience! I think
there's a lot of truth in that and the 'talent' doesn't always get what
he or she wants. But if you take this to its conclusion, there would be
no art, theatre or literary critics, merely on the grounds that they're
not professionals. And the people making and fronting the programmes
are paid good salaries to do it, while we pay to watch (in most cases).
Surely the paying customer has a right to criticise a product that isn't
delivering what they think it should? I don't agree with ripping someone
to shreds for the sake of it but I think criticism that's constructive
is a good thing and can be effective.
But some people seem to forget that it isn't compulsory to watch.
If you don't like him change channel, I NEVER watch Top Gear and several
other progs because of their presenters and or the format of the progs.
But I find I can watch some progs and just blank out the presenter.