On 2/6/05 0:52, in article , "Janet
Baraclough" wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these words:


My daughter in law braved the crowds - her first visit and she *loved* it,
so I'll ask her if she happened to spot it. I'm sure it would have been
mentioned, though.

Did anyone else think the BBC's TV coverage of Chelsea was dire,
again? Why won't they show us the actual show, in detail?

We don't have digital TV, which is the only place they offered "a tour
of each garden". For those of us paying full license whack for analogue
alone, over six days we saw the same bit of the same garden over and
over again ( a spiral path), some outdoor rooms apparently without
plants, a load of non-garden guff from Jenny Bond and the endless
excruciating talking-heads adolescent shoving and pushing between
Charlie and Diarmuid, or Diarmuid and Alan, with leaden repartee. YAWN.
Plus the usual whirl of computer graphics, silly angles, out of focus
plants without names, etc :-(


Dire is the word. It was awful - again. We were heartily sick of the
'personality puffing' that went on, day in, day out. Chelsea Flower Show
is about plants, gardens and those who design the gardens, to some extent.
It is NOT about Alan Titchmarsh and Diarmuid Gavin, Jennie Bond and Rachel
de Thame. And yet again, no names of plants on the screen most of the time.
Why can't the BBC employ someone who knows about gardening to direct
gardening programmes? If they did, they would realise that passionate
gardeners want to know what the name of a plant IS, so that they can find it
or discuss it with those who have it!
We ended up literally shouting at the television when we saw yet another
carefully staged bout of 'spontaneous' repartee, wit and bitching between AT
and DG.
I happen to think that, left to himself, AT is a good TV presenter and would
greatly prefer that he IS left to himself to show us the heart of the whole
matter, which is the Chelsea Flower Show!
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

In article , Sacha
wrote:

On 2/6/05 0:52, in article , "Janet
Baraclough" wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these words:


My daughter in law braved the crowds - her first visit and she *loved* it,
so I'll ask her if she happened to spot it. I'm sure it would have been
mentioned, though.

Did anyone else think the BBC's TV coverage of Chelsea was dire,
again? Why won't they show us the actual show, in detail?

We don't have digital TV, which is the only place they offered "a tour
of each garden". For those of us paying full license whack for analogue
alone, over six days we saw the same bit of the same garden over and
over again ( a spiral path), some outdoor rooms apparently without
plants, a load of non-garden guff from Jenny Bond and the endless
excruciating talking-heads adolescent shoving and pushing between
Charlie and Diarmuid, or Diarmuid and Alan, with leaden repartee. YAWN.
Plus the usual whirl of computer graphics, silly angles, out of focus
plants without names, etc :-(


Dire is the word. It was awful - again. We were heartily sick of the
'personality puffing' that went on, day in, day out. Chelsea Flower Show
is about plants, gardens and those who design the gardens, to some extent.
It is NOT about Alan Titchmarsh and Diarmuid Gavin, Jennie Bond and Rachel
de Thame. And yet again, no names of plants on the screen most of the time.
Why can't the BBC employ someone who knows about gardening to direct
gardening programmes? If they did, they would realise that passionate
gardeners want to know what the name of a plant IS, so that they can find it
or discuss it with those who have it! (snip)

It has certainly been dumbed down to boost the prime time audiences but
in terms of the gardening universe, that might help to attract new
recruits to the hobby. But Diarmuid Gavin is so ill at ease, so
unnatural and so unintelligible that many would switch off I guess.

But technically I thought the coverage was much superior to last
year's, with better editing, better transitions and better handovers.
The traditional Chelsea trick of having a presenter momentarily static
before walking into shot on cue was thankfully hard to spot this time.

Stan The Man wrote:
In article , Sacha
wrote:

On 2/6/05 0:52, in article
,
"Janet Baraclough" wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these
words:


My daughter in law braved the crowds - her first visit and she
*loved* it, so I'll ask her if she happened to spot it. I'm
sure
it would have been mentioned, though.

Did anyone else think the BBC's TV coverage of Chelsea was dire,
again? Why won't they show us the actual show, in detail?

We don't have digital TV, which is the only place they offered "a
tour of each garden". For those of us paying full license whack
for
analogue alone, over six days we saw the same bit of the same
garden over and over again ( a spiral path), some outdoor rooms
apparently without plants, a load of non-garden guff from Jenny
Bond and the endless excruciating talking-heads adolescent
shoving
and pushing between Charlie and Diarmuid, or Diarmuid and Alan,
with leaden repartee. YAWN. Plus the usual whirl of computer
graphics, silly angles, out of focus plants without names, etc
:-(


Dire is the word. It was awful - again. We were heartily sick of
the 'personality puffing' that went on, day in, day out. Chelsea
Flower Show is about plants, gardens and those who design the
gardens, to some extent. It is NOT about Alan Titchmarsh and
Diarmuid Gavin, Jennie Bond and Rachel de Thame. And yet again,
no
names of plants on the screen most of the time. Why can't the BBC
employ someone who knows about gardening to direct gardening
programmes? If they did, they would realise that passionate
gardeners want to know what the name of a plant IS, so that they
can
find it or discuss it with those who have it! (snip)

It has certainly been dumbed down to boost the prime time audiences
but in terms of the gardening universe, that might help to attract
new
recruits to the hobby. But Diarmuid Gavin is so ill at ease, so
unnatural and so unintelligible that many would switch off I guess.

But technically I thought the coverage was much superior to last
year's, with better editing, better transitions and better
handovers.
The traditional Chelsea trick of having a presenter momentarily
static
before walking into shot on cue was thankfully hard to spot this
time.

Strange, though, this perpetual telly misconception that we are more
interested in people than in the subject-matter. I mean, what was the
point of pouring a few drinks into Terry Wogan and then getting him
to tell us he wasn't remotely interested in gardening? (In fact, what
on earth was he even _doing_ at the show?) Yes, Titchmarsh on his own
would have done it better -- loved his royal gardens, for example.
They treat sport with much more concentration and respect: I suppose
gardening is done by the "lifestyle" department, where evanescent
fluff is the aim. Maybe they should hand it over to a natural history
team, or even the sports crowd, who are actually interested in their
subjects.

--
Mike.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in
:


Strange, though, this perpetual telly misconception that we are more
interested in people than in the subject-matter. I mean, what was the
point of pouring a few drinks into Terry Wogan and then getting him
to tell us he wasn't remotely interested in gardening? (In fact, what
on earth was he even _doing_ at the show?) Yes, Titchmarsh on his own
would have done it better -- loved his royal gardens, for example.
They treat sport with much more concentration and respect: I suppose
gardening is done by the "lifestyle" department, where evanescent
fluff is the aim. Maybe they should hand it over to a natural history
team, or even the sports crowd, who are actually interested in their
subjects.

For those who wish to view,

http://www.rhs.org.uk/chelsea/2005/index.asp

has panoramas of each garden, and a full plant list.

The plant lists are not illustrated, but otherwise this idea seems sound,
and has the merit that they are also printable.


Victoria
--
gardening on a north-facing hill
in South-East Cornwall
--

Janet wrote after Victoria typed these words:


For those who wish to view,

http://www.rhs.org.uk/chelsea/2005/index.asp

has panoramas of each garden, and a full plant list.

The plant lists are not illustrated, but otherwise this idea seems sound,
and has the merit that they are also printable.

Thanks. but it doesn't change the point. The BBC provided two Chelsea
slots daily for a week, and all too obviously couldn't think how the
hell to fill in the time; while gardeners up and down the country just
wanted a camera to point at the gardens, plants, displays, etc, in
focus, for a decent length of time, *without* a musical background, and
*with*a voice-over or caption of plant names.

If you're reading this, BBC researchers, , we don't need or want to
see a presenter. Just pick one who hasn't got a speech impediment, is
interested in plants, and let them do a voiceover while the camera
points at gardens, plants, displays etc. How hard is that?


Yes and it would be a lot cheaper with no "celebrities" cluttering up the
screen wasting valuable time.

When we used to visit Chelsea every year we always made straight for the
marquee to see the plants, then wiz through the trade stands, and only
afterwards did we try to see the gardens if we felt like it and had the
time. Often we didn't bother, no relevance to us at all, academic interest
only.
So these Chelsea TV shows really get me down because they have their
priorities totally the other way around. Presumably to keep the interest of
the great unwashed who seem only interested in celebrities(?) and pretty
pictures judging by some magazines I've seen in the wife's hairdressers.

Perhaps we could have just one Chelsea program each year for
gardeners/plants people, and like you say, few faces except those of the
growers, just a voiceover where needed, lots of plants and Latin names on
everything. In depth plants.
If they insist on a celebrity then Roy Lancaster as the voice perhaps?

Dream on Bob!

--
Regards
Bob
In Runnymede, 17 miles West of London

Just a couple of belated words about Chelsea this year.

Firstly, it was much less crowded and you could get nearer to the
gardens without being hassled as much as in previous years (we went on
the Wednesday).

Secondly, as for the dire TV coverage, I have to agree it wasn't as
good as in previous years.

Does anyone know which garden didn't get a medal? Alan Titchmarsh
referred to this on screen but I don't know if he said which
particular garden it was.

Also, Fleming's Australian garden, to me, wasn't that impressive when
I saw it on TV but when I saw the actual garden I realised it was
absolutely amazing and that the TV coverage had spent too long
concentrating on the waterfall and the patio chairs and not enough
time on the planting, which complemented the hard landscaping
wonderfully.

Glenda

--
10 Years! Coronation Street Weekly Updates for th'Internet
http://www.corrieweeklyupdates.btinternet.co.uk

"Janet Baraclough" wrote
snipped
If you're reading this, BBC researchers, .........
Janet

We ALWAYS go on about how bad the BBC gardening programs are (Ground Force -
GW - Chelsea)
They are iether NOT listening or they don't give a monkeys what viewers think!
Jenny

On 2/6/05 17:44, in article , "Bob Hobden"
wrote:


Janet wrote after Victoria typed these words:


For those who wish to view,

http://www.rhs.org.uk/chelsea/2005/index.asp

has panoramas of each garden, and a full plant list.

The plant lists are not illustrated, but otherwise this idea seems sound,
and has the merit that they are also printable.

Thanks. but it doesn't change the point. The BBC provided two Chelsea
slots daily for a week, and all too obviously couldn't think how the
hell to fill in the time; while gardeners up and down the country just
wanted a camera to point at the gardens, plants, displays, etc, in
focus, for a decent length of time, *without* a musical background, and
*with*a voice-over or caption of plant names.

If you're reading this, BBC researchers, , we don't need or want to
see a presenter. Just pick one who hasn't got a speech impediment, is
interested in plants, and let them do a voiceover while the camera
points at gardens, plants, displays etc. How hard is that?


Yes and it would be a lot cheaper with no "celebrities" cluttering up the
screen wasting valuable time.

I think those celebs are under contract and probably get no extra pay.

snip
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:18:39 +0000 (UTC), Glenda
wrote:

Does anyone know which garden didn't get a medal? Alan Titchmarsh
referred to this on screen but I don't know if he said which
particular garden it was.

I've been wondering about this too. Felt sorry for the only one not to
get a medal at all!

Pam in Bristol

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:29:25 +0100, Janet Baraclough wrote:

If you're reading this, BBC researchers, , we don't need or want to
see a presenter. Just pick one who hasn't got a speech impediment,
is interested in plants, and let them do a voiceover while the
camera points at gardens, plants, displays etc. How hard is that?

Not hard at all but does require someone to actually work... You don't
have to do much real work to put a drunken irishman who knows a little
bit about plants in front of a camera.

You do if you want shots of plants and the correctly spelled common
and latin names on screen at the same time, doubly so if you don't
know one plant from the next.

I suggest that people visit and follow up their concerns via the
following link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint.shtml

or use one of the other methods listed on:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

The noise created by the recent changes to the weather forecasts has
been noticed, although not much has actually been done in response.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On 2/6/05 11:58 pm, in article ,
"Janet Baraclough" wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these words:


I think those celebs are under contract and probably get no extra pay.

Dream on Sacha :-)

Janet.

That's one of the reasons two wildly unsuitable actors (Physically, that is)
were used in Down To Earth. They're under contract to the Beeb and so have
to be 'used'.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from Victoria Clare contains these words:


For those who wish to view,

http://www.rhs.org.uk/chelsea/2005/index.asp

has panoramas of each garden, and a full plant list.

The plant lists are not illustrated, but otherwise this idea seems sound,
and has the merit that they are also printable.

Thanks. but it doesn't change the point. The BBC provided two Chelsea
slots daily for a week, and all too obviously couldn't think how the
hell to fill in the time; while gardeners up and down the country just
wanted a camera to point at the gardens, plants, displays, etc, in
focus, for a decent length of time, *without* a musical background, and
*with*a voice-over or caption of plant names.

If you're reading this, BBC researchers, , we don't need or want to
see a presenter. Just pick one who hasn't got a speech impediment, is

I am a DG fan but I do agree that his chelsea stuff was shite.
It simply did not work.
However, what you refer to as a speech impediment is the way working class
Irish people often speak. It is no more a speech impediment than a cockney
saying lovely motor and not pronouncing the t or a glaswegian saying hey
yeeuuugh jimmy or a Surbiton Tory saying "car" and not pronouncing the r.
That was how I spoke until I was 6 and a posh aunt freaked and beat it out
of me. Irish people have been pronouncing dere "th"s like dat for tree
hundred years. Big deal.


interested in plants, and let them do a voiceover while the camera
points at gardens, plants, displays etc. How hard is that?

Janet

Janet.

Glenda wrote in message
...

Also, Fleming's Australian garden, to me, wasn't that impressive when
I saw it on TV but when I saw the actual garden I realised it was
absolutely amazing and that the TV coverage had spent too long
concentrating on the waterfall and the patio chairs and not enough
time on the planting, which complemented the hard landscaping
wonderfully.

Glenda

--
10 Years! Coronation Street Weekly Updates for th'Internet
http://www.corrieweeklyupdates.btinternet.co.uk

I believe this is the garden - with pool - that I deeply disapproved of.
The pool was also intended to be used as a swimming pool. It was also
expressly filled with inky black water so you couldn't see how shallow the
pool was. Am I the only person who thought this was lethal? A pool that
looks deeper than it is ... a swimmer who dives in, counting on that
apparent depth ... this is a perfect receipe for a broken neck or back.
What do others think?

Spider

On 4/6/05 15:39, in article , "Spider"
wrote:


Glenda wrote in message
...

Also, Fleming's Australian garden, to me, wasn't that impressive when
I saw it on TV but when I saw the actual garden I realised it was
absolutely amazing and that the TV coverage had spent too long
concentrating on the waterfall and the patio chairs and not enough
time on the planting, which complemented the hard landscaping
wonderfully.

Glenda

--
10 Years! Coronation Street Weekly Updates for th'Internet
http://www.corrieweeklyupdates.btinternet.co.uk

I believe this is the garden - with pool - that I deeply disapproved of.
The pool was also intended to be used as a swimming pool. It was also
expressly filled with inky black water so you couldn't see how shallow the
pool was. Am I the only person who thought this was lethal? A pool that
looks deeper than it is ... a swimmer who dives in, counting on that
apparent depth ... this is a perfect receipe for a broken neck or back.
What do others think?

While I take your point, but speaking as one who grew up on an island, the
first rule of diving is don't unless and until you know the depth of the
water and what is beneath it! What I thought was the most utter rubbish
that verged on the insulting, was all that fatuous 'teasing' stuff about
someone cramming himself into a wet suit and the camera play on his supposed
six pack or firkin or it is. I hope the director got a thrill out of it -
we were even further incensed by this waste of our licence money.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Sacha wrote:
[...]
While I take your point, but speaking as one who grew up on an
island, the first rule of diving is don't unless and until you know
the depth of the water and what is beneath it!

A friend's brother long ago accidentally killed himself by diving off
Carmarthen Bridge. At that spot, I've actually seen somebody wade
across at low tide: I was working for the local newspaper group at
the time, but we suppressed the information in case some other clot
decided to imitate. (You see? The drunken hacks can be responsible
citizens!)

What I thought was
the most utter rubbish that verged on the insulting, was all that
fatuous 'teasing' stuff about someone cramming himself into a wet
suit and the camera play on his supposed six pack or firkin or it
is.
I hope the director got a thrill out of it - we were even further
incensed by this waste of our licence money.

I was furious! I could have bitten a horseshoe nail in half, as an
uncle used to say. That didn't _verge_ on the insulting: it was a
punch in the bloody face. As I said the other day, they treat sport
with more respect. At the beginning they suggested, or maybe even
said in so many words, that this was the something like the
horticultural equivalent of the World Cup; and that's true -- so why
not treat it that way?

--
Mike.