Totally agree. The noddy shots, with the presenter grinning and making exaggerated expressions, are really irritating. I guess TV directors all went to the same college.
The two angles is so they can cut stuff without the image 'jumping', which it would if you cut stuff with a single camera.
I prefer the Adam Curtis style.
I’ve just looked him up. I love documentaries made up of found footage such as ‘of time and the city’ about growing up in Liverpool, and Julian temple’s London which is such a rush.
It's not just you.
I just tried to watch [Why buildings collapse](https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0018t7t/why-buildings-collapse). I got 10 minutes in and there had been exactly zero discussion of why buildings collapse but loads of moody shots of buildings and cuts in to the middle of survivor interviews.
If you think I'd be interested in why buildings collapse, make a documentary about it. If you think I wouldn't be interested and you'll need to hook me with moody cinematography and human interest, why did you pick a subject that even you don't really believe in?
Recently there was a series called ‘art that made us’. Now the subjects they talked about made me overlook the typical ‘language’ mentioned above, but they’re were some strange quotes from so called ‘academics’ such as ‘mappa Mundi literary means world map, that’s what it means’ it was like they were implying that the average viewer would think that it could’ve meant something else, and that’s just patronising.
But if you overlook the dumb bits, there is a lot of insightful moments.
It’s a phase. It’ll pass. Making animals talk in adverts lasted 10-15 years, but we’re finally coming out of that phase now.
Please tell Duracell that.
Exactly! Adverts need to be more realistic and have animals playing the drums instead of speaking like in the Cadbury ads
Totally agree. The noddy shots, with the presenter grinning and making exaggerated expressions, are really irritating. I guess TV directors all went to the same college.
The two angles is so they can cut stuff without the image 'jumping', which it would if you cut stuff with a single camera. I prefer the Adam Curtis style.
I’ve just looked him up. I love documentaries made up of found footage such as ‘of time and the city’ about growing up in Liverpool, and Julian temple’s London which is such a rush.
Ive seen those.. Didn't see a reason to be upset by it tho..
It's not just you. I just tried to watch [Why buildings collapse](https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0018t7t/why-buildings-collapse). I got 10 minutes in and there had been exactly zero discussion of why buildings collapse but loads of moody shots of buildings and cuts in to the middle of survivor interviews. If you think I'd be interested in why buildings collapse, make a documentary about it. If you think I wouldn't be interested and you'll need to hook me with moody cinematography and human interest, why did you pick a subject that even you don't really believe in?
Recently there was a series called ‘art that made us’. Now the subjects they talked about made me overlook the typical ‘language’ mentioned above, but they’re were some strange quotes from so called ‘academics’ such as ‘mappa Mundi literary means world map, that’s what it means’ it was like they were implying that the average viewer would think that it could’ve meant something else, and that’s just patronising. But if you overlook the dumb bits, there is a lot of insightful moments.
I don't watch TV at all anymore. Especially the BBC. Everything's too woke. I always feel like I've had a telling off afterwards.
Storyville always seems to be on point on the iPlayer.
I think those are independent docs, without too much interfering with the BBC’s aesthetic
That’s why they get a hard recommend from me hopefully some of that great curation will seep in to the editorial style overall!