Actually they had two separate production teams, one doing the live and the other with Tony doing the evening summary programme which is why Tony only made fleeting appearance on the More4 transmission. I wouldn't imagine they were too proud to use any good clips from the day later on - I've not done a 'close textual analysis yet'! hee, hee
During the days the cameos have also been particularly good because they were allowed to run on at length and didn't get chopped to bits or even totally axed as often happens in the normal TT run.
quote:
Originally posted by Tetricus: I've watched a bit on More4, between shopping and cutting the grass. It seems to consist mainly of them recording clips (several times) for tonight's programme.
Well, just one word about this weekends' Big Royal Dig... FANTASTIC!!!!
I've watched hours and hours and enjoyed every minute. No comments about the presenters from me, a multitude of sins can be forgiven for the sheer entertainment of the weekend.
I recorded the evening episodes if anybody wants a copy on DVD, yes, eventually got to grips with the DVD recorder!!
They scheduled two hours for Saturday night when it was just getting going and only one hour on the third night to thrash though the final results and conclusions - rushing round like demented nats to {not} get it all crammed in!
quote:
Originally posted by B@sil: I thought one hour was not long enough tonight to successfully bring the BRG to a conclusion, but that's a minor quibble. Thoroughly enjoyable.
So it'll be Tet with the dodgy DVDs in the back of the car, not Eileen?
I've really enjoyed what I've seen of this weekend's shows. Generally a much higher standard of presentation than I expected - it was almost like eavesdropping at times. I enjoyed Sarah Smith's presentation on More4 as she seemed to strike a sensible balance between enthusiasm and cool professionalism. Despite the fact I didn't like her much (I wanted to tie her arms to her sides! ) I almost felt sorry for the woman at Windsor with those uncooperative children! That really made me laugh!
Lol I saw that, her face towards the end was hilarious.
That aside. I thought the whole coverage has been fantastic. From watching the metal detectorists going through the spoil heaps, to the archaeologists uncovering floors and canal beds, I've loved it.
TT have worked with enough children in the past that they should know by now you have to give them the answers off camera immediately before the shot, and allocate someone to speak up or no-one will admit to knowing anything! I watched exactly the same thing happen on one of their digs earlier in the year, the difference was that it wasn't live & they could do 10 takes!
Not sure I was convinced that the whole floor of the Round Table building was covered with the same design of floor tile on the evidence of just one tile...
A report of the BRD hit the Australian airwaves today. They didn't mention Time Team specifically but did say a "team of archaeologists" would be conducting the excavations on the palaces and that it would be "produced for television".
To get this into a general news item on our State radio is a pretty amazing response to an archaeological event conducted half way around the globe!
Looking forward to catching up with the resultant footage. Asking the ABC to bump its usual programming for a few days so that the complete event is broadcast may may be stretching the friendship!
Originally posted by Pete: I was going to say the same thing:
They scheduled two hours for Saturday night when it was just getting going and only one hour on the third night to thrash though the final results and conclusions - rushing round like demented nats to {not} get it all crammed in!
quote:
Originally posted by B@sil: I thought one hour was not long enough tonight to successfully bring the BRG to a conclusion, but that's a minor quibble. Thoroughly enjoyable.
Agree, especially since I'd forgotton to record Sunday's programme so was trying to find out what had happened in the last two days.
Generally I thought the whole thing was really good and well done. Apart from a certain presenter at Windsor of course. I was disappointed that they didn't find the civil war defences, but that's archaeology for you, you are not guarateed to find what your looking for.
My other concern with the Windsor dig was about the function of the Round Table building. The two experts had strong views on Saturday, but as the result of a trench or two completely changed their minds and went with the written eveidence that had just been turned up. I suppose this is TV for you!
Overall all though good to see Time Team back on our screens.
Overall the BRD turned out to a worthwhile exercise, if I've any criticism it was a bit rushed, the production team at Holyrood need to sharpen up (all those late cues) and the less said about Tessa Dunlop the better. Certainly Holyrood and Windsor could've justified a TT by themselves, especially the discovery of the round table building and the speculation over its purpose. Were all early theatres circular? Was it derived from the Roman Ampitheatre and lead to Shakepeare's "wooden O"?
went with the written evidence that had just been turned up.
The written evidence turned up by Prof Carpenter related to the location of the Great Hall.
As to the Round Table structure, both Julian Munby and Richard Barber had all the written evidence beforehand and are thoroughly familiar with the historical context.
I presume that they decided to take opposing positions at the start to make the debate easier to follow. Scholars are prone to saying "Well it could be this, but then again it could be that." Having one person say "It could be this" and the other person say "It could be that" dramatises the debate. TT have used the technique before.
They came to conclusions at the end based on the structure that was uncovered.
I accept that you need to have two different views argued to get across a point and as you say it is a regular thing on Time Team. In this case it just seemed a little contrived, especially since they then said on Monday that written evidence about the Round Table building talked about performances, which I don't think was mentioned on Saturday. But I could easily be wrong and hadn't listened properly!
I agree, that bit was badly presented. One day they had opposing ideas and the next they had "invented" a compromise from somewhere with no real expanation.
I felt they had more or less flagged up that it was most likely a semi-open structure because of the difficulty of roofing a 200ft diameter building. To do so would have involved a number of rings of posts supporting either some huge conical roof or some complex concentric vaulting (and a real headache handling water run off). Such a novel concept would really have to have a seriously good reason to build.
It's novel enough as it is; Jean, do you know any models for the Round Table Hall that could have inspired the findings?
Nevertheless, I'm not sure if they were able to establish any evidence for the depth of the proposed colonade in the course of the dig.
What asurprise to see this special publicised ( I haven't been following events here like I used to)!
So, I'm playing 'catch-up' yet again. We had relatives dpown for the entire weekend, so I was only able to watch (the first half of) Tony's introduction programme on Friday.
But we have it all on tape - should take me most of NEXT weekend to work my way through four hours-worth, or so....
Originally posted by Bruce: But we have it all on tape - should take me most of NEXT weekend to work my way through four hours-worth, or so....
Was it any good? Or is that a silly question...?
So, Bruce, you don't have all 18hrs of the live on tape to catch up with?? and not a silly question... ...usual mix of guest presenters of very variable quality!
Monday that written evidence about the Round Table building talked about performances, which I don't think was mentioned on Saturday. But I could easily be wrong and hadn't listened properly!
I think you are right. Initially we were offered two possibilities: huge roofed structure for feasting v open structure for jousting. It emerged at the end of the dig that neither was really satisfactory. But the focus at the start was more on the puzzle of the roof. Until that was solved, they couldn't get a clear idea of function.
Once they had something on the ground to fit with the building accounts, they could be more confident in proposing an open-air theatre. This is so novel that I was staggered. But it is a very elegant solution.
) I almost felt sorry for the woman at Windsor with those uncooperative children! That really made me laugh! 
