I suspect this will not be a popular suggestion but has Time Team finally run it's course? When it started the purpose seem to be to answer questions relating to local history from local residents with a presentation of findings to round it off. This no longer seems to be the format. Over recent years programs while of obvious accademic interest to my mind have drifted away and lost this relevent local appeal. The team continue to perform in a professional manner with their usual charm but the spark that made it must see tv is now missing.
There are many who would agree with you, then there are those who think "Any TT is good TT".
I agree that the "back garden" digs were often far more interesting than some of the excavations they now do on behalf of councils and archaeological societies.
It does seem to be rather predictable nowadays.
I would find it more interesting if on some of the more interesting and productive digs, they screened it over two or three episodes.
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
In many ways it is remarkable that Time Team is still going. Many other programmes have been quietly put to bed or rejigged and revamped, but with TT they are content to let it do what it does best, which is refreshing.
In some ways Time Team has evolved, and watching some old episodes on DVD shows this. I think they still reposnd to local requests , but have dropped the public showing at the end. From what they've said this was because it was difficult to get public display done at such short notice.
The 3 day format is an old chestnut. For some sites it would be useful, but for others they wil have achieved everything by day three. The success of TT I think shows they have it about right. Personally if a site is very interesting then perhaps a repeat visit to look at another aspect of a site, as they did with Turkdean, would be good.
The House Detectives was very popular when it was a half hour programme about an ordinary house. Then BBC2 execs thought they'd cash in on the popularlity by making one hour editions on big houses. The result was a drop in viewers. Bigger isn't necessarily better.
As a late convert to TT, I am still hooked on every show.
I am also convinced that there are many untouched parts of GB that could still be uncovered.
However may be now is the time to spread the old wings and look further afield.
How about Eire, which I guess could be of some interest or Italy (bring on the Romans)
The main problem is that other parts of the world have nowhere near enough history to investigate. This is why the Yanks love coming over here as there is so much to see.
We must try to encourage C4 to keep TT going as it is still gripping TV.
Like all TV series some episodes are better than others. The thing to consider is how good is the AVERAGE episode. In this context TT is very good. Some shows are excellent, most very good, some good and others (few) not so good.It is easy to become complacent on how good a programme TT is. I can guarantee it wouldn't take long for us to all be missing it if the plug was pulled. TT is the best programme on TV!!
Originally posted by snapperuk: I suspect this will not be a popular suggestion but has Time Team finally run it's course? When it started the purpose seem to be to answer questions relating to local history from local residents with a presentation of findings to round it off. This no longer seems to be the format. Over recent years programs while of obvious accademic interest to my mind have drifted away and lost this relevent local appeal. The team continue to perform in a professional manner with their usual charm but the spark that made it must see tv is now missing.
If CH4 dumbed down any more the programmes would be drawn in crayon,any Time Team is better than the dead eyed celebrity worship that U.K TV output has become...
My point was that lack of interest will mean C4 will have no choice but to axe TT. Advertising follows popular programs. Small audiences mean no income. I can imagine that the producers are already frantically scratching around for a site that does not focus in on yet another a piece of manky Roman pot or a dark splodge in the earth that signifies the site of an Anglo Saxon roundhouse. As I said these may be academically exciting and significant but must see tv they are not. I hate dumbed down tv and believe that there must always be somewhere to find good, informative programming, but this does not mean sticking endlessly with the same format. Nothing is forever and even children eventually tire of reading the same story over and over again. Watching repeated TT episodes on cable reminded me how new and refreshing it once was and how unfortunately predictable it has now become.
The prodcuers have indicated for the last couple of series that the ratings are pretty good still, so I don't think lack of interest will be the cause of moving on.
It is a bit different now that we are used to it, and comments on here reflects that as the viewers are now more knowledgeable than in the early days when we needed things explained to us more.
My husband, an academic, suffered a devastating brain haemorrhage in December 2006 and was critically ill for many weeks. Although he has suffered gross brain damage he has defied the doctors' dire prognosis and made a reasonable recovery, albeit with some disabilities. TT interests him and stimulates his brain, he looks forward to watching it. He would be very sorry if TT was no longer aired.
I'm not saying that I'd like to see the end of TT, just that it needs a fresh approach. I think the old spirit that gripped most of us was to be seen in today's repeats that included heated expert debate and general public interest. A too anal approach to the smallest detail and precious academic infighting as seen in other historic reconstruction's, may be entertaining in the short term but will quickly lose popular interest. I suspect that others like myself with a casual interest in the subject enjoy a more general over view of history and how it has an effect on today's world.
They need to keep it fresh and keep it local (to this country); the episodes they've done elsewhere had me switching off everytime. Even the "team" seem less enthused these days and that has, I'm certain, an effect which comes across to us, the viewers. Tony no longer tear-arses from one trench to another, waving his little hands with excitement, in fact he seems rarely to take them out of his pockets. Phil has become the Mr Grumpy on the end of a shovel, bleary eyed and caustic, barely understandable beyond the odd outburst - incidentally, just why are his fingernails so long? Mad Mick's multicoloured jumpers seem to have absented themselves and the general replacement, a staid and boring, khaki clad Francis, leaves us all yawning, awaiting the next pronouncement that it "Has to be ritual". Stewart continues to delight, wandering off for most of the show, returning two days later with a few sketches and an old map which answers all the questions without having lifted a sod, while at ground level we seem left with Brigid to lift the pace and the likes of Alice, Carenza, Katie etc, appear to have all left. The regulars who made the show enjoyable with their energy and excitement have aged in more than appearance and perhaps, like the programme itself, it's time for the team to move on? And yes, I'll keep watching till it finally lays down it's trowel.
Originally posted by greyrider: - incidentally, just why are his fingernails so long?.
Because he plays an acoustic guitar. Nails are better to pluck acoustic guitar strings than a plectrum. McCartney famously now sports an acrylic nail, which I can hardly see Phil doing
Ohhhh.....it'd be nice to think he'd play old rock, but then, at his age he's probably firmly entrenched in one particular field - likely need a shovel to get him to change to anything more up to date
I don't (obviously)know about the official time team site, but the unofficial time team site has had almost 39000 page hits (not visits, pages looked at)in approx two months.
There is a lot of following for this programme, so I don't think it would be very wise to end it just yet.
Originally posted by greyrider: Ohhhh.....it'd be nice to think he'd play old rock, but then, at his age he's probably firmly entrenched in one particular field - likely need a shovel to get him to change to anything more up to date
Not so much of the "at his age" you cheeky child. he's in his prime
A couple of seasons ago there seemed to be more episodes that "missed" than "hit", at least as far as I was concerned, and I thought about doing something else come TT time on Sunday evenings. But I found I was still drawn to the show and, other than Roman stuff (sorry, Guy) and prehistoric stuff (sorry, Francis) I still enjoy learning from TT.
Think that was the season filmed in foot and mouth year - and there was one period when Mick was quite seriously ill before they had worked out how to manage the show with others (though they still need two to replace Mick).
The show evolves - and while the TV people do script the character roles for the team, maybe that isn't done as strongly as at the beginning.
Time Team probably delivers to C4 one of the highest spending power audiences - although rather more discriminating in its spending than some programmes' audiences who must have more money than sense. How much does a Time team advertising slot go for, compared to C4's other programme.
BA mag have several interesting 'In View' articles on the format of archaeology in the media such as how to make the past 'interesting' to the general public (May/Jun '06, no.88), the watching habits of archaeology viewers and what formats they go for (May.Jun '07, no.94) and most recently weighing up how well the limited number of formats work, all the way from the ancient days of 'Animal, Vegetable, Mineral?' which worked well as a quiz all the way to TT as a 'story in the making' - "behind the scenes archaeology in action" and the 'how-to' demonstrations of experimental archaeology that has engaged the public for so long (Jan/Feb '08 no.98)
Anyway...(I'm not plugging, just pointing the way for informed background reading on the subject!!) I agree with warpo, if it 'aint broke don't fix it, maybe we are now just more informed. TTRevisited would be a good idea
I agree the old school TT format was much better than the current offering. It has a lot to do with the personnalities of the current team squad, or lack of it in some cases and the number of sites being offered up by impoverised local archaeologists. Who could replace Robin as a teller of historical background for instance. While the show cranks out presumably good earnings from repeats on cable and satelite channels then its worth making thank goodness.
Hi. I don't think it's time to move on at all. It's still the one and only and the current series has been a definite improvement on one or two recent series in terms of more good, fascinating digs. The Beeb were patting themselves on the back not long ago for inventing TV archeology, but what do they do now?
A postive suggestion is that they could have a 5 minute slot at the end of the show to revisit either the dig they just transmitted (on the basis it's usually at least 4-5 months old) or one from the previous series, to feature news on what happened to the site since, the finds, what EH, county arch. unit, etc, are doing about it, and someone like Stewart or Bridge talking for a minute or two about why that site interested them. That for me would compensate for the 3 days, "bish bosh", never go back frustration.
But since the sites are generally restored starting almost immediately the team leave, there wouldn't be much point in revisiting them. Yes, there are some sites that a part of a larger ongoing archaeological investigation, but to quote the FAQs:
"More usually, though, Time Team carries out 'one-off' digs, often on sites where funding is not available for other, longer excavations. Here the team takes whatever steps are necessary to protect any immoveable finds, infills the trenches and restores the site to as near as possible its original condition. Often people are amazed (and sometimes disappointed) to discover when visiting the site of a Time Team dig only a short while after it took place that there is no visible sign that it ever occurred. "
Yes, it would be interesting to know what happened to some of the finds but I would think that in the majority of cases they undergo the same (or similar) conservation processes and whilst once might be fascinating to watch, I should think that in itself would get repetitive!
I doubt many archaeology departments or clubs are just sitting around waiting for TT to find something iteresting so they can follow it up. If they investigated my back garden, I don't think I'd want gaping holes left open so other archaeologists could pop over for a look if their time permitted and TT could come back a few months later for a follow up!
If they investigated my back garden, I don't think I'd want gaping holes left open so other archaeologists could pop over for a look if their time permitted and TT could come back a few months later for a follow up! Smile
Thank you for your reply. I never said anything about leaving holes in the ground **anywhere**. Do you always put people down by misrepresenting what they say with an absurd example? I do know when I am being patronised from the hole in an expert's immaculately trimmed back lawn.
From a look at these boards, it is obvious no-one would be interested in any follow-up to the Shooter's Hill dig. Ogham scripts? Wheelhouses? To quote Tony R out of context, more "manky old stones". Brochs? Seen one, seen 'em all. Etc...
