Register with us or sign in
There are 4 presenters, each one tackiling a different aspect of gardening.None of them are on screen for very long.We each have our own preferences but if we like gardening, we'll watch them all.
They have to have someone with a big garden ( and GH and AT both had "rolling acres" to play with, GH even bought extra land) so that different aspects of gardening can be covered.How much mileage would you get if the presenter had a small urban plot? The programme is much better when it comes from a presenter's garden, they have ownership and care about the resultant effect.That's one reason Toby couldn't continue, his garden isn't big enough.
Personally I love CK, think JS is a good designer and knows about city gardenuing,RdT is fine, wafting around gardens and she does know about plants and although I personally can't stand MD he's doing a reasonable job.
Dove from above, "remarks about her appearance and manner because she is female..."? I am female too and it is nothing to do with her appearance. I don't like her manner because it sometimes seems exagerrated enthusiasm and that would put me off what she was saying whether she was male or female. And it is because I love gardening that I bother about what presenters we have. Because, as human beings, we will be affected by who is presenting what. And Gardeners World is the only choice we have as gardeners now. It was much better when there was a variety of gardening programmes on, then it didn't matter so much. ( This might be a whole other thread, but part of the reason why I like Monty Don is he has had mental health problems, i.e. depression, quite badly and he often cites gardening as being his therapy. He is not ashamed of this and it does a lot for other people, including myself, who have had depression. Gardening is one of the best therapies available. It really helps me when there is someone I can identify with who is not ashamed of their past.
Oh, "sotongeoff", thanks for the tip about Beechgrove Gardens. I just found this on Youtube and love it.
andrea3 wrote (see)
...this might be a whole other thread, but part of the reason why I like Monty Don ...
...this might be a whole other thread, but part of the reason why I like Monty Don ...
I really agree that Monty is a more rounded character, and I think that this is relevant to how we see a presenter, and relate to them. Fortunately I don't have the same problems as Monty had, but I can still see many other dimensions in the man, which are all highly relevant, IMO.Some people criticise Monty because he's not a trained horticulturalist. He has a degree in literature. But this is the whole point. Gardening is not just about raising plants. Many presenters are plantsmen/women and nothing more. For me, that's woefully inadequate.
<span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; background-color: #eeeeee;">"And as for GW - that's why there are several presenters, each playing to their strengths - the snide comments about Monty Don's 'acre's smack of nothing short of jealousy to me."
<span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; background-color: #eeeeee;">To Dovefromabove
<span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; background-color: #eeeeee;">I was NOT making snide comments about Monty Don. I was just saying who I preffered as a presenter. I am also not jealous of Monty's garden - I would just like to see more for people with tiny gardens like me. I like Gardener's World and my Sky box is set to record the whole series in case I don't get to see it on Fridays.
Kathy- you seemed to have copied and pasted which for some reason doesn't work on this site-far better to use the quote option when replying to comments.
Thanks sotongeoff, I wondered why it did that. It was OK before I pressed the submit button
With no preview option or edit facilty this is getting to be a pain
Dove from above, "remarks about her appearance and manner because she is female..."? I am female too and it is nothing to do with her appearance. ....." But her smile and enthusiastic gestures are part of her appearance aren't they? And it is not just men but also women who criticise women for their appearance. Look at the sort of criticism female newsreaders/interviewers still get - it's never about technical stuff or their knowledge of their subject, it's about their appearance/manner. It's such a shame when we can't see past little personal prejudices to get the information we want. And when did we ever have 'a variety of gardening programmes'? And I was not referring specifically to any post on this thread - rather I was referring to the ongoing unpleasant targetting of Monty Don as presenter of Gardeners World that seem to have migrated here from the BBC Gardening Messageboard.
Dove from above, "remarks about her appearance and manner because she is female..."? I am female too and it is nothing to do with her appearance. ....."
But her smile and enthusiastic gestures are part of her appearance aren't they? And it is not just men but also women who criticise women for their appearance. Look at the sort of criticism female newsreaders/interviewers still get - it's never about technical stuff or their knowledge of their subject, it's about their appearance/manner.
It's such a shame when we can't see past little personal prejudices to get the information we want.
And when did we ever have 'a variety of gardening programmes'?
And I was not referring specifically to any post on this thread - rather I was referring to the ongoing unpleasant targetting of Monty Don as presenter of Gardeners World that seem to have migrated here from the BBC Gardening Messageboard.
Years ago we had a few choices of programmes because channel 4 used to run a show that was narrated by Hannah Gordon but the features were presented by RHS gardeners from the various RHS gardens round the country. That was a very good show as all the gardeners were experts in their fields (excuse the pun!) i.e. one did fruit, another did pruning etc. There were also programmes by people like Geoffrey Smith and Stefan Buszaski on occasionally. I think that we don't get enough gardening progs because it's seen as something 'older' people do which is blatantly untrue (I've been gardening since I was 20)but TV producers are all so young these days that they don't have the quality of life experience necessary to know what's what in terms of the kinds of programming people really want. This is why we have wall to wall so-called 'reality' TV. They don't have the imagination to give us anything else. I don't know why they can't repeat some of the old shows that were around 15-20 years ago after all they repeat everything else ad infinitum
I find Beechgrove far more informative than GW more so with the test's they are doing this year on peat free compost and different containers to grow tomatoes, each to their own what !
I remember that wonderful series on plant discoveries by the late and adored Geoffrey Smith - OH knows that Mr Smith was his only rival
I think that the editing and feature requirements of producing a mere 30 minutes to show once a week is likely a problem. If you took each presenter that ever was and could allow them enough time in their area of expertise to really cover each subject or task to the level they personally felt did it in-depth justice - you would probably have the type of programme with content which would satisfy everyone. I think sometimes it must be impossible for the presenters to give what they want when everything will have to be edited down to cram as much into 30 minutes as is possible. I'll bet a lot of really good stuff which all viewers would love ends up 'on the cutting room floor' purely due to the time/editing constraints. It may be that the subject matter is whittled down in the editing choice and much of what we would love to see just doesn't get to the screen. It was maybe there at time of filming but gets chopped out to fit the number of subjects which 'have' to be covered in the programme.
It can't be much fun for the entire GW team to be restricted to a 30-minute slot. It's probably the main reason why when the presenters are given longer slots on other programmes, that we find the content more pleasing - because there's more time alloted for the presenters to really spend time on the plants and detailed gardening procedures they love to get stuck into. I suspect they are all well aware of the limitations and are likely frustrated as much as viewers that they can't just give what we all would like to see. I'm sure they would if they had the chance.
The only thing about the programme which frustrates me is when a presenter is introducing a plant and talking about it's habits, how to care for etc - but the camera quickly pans away as they are talking - and the full name of the plant is only only the screen for a few seconds. Maybe it's just me being slow - but if I'm taken with a plant a presenter is talking about - I really struggle to write down the name before it's gone from the screen. I don't have a recorder to tape the programme and I know the programme can be seen on the website for a while. But I don't always manage to do that. It's a bit like watching Chelsea on the tv - the camera pans round or focusses on one aspect of a garden and more time on the presenters talking so that you don't get a good look at the plants.
Sigh - time is money in the media and marketing and sponsorship world.
I like all of the presenters when they are given a decent amount of time to cover a subject. Sadly 30 minutes often cuts both presenters and guest garden/gardeners off just when you are really beginning to appreciate and become interested in the plants or topics they are giving you a taste of. I'm sure they'd prefer to be in a position to give more of what everyone would love to see.
Am I the only one to be infuriated by the words 'still to come...'? Not just on GW, even news bulletins on both tv and radio do it. When there's a mere 30-minute slot and lots of editting to do, why do the producers think we need a summary and preview at the beginning of the show and a reminder half way through of what we haven't seen yet? Do they really think our attention span is so short that they can't keep us watching with real gardening stuff? So much programme time is wasted on previews and silly cammera tricks. I've been watching some Geoff Hamilton dvds; there was so much more substance in the programmes. It doesn't matter who the presenters are if the producers (or whoever) don't let them get on with it.
Then you are not going to like the AT programme next week-there will be plenty of "in tonight's programme","coming up later""still to come" and a definite"after the break" accompanied by after the break a summary of what you saw before the break in case you can't remember what happened in the previous 15 minutes
Also some very annoying music.
You have been warned
Presenters can make or break a programme. I stopped watching GW when TB and AF were doing it. They were SOOO...patronising. CK and RdT has the same effect, over the top enthusaism and rdt is good eye candy I suppose, being an ex model!! i can relate to MD as he is so down to earth and self effasing, none of this "look at me, here I am as potrayed by Chris Peckham(boy, he has spoilt my enjoyment of Springwatch) Expert is fine, but they are not GOD!
I like the "still to come" as I like to be reminded what is coming up. It's not that we can't remember, it's just nice to have a reminder, especially if you have to do things during the programme and you can time what are the important things to watch, or whether it is worth going on iplayer to watch it.
I detest the Still to Come in all TV programmes. I am not stupid, I do not have the attention span of a two year old and I like the all too short 30 minutes of GW to be full of gardening, not such inane time wasting.
The "still to come" take about 30 seconds, usually. I'm not stupid either and my attention span isn't that small. They must put it there for a reason, they wouldn't put it there because they think everyone is stupid. It's no big deal, is it?
Yes they do. There is a constant and persistent dumbing down of TV content across all channels and it comes largely from the fact that the producers are increasingly young and have come through "media studies". They think reality TV and sound bites are all we can manage these days. There is very little intellectual rigiour in programming content. Even science on the Beeb is being dumbed down with programmes like Bang goes the theory.
It's boring, repetititive and unimaginative and an insult to their audiences.