By: snafu352
- 16th September 2015 at 11:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are spot on. Talk about 'arslikhan'
Stephen Bungay or James Holland would have been a much better choice for presenter rather than the dreary and repetitive O'Dreary.
Err.. Holland was there for much of the program and to call O'Leary dreary then mention Bungay rather suggests you either are the latter or are at least related to him! His book wasn't as good as most seem to think either. Too many contradictions and inconsistencies. Have you heard what he has to say about Dresden btw? I doubt you'll think too highly of that.
Did you actually watch the program?
By: John Green
- 16th September 2015 at 12:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, he was there but, he wasn't the presenter. Holland and Bungay have a 'gravitas' lacking in O'Dreary. O'Dreary was lightweight and appeared to almost run out of comments and questions. Most of to-days general purpose presenters, seem to be big on 'feelings' and not much else.
I presume you're referring to Bungay's "The Most Dangerous Enemy?" You'd be hard put to find better.
By: snafu352
- 16th September 2015 at 12:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Gravitas" of the Bungay type would have had the general public turning off in droves. The program wasn't just for you and our ilk John.
Don't disagree about the feelings bit though.
Yes I am referring to that book, read it twice as for the life of me I can't see what additional insight it brought to the subject, as many hyped. In fact I bought the book based on the hyped reviews. It also, as I already noted, contradicted itself on a number of occasions and had all sorts of other inconsistencies. My conclusion in the end was that those who were praising the work simply didn't know as much as they would probably represent themselves as knowing thus the "additional insight" to those who had a clue wasn't really additional at all.
It's not a bad book but it isn't the revelatory work some represent it as.
By: John Green
- 16th September 2015 at 13:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do admit to being quite strongly prejudiced towards James Holland and Stephen Bungay. Bungay in particular is in the mould of the late A.J.P Taylor, Richard Holmes and David Starkey. All of them quite outstanding TV historians.
By: Moggy C
- 16th September 2015 at 13:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Raymond Baxter and his ilk are largely dead
I think I can confirm that Mr Baxter is totally dead.
It was a strange programme. It never quite made up its mind what it wanted to be. A few filmed inserts, using Holland or whoever, could have been prepared in advance to actually create some feeling of the situation on the morning of Sept 15 rather than some vague gesturing at a map board in the rain. There must have been a better choice for linkman, but I can't offhand think of one, but I swear if yon Dermot had said 'iconic' one more time my TV screen was in serious danger.
That said I thought some of the filming was brilliant, especially looking down on the aircraft from the chopper.
Better than watching another episode of Top Gear or CSI Wigan. So 6.5 out of 10 for me.
Moggy
New
Posts: 3,208
By: Mike J
- 16th September 2015 at 14:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In spite of the usual suspects who insist on living in a world which the rest of the population left behind half a century ago, I think the key point here is that it was an (undeniably populist) positive slant on historic aviation that is hugely needed in the wake of the negativity of the recent lurid post-Shoreham headlines and editorial.
By: j_jza80
- 16th September 2015 at 14:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some truly excellent footage, but somewhat tainted by overbearing commentary. The dedication at the end was a bit poor too, the pretty average soundtrack muting the engine sounds of the aircraft.
My favourite part was probably the two amputees learning to fly Spit's. :) What an amazing experience that must have been, and a fitting reward for those who dedicate their lives to serving the country. :)
By: stuart gowans
- 16th September 2015 at 15:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I thought Dermot O'Leary did a pretty good job, I absolutely hated the ex-lax factor and was slightly dreading his take on the BoB, however I was pleasantly surprised, he is after all presenter, and Stephen Bungay isn't, so I don't know why some would suggest him.
The programme was obviously made on the fly, and appeared unscripted (in the main) that takes a certain kind of a person to carry that off, and also appeared to have been made as cheaply as possible, that appears to be the way at the moment, and I guess we'll have to get used to that; as for the BBC, pitiful.
By: snafu352
- 16th September 2015 at 15:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has it occurred to those slagging the BBC that they were not invited to the party beyond basic reporting?
If I were Channel 4 and the production company, Arrow I believe, and had presumably bid to present the event would I be happy with the Beeb turning up and competing with me?
By: nostalgair2
- 16th September 2015 at 16:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh dear. It seems many here are as hazy about the facts as the media they love to deride.
Pot, meet kettle.
I will apologise for my ignorance, not a huge follower of the younger members of the royal family who seem to rise the in ranks of the armed forces that would leave most of us in a spin! its just that when they kept showing photos of the young Hewitt, sorry Wales in the cockpit of modern military hardware I obviously thought he was still 'IN'. I was a staff cadet in the ATC til they chucked me out at age 19 but I don't wear my yellow lanyard when I go to the shops! or show photos of me sitting In a hawk at Brawdy circa 1983.
By: stuart gowans
- 16th September 2015 at 16:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has it occurred to those slagging the BBC that they were not invited to the party beyond basic reporting?
If I were Channel 4 and the production company, Arrow I believe, and had presumably bid to present the event would I be happy with the Beeb turning up and competing with me?
I don't believe the BBC had to be invited to make a fitting tribute to those men women and machines that fought, and endured the Battle of Britain.
New
Posts: 3,208
By: Mike J
- 16th September 2015 at 16:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 16th September 2015 at 11:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Err.. Holland was there for much of the program and to call O'Leary dreary then mention Bungay rather suggests you either are the latter or are at least related to him! His book wasn't as good as most seem to think either. Too many contradictions and inconsistencies. Have you heard what he has to say about Dresden btw? I doubt you'll think too highly of that.
Did you actually watch the program?
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 16th September 2015 at 12:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'you know what?, I thought exactly the same!, when did the British army let you walk around with 3 days growth and sport a mop of hair like that?'
They do let some !
Posts: 2,024
By: D1566 - 16th September 2015 at 12:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When you have left? :)
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 16th September 2015 at 12:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, he was there but, he wasn't the presenter. Holland and Bungay have a 'gravitas' lacking in O'Dreary. O'Dreary was lightweight and appeared to almost run out of comments and questions. Most of to-days general purpose presenters, seem to be big on 'feelings' and not much else.
I presume you're referring to Bungay's "The Most Dangerous Enemy?" You'd be hard put to find better.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 16th September 2015 at 12:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Having never heard of O'Leary I googled the name to discover he's a disc jockey and light entertainment presenter!! QED m'lud!!
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 16th September 2015 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Gravitas" of the Bungay type would have had the general public turning off in droves. The program wasn't just for you and our ilk John.
Don't disagree about the feelings bit though.
Yes I am referring to that book, read it twice as for the life of me I can't see what additional insight it brought to the subject, as many hyped. In fact I bought the book based on the hyped reviews. It also, as I already noted, contradicted itself on a number of occasions and had all sorts of other inconsistencies. My conclusion in the end was that those who were praising the work simply didn't know as much as they would probably represent themselves as knowing thus the "additional insight" to those who had a clue wasn't really additional at all.
It's not a bad book but it isn't the revelatory work some represent it as.
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 16th September 2015 at 13:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do admit to being quite strongly prejudiced towards James Holland and Stephen Bungay. Bungay in particular is in the mould of the late A.J.P Taylor, Richard Holmes and David Starkey. All of them quite outstanding TV historians.
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 16th September 2015 at 13:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Either Jodie Kidd or Guy Martin would have been my choices for the programme !
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 16th September 2015 at 13:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tongue in the cheek there, I presume........?;)
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 16th September 2015 at 13:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jodie Kidd is visually distracting and it's next to impossible to understand what Guy Martin is saying.
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 16th September 2015 at 13:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spitfires are visually distracting ! Do you need a presenter???
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 16th September 2015 at 13:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think I can confirm that Mr Baxter is totally dead.
It was a strange programme. It never quite made up its mind what it wanted to be. A few filmed inserts, using Holland or whoever, could have been prepared in advance to actually create some feeling of the situation on the morning of Sept 15 rather than some vague gesturing at a map board in the rain. There must have been a better choice for linkman, but I can't offhand think of one, but I swear if yon Dermot had said 'iconic' one more time my TV screen was in serious danger.
That said I thought some of the filming was brilliant, especially looking down on the aircraft from the chopper.
Better than watching another episode of Top Gear or CSI Wigan. So 6.5 out of 10 for me.
Moggy
Posts: 3,208
By: Mike J - 16th September 2015 at 14:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In spite of the usual suspects who insist on living in a world which the rest of the population left behind half a century ago, I think the key point here is that it was an (undeniably populist) positive slant on historic aviation that is hugely needed in the wake of the negativity of the recent lurid post-Shoreham headlines and editorial.
Posts: 1,542
By: j_jza80 - 16th September 2015 at 14:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some truly excellent footage, but somewhat tainted by overbearing commentary. The dedication at the end was a bit poor too, the pretty average soundtrack muting the engine sounds of the aircraft.
My favourite part was probably the two amputees learning to fly Spit's. :) What an amazing experience that must have been, and a fitting reward for those who dedicate their lives to serving the country. :)
Posts: 426
By: Carpetbagger - 16th September 2015 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There's a joke there about giving right arms to fly a Spitfire, but probably in very poor taste... :D
(delete as appropriate)
Posts: 2,025
By: stuart gowans - 16th September 2015 at 15:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I thought Dermot O'Leary did a pretty good job, I absolutely hated the ex-lax factor and was slightly dreading his take on the BoB, however I was pleasantly surprised, he is after all presenter, and Stephen Bungay isn't, so I don't know why some would suggest him.
The programme was obviously made on the fly, and appeared unscripted (in the main) that takes a certain kind of a person to carry that off, and also appeared to have been made as cheaply as possible, that appears to be the way at the moment, and I guess we'll have to get used to that; as for the BBC, pitiful.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 16th September 2015 at 15:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has it occurred to those slagging the BBC that they were not invited to the party beyond basic reporting?
If I were Channel 4 and the production company, Arrow I believe, and had presumably bid to present the event would I be happy with the Beeb turning up and competing with me?
Posts: 333
By: nostalgair2 - 16th September 2015 at 16:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I will apologise for my ignorance, not a huge follower of the younger members of the royal family who seem to rise the in ranks of the armed forces that would leave most of us in a spin! its just that when they kept showing photos of the young Hewitt, sorry Wales in the cockpit of modern military hardware I obviously thought he was still 'IN'. I was a staff cadet in the ATC til they chucked me out at age 19 but I don't wear my yellow lanyard when I go to the shops! or show photos of me sitting In a hawk at Brawdy circa 1983.
Posts: 2,025
By: stuart gowans - 16th September 2015 at 16:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't believe the BBC had to be invited to make a fitting tribute to those men women and machines that fought, and endured the Battle of Britain.
Posts: 3,208
By: Mike J - 16th September 2015 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sufficient for you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2nSVM3gcTLr4QFLylWYBwGK/the-battle-of-britain-at-75