"The Canal Map of Britain" at 8pm tonight on Channel 5

[Chris Lowe]

They will be making a mess of railways next week

[David Schweizer]

We only watched the first fifteen minutes before turning it off. What we saw was a poor amateurish production, comprising of numerous talking heads interspersed with still pictures which rarely related to the narrative. The only live presentation was of someone digging out a canal undergoing restoration with a mechanical  digger, accompanied by narrative relating to digging the canals with shovels and barrows!! People are being paid to produce this rubbish.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Pluto said:

The usual TV twaddle, completely lacking a detailed understanding of canal and industrial history, which could then be refined into something entertaining.

Glad I'm not the only one thought it was pretty bad. Though I did learn something. How else would I have known that the navvies building the system didn't have electricity?

And whoever wrote the script should be sacked: "comprised of" indeed.

Possibly I'm turning into Athy...

 

Edited March 16 by Arthur Marshall

[Ronaldo47]

The first bit about the first canals included some pointless brief shots of early trains a century before they were invented.

 

It also underestimated the advantages of canals over roads by saying a single horse could pull a 30 ton barge, especially as it also included shots of broad beam barges that I think could carry at least  60 tons.  

Edited March 16 by Ronaldo47

[Hudds Lad]

1 hour ago, Chris Lowe said:

They will be making a mess of railways next week

No doubt telling you about Robert Louis Stevenson and his dad George  

[Graham_Robinson]

What did you all expect?
They make these programmes to attract viewers, seems like they attracted or should that be trapped a few from here. 😃
If they started discussing the merits of the small Woolwichs' versus the large Northwichs' or even mentioned the word 'Josher' ( I would have turned off then ) your average channel hopper would have fallen asleep.😴

Thought the filming / quality was good and would have liked to have seen drone footage going up the pillars and underneath the trough, up close and personal on 'that' aqueduct.
I suppose we should be thankful someone has taken the time to make this programme.

[Laurie Booth]

47 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

We only watched the first fifteen minutes before turning it off. What we saw was a poor amateurish production, comprising of numerous talking heads interspersed with still pictures which rarely related to the narrative. The only live presentation was of someone digging out a canal undergoing restoration with a mechanical  digger, accompanied by narrative relating to digging the canals with shovels and barrows!! People are being paid to produce this rubbish.

Certainly not paid by Channel 5 

 

[Ray T]

2 hours ago, Graham_Robinson said:

What did you all expect?
They make these programmes to attract viewers, seems like they attracted or should that be trapped a few from here. 😃
If they started discussing the merits of the small Woolwichs' versus the large Northwichs' or even mentioned the word 'Josher' ( I would have turned off then ) your average channel hopper would have fallen asleep.😴

Thought the filming / quality was good and would have liked to have seen drone footage going up the pillars and underneath the trough, up close and personal on 'that' aqueduct.
I suppose we should be thankful someone has taken the time to make this programme.

@Graham_Robinson Graham, best photo's I have.
At least Pontcysyllte was pronounced correctly. Unlike in the BBC "The Golden Age of Canals" Where the narrator pronounced it "The Pontyselect!"

 

Edited March 16 by Ray T

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Graham_Robinson said:

What did you all expect?
They make these programmes to attract viewers, seems like they attracted or should that be trapped a few from here. 😃
If they started discussing the merits of the small Woolwichs' versus the large Northwichs' or even mentioned the word 'Josher' ( I would have turned off then ) your average channel hopper would have fallen asleep.😴

Thought the filming / quality was good and would have liked to have seen drone footage going up the pillars and underneath the trough, up close and personal on 'that' aqueduct.
I suppose we should be thankful someone has taken the time to make this programme.

 

That was exactly my point -- people on here complaining about either detail errors or it being "dumbed-down" are entirely missing the point, which is that *nobody* on CWDF is the intended audience... 😉 

 

The same is true for pretty much any documentary on TV, to anyone knowledgeable about the field (0.01% of the audience?) they almost always gloss over the detail (or get it wrong) and present an over-simplified picture -- and this is true regardless of the subject, because broadcasting is aimed at the wider audience, the fact that the name includes "broad" should be a clue... 🙂

 

If you want something detailed and accurate, read a specialist book (or online articles) on the subject written by an expert in their field and targeted at a knowledgeable and interested (but small!) audience -- or discuss the subject on a forum fill of similarly interested people... 😉 

Edited March 16 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

mmm…so any old nonsense is ok because only .01% know it’s twaddle whilst the other 99.99% are taken in by it,

that’s ok then 👍

 

 

[Pluto]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

That was exactly my point -- people on here complaining about either detail errors or it being "dumbed-down" are entirely missing the point, which is that *nobody* on CWDF is the intended audience... 😉 

 

The same is true for pretty much any documentary on TV, to anyone knowledgeable about the field (0.01% of the audience?) they almost always gloss over the detail (or get it wrong) and present an over-simplified picture -- and this is true regardless of the subject, because broadcasting is aimed at the wider audience, the fact that the name includes "broad" should be a clue... 🙂

 

If you want something detailed and accurate, read a specialist book (or online articles) on the subject written by an expert in their field and targeted at a knowledgeable and interested (but small!) audience -- or discuss the subject on a forum fill of similarly interested people... 😉 

The problem I have with such programmes is that I get telephoned by a researcher, spend an hour or so giving detailed and up-to-date historical information, and then they totally ignore it because it doesn't fit with the directors 'ideas'. When they used film, directors had a clear script to follow, nowadays the script is on the back of a fag packet and they take vast amounts of digital video and make it up when it comes to editing.

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

mmm…so any old nonsense is ok because only .01% know it’s twaddle whilst the other 99.99% are taken in by it,

that’s ok then 👍

 

 

Welcome to the media world of today, especially broadcasting but also large parts of the press... 😞 

 

However in fact the programme in question was (mostly) correct, not "twaddle" -- apart from the obvious (to CWDF posters) errors being nitpicked about -- and I would guess most non-canal people would have found it interesting and informative. Which is rather the point of making it, isn't it?

Edited March 16 by IanD

[Sir Percy]

I learned something, or at least heard something that I hadn't previously thought about; that the operators of boats and their families didn't initially live on board. Also, that they sometimes took on board a child from another family and sometimes had them separated up in the forecabin. I might take that last bit with a pinch of salt.

[Arthur Marshall]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Welcome to the media world of today, especially broadcasting but also large parts of the press... 😞 

 

However in fact the programme in question was (mostly) correct, not "twaddle" -- apart from the obvious (to CWDF posters) errors being nitpicked about -- and I would guess most non-canal people would have found it interesting and informative. Which is rather the point of making it, isn't it?

My argument with it was the tone of the commentary. The talking heads were mostly ok, even the Cunk lady, but the main bloke and script was dreadful - patronising in that "this is jolly good fun, isn't it?" way of a 1950s government information film, or one of those Disney wildlife things they used to show in schools. As if, because he was talking to stupid, ignorant people, he'd be pretending to share the joke that this wasn't really serious, now, was it?

The error is thinking people don't want a bit of depth, a bit of knowledge, the sense that these canals actually mattered to people - both those earning their living back in the day and those renovating or using it now.

And nine year olds being used to light the dynamite fuses because they could run faster than grown men, that's really funny, isn't it? That's a real joke. I wonder how many died. That was when I felt it had gone beyone the pale. A serious point could and should have been made, but no, it was just a laugh a minute, building canals, and everyone was having a damn good time. There was the bit about some people losing all their money in the bubble while a few made a fortune, and that being jolly good, too. So much for economics.

I thought it was appalling. Nice pictures, though.

[Chris Lowe]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

My argument with it was the tone of the commentary. The talking heads were mostly ok, even the Cunk lady, but the main bloke and script was dreadful - patronising in that "this is jolly good fun, isn't it?" way of a 1950s government information film, or one of those Disney wildlife things they used to show in schools. As if, because he was talking to stupid, ignorant people, he'd be pretending to share the joke that this wasn't really serious, now, was it?

The error is thinking people don't want a bit of depth, a bit of knowledge, the sense that these canals actually mattered to people - both those earning their living back in the day and those renovating or using it now.

And nine year olds being used to light the dynamite fuses because they could run faster than grown men, that's really funny, isn't it? That's a real joke. I wonder how many died. That was when I felt it had gone beyone the pale. A serious point could and should have been made, but no, it was just a laugh a minute, building canals, and everyone was having a damn good time. There was the bit about some people losing all their money in the bubble while a few made a fortune, and that being jolly good, too. So much for economics.

I thought it was appalling. Nice pictures, though.

 

I had heard qouted from historians that they knew building of the Caledonian canal was too late for it's original purpose but it was continued to keep the workforce going.

[Ray T]

46 minutes ago, Sir Percy said:

I learned something, or at least heard something that I hadn't previously thought about; that the operators of boats and their families didn't initially live on board. Also, that they sometimes took on board a child from another family and sometimes had them separated up in the forecabin. I might take that last bit with a pinch of salt.

It was the effect of the railways which caused the operators and owner boatmen having to lower their charges to retain traffic and hence couldn't afford to keep a house on the land. The captain was the only one who was paid so his wife and children were "free" labour. Often boat families were quite large and children were "loaned" out to other boat owners who may not have had children. William Humphris "loaned" Jeanne, one of his daughters, to Jack and Rose Skinner but when she fell off the boat in a lock William blamed them and had his daughter back. 

I think the programme meant that older boys and girls were separated into the fore and aft cabins for obvious reasons, Not just children from other families.

Edited March 16 by Ray T

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

The same is true for pretty much any documentary on TV, to anyone knowledgeable about the field (0.01% of the audience?) they almost always gloss over the detail (or get it wrong) and present an over-simplified picture -- and this is true regardless of the subject, because broadcasting is aimed at the wider audience, the fact that the name includes "broad" should be a clue... 🙂

 

Its "everything", not just documentaries.

 

The TV series it "Shouldn't happen to a Vet" and later series "All Creatures Great & Small" were based in rural Britain in the 1930's.

 

In several episodes the Vets were seen treating Charolais cows which did not arrive into Britain until the 1950's.

It is believed that the 1st known Charolais Bull in Britain was registered in 1967.

 

The field hedges can be seen to have been cut with a Tractor mounted Flail cutter - with the 'bits' all over the verge and the road.

 

Facts are rarely consideredwhen making 'drama' programmes.

 

Its almost as bad as having jet aircraft high up in the sky !

[David Schweizer]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

My argument with it was the tone of the commentary. The talking heads were mostly ok, even the Cunk lady, but the main bloke and script was dreadful - patronising in that "this is jolly good fun, isn't it?" way of a 1950s government information film, or one of those Disney wildlife things they used to show in schools. As if, because he was talking to stupid, ignorant people, he'd be pretending to share the joke that this wasn't really serious, now, was it?

The error is thinking people don't want a bit of depth, a bit of knowledge, the sense that these canals actually mattered to people - both those earning their living back in the day and those renovating or using it now.

And nine year olds being used to light the dynamite fuses because they could run faster than grown men, that's really funny, isn't it? That's a real joke. I wonder how many died. That was when I felt it had gone beyone the pale. A serious point could and should have been made, but no, it was just a laugh a minute, building canals, and everyone was having a damn good time. There was the bit about some people losing all their money in the bubble while a few made a fortune, and that being jolly good, too. So much for economics.

I thought it was appalling. Nice pictures, though.

 

That more than adequately describes what I paraphrased as "poor amateurish production" with the link person's childish sense of humour and regular use of adolescent colloquialisms. I could not watch him for long, even if the subject being presented was something outside my knowledge or experience.

[David Mack]

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Its "everything", not just documentaries.

 

The TV series it "Shouldn't happen to a Vet" and later series "All Creatures Great & Small" were based in rural Britain in the 1930's.

 

In several episodes the Vets were seen treating Charolais cows which did not arrive into Britain until the 1950's.

It is believed that the 1st known Charolais Bull in Britain was registered in 1967.

 

The field hedges can be seen to have been cut with a Tractor mounted Flail cutter - with the 'bits' all over the verge and the road.

 

Facts are rarely consideredwhen making 'drama' programmes.

 

Its almost as bad as having jet aircraft high up in the sky !

Those sorts of anachronisms are common in TV and film if you look. The producers just aim to remove the most obvious examples, like covering up modern road markings, or as happened locally when a period TV drama was being filmed, putting up canvas and cardboard 'stone' walls to cover modern railings and building alterations.

And in the classic film The Railway Children, the train which is stopped by flags made from Jenny Agutter's petticoat was drawn by a 1930s locomotive, even though the film is set in Edwardian times!

[Peugeot 106]

37 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Its "everything", not just documentaries.

 

The TV series it "Shouldn't happen to a Vet" and later series "All Creatures Great & Small" were based in rural Britain in the 1930's.

 

In several episodes the Vets were seen treating Charolais cows which did not arrive into Britain until the 1950's.

It is believed that the 1st known Charolais Bull in Britain was registered in 1967.

 

The field hedges can be seen to have been cut with a Tractor mounted Flail cutter - with the 'bits' all over the verge and the road.

 

Facts are rarely consideredwhen making 'drama' programmes.

 

Its almost as bad as having jet aircraft high up in the sky !

I can tell you when Simmentals arrived. I was working on a farm on top of Sutton Bank at Cold Kirby. We got 13 calves and kept them in a box alongside 13 friesians and fed them on Barley. It was called “Barley Beef” Farmers Weekly monitored and compared them for performance and Herriot was our vet. I recently saw the small 160 Acre farm on a telly program about him 

I seem to remember we tried to keep them intact but had to castrate them when they were quite old as they got frisky (dangerous). That was over 50 years ago. There was a Charolais bull at the same time on a farm near home. We used to lead the hay through its field at hay time and shoo it away with abbrush if it bothered us. One day it killed the farmer. It was in its box and he went in alone assuming it was docile

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Peugeot 106 said:

I can tell you when Simmentals arrived. I was working on a farm on top of Sutton Bank at Cold Kirby. We got 13 calves and kept them in a box alongside 13 friesians and fed them on Barley. It was called “Barley Beef” Farmers Weekly monitored and compared them for performance and Herriot was our vet. I recently saw the small 160 Acre farm on a telly program about him 

I seem to remember we tried to keep them intact but had to castrate them when they were quite old as they got frisky (dangerous). That was over 50 years ago. There was a Charolais bull at the same time on a farm near home. We used to lead the hay through its field at hay time and shoo it away with abbrush if it bothered us. One day it killed the farmer. It was in its box and he went in alone assuming it was docile

 

Me flying along Sutton bank in the 70s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presumably 'your Herriot' was just a conicidence as the 'real' Herriot was a ficticious character and was actually the pen-name of the author and 'star'of the books and series, vet, James Alfred Wright, the stories were just semi-autobiographical

Edited March 16 by Alan de Enfield

[Sir Percy]

It's almost as if the programme makers were trying to come up with easy-watching TV for watchers after undemanding entertainment requiring no familiarity with the subject.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Its "everything", not just documentaries.

 

The TV series it "Shouldn't happen to a Vet" and later series "All Creatures Great & Small" were based in rural Britain in the 1930's.

 

In several episodes the Vets were seen treating Charolais cows which did not arrive into Britain until the 1950's.

It is believed that the 1st known Charolais Bull in Britain was registered in 1967.

 

The field hedges can be seen to have been cut with a Tractor mounted Flail cutter - with the 'bits' all over the verge and the road.

 

Facts are rarely consideredwhen making 'drama' programmes.

 

Its almost as bad as having jet aircraft high up in the sky !

It’s good fun spotting them, Peaky Blinder’s has some good background blunders,

and there’s some historical dramas or films that will purposely put in contemporary references/images/objects,

I think it was Derek Jarman who was was well known for doing it when directing his films

but what we had on TV last night was not supposed to be a drama but fact,

 

aside from that (as pointed out earlier in the thread) how can miss naming James Brindley as John Brindley have got passed the editing?

 

[Peugeot 106]

25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Me flying along Sutton bank in the 70s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presumably 'your Herriot' was just a conicidence as the 'real' Herriot was a ficticious character and was actually the pen-name of the author and 'star'of the books and series, vet, James Alfred Wright, the stories were just semi-autobiographical

I honestly don’t remember the Vet but he was supposed to be Herriot or whatever and the farm (Manor Farm) was on the telly.Our  farm was about a mile from the White Horse along the Gallops, and I used to walk past it every night on my way to the pub at Kilburn (mouse man fame). Previously I fell out with the landlord at the Hambleton on top of the bank (and closer) over my Wellies (another tale) and this resulted in the longer walk. In those days everyone drank a “pint touch”

from memory pay as £13/week and £5 was taken out for board and lodge - one bath a week. cucumber mothers pride sandwiches and Luke warm stale tea in a glass lined flask. Did it for a year before Agiri College. When I left I was offered £30/week to stay!

Gliding looks like fun I used to watch probably you! But never got a go. At least there ‘s no engine it should suit a few of us on here

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Sir Percy said:

It's almost as if the programme makers were trying to come up with easy-watching TV for watchers after undemanding entertainment requiring no familiarity with the subject.

And didn't want to spend any money on research, or the script, or the presenter, or the director... you really think easy watching has to be badly written, badly narrated tosh aimed at people you hope have switched their brains right off?

It was Channel 5, I suppose, so maybe you're right. But I suspect no other channel would touch it with, well, a bargepole.