The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXIV

[Dachs]

I guess either history or nature documentaries. Last Sunday I was told how only the BBC has the money to make documentaries, and so I mentioned the Discovery Channel. I got laughed at, and then told that Americans don't know how to make documentaries, saying that they always get an over-dramatic narrator, constant looping over the top music and bad, cheesy special effects.

Overdramatic narrators, over-the-top music, and poor special effects are hallmarks of documentaries in every country, not just the United States.

 

[Borachio]

I don't know so much, Mr Game. They seem like fascinating people to me. Very strange. But fascinating.

 

[_random_]

PBS is probably better than Discovery for televised American documentaries. Nova and Nature are great programs for science-type things.

 

[cardgame]

I don't know so much, Mr Game. They seem like fascinating people to me. Very strange. But fascinating.

Who's that now?

 

[Borachio]

Who's that now?

"Smash_Bros_Brawl_Mr_Game_and_Watch".

Hmm.

*ponders*

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Overdramatic narrators, over-the-top music, and poor special effects are hallmarks of documentaries in every country, not just the United States.

Except for the United Kingdom apparently. I know for history documentaries they tend to follow the same pattern. Some television presenter with a background in history goes no a journey somewhere, usually looking insightful over the landscape he passes, and narrates in brief some history, with a bit on why where they are going is important. Eventually, they end up in a museum or a site and meet a local expert, who will often show an artefact and explain in brief why it's important.

 

[Arakhor]

Oh, we still have dramatic narrators and intrusive music, but we've internalised poor special effects as the "British way".

 

[Chukchi Husky]

The way I was told, American narrators are far too dramatic, the music is always the same annoying loop, and the effects are much worse and cheesier. The examples they brought up was comparing The Apprentice to American Apprentice, Britain's Got Talent to American Idol, and Masterchef to American Masterchef.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hahahahahahahahahagagaga gsa gaga WTH

 

[Arakhor]

Leaving aside the obvious American bashing, I often find the narrators on US shows to be grating, especially when they start woffling about American exceptionalism, real or otherwise (almost always otherwise). I still remember the utterly bizarre section of some recorded footage from a (major?) US news channel, whose "world" news section focused on crop-growing in Iowa.

 

[Ajidica]

I tend to like British documentaries better because I find a British accent less grating than a Midwestern accent that seems so prevalent among narrators. I'd rather have a person sound like a wise old Oxford don that my math teacher.
(Plus, I find American nationalism a bit dull yet British nationalism charmingly endearing.)

 

[Traitorfish]

The obsolete does have a certain charm about it...

 

[Farm Boy]

Leaving aside the obvious American bashing, I often find the narrators on US shows to be grating, especially when they start woffling about American exceptionalism, real or otherwise (almost always otherwise). I still remember the utterly bizarre section of some recorded footage from a (major?) US news channel, whose "world" news section focused on crop-growing in Iowa.

Gah, just go watch Ken Burn's The Civil War instead of two-bit rinky-dinky THE WERLDS TOP 10 DEADLIEST ANIMERLS! It's only 9 episodes/18ish hours, it flies right by.

 

[Grendeldef]

British docs are still superior to US ones even though BBC's Horizon isn't what it used to be.
The US ones are made for impatient morons and/or with commercial breaks in mind (take your pick, I'm annoyed by either way) as the story start over every few minutes and the host of the program seems to be more important than the story itself.
The main problem with the British ones is the annoying use of voice overs instead of subtitles especially as the dubbed voice usually belongs to someone who's native isn't English.

The samples from other countries are quite a bit less numerous and generally made with less money but closer to the original definition of documentary; things probably started shifting to worse when programs became shows.

 

[Arakhor]

I mostly watch historical documentaries, such as Michael Wood’s recent The Anglo-Saxons, following Alfred the Great, his daughter Æthelflæd and his grandson Æthelstan, a couple of comedies and one or two quiz shows, and that’s about it, really. It’s probably not worth having a TV license to watch so little television, but I’d happily pay for one anyway to support the BBC’s legacy of excellent factual reporting and programme-making.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Wai- wai- wai- wait, WHAT?! You actually need a license just to WATCH tv in the UK?!

 

[Farm Boy]

Own one, I think?

 

[Grendeldef]

Wai- wai- wai- wait, WHAT?! You actually need a license just to WATCH tv in the UK?!

Not just UK but a common practice in Western Europe - sort of relic concept from the past but none one has bothered to replace the current system while TV saturation has been close to 100% of households for ages.
Locally this comes up every now & then but nothing happens.

---

Yeah, to be more precise as Farm Boy pointed out it's related to owning a tv capable of receiving normal tv broadcasts.

 

[Arakhor]

Wai- wai- wai- wait, WHAT?! You actually need a license just to WATCH tv in the UK?!

The BBC doesn't have adverts. That's easily a win.

 

[timtofly]

PBS is government sponsored and get's private support. It also breaks into some programing to actually ask for donations. In the US we pay for cable and satellite, but it is more for the service as apposed to actually supporting individual channels.

We do have premium channels that actually pay for that channel if you subscribe to them, and that would be the same as licensing.