| Author |
Stonehenge Live |
Anonymous
User not Registered |  Posted 23-06-2005 at 08:58
Due to circumstances beyond my control I missed both episodes of Stonehenge Live on Channel 5. So I've got two questions:
Did anyone else watch it and was it worth it?
Did anyone tape it and could I borrow the tape, pretty please? I'd treat it with care and reimburse any postage costs.
 Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 23-06-2005 at 17:22
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-23 08:58, Anonymous wrote:
Due to circumstances beyond my control I missed both episodes of Stonehenge Live on Channel 5. So I've got two questions:
Did anyone else watch it and was it worth it?
Did anyone tape it and could I borrow the tape, pretty please? I'd treat it with care and reimburse
any postage costs.
Not worth watching. Nothing new.
mike
|
|
Reply
|
slumpy
Joined:
18-10-2004
Messages: 27
from Kent
 OFF-Line
| Posted 23-06-2005 at 18:10
On look was enough for me - when I saw the Altar stone OUTSIDE the central horseshoe I sent them an abusive email and switched off.
To me it looked all sensationalism and tabloid journalism, typical half-hearted effort.
 Profile
Reply
|
Petercastle
Joined:
29-03-2004
Messages: 2
from Plymouth
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-06-2005 at 21:11
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-23 18:10, slumpy wrote:
On look was enough for me - when I saw the Altar stone OUTSIDE the central horseshoe I sent them an abusive email and switched off.
To me it looked all sensationalism and tabloid journalism, typical half-hearted effort.
|
|
 I am in total agreement with you The Sun couldn't have done a better job, and as for the poor presenters they looked completely embarrassed.
Profile
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 23-06-2005 at 21:51
A complete sham. They think we're ***** stupid.
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1722
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-06-2005 at 22:59
Well done Slumpy, an abusive E-Mail, I'm sure they will understand now.
On 2005-06-23 18:10, slumpy wrote:
Quote:
|
On look was enough for me - when I saw the Altar stone OUTSIDE the central horseshoe I sent them an abusive email and switched off.
To me it looked all sensationalism and tabloid journalism, typical half-hearted effort.
|
|
--
(Edited to tidy quotes)
[ This message was edited by: Jez on 2006-05-02 19:06 ]
Profile
Reply
|
baz
Joined:
16-06-2001
Messages: 67
from West Midlands, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-06-2005 at 23:08
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-23 18:10, slumpy wrote:
..... - when I saw the Altar stone OUTSIDE the central horseshoe I sent them an abusive email and switched off.
|
|
They had problems with the altar stone. Being tall and narrow, it moved about on its securing posts and had to be removed from its original position.
Baz
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
Jimit
Joined:
31-05-2002
Messages: 289
from winchester
OFF-Line
|  Posted 24-06-2005 at 14:15
One or two general points need to be made here....
As a member of the Stonehengineers (including Baz), I was present on the Sun/Mon/Wed at the site. Everyone who saw the replica was completely bowled over by it. Yes, we all know that it wasn't perfect, various stones had to be moved for purposes of filming/safety and who can say what "perfect" means. What it gave me, and I'm sure many others including the TV audience, was the opportunity to appreciate the sheer "Monumentallity" of the original structure, a truly humbling experience.
The TV prog had to be many things to many people. Do you make a "dry as dust" documentary or a "sexed up" drama? Channel 5 had a difficult remit to follow. Personally I could have done without the Druids but the Archeos did explain that although they had nothing to do with the original construction, modern groups had subsumed ancient sites into their beliefs. The Christian Church has done this many times in the past so I think, however reluctantly, the Druids presence had to be allowed.
The impressions of those who were lucky enough to be present were of a surprising attention to detail and a lot of intelligent discussions among all who were there.
Even the normally world weary and cynical film crew were facinated and others like the lorry drivers,
who, perhaps,had not normally thought about moving and erecting stone circles, were intrigued and even enjoyed helping us row the 12 tonner.
To describe the whole effort as "half hearted".."a complete sham".."nothing new"...misses the point completely.
I'm posting this looking at one of the photos I took of the replica, it looks stunning and brings a smile to my face.
[ This message was edited by: Jimit on 2005-06-24 14:18 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 24-06-2005 at 17:06
Totally agree Jimit.
As another who was there i can confirm the model was utterly fantastic - an overwhelming experience - and everyone who saw it and experienced it agreed.
And a word about the film company - it was mindbending the effort and organisation they put into the whole show and how efficient they were. Yes the programmes were populist in places, yes archaeologists differ in their opinions, yes there were a few missed opportunities but in total it was a heck of a good effort.
Nigel
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 24-06-2005 at 17:57
Considering the amount of money and effort spent on the programmes I simply ask why. There was absolutely nothing new at all, nothing. I find being stood in the original Stonehenge impressive enough, at least they're accurately aligned and it takes little imagination to work out what it used to look like. Absolute bollox!
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 24-06-2005 at 18:45
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-24 17:57, Anonymous wrote:
Considering the amount of money and effort spent on the programmes I simply ask why. There was absolutely nothing new at all, nothing. I find being stood in the original Stonehenge impressive enough, at least they're accurately aligned and it takes little imagination to work out what it used to look like. Absolute bollox!
|
|
Hundreds of people went there. All had probably been inside Stonehenge. Every one of them that I heard said it was completely stunning and that it taught them loads.
"it takes little imagination to work out what it used to look like. Absolute bollox!"
Oh really? Did you go, oh mysterious anonymous one? What makes you think they were all mistaken? Did no-one mention it was built by Lizards - is that the problem? Shame.
Nigel
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1722
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 24-06-2005 at 19:51
I was over my mate Nick's last night watching a video of this, when we were contacted by Ug (a denizen of the old world). He said that his brother Ig, before he became an artist, used to work in the building trade for a company called Aurochkid Builders Inc. Apparently they were contracted to build the ORIGINAL Stonehenge. However at their first attempt they could not get the stones to stay totally upright and at the first sign of a wind the stones moved alarmingly,frightening the mates and pliohippi.
He wondered if those stones shown on our "square hole in the cave which shows things outside the cave" (as opposed to the square hole in the cave wall which shows things outside the cave) were built by descendents of this company.
We tried to explain that this was a reconstruction and he replied that they reconstructed Stonehenge as well, this time using volunteer labour.
To put it in Ug's words. "The bloody thing still fell down though. Hope your lot have better luck. They seemed so nice and that mate in the fetching body covering.... I'd better not say anymore,my mate Lucy would have my guts for sewing skins together."
Ah well. Some things never change.
Profile
Reply
|
Jimit
Joined:
31-05-2002
Messages: 289
from winchester
OFF-Line
|  Posted 25-06-2005 at 14:09
"Nothing new"
Well I for one knew nothing about the peculiar short upright in the outer circle. The replica suggested that the gap was bridged by two wooden lintels suported on posts. A controversal but plausible theory.
What is your knowledge on this subject, I would be intrigued to know?
Jim.
Profile
Reply
|
slumpy
Joined:
18-10-2004
Messages: 27
from Kent
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-06-2005 at 15:24
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-23 22:59, sem wrote:
Well done Slumpy, an abusive E-Mail, I'm sure they will understand now.
On 2005-06-23 18:10, slumpy wrote:
On look was enough for me - when I saw the Altar stone OUTSIDE the central horseshoe I sent them an abusive email and switched off.
To me it looked all sensationalism and tabloid journalism, typical half-hearted effort.
|
|
[/quote]
Okay, so 'abusive' was maybe a stronger term than necessary - needless to say, I DID email them, and left them in no doubt as to my opinion on the matter.
If you want to build a replica, then build a replica.
To move a stone for any reason makes the whole project fail - I am sure that had the BBC tried they would have made a better job of it.
As for those that visited the 'site' surely the idea was not to impress a hundred visitors, but to capture the minds of the potential watching millions on the box.
Okay, I missed part one [preferring the real thing, live] and I'm glad I did. Part 2 was painful to watch - "How can we stretch this out for an hour when we only have a couple of clips and a handful of pleased-with-themselves experts to call on ?"
Profile
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 25-06-2005 at 21:49
Absolutely.
mike
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 27-06-2005 at 15:16
Strange thing anon, I can't recall seeing C5 say how much money was spent, or how that compared to other similar programmes.
So how much WAS spent?
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 27-06-2005 at 15:24
"To move a stone for any reason makes the whole project fail"
Please tell me of any experimental project that has worked out 100% on expectations. I've done hundreds of projects, big and small and I have to say not a single one has been 100% satisfactory. Something tells me you lack experience and are very willing to talk nonsense.
Reply
|
slumpy
Joined:
18-10-2004
Messages: 27
from Kent
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-06-2005 at 16:54
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-27 15:24, Anonymous wrote:
"To move a stone for any reason makes the whole project fail"
Please tell me of any experimental project that has worked out 100% on expectations. I've done hundreds of projects, big and small and I have to say not a single one has been 100% satisfactory. Something tells me you lack experience and are very willing to talk nonsense.
|
|
Of course I lack experience in erecting or duplicating existing monuments - WHO HASN'T !!!
It just amazes me that 3000 years ago or so, they decided where each stone would stand, and put them there, and yet here we are, in the age of technology and all that goes with it, and Ch5 had to resort to second best.
Not good enough.
I understand you wishing to defend your project, but let's not forget, this was not done for educational reasons, it was done and timed to coincide with the Solstice TO GET VIEWING FIGURES ON CHANNEL 5 !!!!
I tried to watch prog 2 again this afternoon, and it is too comical for words really - the monument does look impressive [albeit in strange colours that remind me of bubble gum] but the actual program itself is dire.
I see a wasted opportunity rather than a roaring success.
Profile
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 28-06-2005 at 09:10
It is not my project. I just find your attitude stupid. So you have no experience and cannot name any other projects that have been 100% successful, but you just thought you'd slag off these guys - why? Because they tried to do something diverent, positive and had never been done before?
Well as I see it, given the number of stones that were recreated and you say the whole thing should be written off because of a signle stone - that indicates that for you, anything that is 99.2% correct or less is totally flawed and useless.
Do you apply the same standards to yourself or only to people you wish to slag off?
I'm not saying the programme was totally superb but I can think of very few that are - and to make such a thing life was extremely adventurous - something that I felt added a freshness that attracted peoples interest. I notice there's been a lot of discussion about this on several of the music fora that I'm on - for the last three years since I've been a member of these there has not been a mention of Stonehenge.
Reply
|
slumpy
Joined:
18-10-2004
Messages: 27
from Kent
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-06-2005 at 18:00
Quote:
|
On 2005-06-28 09:10, Anonymous wrote:
It is not my project. I just find your attitude stupid. So you have no experience and cannot name any other projects that have been 100% successful, but you just thought you'd slag off these guys - why? Because they tried to do something diverent, positive and had never been done before?
Well as I see it, given the number of stones that were recreated and you say the whole thing should be written off because of a signle stone - that indicates that for you, anything that is 99.2% correct or less is totally flawed and useless.
Do you apply the same standards to yourself or only to people you wish to slag off?
I'm not saying the programme was totally superb but I can think of very few that are - and to make such a thing life was extremely adventurous - something that I felt added a freshness that attracted peoples interest. I notice there's been a lot of discussion about this on several of the music fora that I'm on - for the last three years since I've been a member of these there has not been a mention of Stonehenge.
|
|
I don't understand what a TELEVISION PROGRAMME [not an educational piece and with little effort in that direction] was doing getting involved in what is a much greater project - ratings maybe ?
OF COURSE !!!
Whether I can name any other projects, successful or not, does not exclude me from making my opinion known on THIS project - any other project of this kind would have been handled by archaeologists and not executive TV producers with budgets and deadlines.
The Altar Stone is an integral part of the monument, the most sacred stone, and [in my opinion] the most important part of the entire central site. To move THIS STONE therefore makes the whole project redundant and as pointless as it would be if the Heelstone was removed.
The motive for the programme is obviously not the same as reconstructing a Stonehenge replica - Channel 5's brief is not education, it is ratings and commercialism - the poor archaeologists were made second best, especially as one single stone had to be moved.
I would like to know exactly why it was moved - seems odd that one single stone gave them so much trouble.
Profile
Reply
|
Main News