10th August 2008, 07:45 PM
Quote:quote:But the column was asking for more thoughtful, informed consideration.I'll do my best.
The piece seemed to me like objective reporting right up to the sentence "People really wanted an archaeological drama, and with so much advance publicity, they had enough time to imagine what it would be like (typically, a cross between Time Team and a doctoral thesis.)"The part outside the brackets makes total sense to me. The BBC hyped the series to the skies. British Archaeology itself carried a two-page spread on it. In my view anticipation of something brilliant accounts for the viewing figures for the first episode.
But why on earth would anyone be expecting a drama to be TT made more academic? And be shocked that it wasn't boring (as the piece goes on to claim)? That was the exact opposite of what the publicity promised. We were told that we could expect TT meets Indiana Jones, or TT crossed with CSI. It was to be archaeology sexed-up, made entertaining, and so on.
From that point on the Spoilheap piece is solidly partisan. It appears to reflect the intentions of the makers of Bonekickers, rather than addressing whether or not those intentions were actually achieved and if not, why not. Were viewers able to suspend disbelief? Did the dream world grip? If so, why have viewing figures fallen?