Autumnwatch on at a new time

[Keith Talbot]

Originally Posted by loripo

That was the deer one wasnt it? Post it here then so everyone can see...

I put it in the Gallery last week

[Dutchess]

Hey, I missed that!

A wonderful shot, Keith! And very well done on getting it featured on Unsprung!

D.

[Keith Talbot]

Thanks Dutchess

[Gaina]

Originally Posted by Keith Talbot

I put it in the Gallery last week

I remember seeing that one! Congratulations .

[And]

Keith is too modest to say but I distinctly recall the presenters saying that the deer shot was a favourite. It was the one that stood out for me too.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by geordie graham

Autumnwatch is brilliant as are all the presenters and it is live.Great to see brilliant British wildlife in all its glory WITHOUT Attenborough`s usual blood and gore fest.If you are so into wildlife but are so disgusted with presenters then try and find something else on a Friday night that has anything to do with wildlife.You`ll be lucky.Why can`t people just sit and enjoy this country`s stunningly beautiful wildlife without being picky and catty about the presenters who are a damn site more knowledgeable than we are,which is why they are doing it and we aren`t.It`s pathetic

Graham

actually i find it very easy to find something to do on a friday night (or any other night of the week for that matter) that doesnt involve watching kate humble flirting with chris packham while occasionally showing us a short clip of prerecorded action (not all the film clips are live as chris packham admitted in his radio times adverts)

I go out of my front door and take the dog for a walk on the downs in the moonlight - enabling me to "enjoy this countries stunningly beautiful wildlife" without any dumbing down or inane chatter - tonight i saw two foxes, a litle owl, and a herd of deer , and heard two tawnies having a wooing contest. I highly recomend this as an alternative to staring at the goggle box.

as to presenters who are dam site more knowledgeable than we are - I'm yet to see much evidence of this , particularly from kate - (chris and simon yes but not kate), many presenters for this sort of show are chosen for their looks and bubbly (for which read annoying) personalities not their indepth knowledge of wildlife.

[wizzo]

When Bill Oddie was on the show with Kate, it had a certain 'Beauty & the Beast' appeal for me in terms of presenting the show. Personally I'd keep Chris and loose Kate. I'd imagine they probably demand, far too much of the program's budget, is given over to make-up and full length mirrors. I'd Definately get rid of Gordon - he drives me nuts. I've always been a big fan of Chris Packham. I think he's extremely well informed and a first class photographer. I find his enthusiasm endearing, and, I actually find the 'once a week format' better for me.

Now... as for Peter and Katie Price, there must be something in the forum rules about mentioning them in posts? They offer a very good case, in favour of human culling

[geordie graham]

Originally Posted by eeyore

actually i find it very easy to find something to do on a friday night (or any other night of the week for that matter) that doesnt involve watching kate humble flirting with chris packham while occasionally showing us a short clip of prerecorded action (not all the film clips are live as chris packham admitted in his radio times adverts)

I go out of my front door and take the dog for a walk on the downs in the moonlight - enabling me to "enjoy this countries stunningly beautiful wildlife" without any dumbing down or inane chatter - tonight i saw two foxes, a litle owl, and a herd of deer , and heard two tawnies having a wooing contest. I highly recomend this as an alternative to staring at the goggle box.

as to presenters who are dam site more knowledgeable than we are - I'm yet to see much evidence of this , particularly from kate - (chris and simon yes but not kate), many presenters for this sort of show are chosen for their looks and bubbly (for which read annoying) personalities not their indepth knowledge of wildlife.

Well aren`t we lucky one being able to live in such a wonderful place like that with such wonderful British wildlife.
Just because someone is knowledgeable does not mean they would be able to stand in front of a camera and present it.The fact they do it differently to the way you would like it done does not make them less knowledgeable.

Graham

[ChrisR]

I think one of the arguments for having Kate Humble on AW is that the BBC are obviously trying hard to feature more women in a TV-field that's traditionally been dominated by men and they're trying very hard to get away from the rather nerdy, tweedy image that scientific natural historians have often had.

Sadly, the TV companies seem to have had great difficulty finding good female presenters and they keep going back to the same bubbly, jolly, patronizing people who are very child-friendly but never really seem to demonstrate any genuine personal knowledge of what they are talking about. Sure they can look good on camera and repeat what the researchers have spoon-fed to them but they don't seem to have much expertise in any particular field.

I wish they'd go to places like the Natural History Museum in London where there are excellent female scientists and curators who would be very good in front of the camera and would come with a wealth of knowledge. Some fresh blood would also give the programme makers some new ideas and subject matter to film. The new Darwin Center cocoon exhibit is really nice because they used real staff members in their videos - not slick presenters. Some don't come over very well but I was struct by how natural some people were when talking to camera.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by ChrisR

Sadly, the TV companies seem to have had great difficulty finding good female presenters and they keep going back to the same bubbly, jolly, patronizing people who are very child-friendly but never really seem to demonstrate any genuine personal knowledge of what they are talking about. Sure they can look good on camera and repeat what the researchers have spoon-fed to them but they don't seem to have much expertise in any particular field.

How about Dr Sasha Norris:

Sasha Norris - Biologist, Writer, Broadcaster

Some serious brains, experience and expertise there, a degree in zoology, lecturer in ecology and environmental science at Oxford and she's already presented a number of TV wildlife shows. And if good looks are really important to the TV companies then she scores pretty high there too. Not that I notice such things of course!

Dave P.