Most current presenters of the stand-in-front-of-the-camera type get on my wick. It's not so much them and their personality (although it can be) but more the production-style that assumes the audience requires a "personality" with exaggerated enthusiasms, leaden humour, constant repetition of the same point in simplistic fashions .... and various other melodramatic antics supposedly there to retain the interest of we viewers. The assumption, in other words, that we can't be interested in a subject unless it's delivered via the medium of an "interesting" presenter that would be more at home in a pantomime.Phileas wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 5:36am When it comes to physics, I far prefer Jim Al Khalili to the other usual suspect (whom I find unwatchable).
Having said that, I find very few science programs on tv watchable anyway. It’s much easier to do history and not talk down to a well informed audience, even though they still often do.
Personally I much prefer the style of production that presents the subject matter as a set of visuals with a voiceover that itself shows an interest and enthusiasm for the subject but in a more adult tone - a voiceover that inculcates a resonant interest in the hearer but nevertheless "disappears" into the visuals being talked about.
In short, I find the Blue Peter mode of presenting a subject rather too infantile and highly distracting from what's supposedly being imparted in the way of interesting and enlightening information.
And let's get rid of the loud and overdramatic musak as well! A sound track generated from whatever is in the visuals is what I want to hear, with that invisible voiceover and maybe some quiet mood-tones or music, only just audible beneath the sounds that actually inform.
Cugel
