I was going to watch it EFFT ... But I forgot it was on !

I don't think it's repeated anywhere, but it'll be on the iPlayer.

 

Just be wary when you get to the Minoans.

Ok

It was better than I expected, and I'll be watching again next week.

I have to agree with the Radio Times critic, though: the "dramatic reconstructions" were often pretty daft, and the one with the Neanderthal being hunted was particularly embarrassing...

Of course one would have preferred to watch the super injunction expert but in a complex programme exchange scenario I was forced to watch Downton.

Aww Joe!

 

Maybe next time then.

I'll catch up!

It should be on the iPlayer for the next week.

I will have to fit it in amongst double corrie, university challenge, and whatever the 9pm dramas might be.

Naww, I didn't even know it was on until I finally had a squizz at the Culture section of the Sunday Times about an hour ago. I loved his History of Britain so I'll try and catch up too.

I'm sure you'll manage. We have every faith in you.

I'll be watching on iPlayer.

I might give it a go although Marr puts me off somewhat.  Palaeontology and  history aren't Marr's field of expertise.  He's a layman on those subjects reading an autocue. Marr's field is political journalism,  Sarah Harding of Girls Aloud might as well be presenting!

 

I'd have preferred someone with more academic clout rather than a journalist and anchorman.  Usually the BBC is good at finding academics for their programs but they occasionally drift into 'jobs for the boys' territory where genuine academic experts are substituted by lay personalities on the BBC payroll such as Marr.

So! Who would you prefer? Tell us!

Someone qualified and educated in that field!  Someone who has the academic credentials of studying the field and is familiar with the peer reviewed papers.  The BBC are usually good at finding academics who are good communicators.

Oh God I'd love a BBC4 type thinking programme presented by one of Girls Aloud (or even the Saturdays). That would be right up my street!

Not especially. Jonathan Miller is a medic and he can talk about anything and make it engaging. Enthusiasm and interest can suffice sometimes.

Indeed, but really, one of the Saturdays or Girls Aloud would be doing no more than Marr is doing - being a layperson reading a script. 

 

Marr is no more informed in what he's talking about than anyone in the Saturdays or Girls Aloud.

 

It would also add a bit of hotness to it for male viewers too rather than a jug eared baldy who's assumed to know what he's talking about just because he fronts political programs and is middle aged and male.

I agree, but I don't think Marr quite cuts it.  He isn't an engaging or authoritative presenter like Miller. Political punditry, IMO is more or less intellectually on par with football punditry and well, that's just the likes of Lawro.  It's is a lesser discipline than medicine IMO.

Oh come on, Marr is more than that. He's not just reading a script, he's imparting some of what he does know and has experienced in to the making of the programme (well that's what I got from on his series about Britain).

By your logic only someone like Lucy Worsley has the authority to talk about underwear and corsetry in the time of Charles II, when someone like Vivienne Westwood or Janet Reger could offer another practical and enthusiastic overview.

He's reading a script, he is a layman.  The BBC usually do well picking academics who are good presenters but on this subject, Marr is a layman.  Marr's series about Britain called on his political journalistic background.  That is his bread and butter and you could take or leave his conclusions but still respect his background in the field.  I'm not interested in a practical and enthusiastic overview, I'd prefer someone in the field who has studied the field rigorously and is familiar with the academic debate.

That's the one I'm talking about, I haven't seen the new one. I liked him in that...might like him in the new one. If I wanted quality control and letters after names and peer reviews I'd be better off hanging around universities and gatecrashing vivas all day. I don't care much beyond a little entertainment, some facts, some opinions and possibly learning something along the way.

If Andrew Marr wants to share some of his notions about the history of the whole widey world then I'm prepared to watch it, challenge in my own way and not give a stuff about his intellectual integrity like an examiner. Even the ones who hold Chairs at the finest educational establishments can come up with the biggest load of guff so the fact that they can cite and quote reams of knowledge means jack to me.

 

So you don't like or can't take to the man....I never took you for an academic snob Carnellian.

I would think Marr as an academic and former newspaper ed is quite up to it. Expect more disappointment when academic Stephanie Flanders does Hayek tonight. As it were.

....... And Andrew Marr he plays guitar! (I think I've got this right)

^^^^^

I agree. I found the first half cringey but it picked up and got really interesting.

I wouldn't say it's academic snobbery, I just think people who are experts in a subject also tend to bring more credibility to the program.  In my view, they often bring more passion and enthusiasm to their subject.  They've also lived in the field and have first hand anecdotes of the turning points in their science.  They can comment on how the academic theories prevalent at various times and  how it impacted their work and why they those theories were discarded.  It's more of a look into their world and their science, which you can never have when the presenter is a layman.

But in this case the programme's not about the inner workings of archeology, palaentology etc. or the way their thinking and understanding may have changed over the years. It's just a general picture of what we understand of these things now. So unless you've got some inarticulate moron who can't read a script/auto cue, then I don't really see it mattering who reads it.

I watched it. I loved it! Next week Marx. Can't wait.

I had to watch new tricks. Will watch steph on catchup. Can't wait for Karlo either!

I have to be honest, Marr slightly annoys me, only slightly.  Having a show fronted by a lay person tells me that it's likely to be a bit dumbed down.  I follow a lot of popular science programming and read articles. 

 

I am relatively well up on the type of a science that gets shown on TV.  I don't really want to be told about 'a planet the size of Mars' hitting the Earth four billion years ago, for the umpteenth time or the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs. 

 

It has its place but it's not for me.  A few years ago the BBC got Alan Titchmarsh to front a 'history of the world' type show but they shoed in lots of horticultural elements because it was a vehicle for Titchmarsh.  It just seemed like they couldn't decide if it was a science or gardening program. 

It was well done. Loads of ironies like the Fabian Society sponsored LSE being the ones to invite him over to kick some Cambridge Keynesian butt, and his modern devoted following amongst the Tea Party loons (that love him to bits but ignore the stuff he did write about some social intervention and responsibilty).

Lots of Thatcher acting like a love sick puppy over him, but they glossed over Friedman. I was looking forward to boring my husband about Reaganomics and drawing a Laffer curve on a napkin for authenticity.

Dunno how she's going to cover Marx in an hour, but I'm looking forward to seeing her try.

I have found that the way many of these shows are presented, relative to how they were presented in my younger days - even when presented by a person whose field it is, are dumbed down.

It doesn't really matter about dumbing down, the main thing is that people might take an occasional interest in important things, as well as consuming bland pap like Downton.

I agree with GJ ...if *dumbing* down a bit means more people learn from the programme then I think it's a good thing. History was my field and, while I understand the constraints , I love watching programmes like Victorian/Edwardian/Wartime Farm , Time Team etc. History ( or any other subject) doesn't need to be *dry* to educate .