I find it interesting when there is disagreement between Tony Robinson and some of the academics.Any comments,anyone?
shareI would probably trust what the academics are saying more than Tony Robinson, what with him not actually being an archaoelogist and all, although it is good that he sees it from a laymans point of view, as most of teh audience arn't actually archaeologists either!
"elephants are nice...but alpaccas are much fluffier"
I think it's probably best that you don't listen to what Tony Robinson has to say because he does have a clue about what he's talking about. My dad's an archeologist and he has been on Time Team a couple of times and he says Tony Robinson is a complete... Not nice person. That's just his opinion. I've never met him so I can't say if this is actually true.
shareI can't comment on what Tony Robinson is like as a person because I've never met him, but I don't think we're supposed to believe what Tony thinks. He's just there for someone to give the non-archaeologists point of view of things so that it's not too intellectual (for want of a better word) for the 'average' viewer. Plus, he's someone for the professionals to explain things to so that they can explain to the audience.
shareI'm an archaeologist, and a few of my friends have worked On time team excavations and apparently they were banned from making blackadder/ baldrick references because Tony Robinson doesn't like it!
"Did he show you his acheulean handaxe?"
[deleted]
That is excellent! I am so pleased that this has happened to other people too! I can't believe he is so sensitive about it!
"Did he show you his acheulean handaxe?"
I remember watching him in the first Blackadder series, but i basically think of him as that guy off of Time Team these days. If he does get annoyed at people still after all these years calling him Baldrick, i wouldn't blame him to be honest :) Jokes are only funny the first couple of times you hear them, and he must have heard that particular joke hundreds of times :O He's a presenter and he does the job he has to do very well. Doesn't really matter if he has a clue about archeology or not :)
shareBaldrick is what made him, i cant see why he would be so offended by it.george takei still gets called sulu and loves it and Nimoy still gets called Spock.
i wonder if david jason gets angry if he gets called dell boy or george cole gets called arfur.
its just like a term of endearment people loved the characters
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die
H.P.LOVECRAFT
Maybe he is sick of insufferable prats bringing up shows he has not been in for years.
shareHe is an overly animated little man isn't he? Always flinging his arms about and running to and fro with inane questions, opinions, and the like...
Go Baldrick -- :)
I think you are all forgetting that the show needs an 'everyman' on it, someone who can ask the questions that the audience are thinking themselves. Yes, Tony isn't a qualified archaeologist, but that was never meant to be his job. His job is essentially the MC, he keeps it all moving and helps us to make sense of it all. And he does it spectacularly well!
Each episode has a chap who is in charge. Usually it's Mick Aston, but sometimes someone else is there to call the shots. Tony is free to ask whatever questions he wants, if it helps the viewers to better understand the dig.
The 3 days is intense; lots of people, lots of opinions, much to do.
is it really shot over just three days?
shareHe's the Bobby Ball to their Tommy Cannon.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
The shows entertainment value is partly made by the presenter.
Tony brings an energy to the archeology team and bridges the topic to the viewers at home.
Tony now has nearly 20 years experience now in archeology digs and wouldn't necessarily be considered a layman anymore.
So, I would therefore say his input would have to be taken in consideration, maybe more than others, as the format is primarily to a viewing ordinance and not a purely academic indulgence.
I would say though that perhaps a younger presenter (another comedian?) may now be a necessary change. The format as a whole though is fine as it is.
There is a reason why this show is popular. Its the way its presented and Tony is the presenter. Tony does a great job and his enthusiasm is contagious.
shareWhy would a younger presenter be a necessary change? I didn't particularly like it when the introduced Mary Ann, she added nothing to the show. She was just a pretty face that was probably brought on the team for exactly that reason. Tony did an excellent job for 18 years and then he suddenly wasn't good enough anymore? Why exactly? Because he's over 40?
share