Parks Stephenson
Member
Paul,
Good questions that are currently being evaluated.
Parks
Good questions that are currently being evaluated.
Parks
Titanic's Achilles Heel History Channel
- Thread starter Parks Stephenson
- Start date
Steven Hall
Member
And the additional weight pushed outwards. A thousand odd tons, 500 each side. The weight would pulled down the port and starboard, pulling the ship 'tighter'.
David G. Brown
RIP
Mark--thanks for an excellent and useful post.
With regard to the cracking in the superstructure, I neglected to define it as "small." What I was referring to is the normal stuff that develops in square corners of anything that moves and vibrates. The only unusual thing is that it was mentioned about a ship so new as Olympic. None of this was structural and at wors nothing more than cosmetic. It had no direct bearing on Titanic's loss.
The "panting" that I think was of concern did not come from hogging or sagging of the hull. When a hull bends in that manner, the upper deck and the bottom get closer together while the sides bow outward to accommodate this. It does not appear that hogging or sagging were problems with the Olympic class. Certainly, the results of the last computer models reinforced this conclusion.
If there was a panting problem I suspect it was in the single skin of the sides above the tank top; and, it would have occurred mostly when moving through a running sea. This is the sort of panting often seen where the sides warp from the straight midbody to the tapered shapes of stem and stern. Typically, frames are more tightly spaced in view of this problem.
One thing I disagree with Mark is his comment about Harland & Wolff being "generally very conservative." In a way, yes. But, with regard to the hull plate scantlings of the Olympics they were hardly conservative. The one-inch hull plate chosen for this class of vessels was not up to then-applicable standards for 650-foot vessels.
Classification societies are like Lloyds or American Bureau of Shipping. They exist more for the benefit of insurance companies than shipbuilders, shipowners, or crews. These societies publish scantling tables governing ships which can be insured. If a vessel does not meet the standards in the tables, it simply won't get coverage.
This did not mean a yard could not build a large vessel over 650 feet, just that member companies of the classification society would not have insured a larger vessel because it was "outside" the allowed scantlings simply by being too large. In that era, a 620 footer required 1.125-inch plate. Extrapolating to a ship of Olympic class size, the thickness would have been 1.25 or 1.3-inches.
So, the hulls of the Olympics were under the scantlings of smaller ships built to class in 1909. This by no means proves weakness. The tables were designed to protect insurance companies and not to build the most elegantly engineered vessels. Again, the latest History Channel computer analysis showed Titanic's hull held together beyond its designed strength.
The one thing H&W seems to have been good at was learning from its own history. In that sense, the company was conservative. After Titanic the design office had information about water entering places like boiler room #4 with no apparent source of ingress. They also had information about panting issues (not problems--issues) with the hull design. My bet is they made the only prudent assumption that these two problems were tied together. It really does not matter if they were or they were not tied--in after Titanic and without our modern knowledge of the wreck there was no other safe assumption to make but that the panting and unmotivated water ingress were related.
Mark says he does not see evidence of a modification to correct panting. I do. It was the addition of the inner hull to Olympic. It is erroneous to assume that a relatively lightweight inner skin would not have greatly improved the sides of the ship. In effect, the inner skin transformed the sides into I-beams the shape of Olympic. The outer skin and inner skins operated as the top and bottom plates of the I-beam; while the vertical frames performed the same function as the I-beam's web. The gain in rigidity would have been enormous--far more than increasing the thickness of the side plates.
Adding a double skin to Olympic was hardly innovative. Ships have been reinforced with inner skins for thousands of years. In wooden construction the inner skin is called "ceiling." The planks were usually spaced far enough apart so air could move through the gaps as a dry rot prevention.
None of this had anything to do with the expansion joints. If H&W had any second thoughts about the joints it had to be in relationship to the breakup. Even though on the witness stand Wilding denied the breakup happened, there were enough witnesses to the event that the naval architect dared not deny the breakup in the privacy of the drawing office. Again, prudence demanded another look at this aspect of the ship's design just on a "what if" basis. Britannic may have been the beneficiary of this, or not, but I have to believe that the issue was considered.
-- David G. Brown
With regard to the cracking in the superstructure, I neglected to define it as "small." What I was referring to is the normal stuff that develops in square corners of anything that moves and vibrates. The only unusual thing is that it was mentioned about a ship so new as Olympic. None of this was structural and at wors nothing more than cosmetic. It had no direct bearing on Titanic's loss.
The "panting" that I think was of concern did not come from hogging or sagging of the hull. When a hull bends in that manner, the upper deck and the bottom get closer together while the sides bow outward to accommodate this. It does not appear that hogging or sagging were problems with the Olympic class. Certainly, the results of the last computer models reinforced this conclusion.
If there was a panting problem I suspect it was in the single skin of the sides above the tank top; and, it would have occurred mostly when moving through a running sea. This is the sort of panting often seen where the sides warp from the straight midbody to the tapered shapes of stem and stern. Typically, frames are more tightly spaced in view of this problem.
One thing I disagree with Mark is his comment about Harland & Wolff being "generally very conservative." In a way, yes. But, with regard to the hull plate scantlings of the Olympics they were hardly conservative. The one-inch hull plate chosen for this class of vessels was not up to then-applicable standards for 650-foot vessels.
Classification societies are like Lloyds or American Bureau of Shipping. They exist more for the benefit of insurance companies than shipbuilders, shipowners, or crews. These societies publish scantling tables governing ships which can be insured. If a vessel does not meet the standards in the tables, it simply won't get coverage.
This did not mean a yard could not build a large vessel over 650 feet, just that member companies of the classification society would not have insured a larger vessel because it was "outside" the allowed scantlings simply by being too large. In that era, a 620 footer required 1.125-inch plate. Extrapolating to a ship of Olympic class size, the thickness would have been 1.25 or 1.3-inches.
So, the hulls of the Olympics were under the scantlings of smaller ships built to class in 1909. This by no means proves weakness. The tables were designed to protect insurance companies and not to build the most elegantly engineered vessels. Again, the latest History Channel computer analysis showed Titanic's hull held together beyond its designed strength.
The one thing H&W seems to have been good at was learning from its own history. In that sense, the company was conservative. After Titanic the design office had information about water entering places like boiler room #4 with no apparent source of ingress. They also had information about panting issues (not problems--issues) with the hull design. My bet is they made the only prudent assumption that these two problems were tied together. It really does not matter if they were or they were not tied--in after Titanic and without our modern knowledge of the wreck there was no other safe assumption to make but that the panting and unmotivated water ingress were related.
Mark says he does not see evidence of a modification to correct panting. I do. It was the addition of the inner hull to Olympic. It is erroneous to assume that a relatively lightweight inner skin would not have greatly improved the sides of the ship. In effect, the inner skin transformed the sides into I-beams the shape of Olympic. The outer skin and inner skins operated as the top and bottom plates of the I-beam; while the vertical frames performed the same function as the I-beam's web. The gain in rigidity would have been enormous--far more than increasing the thickness of the side plates.
Adding a double skin to Olympic was hardly innovative. Ships have been reinforced with inner skins for thousands of years. In wooden construction the inner skin is called "ceiling." The planks were usually spaced far enough apart so air could move through the gaps as a dry rot prevention.
None of this had anything to do with the expansion joints. If H&W had any second thoughts about the joints it had to be in relationship to the breakup. Even though on the witness stand Wilding denied the breakup happened, there were enough witnesses to the event that the naval architect dared not deny the breakup in the privacy of the drawing office. Again, prudence demanded another look at this aspect of the ship's design just on a "what if" basis. Britannic may have been the beneficiary of this, or not, but I have to believe that the issue was considered.
-- David G. Brown
Mark Chirnside
Member
David G. Brown wrote:
Thanks. I am glad you found it useful.
I do not know if you’ve seen my article yet, but if you have then you’ll be aware from the diagrams that this is precisely the sort of item I am referring to. You’re quite right to say that this was not structural, given the light scantlings of the areas we’re discussing. Following the December 1911 and January 1912 storms, I suspect that they had an influence — for obvious reasons.
It seems rather a big ‘if’ to me, but thanks for clarifying what you’re thinking.
It’s a partial disagreement, then.
If you have specific, primary source documentation for that, then I’d be interested to see it.
Given that Aquitania was constructed to the highest of Lloyd’s standards, and that her plating was thinner than even your stated requirement for a 620 footer, I’d appreciate it if you could clarify your source.
By that measure alone, you could say that Oceanic, Lusitania, Mauretania and Aquitania were ‘not up’ to the standards to which you refer. (I have details of their hull plating to hand right now, so my comments are not intended to be a comprehensive assessment.) I think it’s a rather narrow to focus on the general thickness of the hull plating in isolation, although I realise you may be using it as a brief illustrative example.
Aquitania was built to Lloyd’s highest standards. Her approved scantlings were compared to Olympic by a naval architect at the time, and he found the two ships extremely similar. His conclusion was that Olympic was ‘somewhat lighter’ with the main differences being found in the shell and deck doublings. Somewhat seems to be generally defined as ‘to a small degree or extent.’ His comments seem entirely accurate, from my research into the two ships, and my examination of Aquitania’s midsection. In fact, by the 1920s Lloyds were re-examining their rules as part of their process of keeping them updated, and in several regards they reduced the scantlings for such large vessels based on shipbuilders’ experiences.
That finding did not really come as a surprise to me. You might find it interesting just how similar the standards were. For instance, although the Cunard ships were being designed to Lloyd’s rules, when Lusitania, Mauretania, Aquitania and Olympic were being designed the naval architects worked to precisely the same standard in terms of stress. On the basis of mild steel construction, it was the practise — and it’s clearly documented — to ensure that the structure was not subjected to a stress greater than ten tons per square inch. The figures for all four ships bear this out, although in the case of Lusitania and Mauretania there are some higher figures which were tolerated owing to the use of high-tensile steel. Similarly, when we examine the HAPAG trio, in many ways the German designers seem to have been working to exactly the same standard in that regard.
Agreed. You don’t get to be such a success in shipbuilding without learning from your own past experience.
The first seems evident from the Mersey testimony. As regards the second point, I don’t agree with that — as I’ve explained in my post above. I await the evidence.
I have been advised that the inner skin, as constructed, would merely pant with the exterior shell. It was not designed for the purpose of preventing panting. The cure for panting requires substantial longitudinal structural members, fixed to the hull frames and the side shell plating.
I think that, itself, is assumptive on your part. You seem to be assuming that you know what another researcher knows.
I have not seen any primary source documentation to demonstrate that the inner skin was added as a reinforcement measure.
What I do know is that it was described as an improvement upon the ship’s watertight subdivision. It was about the best measure that could be taken with an existing hull, and it proved its worth the only time Olympic’s hull was penetrated amidships by a torpedo, as it contained the damage and kept the boiler rooms amidships dry.
I also know that the possibility it would be used to store oil in the future was being considered, at the time it was being designed. In fact, I have a document from 1912 that clearly outlines a discussion between Lord Pirrie and Bruce Ismay regarding the storage of oil fuel in the inner skin. When the time came to convert Olympic to oil, the ‘tanks’ of the inner skin followed a useful pre-determined pattern.
As I said earlier, I am not sure if you’ve read my article on the subject. If you have not, you would find that there is a case to be made that Harland & Wolff already had grounds to improve Britannic’s design before Titanic was even completed.
Best regards,
Mark.
Thanks. I am glad you found it useful.
I do not know if you’ve seen my article yet, but if you have then you’ll be aware from the diagrams that this is precisely the sort of item I am referring to. You’re quite right to say that this was not structural, given the light scantlings of the areas we’re discussing. Following the December 1911 and January 1912 storms, I suspect that they had an influence — for obvious reasons.
It seems rather a big ‘if’ to me, but thanks for clarifying what you’re thinking.
It’s a partial disagreement, then.
If you have specific, primary source documentation for that, then I’d be interested to see it.
Given that Aquitania was constructed to the highest of Lloyd’s standards, and that her plating was thinner than even your stated requirement for a 620 footer, I’d appreciate it if you could clarify your source.
By that measure alone, you could say that Oceanic, Lusitania, Mauretania and Aquitania were ‘not up’ to the standards to which you refer. (I have details of their hull plating to hand right now, so my comments are not intended to be a comprehensive assessment.) I think it’s a rather narrow to focus on the general thickness of the hull plating in isolation, although I realise you may be using it as a brief illustrative example.
Aquitania was built to Lloyd’s highest standards. Her approved scantlings were compared to Olympic by a naval architect at the time, and he found the two ships extremely similar. His conclusion was that Olympic was ‘somewhat lighter’ with the main differences being found in the shell and deck doublings. Somewhat seems to be generally defined as ‘to a small degree or extent.’ His comments seem entirely accurate, from my research into the two ships, and my examination of Aquitania’s midsection. In fact, by the 1920s Lloyds were re-examining their rules as part of their process of keeping them updated, and in several regards they reduced the scantlings for such large vessels based on shipbuilders’ experiences.
That finding did not really come as a surprise to me. You might find it interesting just how similar the standards were. For instance, although the Cunard ships were being designed to Lloyd’s rules, when Lusitania, Mauretania, Aquitania and Olympic were being designed the naval architects worked to precisely the same standard in terms of stress. On the basis of mild steel construction, it was the practise — and it’s clearly documented — to ensure that the structure was not subjected to a stress greater than ten tons per square inch. The figures for all four ships bear this out, although in the case of Lusitania and Mauretania there are some higher figures which were tolerated owing to the use of high-tensile steel. Similarly, when we examine the HAPAG trio, in many ways the German designers seem to have been working to exactly the same standard in that regard.
Agreed. You don’t get to be such a success in shipbuilding without learning from your own past experience.
The first seems evident from the Mersey testimony. As regards the second point, I don’t agree with that — as I’ve explained in my post above. I await the evidence.
I have been advised that the inner skin, as constructed, would merely pant with the exterior shell. It was not designed for the purpose of preventing panting. The cure for panting requires substantial longitudinal structural members, fixed to the hull frames and the side shell plating.
I think that, itself, is assumptive on your part. You seem to be assuming that you know what another researcher knows.
I have not seen any primary source documentation to demonstrate that the inner skin was added as a reinforcement measure.
What I do know is that it was described as an improvement upon the ship’s watertight subdivision. It was about the best measure that could be taken with an existing hull, and it proved its worth the only time Olympic’s hull was penetrated amidships by a torpedo, as it contained the damage and kept the boiler rooms amidships dry.
I also know that the possibility it would be used to store oil in the future was being considered, at the time it was being designed. In fact, I have a document from 1912 that clearly outlines a discussion between Lord Pirrie and Bruce Ismay regarding the storage of oil fuel in the inner skin. When the time came to convert Olympic to oil, the ‘tanks’ of the inner skin followed a useful pre-determined pattern.
As I said earlier, I am not sure if you’ve read my article on the subject. If you have not, you would find that there is a case to be made that Harland & Wolff already had grounds to improve Britannic’s design before Titanic was even completed.
Best regards,
Mark.
Richard Edwards
Member
Dear Parks.
Many thanks for your fascinating and informative response to my post.
Clearly my beef is not with you but the heads of the History Channel who commissioned the show. Making a documentary for the sake of it is art for arts sake. Oh dear!
Making a program aimed at 13 year olds is one thing but it would be nice to see a documentary aimed at adults. Not that that would deter 13 year olds from watching it, and that is something J K Rowling understands instinctively.
Here's hoping for an absolute belter next time, and keep up the good work.
Rich.
Many thanks for your fascinating and informative response to my post.
Clearly my beef is not with you but the heads of the History Channel who commissioned the show. Making a documentary for the sake of it is art for arts sake. Oh dear!
Making a program aimed at 13 year olds is one thing but it would be nice to see a documentary aimed at adults. Not that that would deter 13 year olds from watching it, and that is something J K Rowling understands instinctively.
Here's hoping for an absolute belter next time, and keep up the good work.
Rich.
Steven Hall
Member
J K Rowling worked out the happy medium between ages. As also did, Enid Blyton before her. Both women !
A women can, instinctively write for children. There's no guessing why.
What it brings us back to, what do the public want to see in a Titanic doc.
Ask book sellers what they are selling. Ask what's being borrowed from the library.
Most successful shows these days use dramatization - using actors to play parts. Let’s say, do the Titanic bridge, or the crowsnest.
Let’s take an example of what the punter would like.
Try putting ships out on the Atlantic. Set a condition similar to the night of accident. Create a few dummy icebergs (perhaps painted hot air balloons secured to a floating platform), run simulations on how well they could be seen from an approaching ship. Would you have a captive audience?
Put another ship 10, or 15 or even 20 miles away. Have the stopped ship fire off rockets. What can be seen between either ship?
There’s a two hour show that would have the audience glued to their seats.
How about, get approval to remove the Titanic anchors. Salvaged, put one at Southampton, one at New York. There’s another two hour show.
Is that the shows they want to see? I have no idea — I don’t make documentaries.
In my opinion, you don’t have to gear it to simplistically minded audiences. It’s the mums and dads that have the money. It’s them that pay the cost for subscription TV. It’s them that buy the DVD’s and books.
People want to be challenged by a documentary. They need stimulated thoughts and exchange of conversation and ideas during it.
Do they really care how the ship broke in two? Or how long it took to fall to the bottom?
There’s the rub — in my opinion they simply don’t. There’re interested in the human tragedy of the loss of the ship. Half your audience is assumedly female. I cannot believe a mother of 1, or 2 or more children is actively interested in why it split in half. Is dad really interested in the preparations for a dive to the ship? He would be, if he was actually there. He wants to see the ship, not everyone else having fun while he’s stuck on the sofa with a coffee and a digestive biscuit.
After twenty years of diving to Titanic, can the public really say — wow, we know so much more about Titanic? For researchers and historians, the answer is YES.
People like Parks do the research, do the investigations and the dives to the ship. They would ‘instinctively’ know what people would like to see. They have a passion, a love for the ship. That’s why there’re involved, that’s why they do it. But they don’t ‘edit’ nor ‘create’ the finished program. Perhaps on day, that might change.
A women can, instinctively write for children. There's no guessing why.
What it brings us back to, what do the public want to see in a Titanic doc.
Ask book sellers what they are selling. Ask what's being borrowed from the library.
Most successful shows these days use dramatization - using actors to play parts. Let’s say, do the Titanic bridge, or the crowsnest.
Let’s take an example of what the punter would like.
Try putting ships out on the Atlantic. Set a condition similar to the night of accident. Create a few dummy icebergs (perhaps painted hot air balloons secured to a floating platform), run simulations on how well they could be seen from an approaching ship. Would you have a captive audience?
Put another ship 10, or 15 or even 20 miles away. Have the stopped ship fire off rockets. What can be seen between either ship?
There’s a two hour show that would have the audience glued to their seats.
How about, get approval to remove the Titanic anchors. Salvaged, put one at Southampton, one at New York. There’s another two hour show.
Is that the shows they want to see? I have no idea — I don’t make documentaries.
In my opinion, you don’t have to gear it to simplistically minded audiences. It’s the mums and dads that have the money. It’s them that pay the cost for subscription TV. It’s them that buy the DVD’s and books.
People want to be challenged by a documentary. They need stimulated thoughts and exchange of conversation and ideas during it.
Do they really care how the ship broke in two? Or how long it took to fall to the bottom?
There’s the rub — in my opinion they simply don’t. There’re interested in the human tragedy of the loss of the ship. Half your audience is assumedly female. I cannot believe a mother of 1, or 2 or more children is actively interested in why it split in half. Is dad really interested in the preparations for a dive to the ship? He would be, if he was actually there. He wants to see the ship, not everyone else having fun while he’s stuck on the sofa with a coffee and a digestive biscuit.
After twenty years of diving to Titanic, can the public really say — wow, we know so much more about Titanic? For researchers and historians, the answer is YES.
People like Parks do the research, do the investigations and the dives to the ship. They would ‘instinctively’ know what people would like to see. They have a passion, a love for the ship. That’s why there’re involved, that’s why they do it. But they don’t ‘edit’ nor ‘create’ the finished program. Perhaps on day, that might change.
Will C. White
Member
I'd simply be happy if they didn't reuse the same footage several times in the same show. Backing up and re-rolling after you come out of commercial is no way to hold an audience. What they're doing is padding the available material to fit the slot, and it has to do with advertising $. Look at some old docs, and then look at the new ones-marked changes-bet this new one on Columbus monday does the same thing; hope not, but I ain't holdin' my breath.
George L. Lorton
Member
I hear you on that, Will. I was watching a Documentary on the History Channel the other night and they showed one picture four times through out the program. I still want to watch Titanic Tragic Sister about the Britannic. I'm just hoping like h--l that they don't repeat a lot of footage.
David G. Brown
RIP
Hate to say it, but TV both makes possible and ruins the very documentaries it shows. Economics pure and simple. U.S. TV is built on what are called 30 and 60 minute blocks of time (they aren't that long, but let's not get that technical). If a network wants to fill a 90 minute hole, the producer has no choice but deliver a 90-minute-hole-filling documentary. One that's 79 minutes just won't be accepted even if it is artistically and creatively a finer product. What is the network going to do with 21 minutes of dead air?
At the other end, the dollars allotted to these productions are miniscule compared to Hollywood productions. Spending the time and money (actually the same commodity) to fill out every minute with fresh, exciting material is simply impossible unless the producer wants to learn the intricacies of bankruptcy law.
The last good visual documentaries were produced before the advent of TV when theatrical release was the only way to reach the public. A 79-minute documentary was no more of a problem than the differing lengths of the fictional motion pictures. So, documentary writers and producers had the luxury of cutting extraneous material.
My suggestion is to accept that what is is. To quote Dr. Ballard, "Get over it." Nothing is going to change until some new media (probably associated with the internet) comes along that is not so time constrained.
-- David G. Brown
At the other end, the dollars allotted to these productions are miniscule compared to Hollywood productions. Spending the time and money (actually the same commodity) to fill out every minute with fresh, exciting material is simply impossible unless the producer wants to learn the intricacies of bankruptcy law.
The last good visual documentaries were produced before the advent of TV when theatrical release was the only way to reach the public. A 79-minute documentary was no more of a problem than the differing lengths of the fictional motion pictures. So, documentary writers and producers had the luxury of cutting extraneous material.
My suggestion is to accept that what is is. To quote Dr. Ballard, "Get over it." Nothing is going to change until some new media (probably associated with the internet) comes along that is not so time constrained.
-- David G. Brown
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Making a program aimed at 13 year olds is one thing but it would be nice to see a documentary aimed at adults.<<
Ain't gonna happen. As David said, to boil it all down, it's all about the money, and the sort of work that would make people such as us 100% happy is just the sort of thing which won't return the high ratings which rake in the advertising bucks.
Since that's the hard reality, there's little point in crying about the injustice of it all. Especially since it would mean that instead of getting little of substance, we end up with a whole lotta nuthin' at all.
Ain't gonna happen. As David said, to boil it all down, it's all about the money, and the sort of work that would make people such as us 100% happy is just the sort of thing which won't return the high ratings which rake in the advertising bucks.
Since that's the hard reality, there's little point in crying about the injustice of it all. Especially since it would mean that instead of getting little of substance, we end up with a whole lotta nuthin' at all.
George L. Lorton
Member
Yeah
I'd rather have something educational to watch then nothing at all.
I'd rather have something educational to watch then nothing at all.
Samuel Halpern
Member
Repeat footage. In my opinion, that's the way to alienate an audience. Nothing drives me up a wall more than having to sit through the same scene played over and over and over again knowing that they are just killing time. That's why I DVR everything and fast forward through all the repeated commercial breaks and repeat footage when I watch a program. If I were asked to produce a 90 minute program, I'd start out by making sure I had more than 90 minutes of non repeated stuff to show and work the problem of what should be cut out, not what should be inserted as filler. My goal would not only be to have people stay tuned but to want to come back and see the next production that we put together, and have them get other people to get excited about it. I'd want them to say to their friends, "Hey, did you happen to catch the ____ show last night....?"
Samuel Halpern
Member
It is important not to confuse the level to which a program is written at with the age of the primary target audience. When I first started to work at Bell Labs as a full member of their technical staff I learned that the most effective technical documents that got published were those written at the level that a senior high school student would comprehend. That's not to say they didn't contain complex information in them. The target audience for these documents all had Masters of Science or PhD degrees. What you quickly learn is that anyone can do an information dump, but if your goal is for others (including your peers) to really understand your work, you have to present it at a level below the average educational level of the target audience, and leave the really heavy stuff for the appendices.
By the way, the key to understanding the target audience segment and age group of any program is to study the commercials.
Richard Edwards
Member
Hi Michael.
re your comment >>Making a program aimed at 13 year olds is one thing but it would be nice to see a documentary aimed at adults. Ain't gonna happen. As David said, to boil it all down, it's all about the money, and the sort of work that would make people such as us 100% happy is just the sort of thing which won't return the high ratings which rake in the advertising bucks.<<
Oh really? Ever heard of Time Team, Horizon, the BBC or Channel 4 or David Attenborough? In Britain we are not scared of making high quality and informative documentaries that are frequently sold around the world for a massive amount of money. Making poor quality documentaries patronises the audience and stops them from learning anything. Treat a 13 year old like an idiot and that is what you'll get in return. J K Rowling did not do that and the results speak for themselves.
And George, don't be scared of writing the word "Hell."
Love Rich
re your comment >>Making a program aimed at 13 year olds is one thing but it would be nice to see a documentary aimed at adults. Ain't gonna happen. As David said, to boil it all down, it's all about the money, and the sort of work that would make people such as us 100% happy is just the sort of thing which won't return the high ratings which rake in the advertising bucks.<<
Oh really? Ever heard of Time Team, Horizon, the BBC or Channel 4 or David Attenborough? In Britain we are not scared of making high quality and informative documentaries that are frequently sold around the world for a massive amount of money. Making poor quality documentaries patronises the audience and stops them from learning anything. Treat a 13 year old like an idiot and that is what you'll get in return. J K Rowling did not do that and the results speak for themselves.
And George, don't be scared of writing the word "Hell."
Love Rich
George L. Lorton
Member
Sam-
You and me are starting a Documentary Production Company.
You and me are starting a Documentary Production Company.
Similar threads
