So we got up sprightly and early (and ill-tempered initially, because of the early start) and made our way by fast, efficient London transport (no, really, it was) to the Olympic Archery in St John's Wood. Lord's to be precise:-
We watched Larry Godfrey from the UK (not GB, despite all the 'Team GB' hype, grump, grump) fail to get through to the quarter finals:-
But he did it with good grace and we were all very involved. I enjoyed the event - in fact, rather like John Finnemore on the Now Show Olympics Live this week, I discovered it is really good fun watching people who are really extremely good indeed at doing something do that thing, and it does seem to matter if complete strangers you happen to share a country with turn out to be even better at that thing than some other complete stangers who live further away. Who'd have thought it?
The targets are light years away from where the archers stand, and they don't get many chances to get it right. Basically, they just stand and shoot. Two compete at a time, and if at the end of their competition it is all square, they just shoot one more arrow each and nearest to the middle wins. Quite brutal.
It turns out that South Korean people really like archery, there were a lot in the stands, and their archers are really quite good at it (three went through to the quarter finals). So I learnt quite a lot too.
Showing posts with label Archers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Archers. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 August 2012
Sunday, 6 February 2011
Pargiter spinoffs
So they had Graham Seed on BH today to comment on the papers and didn't once ask him to say 'Lizzie' - I call that a waste.
More fun was More or Less a few weeks back - which calculated the height of Loxley Hall from the length of Nigel's scream.
The simple maths (GCSE Physics, what eldest calls SUVAT) shows that Loxley Hall was 60m high to the roof. As the show pointed out, roughly the height of York Minster.
Maybe he jumped?
More fun was More or Less a few weeks back - which calculated the height of Loxley Hall from the length of Nigel's scream.
The simple maths (GCSE Physics, what eldest calls SUVAT) shows that Loxley Hall was 60m high to the roof. As the show pointed out, roughly the height of York Minster.
Maybe he jumped?
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Primeval Archers
Well, the 60th anniversary episode of The Archers seems to have received a lot of criticism. It was certainly hard to listen to: every line seemed freighted with additional meaning - for example the comments on Tony's driving as he sped with Helen to the Hospital.
I was struck the following day, not so much by Vanessa Whitburn's gaffe - when she came on The Today Programme and gave away the fact that Nigel was dead 12 hours before the next episode made it clear - but by the way in which she claimed that the episode would have ramifications and reverberations for "the next ten years". The Archers, it seems, can plan for the long term. It isn't at risk (unless the current bad lot in power sell off the BBC and Murdoch doesn't like it), so they have the luxury of plotting strategically.
Now in this household, there was a challenge because that 60th anniversary clashed with the first episode in the new series of Primeval. Which certainly seemed as though it had been cancelled a year ago, with multiple plot threads dangling. No sense of a long-term strategy there.
Most of the family went off to watch telly, while I stayed behind with Radio 4, and joined in later.
Primeval was weird - topped and tailled by exactly the same adverts for Haven holidays as a year ago - they look even tackier now. Haven come across as though they are part of the show, they've been there so long.
The show retains its style of unreflecting bright lighting and thin, superficial relationships (or is it deeper and I've missed the point?). It is incredibly sub-Doctor Who in all departments, but that is still clearly the audience it is aiming for. It must be expensive to mount, and it feels like it still only just clings on for survival, so the whole story seems a bit random, with threads picked up and dropped with no rhyme or reason. Yet it is fun in a shallow way. The Guardian Guide called it a "crisps and salad cream sandwiches" kind of show - which is close enough.
Ah - I've just found out what has happened - ITV are sharing costs with Watch, a digital channel: "ITV1 will premiere the fourth series of the show in early 2011. Watch – which already airs sci fi shows Doctor Who and Torchwood – will repeat it soon after and then premiere the fifth series later the same year, followed by ITV1". Which I suspect means it'll cost extra to see series 5?
Between the long-term plotting of soaps like The Archers and a series at risk like Primeval, is there a middle ground in between, and what lies there?
Very little I suspect. Doctor Who perhaps, and similar long-term shows. But they do tend to be structured quite episodically to maintain a thrill factor and keep their audiences excited. Or like The Last of the Summer Wine, nothing happens, repetitively. Comfort keeps the audience coming back for more.
Maybe it is only after a show has been aired for 60 years or so that you get the benefits of more novelistic pace and narrative...
I was struck the following day, not so much by Vanessa Whitburn's gaffe - when she came on The Today Programme and gave away the fact that Nigel was dead 12 hours before the next episode made it clear - but by the way in which she claimed that the episode would have ramifications and reverberations for "the next ten years". The Archers, it seems, can plan for the long term. It isn't at risk (unless the current bad lot in power sell off the BBC and Murdoch doesn't like it), so they have the luxury of plotting strategically.
Now in this household, there was a challenge because that 60th anniversary clashed with the first episode in the new series of Primeval. Which certainly seemed as though it had been cancelled a year ago, with multiple plot threads dangling. No sense of a long-term strategy there.
Most of the family went off to watch telly, while I stayed behind with Radio 4, and joined in later.
Primeval was weird - topped and tailled by exactly the same adverts for Haven holidays as a year ago - they look even tackier now. Haven come across as though they are part of the show, they've been there so long.
The show retains its style of unreflecting bright lighting and thin, superficial relationships (or is it deeper and I've missed the point?). It is incredibly sub-Doctor Who in all departments, but that is still clearly the audience it is aiming for. It must be expensive to mount, and it feels like it still only just clings on for survival, so the whole story seems a bit random, with threads picked up and dropped with no rhyme or reason. Yet it is fun in a shallow way. The Guardian Guide called it a "crisps and salad cream sandwiches" kind of show - which is close enough.
Ah - I've just found out what has happened - ITV are sharing costs with Watch, a digital channel: "ITV1 will premiere the fourth series of the show in early 2011. Watch – which already airs sci fi shows Doctor Who and Torchwood – will repeat it soon after and then premiere the fifth series later the same year, followed by ITV1". Which I suspect means it'll cost extra to see series 5?
Between the long-term plotting of soaps like The Archers and a series at risk like Primeval, is there a middle ground in between, and what lies there?
Very little I suspect. Doctor Who perhaps, and similar long-term shows. But they do tend to be structured quite episodically to maintain a thrill factor and keep their audiences excited. Or like The Last of the Summer Wine, nothing happens, repetitively. Comfort keeps the audience coming back for more.
Maybe it is only after a show has been aired for 60 years or so that you get the benefits of more novelistic pace and narrative...
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Jazzer, Gregory, Tully Bascombe
Well, that was fun. I woke up to the Archers, Jazzer finally facing Fallon after declaring love to her - whilst very drunk - on New Year's Eve. She visits him as he's working with Tom's pigs, and all he can think of to say is 'These are the pigs'.
What with the Scottish accent and the inanity of the comment (really well scripted), it put me srrongly in mind of Gregory in Gregory's Girl. The same clumsy tongue-tied awkwardness.
Then a few hours later, I chanced upon The Mouse That Roared on one of the digital TV channels. Now, about nine months ago I wrote about the experience of Rewatching Kind Hearts and Coronets - the strange feeling that I knew it all so very, very well. Today I had something of the same sensation, although not quite so strongly, while watching this film.
I again recognised and predicted scenes, lines, gestures and - this time - noises (the Q Bomb); again that strange, unusual feeling.
Maybe it is because it isn't so mannered a film as Kind Hearts, or just not so good, or mayhap I know it less well, but the sensation was more attenuated. As I think I suggested last time, it isn't just memory, or it is stronger than that.
On no evidence whatsoever, I think I would possibly have the same feeling watching Gregory's Girl. I must try it.
What with the Scottish accent and the inanity of the comment (really well scripted), it put me srrongly in mind of Gregory in Gregory's Girl. The same clumsy tongue-tied awkwardness.
Then a few hours later, I chanced upon The Mouse That Roared on one of the digital TV channels. Now, about nine months ago I wrote about the experience of Rewatching Kind Hearts and Coronets - the strange feeling that I knew it all so very, very well. Today I had something of the same sensation, although not quite so strongly, while watching this film.
I again recognised and predicted scenes, lines, gestures and - this time - noises (the Q Bomb); again that strange, unusual feeling.
Maybe it is because it isn't so mannered a film as Kind Hearts, or just not so good, or mayhap I know it less well, but the sensation was more attenuated. As I think I suggested last time, it isn't just memory, or it is stronger than that.
On no evidence whatsoever, I think I would possibly have the same feeling watching Gregory's Girl. I must try it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


