BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Bone Kickers
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Shurely shome mishtake ! [:p]

I mean .. I have just come back from Mummy 3... no complaints there, as in the film, the fiction.. they did not try to slip in a pointless piece about radiocarbon dating... geofizz... thermoluminence etc .. they romped and romped some more... they fought mummies (of sorts) and did not worry about historical accuracy..

No [probs there ... Bonkers should have dropped the 'real archaeology' tag.. and just gone for a romp.. played up spooky romping and I'd be happy just as a piece of rompering...

dressing in in the skimpy clothes of reality (oooh... got an image of Mark Horton in a skimpy piece of clothing there) was wrong..

Holby City pretends to be real.. and is probably howled at every episode.. The Bill pretends to be real... and is probably howled at every episode.. While Green Wing (C4s surreal comedy set in a hospital) took a reality and stretched it to amazing effect.. I never thought for a moment, here, that use of a 'such and such piece of medical equipment ' was so wrong... it did not matter.. cos it was not trying to be a reality drama .. neither did I worry myself that Police Squad was not an accurate representation of US police methods....

Bonkers lost what it was about... a reality (which needed spiced up for TV) or a fantasy romp... that did not have to deal with the real world...

As a person who likes to think I can be both a good archaeologist AND an adventurer (looking forward to crawling into some scorpion infested tombs in a few weeks!) I have an imagination, by I also have a modicum of intelligence...and to be told if I don't I don't like Bonekickers I should leave digging to those that do..! Sad as somebody said way back at the beginning

"You can polish a turd as much as you like , buts its still a turd"

This - pray gawd is a turd I won't have to step in again. [xx(]

oh... yes.... the cartoon did make me laugh... as anyone who likes the prog enough to wear an I luv Bonekickers Tshirt should be put in jail..!

and to prove I got it in the end ... here is the T-shirt!

[Image: shtkick.JPG]

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
I suspect that, to meet publication deadlines, the Spoilheap piece was written weeks ago, before certain sharp shards of reality burst the bubble of the makers of Bonkers. It cites the viewing figures for the first episode, a heady high (born of expectation), but not the decline thereafter (born of experience). It cites numbers of comments after the first day or so, but seems not to have fully taken in the nature of them.

Mark Horton may have expected a similar reaction to that Time Team stirred up in its early days. There was grumbling about it from the profession, but huge support from the public. By contrast the negative reaction to Bonkers has come from all quarters. It has been panned as a turkey in TV drama terms. A huge amount of criticism on the official site has been aimed at its political agenda, and about the same amount at its script, direction and acting.
Calling it a Turkey is cruel to turkeys... Smile

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
wot... you mean he got something wrong!! Can't berleive it... !

ps... Nice article about Digital Digging in BA... (and know you have more exciting things to come!)

Thank goodness some people actually make an effort Smile

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Seems like fact checking isn't really Mr Horton's strong suit. I guess that's what TV interns are for. Wonder how he gets away with such slackness in his academic career? Or is that over now?:face-huh:
like a Sopwith Camel spiraling to the ground over Flanders, Portugal

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Jean M

Anybody seen the latest issue of British Archaeology? The "In View" crew maintain radio silence on the subject of Bonkers. That's not surprising, as they are drawn from the MA in Archaeology for Screen Media at Bristol University - too close for comfort.

Meanwhile the Spoilheap column is a spirited, anonymous defence of Bonkers bearing a curious resemblance to the spirited defences of Bonkers elsewhere with Mark Horton's name on them.
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Jean M

Anybody seen the latest issue of British Archaeology? The "In View" crew maintain radio silence on the subject of Bonkers. That's not surprising, as they are drawn from the MA in Archaeology for Screen Media at Bristol University - too close for comfort.

Meanwhile the Spoilheap column is a spirited, anonymous defence of Bonkers bearing a curious resemblance to the spirited defences of Bonkers elsewhere with Mark Horton's name on them.

Dear Jean

You are getting excited (here and in another message) about things you appear to have thought or know little about.

You say you have not watched the television series.

You make an unwarranted and silly implication about the author of British Archaeology's Spoilheap (and insult the editor).

In view is not written by a "crew", but one person.

In view has not "maintain[ed] silence" on Bonekickers, but covered it in detail over two pages in the Jul/Aug issue.

You have not read the Spoilheap column carefully enough to support your criticism of it.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that everyone should agree with the view of the Spoilheap author - that Bonekickers was worth more than many people say it is. But the column was asking for more thoughtful, informed consideration. We can always hope.

Best wishes
Mike (editor, British Archaeology)
My apologies in that case. I am relieved to know that my assumption re the Spoilheap piece was wrong.

Re "In View" - that has been written by various students on the MA course, edited in the past by Angela Piccini. That is why I used the term "crew". I am aware that Bonekickers was covered in the last issue, prior to viewing. Naturally at that time the author could only draw on conversations with its makers and archaeological advisor.

Thanks Mike for setting the record straight I think. Though I must admit I saw no insult to yourself.

as a matter of interest... who was the writer of Spoilheap?

I myself never got the Jul/August issue... though I was hoping to get a replacement, it has yet to arrive. The spoilheap column asked us to consider... people have, and people find it insulting... the final line in Spoilheap challenges us... in strong terms..

Quote:quote:We're in the Illustrated London News and Look & Learn, where heroic explorers unearthed lost civilizations, found missing links and changed what it is to be human. And if we can't, just for a few hours identify with that, then we should leave the digging - and TV - to those who can.


As a matter of interest the ILN stopped running archaeology stories in 1981 - after getting its fingers burnt in a sensational story, where people dared to use imagination, and were discredited.

The challenge there is if we can't like Bonekickers - we lack imagination and should leave digging to those who have.

My view is this... Bonekickers should have left the pretence of 'real' archaeology behind, and been a romp where belief can be suspended... a world where Indiana Jones can escape boulders a world where Mummies can return from the dead. Smile That is fine by me. To dress it in the tatty clothes of reality - deserves to be challenged in return. What the author of the Spoilheap article sees as jokey blokey joshing.. others see as sexual harassment. :face-confused:

We don't need told to use our imaginations, we don't need told to step back and look beyond the potsherd.. we certainly don't need told that the core values of the IFA are evident in the programme... Why not? because we are real archaeologists - who work in real archaeology - we are diggers and supervisors, illustrators and curators, consultants and unit managers, we are the ones who can look at this programme and say... listen, you don't need to throw in pretend-real archaeology ... make it surreal, make it escapism... because something the author of Spoilheap fails to see is what archaeology is really like in 21st century UK... and it ain't the archaeology they remember it to be.

As far as I can see... there are several clues in the article that point to it being written by or influenced by a certain person. seen all the comments before... made by the same person as well. :face-huh:

There was no slight on BA or yourself Mike, BA is a damn fine magazine... and sure... people might not agree with things - but they should be ready to take flak - and yes considered opinion.. :face-thinks:

I especially liked the line... there are people on the web who mistake their own vomit for thought... I am sure as people on the web, we do not take that personally either... though I suppose we could :face-huh: .. I don't.

I am sure the writer of the Spoilheap is more than welcome here as well. after all, this is a place where comment is welcome.




"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25