"Anna Kettle" wrote in message
...
Mind you, I find Grand Designs one of the more interesting programmes.
Not
boring really.

I agree but even Grand Designs miss out on doing programmes on some of
the most interesting houses - I know someone who suggested their house
development be featured and was turned down by Grand Designs because
their development timescale was too long. And it is a very grand
design

So the only houses that get featured belong to people who one way or
another can throw lots of money at a project over 18 months to get it
finished. And fast is rarely best in my book

While you may think your acquaintance has an interesting design ...
look at it from 'Grand-Designs-Interesting-TV-Programme-productions"
perspective. {I'm not connected in any way other than as a viewer.]
The company has to incur the costs of film crew, bacon-butties, producers,
directors, transport costs, studio time et. al.; before they can produce
an edited programme and presumably get paid. { We'll ignore loans and other
cash-flow tweaks] 18 months is probably the length (of time) that
they can afford to devote to any project -granted they're splicing several
projects at any one time.

The programme _is_ entertainment and leaves as many subjects elided
over as it covers in depth

So, they can't cover every grand design just the interesting ones that'll
edit down to fifty-odd minutes.

IMHO. the one chronicling the man-in-the-woods, who produced the
A-Frame house, didn't throw much money at the project at all!
On the other hand; the Hutt-hus while interesting, was really just
a couple - more power to their bank-balance- who did just
order a kit of parts and stand back while it was assembled

--

Brian