Detectorists 2

close
more_vert
Rhiannon R
Rhiannon Nov 1, 2015 14:27:06
Replying to nigelswift

I see what you're saying Nigel, and I do agree with you really. But I don't think this series will do a hundredth of the damage that those silly 'treasure hunting' programmes do. Because they're infotainment and have lots of glittering finds (you too could find this. You too could swap them for loadsamoney. all you have to do is dig holes in a field).

If anyone watches this comedy because they think it's going to show the thrills of finding treasure, then they'll be disappointed. As shown by the feeble finds table of this week's episode. Not exactly encouraging anyone to spend hundreds on a metal detector, it was a small array of belt buckles and Andy and friend only found a tufty club badge and a bit of a table. It wasn't glamorous, it was pathetic.

It's more about how dysfunctional people are and about their friendships kind of making up for that. I guess it could be about any weird hobby but maybe it's relevant that they're actually searching for something (like they're searching for some sense in life).

But it was supposed to be funny, that there was this amazing jewel in the field, but they gave up and would never find it. And the contrast between the dark romantic excitement of its burial and the mundanity of them just walking past it in the sunshine. Any normal person watching the programme as entertainment isn't going to think like an avaricious metal-detectorist at that point, surely? I do hope not. People who think like that are going to think like that anyway, and the type of programme that'll encourage them will be nonsense like this:
http://www.history.co.uk/shows/hoard-hunters
http://www.britishmuseum.org/secrettreasures

But the comedy programme all helps raise the profile of the subject doesn't it? And then the rights and wrongs can be discussed, if people find they're interested. I don't think it's in the same league as the programmes linked to above. But I totally take your point that Wrong Impressions should be avoided. (I actually thought the fact the standing stone was lying down and overgrown might have been precisely that, to imply no-one knew there was anything special about the place at all).

N nigelswift
nigelswift Nov 1, 2015 14:55:16
Replying to Rhiannon

You're right that it's not damaging like the other two (and one of those was produced by PAS in a vain (as it turns out) attempt to save its own funding.

You could argue it two ways - they find almost nothing so no-one will emulate them or they ALMOST found something hugely valuable so lots of people will go out and do the same.

I wonder if Mr Crook will be able to resist the money shot - finding something that makes Andy and Lance millionaires?

My other gripe is I don't think PAS or recording has been mentioned. OK, the idea is that they've found nothing worth reporting but that in itself is conveying a false and damaging story. As you know, our (supported) estimate is that detectorists find 0.69 of a recordable artefact each per week, so the 8 Danebury club members would be finding 22 recordable finds a month. That's a lot of knowledge loss not to be depicting on the telly in just one of hundreds of (vastly larger) clubs. And it's why they'd all be banged up in most countries, sad, amusing or lyrical though the programme may be!