Producers' Perspective: Thoughts on Format

I prefer 3 days on one site, I didn't care for the live digs because it moved so fast I didn't really get a feel for the diggers and their ups and downs.

I do not enjoy the 3-day time constraint very much, though I understand why it exists. I'd rather have the tension be "will we meet our estimated 3-6 days?" rather than "here's our 3-day schtick". Thinking about, for example, the Palimpsest site, I love the idea of having the time to tackle some interrelated questions. (Perhaps an extra one or two if if the first three days don't pan out as planned.)

Dinah from Kabalor

Yes, these were are the questions I wanted discussed when I left a comment on a previous vid ^.^. Thanks so much. As for the three day format, as a viewer, I think it's exciting and would continue watching, however I would rather you guys be able to see an idea through to completion when possible. That said, I care more about having new Time Team content that can continue coming, so if the budget risk is too big, then I don't think the 3 day is negative enough to be worth risking a lapse in budget to change it. My ideal format would be to see each project to it's resolution, but if that's not possible I trust the new content will be fantastic to watch either way.

Seven

Not sure 3 days will do a massive roman villa justice. But you _do_ need a sense of urgency, and a timebox.

The "emergency dig" format where rising sea level or storms impose unusual speed and a need for manpower beyond the local archaeology staff have tiered value. Climate change/sea level, local amateur involvement, and saving artifacts all come to mind. Past digs on Orkney comes to mind where recently found erosion-threatened sites exist and where help (post covid) would be valuable. Plus this would update earlier shows with new knowledge. Emergency digs might justify two three day format programs.

Ann H

I agree. What Stewart does is fascinating to me, and I would love to follow him around and see how he does his thing.

Charr Skirvin

I agree the 3 day format is always what appealed to me from day 1. I loved the live shows though, and think that more than one episode per dig could be good, with more information. So many of the sites up for consideration sound fantastic, I'd hate to think that some are dropped just to extend one particular dig to 5 days, no matter how interesting it would be.

William Wood

Following Stewart around would be worthy of another Patreon tier.

Martin Packer

1 additional vote for following Stewart around.

Jack D Stout

Can we just have a camera man follow Stewert around the fields with his map? How he seems the landscape around him is so interesting in my opinion! More of an insight into this would be great. And of course, perhaps some more of the technical geophys. After all. The reason I think Time Team is so great, is because it's a Technical/Factual show. Extra screen time for all of the experts so long as it provides context can only be a good thing. But obviously not so much that it becomes 3 hours of following Geophys around a field! ha.

My vote: keep it at 3 days, and get more programming out of it. Maybe it's two shows per dig - one with the traditional format, and the other behind the scenes,, day1/day2 dinner conversations about the next day's strategy, post-dig updates, master classes, etc. As others have said, If the site is good enough to revisit, do another 3-day dig. Maybe each season has one revisit episode. (Jim Mower is right - if you make a dig 4 days or longer, make that clear up front.)

Bob Arnold

I always understood the three day format to be fundamental to Time Team, because as you say in traditional archaelogy sites are often dug for weeks over many years, and Time Team never aimed toemulate that, rather to supplement that approach with smaller scale questions and invesstigations, providing information for further research at site for other people to build upon as required. I think that finance is a perfectly good reason to keep to a short time scale, everyone understands that resources are not unlimited, especially when crowd funded. I think also, from a viewers pov, most people would prefer multiple sites to be explored to answer specific focussed questions, with a tangible adding to previous knowledge, rather than one site with more time spent on it, but possibly with diminishing returns for entertainment and historical/archaelogical understanding. In terms of views and streaming, I think perhaps an episode for each day of a dig would make more sense, and allow some extra in depth discussions that you are saying couldn't fit into the traditional format. It would seem a waste for all that effort and time for a 3 day dig to be cut down to only an hour of internet streaming on a platform like Youtube, when even three 20 minute videos released on different days fits more with the website culture. That all depends on the ultimate streaming platform of course.

I have mixed feelings about whether to keep the 3-day format or go to something longer. I love the idea of having more opportunity to see what else is at the site, but I think there is much benefit to limiting the scope of the dig, the obligations of the crew and diggers, and the costs. If you can get people to agree to a week, great! But I think the logistics would be difficult. I agree with others that doing that occasionally (like a 'special') or returning to a site is preferable.

Larissa Spiker