Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Producers' Perspective: Thoughts on Format (Patreon)

Published:
2021-03-07 09:49:31
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Videos

Content

Tim Taylor and Jim Mower reflect on the Stilton episode, recently released on Time Team Classics, using this as a launchpad for a discussion on format. They add further colour to the ongoing 'three day' debate. Their discussion continues in tonight's episode commentary for 'Street of the Dead' at 5.30pm GMT.

Catch up on the Stilton episode on Time Team Classics here: https://youtu.be/DZTsAh2frfI

Files

PTN-Producers-Thoughts on Format.m4v

This is "PTN-Producers-Thoughts on Format.m4v" by Time Team on Vimeo, the home for high quality videos and the people who love them.

Comments

Thorsten Brand

I liked the three days because it seems to fit very well into the 45min per episode. The main fascination I have with Time Team is that its focus was the process of learning something about a site and not the end result like so many other programmes. By extending the three days I fear that this focus shifts, if it is still packed into the same 45min. On the other hand, if a site shows much more potential and the team spends more time on it, why not pack it into a double-episode?

E Anna Johnson

Isnt the logic that the "new Time Team" keeps its flexibility? The Lady at my local Post Office is an enthusiast at one level (But believes that no one talks down to her), but on the other side there are serious enthusiasts.

Suki Suviel

I'm not tied to the 3 day format specifically, though I appreciate it has advantages. I feel like there's definitely times where an extra day or two could be really fascinating and let the team get deeper into some of the available detail. Whether that then needs more air time (longer episodes, double episodes, etc.) is, I think, a second question and would vary depending on what was being looked at. One thing I would say, is when a site is going to be continued by local archeologists are such, it would be great if there was space at the end of the episode, even if just 1 or 2 minutes, for an update on how that's been going since time team were there. I guess that would depend on how much time there was between time team finishing and the episode being released, and how much progress any continuing dig made over the same time

Mark Cooke

Good chat i think the idea of working on a 3 ,5, 7 day dig dependent on what’s needed if you found more work the site would have to go through the picking process again. This way its honest and up front at the start

DaFrenk

I think a format of more than three days should be kept for Specials. Like 1 or 2 episodes a season that is really a substantial dig where extra days are really of value.

DaFrenk

Furthermore, I really like the mystery of the three days. It spikes my interest to look up the site afterwards and go back to it after a while and see if any local archeologists found anything new. Maybe that could also be part of a (web) series? Where you go back to previous digs and follow how the local archeological societies are dealing with the sites?

David Boon

I wonder if there is room for both a three day dig and to bring it some of the other aspects mentioned. I quite like the idea of Time Team branching out to a new format over three connected shows. The first show might explore the initial investigation of the site and include the geophys, contextual information from experts on the period or periods covered and known history of the area under investigation. It would lead up to possible questions based on the geophys, contextual information and known history. The traditional three day dig would be the middle episode and run in the traditional format except the geophys would already be available and allow for more targeted and planned digging. The third show would be to follow up on aspects not fully covered in the dig, it might be additional archaeology done by the team or others after the show, additional scientific analysis and explanation of finds such as DNA testing of bones, and bringing back the experts from the first episode to identify what has been learned as a result of the dig. There would need to be some bridging between the three components but something worth considering given the greater flexibility for filming, etc. with current technology.

Tony Elliott

I thought there was a very good point made about the role of experts bought in to appraise and interpret particular finds e.g the Ogham writing whose work did not feature greatly if at all in the programme. A future format should be able to allow this work to be made more apparent however not necessarily in the main flow of the program if the "one hour" type format is to retained. I liked the idea of YouTube videos being available to cover this.

James Hill

I see the value in the 3 day format in order to have some control over the programming, if any follow up time is needed for a particularly complex or valuable dig then this could be made available to patreons of the programme.

Pauline

I am happy for Time Team to flag up a flexible time set for each site, depending on expected outcomes.

Sarah Holloway

This is very exciting! love the idea of extra information being made available as part of the new format . Jim’s idea of a longer period of time to explore an area sounds great if there are indications that geophysics has revealed there are interesting results . It would also be great for local archaeology groups to be involved perhaps later .

Timothy Kendrick

I prefer keeping it to three days. (Although maybe 90-minute episodes?) Three days keeps it focused, adds a little tension, keeps it to an overview of a sight rather than something that gets too in-depth and thus maybe starts to get a little boring. I think it's good to remember that Time Team shows archeology to people who normally wouldn't be interested in it. More days doesn't necessarily mean more interest for the viewers.

Henrik Vogt

I enjoyed the discussion regarding the three day format. Personally, I prefer three days since it does tend to focus the scientists. My suggestion is to keep the 3 day format, but after several digs, ask the viewers which dig would they like continued for another three days and go back to it. In addition the more history you can pack into the shows the better. I knew a little of British history ( I am Canadian) but since I have been watching the show for about 6 months, I know a little more.

Alan Johnson

3 days is a great norm but, if I ever got frustrated with any episode, it was that geophys should be given a clear start, if the budget and resources allow, and that the lack of meaningful local intelligence was sometimes a hindrance to progress too.

JUDITH COOKE

Very interesting issues. The three day format is so much a part of what Time Team was, but I guess each site needs to be assessed on its potential. New technology may also provide more flexibility and streamlining of content.

Paul

Interesting discussion on the 3 day format If you can get local groups to continue on a site that demands more investigation perhaps revisits to give brief updates over a period of time can be edited and included in the finished program A bit like the Grand Designs house building TV program

Always86

I like the 3 day format, having a time limit adds a sense of jeopardy, and also helps justify the scope of the programme as evalution only. That said extending to 4+ days if there is a reason wouldn't concern me as a fan. I think it would need to be part of the 'Tony Question' "This sight has so much potential that this time we've got 5 days." Just as a side thought on this any longer periods would need to be able to maitain the comradery between the core team. 3 days 12 times a year might feel a bit different to 12 weeks a year. In the event of 'big' finds, like mosaics or a hoard the ability to leave a team, and perhaps send a crew back would be great. It might not be the day to day coverage, it might not have the moment to moment, but it could still allow the audience to see what was found in it's full glory. Outside experts and filming them as adendums for You Tube sounds good, or even making the episodes an hours to be able to contain that content like a post match analysis works. I would be careful about making episode to long though. Perhaps it won't be on TV but 45 minutes to an hours is best practice for making content, best to self enforce a duration for your own discipline on the edit.

L. Randolph Lee

Given the huge voracious monster that modern streaming video outlets have become, is there a secondary market that new time team shows can be sold into?

Rosemary Henderson

I very much like the idea of extra expert/historical content being made available through You Tube videos - one of the reasons I love Time Team is because I learn so much from it and I'd happily follow more videos. I also think the extended format would be interesting, if it can be justified scientifically

Richard Munro

There were many times with the original Time Team when I lamented not being able to take “one more day”. I would most vigorously lobby for a ‘flexible’ approach with freedom to extend...maybe as part of the programme (“this is so promising/exciting, we must carry on for another day(s)). That could add another element of ‘promise’ and ‘tension’ to the format. Five day format is attractive too as, as shared above, there is so much more to share. I do not know what the distribution model is for the new Time Team. But maybe spin offs: ‘research’, ‘after the days digging was done’, ‘follow up’ or whatever episodes like this could be made available. There would be no problem for me if one episode began a dig and took it to a reasonable conclusion and then another episode picks up and takes the story further.

Ian Holmes

The show built its success originally on the three day format, so I think it would be foolish to drop it. By all means though have the flexibility to come back an extra day if the site needs it. I was watching the Blaenavon viaduct episode the other day. Perhaps an extra day at that site would have enabled them to enlarge the hole more (not that it wasn’t large enough already) to see a bit more of the structure. Rather that just finding a tiny hole to stick a camera through. I am also very much in favour of “extra content” to show the importance of the behind the scenes work that helps fill in the details about the site, history and finds.

William F. Campbell

Wow, wonderful discussion. The 3 day format may be necessary for the reasons already discussed. However, the Web has significantly changed many things that can come into play. For instance day one was often portrayed as being sort of disorganized with Tony being depressed at the end. :-) A lot of work can be done well in advance of 3 days digging and allow the professionals involved to better schedule their work and maybe even donate some time on slack days in their schedules. Day one's opening segment can have Tony's monologue followed by geophys, Lidar, and a classicist with hard data leading to decisions made on how to start. Preliminary surveying might be done early as well and included in this segment. Then day 1 field work can actually start at 0900 with a full crew. Also, the "cameo" roles in some programs were more of a distraction than interesting and might not be part of every episode. Secondly, with no commercials or other interruptions the full time might really be an hour. Thirdly, the web allows followup segments posted on the web that need not take a whole hour. With good captions, people can view follow up segments on buildings, coins, ceramics or other topics. To conclude, the 3 days provides a vehicle to tell a coherent story to viewers and control the budget. However, cramming too many people doing overlapping jobs into too little time is not efficient and risks making the story narrative disjointed. As noted, some interesting work never makes it past editing that might be included on the Web. Go for a full 60 minutes with a 3 day frame work followed when needed by shorter follow up segments.

Jill Hobbs

I understand the advantages of the 3 day format, but often found it frustrating. I would much rather see a job completed even if it took longer. The idea of extra content that can be viewed separately is also enticing. I think flexibility is the key.

Dr Richard Mellish

I agree with several of the observations above, which I have identified by the "like" icon. I don't think I have anything to add.

SallyMum

In regards to length of dig, I'd just like to add this: One of my few complaints of TT was that I was often left wondering "what ever happened to that site". Being in US, I'd sometimes stumble around the net, trying to find out more but not having much success. Could there, perhaps, be come sort of follow up on sites, particularly if certain ones are so complex that they end up being extended further than the "3 days"? Just a thought.

Robert Baker

Recently James Holland did a really good documentary on the battle of Normandy in WW2 using Vimeo which is now on Amazon Prime. He said that he had more freedom doing it this way and the documentary is as good as anything comparable on TV

Andrew Hingston

I never felt that the 3-day format made much sense other than as a budget framework. But as I have said in relation to Brancaster, the dig itself may be of most interest only within a context. It might be a bit much for the average viewer, but setting the dig programme within low budget pieces on YouTube or wherever explaining the background history, what the dig was trying to do, or very interesting to many viewers, what it could lead to, would add value.

Amanda Taylor

That was a terrific discussion. Since being involved through Patreon I have been taking a much more analytical look at the whole TimeTeam production ‘thing’ and have been struck by how important the quality of that was. Yes, the experts and presenters etc were brilliant, and the show built up and developed a cohort of TV friendly people in a variety of roles. But it is only watching other programmes that are ‘not as good as TT’, and trying to work out why not, that my understanding and admiration of the construction and planning of the show has begun to crystallise. But in trying to get my thinking into some sort of order to write it down, it is getting as long as a student’s essay! Is there anywhere I can send I file, rather than subjecting you all to a massive comment?

Andrew Taylor

Personally I feel the 3 day format did work as it enabled Time team to focus on its goals and keep to the brief. That said I would love to see a show where you went back to see the work carried out by local archeologists after Time Team had left the site. There are often too many tantalising questions left unanswered. Or alternatively extend the show to a two part in the event of finding something magnificent that deserves further investigation. As has been said the youtube platform is excellent as you are not restricted to a time slot, so extending the episode or spinning off various related videos about the site/project would totally work in my opinion.

Mary Boulton

Great discussion. How about establishing a process for engaging an existing organization (local archeological team, university, etc) to continue TT's work, with periodic checkpoints to relate status? With the publicity coming from the initial 3 day engagement, these groups should have an easier time in procuring funding and permissions.

Becky Johnstone

Perhaps one show a year or a 2 hour special showing the work that goes on with local groups or your own follow up on a site.

Matthew Hauck

Personally, I think the format still works if the dig needs to be 5-7 days as opposed to just three days, because you are dealing with a finite period of time, even as a two part episode it still works, the idea was always that the clock was ticking. regarding seeing the behind the scenes conversations, perhaps the majority of that could be reserved for the Patreon

Ringdancer

The commentary in this seems to indicate that there was more content and perhaps more footage that got left in edit at the end of some shows. I think the 3 day concept mostly works so you can get experts away from their universities to do it over a weekend but when it comes to presentation who's to say that you can't make use of your footage to create more than one video for each site so as to present a fuller picture of what was done and properly showcase the experts and story that need to be presented? Also presenting follow ups on sites later on where work has continued or new discoveries were made might be nice too.

Sarah Jane

Personally my views on a site that has more than 3 days to offer, I think time team should stick to its 3 days but with a back up community of local achealogists and unis to carry on the work, with a time team video on any updates over the time work has carried on

Jim Markey

The 3 Days was one of those 'magical' ingredients that gave TT 20 series. Perhaps budget for one camera and one digger to stay on for 1 or 2 days if one trench does suggest further digging and present any findings from that in a special postscript piece at end of programme. If the 3 days is sufficient, carry budget on to next site.

Jim Markey

Sorry, just read that previous comment said something similar.

Frank Pellow

I loved this discussion. Lots of behind the scenes info that i have always wondered about. I would be massively keen for spin-off videos/podcasts to set the site in historical context or to delve deeper. If you are producing a 'conventional' program then i think the time limit needs to stay. The element of 'wanting more time' is one of the many charms of the show.

Bob Pockney

Tinker with something at your peril. I've been pondering this for weeks, to no real conclusion. The three day setup worked adding an element of pressure and as noted, helped with the availability of people over a long weekend. Many will expect a continuation of the same setup which they were comfortable with and enjoyed - but, has the audience moved on ? Do we need to change the format for a wider audience ? My personal, comfortable, view would be to keep a similar format - that would presumably keep costs manageable too. But there is the ability to have continuation reports after the main programme, maybe have cut-away pieces about particular items like pottery or coinage. With a site where it's not initially an unknown, there's the option of 4 or more day investigations so as not to leave the viewers dangling.

Connie L Merchant

Tim and Jim are on it! Thought: Could Tony say, "We have a potentially complicated site that could take us passed our usual three days. Stay tuned after the break to find out."? It is sort of a hook, is honest, and has suspense to keep one watching to see what is decided on the number of days it will take.

Rob Hack

I'm in favour of keeping the 3-day format. It's no mean feat to take a dry subject like archaeology and turn it into exciting television, and yet you've somehow hit upon a format that does just that. If you change it you risk losing the jeopardy (and also control of your budgets!) That said, there are definitely opportunities to go further using the internet. You can engage with nerds like us in the planning stages (like you are). You can put out additional material on youtube after an episode (interviews, reflections, updates on finds...etc). If you're not programming for TV you can be flexible with the edit, so if you think an episode needs an extra 5 or 10 minutes to complete the story you have that option. And ultimately, if you are engaged with a particular project long term you always have the opportunity to go back at a later date. Often the sites throw up as many questions as they answer, and I always enjoyed the episodes where you returned to a previous site to continue the story.

Mark Lund

I'm not sure if my comments are just 'what I would like'. But I'm sure there were many digs that were left with one wanting more. Sometimes more digging, sometimes just more background, as Jim was suggesting a researcher could do at the time, ( for instance). Clearly there were times when the 3 days was extended if not for the programme, as it was necessary. I would like to see some background info. or back up info. when deemed to enhance the programme. But certainly if a generaL time limit is going to be in place, this should not be totally restrictive, so a dig was left 'unfinished', even if it meant coming back for another episode, getting others to do it, but following up later. Everyone wants to know when more stuff comes to light, either by further excavation, research, finds cleaning etc. As we know, the programmes were months after the digs...generally, so any info can be shoehorned in , and though this may not work with all sites, make it 1.5hrs, or have a follow up episode, maybe at the end of a series to catch up and reveal anything else about that series of digs. As Jim said, any follow up knowledge gained could be put in a youtube video specifically, though I think I would rather it was either a separate programme on the same channel or an extended programme. But, bringing experts in specifically because of what has been found is great for all our veiwing experience...i would think.

Robert Wise

Three days / dig seems about right to me, keeps up the flow, the interest, and adds a bit of urgency … but … couldn’t more be done with those three days if geophys went in a day ahead, evaluated the site, and the three days began the following day. There would still be an on-screen role for geophys during the regular three days by doing additional geophys imaging … which seem to come up often. It’s a bit frustrating to never see a finished dig … a complete reveal. On sites with interesting archeology it would be satisfying to see at least a portion of the site fully revealed and interpreted. If a more complete reveal takes more than three days, would it work to do two shows sequentially, over three days each, on the same site? Would this help solve the problem of trying to squeeze more days into an hour long show? On a different topic … I find it adds more interest when a site can be personalized with details about the people who lived there.

Susan Alexander

I would prefer the show be kept to three days to keep the tension for the viewer. And having spent many hours on line looking for what happened afterwards to a site, I think a revisit show with someone like Tony would be great. It could be multiple sites in one show if not much happened or one of a lot more was found by the local archeologists.

Philip Stack

The streaming format gives you new possibilities. Not every programme needs to be in an identical format. In addition, your audience is likely to be different as they are people who have sought out archaeology, more engaged, probably more knowledgeable. I think there would be risks in simply repeating the previous format: the audience, the archaeologists and indeed the world have moved on. If you try to simply make 'series 21', it may not work out as people would wish.

Roger Mills

Keep to the same core concept but add the extras. The big problem, though, with most mainstream TV is the stranglehold that schedulers and their desire for standard length output have over programme making. So often you have the discomfort of something that could happily have fitted into 35 minutes being stretched to 55. New means of distribution don't have that and all the better for it. I think you would be better off thinking in terms of 'concept' rather than 'format'.

Lee Olver

Wonderful discussion! I like Mower’s idea of a rarely used, but available, sliding dig duration. It would be useful to know how many times, out of over 200 classic episodes, a dig might have been appropriately lengthened - and when that decision could have been made based on what the team knew when. My guess is less than 5 times and that they might have anticipated the fact only a couple of times. To do so at the start would likely require the desk analysis and geophys to be completed before the start of the dig. Stewart’s lumps and bumps analysis should be largely done by then as well. Having the majority of such work done before the start of the dig proper would severely impact the multidisciplinary team feelings. Adding a day or three on day 3 would add all sorts of logistical and cost complications. One advantage of a YouTube channel, however, is that it really isn’t necessary to follow a schedule carved in stone. Spending a few extra days enhancing a show would be more appreciated than cause for concern. The idea of linked, supplemental videos is very exciting as well. I look forward to seeing how this all evolves.

Ann Chevrefils

I can only imagine the work it takes to assemble a crew and all the support for a three day dig. Making that a flexible number of days to be decided on the spot would be a budgeting nightmare. If the Geophysics and landscape analysis were done ahead of time, it might make it easier to decide how many days would be needed to answer questions about the site. The early work could be filmed for the fun bits and added to the program as part of the intro. The only shows I didn't enjoy were the live digs. I thought that there were too many people introduced as hosts and guests, and there was a lot of fluff in the place of interesting archaeology. I'm not a Brit so I have no idea who all those grinning, shouting people were but they weren't amusing or very well informed. There is no one like Sir Tony. I would welcome a season follow up to let the viewers know about later discoveries and decisions. I am so excited about the return of Time Team and hope to see the results of Tim Taylor's labors on my screen in the very near future.

Martha Berryman

Palimpsest and Suffolk are complex sites. Perhaps each site could have 2 separate Episodes in the 3-Day Weekend Format. I've done cultural anthropology for decades--above-ground search and documentation of "lost" community sites. We always limit an expedition to 4 days at a time--to keep us fresh, focused, enthused and high energy. TT has similar issues, especially with heavily scheduled Experts, Originales now with Uni postings, and Grad Student diggers. Thus Time Team's overview can provide engaging WHOLE narrative of the layers of chronology and history to augment the larger MEANING of its history, as well as insights about the long continuation of these community sites, over millenniums--why? how? what motivations? cycles of purpose? Martha in Blue Skies Texas

Bill Karoly

If a site is jam packed with good and interesting finds then maybe on day three you could get together and decide if an extra day would be helpful.

Diana Patterson

I am not going to say anything new here, but I might suggest a slightly different perspective where everyone's ideas could fit. Rather than thinking of a 45-minute programme, why not consider each site to be its own variable-length season? It might have 30 minutes of dig, 20 minutes of experts, 10 minutes of experimental archeology -- all different bits that the viewer could mix and match from? Some of these are virtually free (PhD student discusses new theories and findings), and the real dig might be hugely expensive, but balancing bits over several digs might make it work. You don't need to be Procrustean.

Tanis Sugden

I have often wanted to see "directors cuts" of the original shows because I imagine that there was so much that ended up on the cutting room floor. I was also aware of the off-camera consultation I couldn't glimpse at the time. I appreciate your thoughtfulness therefore, in determining the future format. I liked the three day timeframe from a perspective of exploration and discovery. I also appreciate the value from a budget point of view as well. Even on the live digs, I preferred the one hour edited show. What I wanted though (and still do) is the additional commentary and story that goes with that 3 day dig! I remember with Friars Wash seeing all the Roman Temple experts in the background and wanting to hear their impressions. It seems like in an age of small cameras, that it might be able to capture those perspectives and back-story more readily and within budget. I'd love to see you approach the format as a core one-hour show with"added value" supplementary material. I also thought you could get more value from a site by going back and seeing it later. If a community or university group continued digging or there were lab findings, I'd love to see a piece revisiting a site, if possible. All in all, thank you for your consideration of our opinions as you craft the new approach.

MeaninglessMud

I’m of the opinion that the number of days should be led by the prep. be it landscape geophysics local knowledge. Matched to budget and personnel availability. Likely complexities should be taken into account , for instance one of my sites involves a harbour complex; the possibility of the remains of a vessel. Is high on probability. That would instantly need to be reflected in time personnel and direction of planning. But equally the Roman road and roundhouses are equally part of the same scenario. Should multiple layers of activity be available rather than one programme? Perhaps an overview of five days as the summary but the individual digs within a available real time as it happens over the days.

Paul Middleton

Hi Tim, not sure whether you read all the comments here i have just watched the street of the dead and as usual I was completely fascinated i do realise that all your dig choices are limited but I have to ask I live in Chesterton Newcastle Under Lyme in Staffordshire there is a Roman Fort not 500yds from my location and as far as I can gather only limited work has been done on this it is on a School site and with some clear crop marks that can be seen through aerial photographs could it be worth a look in the future ? .

Paul Felber

The advantage you have with the new Time Team is that you are not restricted by the specific requirements of television production. Effectively you have the option of creating an entirely new process. My question would be in the nature of: "How does one retain the flexibility to manage a variable time frame and budget?" The format is really your choice based on the site dynamics. Whether it's 30 minutes or 90 minutes, one video or three, one weekend or two, etc. You don't necessarily have to have the highest production quality for all scenes. Scripting could also be a bit more relaxed - many scenes were so tightly scripted that they felt a bit artificial. No doubt that was done to fit them into your tv time frame. You also don't need to do events on a strict schedule. A tv series needs to have X number of shows, airing weekly. You could do 2 shows a month, or none at at for a month. Since budget will be a driving factor for many of the decisions in managing this flexibility, I respectfully submit that many of your Patreon supporters would be more than happy to provide additional funding for a specific event. If you do a 3-day event and feel that another 3 days would add value, we will trust your judgement and contribute as needed.

Beth Ortolano

To quote Mick Aston, 'We'll be happy with whatever happens.'

heith Doty

I have wished a few digs had gone a 4th day , some sites just needed one more day to finish up .

DJ Johnson

Wonderful discussion. My view is that sticking to the 3-day timeline probably makes sense for the majority of sites. Still, like others have said, we'd trust your judgement if it warranted an extension (I'd be inclined to make it 2 episodes so you can keep the 3 days per ep structure, even if it's not 3 days per site). I'd be very interested in seeing more of the 'behind the scenes' aspects as discussed. One of the advantages of not being constrained to a tv channel timeslot, is you don't have to have a set episode length. You could even do breakout mini-episodes for any behind the scenes investigations that are interesting in their own right but don't fit the narrative of the show.

Beth Ortolano

In the previous seasons, I could be left with a feeling of frustration when there were clearly more tests to be done and more to the story, but the format demanded a neatly wrapped end. Also, I would start to care about the site, and then worry that it had been abandoned and shelved. Incorporating extra research and history as well as viewer questions into a subsequent "Site Report" should be feasible.

Rachelle Gates

Yes I really think it needs to be evaluated by the site not fit in a box format. Some digs will be shorter but maybe the ones that are really special they get a little more attention. Also if you are going to be on YouTube think about more then one episodes per dig then you can have more specialists. What the tea time episodes are like but break some of the digs up the same way. This is up to you now to bring Time Team into a new area. I understand budgeting is going to be tight and the people who are going to work the site limited but remember you don’t need a bunch of film equipment like you did on TV what will take you the longest is editing and putting the story together. Not sure if this helps but I feel if we all give you information you can decide what is best. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with and thank you for wanting to continue providing us with great stuff.

Graham Brown

Part of the charm was the “3 days to find out” and usually this worked but there were rare occasions when I felt that the time constraints had meant that the conclusion has been hurried. In this sense I approve of the idea of “extended” digs if. in planning, the site suggests it might deserve this. As for more contextual explanations for the digs/finds etc I am all for this. A programme on the dig and separate videos on the “context” seem a no brainer. This will not be restricted to a TV slot, fine the dig programme might still be 45-50 minutes but if there is then some interesting side issues (seeing the reaction of the expert on the translation for example) specific pieces relating to this would add to the overall experience for me.

Carl Johnson

I really like the idea of a "special" video that features the off camera researchers and how what they found helped the overall understanding of the dig.

Terri

I love the energy of the three days but if you plan days based on the research and anticipate more, we will hang with it. We just want to know what you find and get a good summary. I'd miss Tony stressing abut time but thats the charm of the other version of the show.

Bron Lloyd

I like the idea of five days - and also the special background videos that Tim and Jim talked about. But honestly I’m going to be happy with whatever you guys decide!

Garret Olds

I think Jim has the right idea about taking the site assessment and allocating time constraints based on that and availability of resources. You want constraint to keep yourself honest, avoid bloat and fiscally responsible (no doubt) but you also want to embrace the flexibility of the new platform. My suggestions would be: - 3 days standard with some going longer based on site assessments / experience / local resourcing. - 'Episode' length can be flexible to an extent, or do it in a series of parts if it's longer. - We will want to know what happens to site through follow ups so some thought should be given to providing a site update down the track through small youtube videos or a larger collective update if appropriate. - You need to fundamentally address all the goals/Tony questions as part of the program because they're invaluable in keeping everyone (audience and crew) on track or at least to some sort of production coherence. - Make use of being able to provide other experts and such to make the experience richer that couldn't be squashed into 1 hour of TV. - Initially keep production manageable and grow it by degrees so you're not biting off more than you can chew! (Personally, I'd also like some informational videos from experts about various disciplines, eras and other tertiary content, similar to how the British Museum does Curator Corners and the like.)

Keith Jackson

I think that the three-day format leads to a need for focus and that tightness could be lost if it were to be routinely extended. I suggest that there could be a main video using the original format but there is room for short, associated videos to flesh out on-going research on singular finds shown during the program, such as the Oggham script.

Peter

I like the central 3 day dig as it gives focus and encourages developmet of the story. But I also like the "making of" stories and having the build up and clear up documented for the deep fans would be really helpful and enjoyable. What is not enjoyable is the jingle jangle background music - please please please do not use this in the new productions!

Phelim McIntyre

People are still forgetting one thing. Jim Mower works for someone other than Time Team. So do Carenza Lewis, Helen Geake, Phil Harding, Stewart Ainsworth, Raksha Dave, Matthew Davis, Mark Carney, Ben Robinson, Naomi Sewpal, Ian Powlesland, Neil Holbrook, Jackie McKinley. I could go on listing people. Any format MUST fit in with the team's jobs outside of Time Team. There is only a certain amount of time that Wessex Archaeology, Cotswold Archaeology, Historic England, and the various museums and universities will allow people to be involved in side projects such as Time Team.

Beth Ford

I think there needs to be some parameters. Maybe the length of time is slightly different for each dig based on the site evaluation, but I don’t think leaving it open-ended or with the option to tack on more time would work as well. I agee with others’ ideas about follow-up videos - short clips about what happens with the dig clean up, analysis of finds, additional expert opinions, etc.

Phelim McIntyre

Keep the three days. Yes, add the side videos with experts so we get opportunities to get the knowledge but can Time Team afford to have the "Team" financially? Will the bodies which give people to Time Team allow the extra time? Archaeologists don't want to give up all their holiday time for digs.

John Matthew IV

Lots of things to think about in this video. The idea of having background videos, for example about the seven Roman emperors who visited Britain, is great. It would produce an educational legacy. Few would want to sit through a whole programme for five minutes on this topic, but if it was a standalone video on YouTube, I am sure it would get lots of views. Now the Three-Day Dig rule was arbitrary but it worked. Sometimes more time is needed. But I fear all digs would expand to five days if there was a Five-Day Dig rule. Having flexibility of not being a TV programme does mean extra work can be done. I do wonder about the extra costs and the demand of people's time. So yes to background videos and Sometimes to more than three days.

Ian Plowman

I think it would depend on the site, and it's potential of how many days it would need. I think a flexible approach would be best. Some digs I would guess would warrant more than three days. As for background videos and telling their story would be a big yes from me.

Tom Hansen

I dont think it necessarily needs to be 3 days, but being clear about the limitations of the schedule/resources is both a good narrative device. To me it was almost more fascinating when you were forced to put down your shovels when potentially inches from a huge discovery. It really drove home just how much fascinating stuff is out there under the ground just waiting to be explored and how much archeology is about prioritizing scarce resources etc.

Jon Colcord

Keep it three days. The formula worked, evidently it was cost effective, and considering the latter, I want to see Time Team 2.0 last a very long time if at all possible!

Michał Olechno

I think it's important to keep a 3-day format for a single episode. Some changes, like introducing a preceding field survey, of appropriate type to a site's character, might be welcome to be better prepared at the beginning of an episode and to gain more knowledge about a potential and complexity of a site as well. To more complex sites it's possible to create one-by-one a two or more episodes, each of three days. From original TT, Nevis episodes was alike. If anything important occure after recording an episode should you put it on the Internet as an independent update to the TT's Community

Lee Harvey

For me, the limit of specifically 3 days isn't important. However I do think there needs to be a challenging time limit, probably under a week. That would be for the main show. I would also be interested in seeing the main show supplemented by more detailed 20 to 30 minute episodes. Then, for maybe one or two long-term projects, a monthly update show on those sounds appealing to me.

Alex Schultz

really agree with this - I think there is a lot of space here that would be really cool and I loved that suggestion in this video

Timothy Short

I think that the 3 day format is appropiate, however i also agree with the comments above about having a programme of 20-30min which looks at specific elements e.g mosaics in more depth.

Vincent Maresca

The three days still works as a program format creating the tension needed for a show. But for larger sites, a second three day program investigating other areas of the site while completing unresolved investigations would be equally interesting. While I would be interested watching segments on the research, talking with experts, experimental segments, I'm not sure the production costs would support the "bang for your buck" as larger audience prefers seeing the archaeological features and artifacts. Perhaps expanding the show from the current 46-50 minutes to 60 minutes would provide an outlet for those interesting but missing bits (if the end product is an internet youtube-type show free from major network requirements).

Levy

I have the impression that part of the point of the limited time was not only fitting it into the academics' schedules but also that a lot of archaeology is now done as rapid evaluation digs. When someone wants to build they have to get an evaluation done and can't afford to wait for months or years for thorough investigation. The time limit gives an accurate idea of how things are most often done.

Beth Jones

I agree that the three day format is the way to go for both practical and artistic reasons but a few longer digs, with clear time constraints, word still work. Double episodes work very well like they did on Nevis.

laurie steele

I would loved to see the background history and experts

Michael Berthelsen

Maybe that could be the BTS for the Patreon supporters, recorded while the episode is being prepped and filmed as well?

bart sikkes

three days seems fine, an exception of five if it works for the people involved is fine also. but as mentioned be clear about it from the start. the eventual program can be longer then the current hour, two is nice, with some small bonuses here and there.

Stephanie Stewart

"Can we do it in 3 days, or do we need more? Could be the question.

Emma chamberlain

time team is 3 days. Frustrated when they couldnt stay longer but what about returning. Im all for double episodes, going back and returning is the hook as a viewer. You stated in the video you let people stay on and they found nothing. What happens if you plan a 5 or 7 day dig and get all the specialists, people, equipment, accomodation etc in place and find nothing. What will the program look like? A hard watch at no fault of the program makers. Teasing the viewer with a return or extra youtube/ patreon content has my vote. Also the more experts/historians on tv the better, beric, robin and the reenactment people stick in my mind most.

David Richardson

I'd be in favour of keeping the three day format for all the reasons outlined above, but also the possibility of double episodes if there were good reasons to do so. But I'm a huge fan of the extent to which TT published the results of their work (which I know was always a big issue for Mick) and I wonder if longer digs make publishing more difficult - and of course there is the finance issue as well.

Mark Horn

Like many other I'm in favour of keeping the three day format but having double or extended episodes if and when the archaeology dictates it. I'm also in favour of having short mini side piece linked from the main program giving a more detailed look behind the scenes where necessary. Maybe the route to go is send in Geophys first and see how complicated the site is before we start digging?

Bjarne Carlsen

I would be in favor of longer programs for special and more complicated sites. I often ended watching a TT program thinking "Now what about this and that, which Tony said at the start". Some programs showed a Day 4 because of the complexity of the site. I would like to see longer digs where warranted. That said, I'm in favor of the general three day format.

Joanne Carrubba

I think it would be so amazing to see more at so many of the sites. I think, as was pointed out in the video, streaming could open up more possibilities. I realize the scholarly and teaching responsibilities may interfere, but hearing more from the experts, etc would be incredible. That could also be useful for use of the programs in education in general.

Colin Smith

I would like to have seen some Sort of follow up shows, a Time Team Revisited, on sites where local teams continued after. For example the Street of the Dead episode where Jim said that a University dig continued for many year

Kathryn

As many have previously stated, I’m in favor of the standard 3 day format. You need a framework upon which to hang everything. But that doesn’t mean you can’t have a double episode from time to time if the site and budget are conducive. I am also wildly in favor of short background/side videos regarding subjects of a tangential interest.

Martin Packer

I wonder if people will be available for longer than 3 days. I always imagined they took a day off or had one donated by their employers to add to a standard weekend. Going beyond that would be difficult.

Melinda Nagy

You could show a hand-off to another group of archaeologists, similar to when they used to call in Time Team to help them with big sites

Melinda Nagy

But like the Big Dig you could make a “special” to continue on complex sites over several episodes/parts

Donald Milne

The three day format always seemed about right for most sites, but if there was some way to manage an extra day (but no more!) where warranted, even with a reduced group to attempt to answer a specific outstanding question then that would seem the right balance. As you said yourself, this was something you sometimes did anyway, even if it usually wan't filmed, and the streaming format would better support a "Time Team Extra Time" as a companion stream to the main event.

Simon Willatts

For sites which lend themselves to it, and assuming you can secure the people required for the duration, then longer digs split over 2 episodes sounds like a good idea. I like the idea of understanding a bit more of what happens with the research which was always off camera, even if it's beyond the scope of a core episode and is relayed through some extra mini features via Youtube etc.

Joel Arnwine

I like this idea. Our ancestors forever surprise us . What with the things they’ve been up to.

Dave Couchman-Boor

I like the 3 day format, and like a lot of people said there have been occasions where an extra day might have been nice, but would there have been enough for a 2 part show? If the dig says there is likely to be, then do a revisit. I agree that a spin off show that shows some more of the behind the scenes research and maybe a discussion with one of the Team about one or two of the finds would be good “Time Team - Trench 2”. What I wouldn’t want to lose in either show is the humour that team bring, although it is understated it keeps the show from becoming a more standard archeological/history documentary style program. Please don’t get me wrong I enjoy these shows as well but I feel that this is one of the things that’s sets Time Team apart.

Justin L Williams

The 3 day format has always been very good and I have enjoyed watching it but I am very intrigued about the idea of certain sites if they show a lot of promise on any pre-work doing a 5 or 6 day. I think this would be a great interest and give an opportunity to do so much more. It would also be interesting to see more of the 'behind the scenes' researching that goes on that we would never normally see.

Martin Packer

Didn't Coventry go into Day Four? I think that's the only one.

Martin Packer

It's also occurred to me that 3 days could be 3 shows.

Henning Paulsen

I like the 3 days formate, but would like it even more if you had greater flexibility to choose to go for a 5 or 6 days dig for complicated and promesing sites. The "spin off" with expert interwievs and more inpepth details on YT ect. is a Must! Im sure you will make a greate comeback!

Julie Freeman

I just watched the West Indies Nevis Part 1 and Part 2 episodes. The dig lasted for 6 days and was split into 2 shows. That seemed to work well.

Charlotte Humphreys

I really like the idea of seeing all the 'behind the scenes' research and conversations. The information about the history of the site/ area was always interesting

UKArtlover

I think the three day format is key to keep the time team unique format However you could follow the lead of Attenborough type programs and have 5 or 10 min "Diary" sections at the end of the program to supply extra production info or outtakes etc ...

Larissa Spiker

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.

Gilbert Walker

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.

Bob Arnold

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.)

James Williams

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.

Jack D Stout

1 additional vote for following Stewart around.

Martin Packer

Following Stewart around would be worthy of another Patreon tier.

William Wood

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.

Charr Skirvin

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

Ann H

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.

Mike Lowndes

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

Seven

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.

Dinah Sanders

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.)

Connie Cox

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.