From BroadcastNow.co.uk:

Will it be "The gospel according to Bernie and friends" or "The gospel according to Capps et al"?

1948, 1950 or 1981?

Will they dare to criticise BCE?

Sounds exciting :-)

At worst we have at least 12 months to sharpen our critical claws :-)

Lets hope they take on board some of the critical comments from the BBC4 documentary 'Deadliest Crash: The 1955 Le Mans Disaster' TNF thread :-)

I hate to p*** on anybody's parade, but this is not being made by Bigger Pictures, but Bigger Picture (no S).

They are the company which made "Deadliest Crash".

I'm not holding my breath ...

And according to the advertisement on page 130 of Motor Sport they are looking for people's photographs/home movies from:

1960 Belgian GP
1961 Italian GP
1966 German GP
1967 Monaco GP
1968 Hockenheim Formula 2
1968 Indianapolis 500
1968 French GP
etc. etc.

Bit of a dark pattern emerging there.

I noticed that...

And does this mean F1's "formative years" started in 1960?

I can feel what enthusiasm I felt originally, evaporating...

The producer(s) won't 'learn' from criticism of 'Deadliest Crash', they won't even listen to it, they're just after viewing figures and accolades from others in the media, they don't care a jot what people like us think. There's a Radio 4 programme called Feedback, where listeners and occasionally viewers write or e-mail their opinions on recent output. It's almost all thoughtful and well argued comment, Radio 4 at its intelligent best, not easily dismissed, or at least it shouldn't be. They sometimes get those responsible for the featured programme to appear to answer these comments, and that's almost always a total waste of time, almost everything is dismissed with a comment like "Well, they obviously missed the real point of the programme", or "I'm sorry if anyone was annoyed or disturbed by that", which translates as "I don't give a shit what any viewer or listener thinks, I'm the producer, and I know best, they'll get what I choose to give them". To take the case of 'Deadliest Crash', most in the media probably loved it. Of the rest, it will have washed over the heads of most, eliciting facile comment like "Who was that Mike Hawthorn bloke, he was a bit of a bugger wasn't he? Fancy murdering all those people!" People like TNFs who know some of the facts, and can see through obvious distortions of the truth, count for absolutely nothing, so they'll just keep on chasing ratings and praise from others in the same line of business, which is what they really believe they're paid to do. So much for us then, the broadcast media isn't interested in people like us.

'Points of View', the TV version of 'Feedback', is the same. I have often been left scoffing at the arrogant, dismissive response to genuine, mildly expressed ctiticism from viewers, no matter how trivial the subject. The BBC can do no wrong.

Probably why I sold my half of a black & white telly in 1989 and still have not got round to replacing it :-)

I remmeber watching it when a viewer asked why the BBC couldn't have shown the Malaysian race on it's entirety on one channel and to be honest I was more confused about if after the schedulers answer after the show than I would have been had I not watched the programme. The answer essentially told us what we had just seen.

About these documentaries, I'm kind of it two minds. Who are they making them for? Are they putting interesting subjects out there so that those who might have a passing interest may find it an entertaining hours watch or are they putting some extra out there for those that already have a deep rooted interest in that already?

Because I can watch a documentary about, the weather, or the 60's, and I'll go this is interesting, even if the experts don't agree, but watching one about motor racing, for instance, I often feel myself going, well, yes, but I already knew that.

However, would it come to a certain point, where to actually tell deep-rooted motorsport fans anything they didn't already know, would result in the programme being too specific and flummox the general viewer.

That said, there's usually no excuse for inaccuracy.

You have touched on the nub of the problem, regrettably we do not have 15 million clued in Motor Racing fans other wise we would have a very popular quality 24/7 motor racing channel, so the beeb in it's infinite wisdom has to find away to attract the casual viewers and by doing so of course is going to get the backs up of any serious race fans, because it is unlikely any substantial new material will be presented and if there is any at all it will be over in a sound bite.

Unfortunately going on the call for 60's material and on the 1955 Le Mans debacle just covered I already have a feeling the title of bbc 4's next adventure into formula one is going to go along the lines of 'Oh No ! Not again !' referring to the endless string of 1960's tragedies.

For the casual viewer death sells almost as well as sex, details about what makes drivers tick and cars go fast are of minor importance to the sensation hungry media and it's beloved audience :-)

I hope I am wrong in all this but the signs so far are not at all good.