BBC Television programmes  permalink

Meet The Izzards

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 82 of 82
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by daliscar (U15564228) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    One of the most astonishing things (to me) is that remains of Neanderthals have been found as far south as Israel, and that the few Homo Sapiens who originally entered Europe via the Middle East must have immediately interbred with them (because absolutely everyone descended from people who left Africa has some amount of Neanderthal DNA).

    (Were they singing this? :- www.youtube.com/watc...
    No apparently they prefered " I'm Mandy, Fly Me ".

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by Stela Paya (U15111183) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    even the phrase "mitochondrial DNA" wasn't used 

    I have to disagree. The whole first programme was following the mitochondrial DNA, and it was referred to fairly often AFAICR.


     
    At the start of the first programme, Dr.Wilson says we will be using 2 pieces of information, the Y-chromosome for your father's line and information on your mother's line. The word mitochondrial does not appear. There's also no mention of maternal clans. He makes mention of "Eve", but in fact the original (correct) term for this is "mitochondrial Eve". There were obviously other women around at the time of mitochondrial Eve!

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by Prinkma (U14661090) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    One of the most astonishing things (to me) is that remains of Neanderthals have been found as far south as Israel, and that the few Homo Sapiens who originally entered Europe via the Middle East must have immediately interbred with them (because absolutely everyone descended from people who left Africa has some amount of Neanderthal DNA).

     


    Are you sure? I always thought that only 4% of humans have Neanderthal DNA.

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 53.

    Posted by Prinkma (U14661090) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    I've been googling and find that you're right, it's up to 4% of the DNA in all non-Africans, not as I thought, that 4% of non-Africans had neanderthal DNA

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 53.

    Posted by Al (U1158256) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    I was very disappointed with these programmes. They were just another excuse for a celeb to travel the world and provide footage to fill our screens.

    What was the point of spending time with his modern distant cousins learning how they live today when that may have little connection with how his ancestors lived?

    The digression to Pompeii was particularly pointless as that was a site where his ancestors could have passed through but didn't. He could have visited anywhere in the world and said that's where other branches of his extended family lived.

    Alice Roberts's Incredible Human Journey covered the subject much better in a general way. I for one have no special interest in any individual's ancient ancestors.

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 54.

    Posted by Geometry_Man (U12739007) on Friday, 22nd February 2013

    I've been googling and find that you're right, it's up to 4% of the DNA in all non-Africans, not as I thought, that 4% of non-Africans had neanderthal DNA 
    There's a third species now, besides us & Neanderthals - Denisovans. Some present-day populations in South-east Asia have a few percent of Denisovan DNA, and even both Neanderthal & Denisovan DNA:

    www.slate.com/articl...

    It's all very fascinating. Time we had a new series from Alice Roberts to update us

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) ** on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    "I can't ever recall a factual documentary programme that was actually better for being presented by a "celebrity" rather than a properly qualified and experienced expert." 
    I suspect that the choice of Eddie Izzard is just yet another classic example of the BBC dumbing down its overall content in the vain hope that it will broaden its appeal to the mass populace, and that the programme itself may gain larger audience ratings.

    Furthermore, the selection of stand up comedian Eddie Izzard epitomises the fact that viewer ratings are, nowadays, far more crucially important to the hierarchy at the BBC than the quality of content of the programme actually being shown.

    I personally wouldn't object quite so much to the BBC's rampant populism when it comes to such factual, or pseudo-scientific programmes, if only the quality still remained there. Atlas, this most certainly isn't the case with Meet The Izzards.

    In televisual broadcasting a trend has definitely emerged whereby celebrities should apparently no longer be constricted, or pigeonholed, to what they do actually best. Hence, Izzard is now under the total misapprehension that he can do virtually anything, rather than sticking to his forte, which is stand-up comedy.

    If we continue with this rather ludicrous notion / analogy, of inter-changeable roles will it no doubt end up with the likes of Dr Alice Roberts, or geologist Ian Rankin, actually doing a televised stand-up routine down at London's Comedy Store?

    Whatever happened to the old adage of "horses for courses"?


    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 57.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    The BBC is funded by licence fees and therefore has to attract large viewing audiences. Otherwise the public would object to paying the licence fee when it's only a handful of people watching the programmes.

    "Meet the Izzards" is not dumbing-down. It's a perfectly honourable attempt to interest the public in the subject by focusing the series on a popular comedian.

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by Tafkaj (U3674656) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    Pity he (Izzard) had to resort to the casual use of bad langauge, though. If it's now "the norm" for people to drop in words such as the F-word (or, as in the case of Top Gear's pre-watershed offerings, "sh-t" and "b4stards") why be coy about it? Put it on at teatime and let us use them her (in context, of course).

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Alsdouble (U524298) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    Cannot stand the fella. And not because he an alleged transvestite. Why is he a trasvestite, what's the attraction with lippie and stockings?

    Disgusting.

    He's not funny, end of.

    And he aspires to high political position?

    (Hope I don't make it, to see it.)

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by LoopyLobes (U14384399) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    I enjoyed it, but only because I like Eddie. His dad seems nice too.

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 60.

    Posted by Mean Disposition (U14195524) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    Cannot stand the fella. And not because he an alleged transvestite. Why is he a trasvestite, what's the attraction with lippie and stockings?

    Disgusting.

    He's not funny, end of.

    And he aspires to high political position?

    (Hope I don't make it, to see it.)

     
    Your message is incomprehensible.
    Why not slow down a bit when you're typing?

    What exactly is disgusting?
    Lippie, stockings, men wearing them, women wearing them, being a transvestite, what, what, what?

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) ** on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    "The BBC is funded by licence fees and therefore has to attract large viewing audiences. Otherwise the public would object to paying the licence fee when it's only a handful of people watching the programmes." 
    As a public service broadcaster, funded by the television licence fee payer, the BBC should, under its legal roles and remit obligations, broadcast programmes which are really intended for the public benefit, rather than for purely commercial concerns.

    Lord Reith later defined this public service broadcaster role as "to inform, educate and entertain".

    Ever since the introduction of multi-channel digital television the BBC has been heavily criticised by some for becoming far too expansionist. As a consequence of this, it could be argued that the organisation has now exceeded its public service remit by providing content that could be both easily and mainly provided by other commercial television networks.

    Its competitors have also complained that that the BBC can now easily distort the market place, making it far more difficult for other rival, commercial television channel providers to successfully operate in.

    Like numerous other contributors to this particular thread I still maintain that Meet The Izzards is nothing more than a dumbed-down, commercial television show.

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    Like numerous other contributors to this particular thread I still maintain that Meet The Izzards is nothing more than a dumbed-down, commercial television show.  

    With respect, I suggest that these contributors are snobs. The BBC would not survive if it were allowed to become a special-interest ghetto.

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by dave (U2043922) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    Well I thought it was interesting and Eddie funny at times.  Good apart from the awful commentary

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by Ziggy (U14268308) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    "The BBC is funded by licence fees and therefore has to attract large viewing audiences. Otherwise the public would object to paying the licence fee when it's only a handful of people watching the programmes." 
    As a public service broadcaster, funded by the television licence fee payer, the BBC should, under its legal roles and remit obligations, broadcast programmes which are really intended for the public benefit, rather than for purely commercial concerns.

    Lord Reith later defined this public service broadcaster role as "to inform, educate and entertain".

    Ever since the introduction of multi-channel digital television the BBC has been heavily criticised by some for becoming far too expansionist. As a consequence of this, it could be argued that the organisation has now exceeded its public service remit by providing content that could be both easily and mainly provided by other commercial television networks.

    Its competitors have also complained that that the BBC can now easily distort the market place, making it far more difficult for other rival, commercial television channel providers to successfully operate in.

    Like numerous other contributors to this particular thread I still maintain that Meet The Izzards is nothing more than a dumbed-down, commercial television show.
     
    Snob!

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 60.

    Posted by Ziggy (U14268308) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    Cannot stand the fella. And not because he an alleged transvestite. Why is he a trasvestite, what's the attraction with lippie and stockings?

    Disgusting.

    He's not funny, end of.

    And he aspires to high political position?

    (Hope I don't make it, to see it.)

     
    Uhhh, so why watch it? I found it interesting, informative and Eddie was the star.

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 60.

    Posted by Quizzimodo (U551071) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    Cannot stand the fella. And not because he an alleged transvestite. Why is he a trasvestite, what's the attraction with lippie and stockings?
     


    Nothing alleged about it

    He is a transvestite

    Deal with it

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by Polemicist (U14349342) ** on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    " I was so very disappointed with these two programmes. They were just another poor excuse for a celebrity to travel the world (massive carbon foot print) and provide rather inconsequential footage to fill our small screens with". 
    "The documentary series The Incredible Human Journey and The Origin Of Us, hosted by Dr Alice Roberts, covered the very same subject in a far much better academic kind of way." 
    I suspect that most viewers who really enjoyed this two part show, did so because it was hosted by comedy celebrity, Eddie Izzard, and that they just so happen to be really big fans of his.

    I am rather surprised however that the BBC didn't actually offer the gig to Richard, "The Hamster", Hammond, as he is their normally preferred choice of celebrity, dire, presenter.

    Anyone else actually remember that absolutely abysmal pseudo-scientific series that he presented back in July 201, entitled, Journey To The Centre Of Planet Earth?

    Still, I'm now really looking forward to seeing the likes of Fearne Cotton presenting a forthcoming edition of Panorama and for Eddie Izzard becoming the new Mayor of London.

    londonist.com/2011/0...

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 69.

    Posted by Geometry_Man (U12739007) on Saturday, 23rd February 2013

    " I was so very disappointed with these two programmes. They were just another poor excuse for a celebrity to travel the world (massive carbon foot print) and provide rather inconsequential footage to fill our small screens with". 
    "The documentary series The Incredible Human Journey and The Origin Of Us, hosted by Dr Alice Roberts, covered the very same subject in a far much better academic kind of way." 
    I suspect that most viewers who really enjoyed this two part show, did so because it was hosted by comedy celebrity, Eddie Izzard, and that they just so happen to be really big fans of his.

    I am rather surprised however that the BBC didn't actually offer the gig to Richard, "The Hamster", Hammond, as he is their normally preferred choice of celebrity, dire, presenter.

    Anyone else actually remember that absolutely abysmal pseudo-scientific series that he presented back in July 201, entitled, Journey To The Centre Of Planet Earth?

    Still, I'm now really looking forward to seeing the likes of Fearne Cotton presenting a forthcoming edition of Panorama and for Eddie Izzard becoming the new Mayor of London.

    londonist.com/2011/0...
     

    Since London has seemed bent on having a comedy mayor, Eddie wouldn't be a bad future choice (I don't live there, so I don't care!).

    Richard Hammond is a nice enough bloke but a hopeless presenter. The last thing I saw him attempt was Planet Earth Live, and the less said about that disaster the better.

    I'm not a big fan of Eddie, but my daughter is and that's sort of why I bothered with this programme.

    It wasn't named very well, because it wasn't really about meeting the Izzards at all (even though his dad was harping on about the family tree not going back past 1650). They should really have called it something else - Eddie's Genes perhaps, or What's Got Into Eddie.

    Maybe that's why I quite liked it - it exceeded my expectations.

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 69.

    Posted by QE (U15612083) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    I suspect that most viewers who really enjoyed this two part show, did so because it was hosted by comedy celebrity, Eddie Izzard, and that they just so happen to be really big fans of his.  Wrong on both counts.

    I stumbled into the first programme and although I would have preferred more science and less Izzard but I think he did an excellent job, and I made a point of watching the second.

    Can anyone answer one question - admittedly irrelevant to the DNA story - which kept popping into my head: Why would a transvestite grow a beard?

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by signonymous (U14407751) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    Eddie did the best with what he was given to work with. The wind tunnel experiment was especially dumb but highly amusing.

    The red nail varnish managed to really annoy me throughout but I guess that says more about me than Mr Izzard! Or so he might reasonably claim.

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by saffiewalks (U11222674) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    I think Eddie has his own take on being a transvestite - sort of pick and mix - beard and red nail polish.

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by LoopyLobes (U14384399) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    Yes, I've never really taken him seriously as a transvestite, I wonder how seriously he takes it himself. I love him whatever smiley - loveblush

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 74.

    Posted by Prinkma (U14661090) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    Yes, I've never really taken him seriously as a transvestite, I wonder how seriously he takes it himself. I love him whatever smiley - loveblush 

    When my children were at school, two of their classmates used to be dropped to school by a very tall masculine-looking man dressed in woman's clothes. At the time someone told me that his wife had died a few years before, and wearing her clothes was an extreme form of grieving. I thought of that man when I saw Eddie Izzard talking about the death of his mother when he was six, and how deeply her death had affected him.

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 75.

    Posted by LoopyLobes (U14384399) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    I've seen Eddie talking about his mother before and it's very moving, makes me sad to think of it.

    Interesting story about the man and his dead wife. I know a couple of transvestites, both of whom still have their wives. Not sure about their mothers. I will have to ask.

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 76.

    Posted by Prinkma (U14661090) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    Neither Eddie Izzard nor the man with the dead wife try to look female, though, which is a bit different from other transvestites I've seen. Eddie Izzard always looks like someone who just likes female clothes, he still looks very masculine.

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 77.

    Posted by Prinkma (U14661090) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    PS I think it's a bit cheeky of me to be speculating on why anyone does anything.

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 78.

    Posted by LoopyLobes (U14384399) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    Well, let's face it, we all do it smiley - smiley

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 75.

    Posted by QE (U15612083) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    ...When my children were at school, two of their classmates used to be dropped to school by a very tall masculine-looking man dressed in woman's clothes. At the time someone told me that his wife had died a few years before, and wearing her clothes was an extreme form of grieving...  Would I be alone in thinking this is more like an extreme form of egoism and self-pity?

    His children are what matters now. It's tragic that they have lost their mother but now his self-indulgent wallowing in his own grief by wearing her clothes risks damaging them mentally for the rest of their lives. If this is true then it is truly pathetic.

    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by yellowcat (U218155) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    Can anyone answer one question - admittedly irrelevant to the DNA story - which kept popping into my head: Why would a transvestite grow a beard? 

    I knew a transvestite at one place I worked, he had a beard, he was married with children and would dress as a male most of the time, just occasionally appearing in high heals and a dress. He said that the female character (I forget her name) was like a separate personality that he just felt comfortable inhabiting at times.

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 80.

    Posted by Prinkma (U14661090) on Sunday, 24th February 2013

    Would I be alone in thinking this is more like an extreme form of egoism and self-pity?

    His children are what matters now. It's tragic that they have lost their mother but now his self-indulgent wallowing in his own grief by wearing her clothes risks damaging them mentally for the rest of their lives. If this is true then it is truly pathetic. 
    I don't think that kind of grief is within someone's control. He died quite soon afterwards.

    Report message32

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.