A bit of a critique from a fan

[marcopolo3]

Hi!

I hope somebody still checks the messages in these boards;-)

First off, I want to say I'm a big fan of the show, have collected and watched most of your shows, and overall think it is by far the best travel show on TV in general (with a few exceptions on specific countries/regions). I think you cover well a range of topics/interests, have the right balance of education/entertainment and off the beaten track/essential points of interest, and I appreciate your style and philosophy.

However, I do have one criticism, and it's about balance/capturing the essence of a country in a show, which I feel you don't always get right. Yesterday I watched the new show on Ukraine on the travel channel, one I was specially looking forwards to as I have an Ukrainian wife and have lived here for about a year and half. I was a little disappointed in the relative time devoted to Chernobyl and then to the Crimea War recreations. It's not that I disliked the Chernobyl segment, on the contrary, I thought it was interesting and different. The issue is that 15 minutes of a 45 minute (on the travel channel) show were spent on it, versus about not even one minute for the rest of Kiev. Not exactly balanced coverage. And then the war recreation thing...how representative is this about current Crimean conditions? If you wanted to mention something about the war and its importance, fine (how about medical advances, Florence Nightingale, why it was considered the first modern war). But following a recreation that only a few people do or care about in Ukraine, plus the fact you've done other war recreations before...not sure it really helps in giving viewers a sense for the country.

I realize that it's a tough task to capture the essence of a country in an hour or even 45 minutes. I also realize some of the fault lays with the travel channel, which edits out about 10-15 minutes of each show just to promote other shows, which I find quite silly (you have TV schedules for this), and who knows what criteria they follow in deciding what gets cut - it was Uman in this case. However, some of the fault also lays with the editing decisions at Pilot Productions, like deciding on this war recreation instead of, for example, talking about the Tatar minority in Crimea and the social conflicts created by their return. Or cutting a little from here and there and maybe visiting the Lavra in Kiev and discussing the Orthodox Church in Ukrainian history and its contemporary state. T

I talk about Ukraine as I'm a little more familiar with things here, but I have seen these slightly bizarre editing decisions happening for other programs. To Pilot's credit, I think in several cases you have realized that some past programs suffered from poor editing/coverage, and went back and made updated programs that I think did a much more compete and balanced job (cases in point: Morocco, Paris, Germany). Some still sorely need a revisit...(Poland+Czech Republic, Iceland, Japan, and Sicily come to mind).

Anyway, on 80% of the shows I think you get it just about right. Just wondering if there is any way to get it closer to 100%. Or is it you are using different criteria that I imagine you do (like, what interests more British viewers? Sponsors?) And hoping that, if you eventually do come around to doing that show on "the main parts of Japan except Tokio", you don't devote a third of it to the tsunami's effects;-)

Sorry about that, you do realize this kind of critique could not come from a non-fan;-)

Other than that, keep up the good work!

Marco.

[the.collector]

I agree. All the episode are made by different directors. And there is no uniform quality control. Some episodes are magnificent, while others are downright shawdy. Especially the more recent ones. It all depends on who is directing.

[Spike]

[mjb]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed the decline in quality. Every time I watch a recent episode, I'm inspired to post a rant somewhere about it, but I always just let it slide... 'til now

Globe Trekker was once the antithesis of Rick Steve's Travels in Europe, but lately it's that show that has more "adventure", such as when he's taken a wrong turn or is figuring out where and how to buy a ticket in a country where he doesn't speak the language. I feel like I used to see stuff like that on Globe Trekker, especially the Ian and Megan episodes. Now, though, it's overabundance of museum tours, history lectures, and things no real traveler would get to do.

I mean, Globe Trekker was once a stylized travelogue—not quite ad-hoc reality TV, but a fairly realistic portrayal of a young person's adventures abroad. The candid reactions of the presenters to unexpected situations, and the ways they were shown as actual travelers (who aren't always having a good day) and not just surrogate spokespeople, was a huge part of the appeal of the show for me, and actually inspired me get off the couch and do some world traveling of my own. Now it's so rare to see anything close to that. It's mainly just a video brochure with every destination and line of dialogue seemingly written and approved by the host country's tourism board. The Ukraine episode sounds awful in this way. I'm glad I haven't seen it yet.

I think my biggest gripe is about the recent Megan episodes, which feel a bit disingenuous. She has her family in tow, but she's pretending to be alone, and the destinations are mainly in the "day trip and then back to the fancy hotel" category, with an apparent emphasis on shopping. I have friends who travel to exotic destinations with their young kids (including a baby), and it's fascinating to hear about their travels. Maybe that kind of thing doesn't fit the brand of Globe Trekker, but I'd much rather see the 'real' Megan McCormick as she is today, instead of the "Megan McCormick of Globe Trekker" who's been phoning it in these last few years. (Is Sea Nation any better in this regard? It sounds like it would be, but I'm not sure I'm ready to drop $25 on a DVD to find out.)

Anyway, I haven't given up on it. Globe Trekker still gets a lot of things right, and I realize it's not easy to put a show like this together, or to always get an ideal balance between locale and adventure, or to have the new presenters be as charismatic as the "big three". I just feel like in some ways, it jumped the shark around '08 or so, and the producers need to decide what kind of show it is, because it's looking a whole lot more like the show they were trying to keep it from being, back when they started.