The PrimitiveTechnology videos are such an incredible example of the wonders the internet provides. Here you have a guy making such interesting, engrossing videos, uploaded for free and accessible to all. The series is worthy of being on the BBC.
I wonder if there are any companies who spot this sort of content with the aim of getting in on tv screens.
I think much youtube content is better than the output of the BBC, which shows an unfortunate tendency to "jazz up" its shows to make them more "accessible" and "fun". If Primitive Technology were on the BBC, he wouldn't be allowed to do everything without talking (he rarely makes eye-contact with the camera, even). There would probably be a "panel of experts" to discuss or direct the course of events, and they would introduce some competitive element, so several people would be working against each other to produce the best shrimp trap.
The same thing goes for other channels like Matthias Wandel, Paul Sellers, Alain Vaillancourt, Marius Hornberger, Louis Sauzedde and Chris on Clickspring. These are excellent channels, I would recommend all of them if you are into making things with your hands. But they could never exist on mainstream TV, and if they did, they would be stripped of their charm and value to make them more commercial. So youtube > regular TV, imo.
I am pretty sure if you like primitive tech you would love the historical documentaries BBC did on this subject.
Primitive tech's presentation and focus on one technique per video is nice. But for comprehensiveness, you can't beat reenacting the 15th-16th century by living on a farm for a year like what BBC did in "Tales from the Green Valley", "Tudor Monastery Farms", and related series.
A lot of the exact techniques primitive tech covered is also covered by those series:
It's a neat subject, but I think you may have missed m0nty's point, a perspective which I share, about "jazzing up" with unnecessary dialog.
I just clicked on "Fish traps" and my ears are full of idle banter between the two people making traps and whenever they're quiet for more than a moment the narrator breaks in. Someone is speaking at all time and it's obnoxious. This complaint is entirely distinct from how comprehensively they cover subject matter.
BBC historical documentaries are far from the worst offender in this area (American TV is far, far worse), but primitive tech does a much better job than the BBC of permitting the audience to simply observe and absorb.
This makes me think of the Brian Cox wonder-tone. Everything he says has a tone of wonder so thick that I can't watch his documentaries. Presumably it works for another audience.
I feel mildly revolted when I see him. I don't feel like I've much control over the reaction either, it's automatic. I feel a bit bad about that because I'm certain he's a reasonable human being albeit a waxy doll-human. This video gives me the same impression.
There's also something about his presentation that is like some version of the uncanny valley with intellectual ideas. TED talks have this quality sometimes.
I don't have this with Sagan or Dawkins even though they will often use poetic turns of phrase.
I tried explaining this to my cousin who is infatuated with Cox, but I came across as somebody with highly specific form of racism directed at just Brian Cox.
Kenneth Clarke's Civilization.
James Burke's Connections.
Carl Sagan's Cosmos.
Show and tell.
That kind of television isn't made anymore. I say that as a millennial. If you have a niche interest in architecture or wildlife you can still find it today but not in popular television series. When I watch modern popular productions I find I can retain almost no information about them. I don't think it is me, I think it is them.
I wonder if there are any companies who spot this sort of content with the aim of getting in on tv screens.