Now PLEASE give it a rest.
How very rude. If you don't want to debate a point then don't.
You've made some sweeping assertions about what the documentary set-out to do. Obviously I should point out that your presumption of what I expected is wrong, but you'd know that if you'd bothered to read my previous posts. Likewise, you can't make any claims as to what the documentary set-out to do, because you did't make it. All any of us can do is make a judgement as viewers and license payers.
pbk it's interesting that you thought the aerial photography was good. As you said, you've avoided the subject for some years, so it's likely that your view was shared by a lot of viewers. The sad thing is, the aerial photography was actually rubbish. When one recalls some of the quality stuff that has been achieved in the past, the BBC stuff was awful. It was particularly sad that the lenses used gave the impression that the Hawks are some distance from each other during the display. None of the photography gave a real impression of how close the aircraft are, nor any impression of the continual (and often quite violent) movement that takes place. Fundamental points that any decent documentary should have tried to portray.