Good with Wood

The first season was a bit of a rough start as the show finds its rhythm. The judges will grow on you, the host is comforting and familiar, and the contestants are interesting and diverse enough to be memorable (a problem most of these shows have)

This show could have been great, apart from (1) too much glue - we don't get to see enough skill and (2) so many sexualised concepts / smutty jokes (especially season 2) - the conversation totally puts me off taking this up as a class/club activity. Although skills like woodwork are traditionally passed down through families, this really isn't a show different generations can enjoy together, despite being on at 8pm. We really need more footage of the actual making and less of the unappealing banter. It is especially off-putting for my autistic relative, who loves project/skills shows normally.

Really enjoyed the different people in this series. This showed in their creative and surprising interpretations of the challenges they were given each week. Inspiring to see people who I can identify with. No narrow minded old white men here!

Hard to find anything to praise. Judges are both obnoxious and we never get any sense that they can make so much as a breadboard themselves. I have no idea why the bloke dresses the way he does. Contestants seem uniformly amateurish ie not very good with wood. Tasks are bizarre and unrealizable. No idea what the sheepish technicians actually do except presumably prevent accidental amputations.

I make boats and guitars and wouldn't let any of the contestants in my workshop without a responsible adult in charge.

I whole heartedly adore wood and it's fluidity with skilled workers, but I find the judges quite ignorant even a little bit incompetent. Thus I have to give this a 7! Getting rid of highly skilled individuals over being fair to certain others is highly inaccurate and unfair in my humble opinion. And for this reason you have nearly ruined the show. In addition, it's useful to have the skill to express constructive Criticism as an expert, and he humble, rather than be negative for the sake of it.

Therefore the judges pretentiousness on the show gives me a bit of a peeved attitude.

Even though the students are on the whole skilled and passionate enough to create some semblance of a solid product, they are still heavily criticised and critiqued without a fun perspective. Sure, I understand the need for cohesion, consistency and competence, but unnecessary aggression isn't required in my humble opinion.

So, please consider judges that actually are not stuck up their own back passages. And aware enough to communicate constructively and less judgemental in outwardly draconian ways.