|
04 Feb 11 - 09:35 AM (#3088548) Subject: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Andy Jackson Where else can I rant but Mudcat. I just fell across a prog on ITV called "May the Best House Win". I have no idea what it's about but I won't be able to watch it for long. The camera work and editing is atrocious, whip pans, clumsy reframing, subject looking out of frame, cutting to and from pans and zooms. Endless classic errors of picture composition. It is common in cookery programmes to suffer random zooms and soft focus shots and, of course, looking at anything rather that what is being demonstrated.I would have thought that with all the "Media Studies" graduates these days there might be a move to higher standards not a concerted effort to incorporate all the bad points of the art of cinematography. I just popped back to see if my first impressions were fair and realised the whole programme is based on knocking someone elses outmoded taste. Hmm, perhaps they just don't like making television programmes properly either. There I feel better now!! |
|
04 Feb 11 - 12:28 PM (#3088659) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza Can I have a rant please? You know Gardeners' World? Well, the cameraman is obsessed with close-ups. When they show you a garden, he goes zooming into a flower until it's enlarged almost like an electron microscope slide. You see every hair, every dot on the petals. But the overall picture of the garden? Never! He's the same one that covers Chelsea Flower Show I reckon. You just don't ever get a wide ranging view of anything, just these massive close-ups of one daft rose. Did someone give him a gigantic zoom lens for Christmas one year or what? |
|
04 Feb 11 - 12:49 PM (#3088676) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST, topsie It's the ones who film dancers without showing their feet who annoy me. |
|
04 Feb 11 - 12:55 PM (#3088677) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Smedley As a point of information, many Media Studies courses don't teach practical/technical skills (although some do); they focus more on the history, social impact and analysis of the mass media. Just like most English degrees analyse literature, but don't teach 'creative writing'. None of which diminishes the fact that these TV shows sound rancid!! |
|
04 Feb 11 - 12:58 PM (#3088679) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Greg F. Hey, could be a lot worse. Could be Fox "News"[sic] |
|
04 Feb 11 - 01:11 PM (#3088692) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Smedley I still think Fox News is a clever parody. |
|
04 Feb 11 - 01:11 PM (#3088693) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Charmion I work in a Public Affairs office with young folks who have degrees in mass communications. They can't write for toffee -- no notion of grammar, syntax, even spelling. But they have a great grasp of communications theory and are dab hands at "messaging"! Good thing they have me to write their blessed backgrounders, caption their photos, and edit their news releases. |
|
04 Feb 11 - 03:39 PM (#3088774) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza Tonight on BBC 4 they had a lovely performance of Beethoven's 5th Piano Concerto, the 'Emperor', (soloist Paul Lewis). The ignorant continuity lady announced "And now Beethoven's fifth!" If she doesn't know the difference between a piano concerto and a symphony, why oh why is she on BBC 4? |
|
05 Feb 11 - 02:48 AM (#3089023) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Richard Bridge I don't really do all this pretty picture bolleaux, but I am very fed up with law students who do not appreciate that words are a lawyers weapons and need to be correctly selected, honed and wielded. |
|
05 Feb 11 - 05:35 AM (#3089063) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST, topsie I remember a BBC announcer years ago introducing a discussion on the merits of 'capital punishment' in schools. |
|
05 Feb 11 - 06:53 AM (#3089100) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza Oh topsie you did make me laugh! I have to say, once or twice I could have been in favour of this for some of my more recalcitrant pupils! |
|
05 Feb 11 - 12:08 PM (#3089236) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Neil D Just 5 minutes ago I heard a news achor mention the Iranian Revolution in 1989 causing me to yell "1979 you moron" at my TV. My pet peeve is TV commercials that come on 5 times louder than the program, a real issue when I'm watching at night after my wife is already in bed in the next room. And it is not a technical glitch it is done intentionally to counteract people makin a quick trip to the kitchen or bathroom during commercial breaks. I now boycott any product that employs this practice. "It's the ones who film dancers without showing their feet who annoy me." Fred Astaire had it written into his contract that he could only be filmed with a full body shot during dance scenes. |
|
06 Feb 11 - 09:25 AM (#3089745) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,strad And concentrating on musicians faces instead of how they're using their instrument. I don't care what they look like - I want to see what they're doing with their hands. |
|
06 Feb 11 - 09:42 AM (#3089750) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I still think Fox News is a clever parody."" Fox News clever? Beep beep beep.....Oxymoron alert! Don T. |
|
06 Feb 11 - 09:48 AM (#3089758) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""My pet peeve is TV commercials that come on 5 times louder than the program,"" Same peeve, and identical response. If "We buy Any Car" were the worlds last dealer I'd run the car off Beachy Head rather than deal with them. Don T. |
|
06 Feb 11 - 12:02 PM (#3089856) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Ralphie My pet rant is against those programmes (normally consumer/pet style shows) That waste so much of the time telling us "what is coming up in a minutes time. or re-capping what we have already seen, and will be updating the story shortly....in a minutes time!" My attention span is slightly longer than a goldfish thank you... (In a minutes time I'll come back and re-cap what I've just written If thats OK with you!) Aaaaaargh! |
|
06 Feb 11 - 12:10 PM (#3089867) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza And they say these daft things right over the top of the lovely closing music that you're enjoying, and squeeze the credits into a tiny little box, so you can't see who played what. And am I just imagining it, or are there now adverts every seven minutes or so? I spend more time pressing the 'mute' button than anything else. It's like chalk on a blackboard to me, all these ghastly ads. I agree that "We buy any blasted car..." is enough to make you want to throttle them. And am I alone in squirming at the Santander ads? What is all that sinister giant red Lego about? (I'm in the mood for a good rant, sorry!) |
|
06 Feb 11 - 12:41 PM (#3089885) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST, topsie The Lloyds TSB ads worry me - all those little wooden people with long noses - what is that saying, do you think? Another thing that has been annoying me lately is background noise. For example, if you listen to the World Service there is a thumping, pounding headache of a noise masking the news headlines. The only good part is the utter relief when it stops. |
|
06 Feb 11 - 12:59 PM (#3089897) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Ralphie Oooooh This is fun! Coming up shortly........! And what is the BBC One show all about? Hard hitting items about desperate one parent families and the really bad times they are enduring, segued into a jolly piece about skateboarding dogs? And they always have a special guest who hardly gets a word in, and just sits there looking puzzled! Grrrr! |
|
06 Feb 11 - 01:40 PM (#3089925) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Q (Frank Staplin) One of the first things taught in photography seminars is never pan rapidly across the scene. It makes the viewer close his eyes until the pan is over. The mistake is common in news programs. |
|
06 Feb 11 - 02:51 PM (#3089971) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza Lloyds TSB ads are definitely weird, topsie. That strange family sailing through the sky...! And, Q, I still find the weather forecast gives me vertigo, (from which I suffer from time to time anyway) as it pans rapidly up and down the country. Why can't the map stay still and show all of the UK at once? Are we too dim to encompass the lot in one go? The One Show is so dumbed down, I can't imagine who would seriously watch it. It all begs the question, just WHO designs these programmes, and why do they suppose ANYONE would be thrilled with them? They're very out of touch, in my opinion, with the tastes of ordinary folk who require mature, informative and entertaining fare. |
|
06 Feb 11 - 07:07 PM (#3090102) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Andy Jackson This started as a personal rant, glad to see I am not alone! |
|
06 Feb 11 - 08:01 PM (#3090127) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Ross Campbell For the last year or so, More4 (UK Freeview channel) has been running one of the best imports from the USA, "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart. We used to get the "Global Edition" plus four nightly editions (run the day after their American airing). Since the last holiday break, the programme has returned with only the "Global Edition" once a week - no explanation or apology. Where's the sense in that? Another brilliant import "Malcolm in the Middle" was introduced by the BBC, but very badly served by erratic timing, and is now being picked up by the commercial channels - as happened with "24", as happened with "Lost". It's the same with their own productions - regularity of presentation seems to mean nothing to schedulers, programs get abandoned if earlier programs over-run, or occasionally get moved to later and later slots, with little or no information forthcoming about the changes (not that information could help your PVR to find the missing show!) Ross |
|
07 Feb 11 - 05:28 AM (#3090271) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Dáithí Anyone noticed the current trend for continuity announcers on TV to say "And coming next XYZ...but before that..here's Coronation St" (or whatever... Do they not know what "next" means!!? D |
|
07 Feb 11 - 06:02 AM (#3090281) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Jon Like strad, I can find not seeing a musicians hands annoying. Sometimes it seems to work along these sort of lines: you get full shot of a guitar player strumming some chords. He goes into some solo bit where it might be useful to see the hands in a bit more detail so they zoom to give a close up of the player's sweating forehead... --- I've noticed the advert sound problem with some films. I watched one the other night where short of constantly changing the volume, the choice was struggle to hear the dialogue avoid the music being too loud or put up with the loud music to hear the dialogue clearly. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 06:07 AM (#3090284) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: C-flat I'm frequently incensed by the constant trailing and replaying either side of adverts! It's merely a device to make 10 minutes of television fit into a 30 minute slot. "Previously in part 1......blah, blah!!" "Coming up after the break...blah, blah,!!" There's less actually happening between the ads that you hadn't already seen than in the length of the ad breaks!!!!! Reminds me of the mantra about getting your message across.... " First, tell them what you're going to tell them, then tell them it. Then tell them what it was you just told them!" Do they really think we're THAT stupid???? GRRRrrr absolutely boils my p*** "....and breathe" |
|
07 Feb 11 - 06:48 AM (#3090291) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Will Fly Since getting Freeview about 2-3 years ago, we now have more choice than before - and I watch less TV than ever before as the choice of programming has plummeted. I agree with all the sentiments above and will add one more - on the subject of documentaries. The worst sort of documentary, mainly but not exclusively on commercial channels, (a) has a recap of the main theme after every advertising break (b) uses the same shots over and over again to fill up viewing time. So, an hour of documentary time is, in reality, around 35 minutes of factual time. Bulked-up time filling. More is less - and it's always been that way. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 07:24 AM (#3090312) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST, topsie Oh yes - using the same shots over and over and over again. It really leaves you feeling short-changed. A problem I've found sometimes with Radio 4 is that they announce the next programme and then launch into a trailer. If I don't realise it's a trailer, I assume it's the next programme, and quite often decide it isn't interesting and turn it off, only to discover later that I missed something that I would have enjoyed listening to. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 07:44 AM (#3090320) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza Do you suppose that younger people nowadays have a very short concentration span, and thus need reminding every five minutes of the programme so far? Perhaps they can't hold in their heads 30 mins of plot etc. Also, they seem to be harder of hearing, maybe that's why the ads are so loud. I found recently at the cinema that the noise was unbelievably loud, my friend and I had our fingers in our ears for much of it! Also (rant rant rant) that silly ominous music for nearly all of a documentary, as if the devil himself were about to make an appearance. (In fact, that would be a light relief!) I'm now sounding like one of those Grumpy Old Women on TV. (I absolutely adore them actually!) |
|
07 Feb 11 - 08:15 AM (#3090345) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: C-flat Definately seems to be TV for the hard of thinking! BAH! GRUMP! |
|
07 Feb 11 - 08:25 AM (#3090350) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Andy Jackson I once had an ongoing correspondence with the Advertising Standards Agency on the subject of ivreased sound level for commercial breaks. Having Quoted the standard guidance for relative levels they as good as denied that it happened!! I was asked to provide dates times programme details and advert content before they would look in to specific complaints. I think my reply said volumes at high level as I recall! I recently bought a cheap telly which includes an auto volume reduction switch, specifically for reducing the volume increase during commercial breaks. So the manufactureers and all of us Know it happens, but not those who pretend to have some control of such things. Another rant over!! |
|
07 Feb 11 - 08:26 AM (#3090351) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST, topsie A lot of television programmes seem to have been made with the sole aim of selling them to as many commercial stations as possible, so they have a potential 'commercial break' built in every few minutes (with a summary of the show so far, then the 'logo/theme tune', then an introduction to welcome the viewers back). This happens even when they are shown on BBC channels that don't have commercials to put in the 'breaks'. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 08:37 AM (#3090363) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza Miskin Man, I once heard that the adverts are transmitted from local transmitters, and therefore are received more easily (and more loudly). I don't actually believe this for a minute, but that's what they said. I'm so glad of the mute button on the remote! It's off and on ceaselessly during the evening. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 08:44 AM (#3090370) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: C-flat I've heard this issue of raised volume levels during commercial breaks before and remember a firm denial being broadcast, despite the clear evidence to the contrary!! It was some years ago now but I was incensed then and I'm still bloody annoyed now!!!! I'm loving this thread. So much off my chest.................Aaaaaahhhh |
|
07 Feb 11 - 08:54 AM (#3090378) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Jon As far as I understand it, they don't actually raise the volume. The peak volume remains the same but through the use of compression, you get more of the sound at a higher level. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 08:55 AM (#3090380) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie back in the '70s, I used to be glued to Top of the Pops. However, I always laughed when, during a guitar solo, middle 8, whatever, the camera always zoomed in on the bass player. Volume levels in adverts? Bought a rather clever AV surround sound system (Onkyo) last year. it equalises out the volume after a while. (It samples so to ensure it doesn't turn up quiet moments in programmes, or, God forbid, music. the net effect being, and is sold on the idea of, bringing adverts down to the same level as the programmes.) |
|
07 Feb 11 - 08:59 AM (#3090382) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: C-flat As far as I understand it, they don't actually raise the volume. The peak volume remains the same but through the use of compression, you get more of the sound at a higher level. So it's just "more sound" rather than higher volume?? erm.... I think that's got to be the best anwer yet!!! |
|
07 Feb 11 - 09:00 AM (#3090383) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: C-flat ...in fact I'm going to build a guitar amp with an extra knob for "more sound" so I don't have to turn the volume up! |
|
07 Feb 11 - 09:09 AM (#3090391) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Jon From the Wiki page I gave: Most television commercials are compressed heavily (typically to a dynamic range of no more than 3dB) in order to achieve near-maximum perceived loudness while staying within permissible limits. This is the explanation for the problem that TV viewers and listeners have noticed for years.[11][12] While commercials receive heavy compression for the same reason that radio broadcasters have traditionally used it (to achieve a "loud" audio image), TV program material, particularly old movies with soft dialogue, is comparatively uncompressed by TV stations. This results in commercials much louder than the television programs, since users turn up the volume to hear soft program audio. This problem is a difficult one to solve because much TV program audio contains very little audio energy to be electronically "expanded" with a compressor in an attempt to even out the volume. Even across the cable TV dial with myriad audio program volume sources, there is a wide disparity of audio volume levels. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 09:20 AM (#3090392) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: C-flat Ok,Ok, Jon. I'm sure the science is correct. Best laugh I've had in a while though!! Thanks. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 09:38 AM (#3090399) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Jon Yes, I can see that it does sound a bit odd. btw, I think the science comes down to our perception of loudness, ie. we are less sensitive to short peaks. Again from Wikipedia: The perception of loudness is related to both the sound pressure level and duration of a sound. The human auditory system integrates (averages) the effects of sound pressure level (SPL) over a 600–1,000 ms window. For example, a sound of constant SPL will be perceived to increase in loudness as 20, 50, 100, 200 ms samples are played, up to a maximum of approximately 1 second at which point the perception of loudness will stabilize. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 09:42 AM (#3090403) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Richard Bridge Jon is right about advert "volume". Trust me, I used to act for several local TV stations and I know how the complaints about this very feature were then dealt with. It is compression that does it. Another pet peeve of mine is the care that they use when filming guitarists to AVOID giving you a recognisable shot of the headstock, so I spend half the programme going "Is it a - oh, no, wait, I'm sure I saw an M in the name - but the script gives the impression of... might it be...a ..." And another is the trivial amount of research done for and knowledge displayed in "documentaries" in most cases. Not to mention the grammar (or absence thereof) and glottal stops. Oh, and films of car chases - world going past outside the window like a mad thing - cut to the speedometer showing merely 80 or 90 mph... |
|
07 Feb 11 - 10:04 AM (#3090411) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: saulgoldie CBS seems to think that sporting events--curling, anyone?--are more important than the most durable news show with consistently high ratings among a rock solid loyal audience with high disposable income who spend it. No wonder I get more and more of my information from non-network sources. And Fox should try to work a backroom deal with Stewart/Colbert to discover how better to self-parody. Once Fox acknowledges that it is not actually about news, its self-esteem will climb, and its anger level will necessarily fall. Saul |
|
07 Feb 11 - 10:22 AM (#3090419) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: saulgoldie Oh, that would be "60 Minutes." |
|
07 Feb 11 - 11:12 AM (#3090450) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza Let's try and be positive, there ARE some programmes which are simply excellent, and 'In The Night Garden' is one. I'm addicted to it, even though there are no children in my house. It creases me when Derek Jacobi (of all people!) warbles "Yes, my name is Iggle Piggle..." Am I alone in this lunacy, or is anyone else hooked? But to get back to moaning and ranting, why do they inevitably have a presenter actually on the spot, in the cold, snow, rain etc telling us about an event? I worry about the poor soul's health, standing there catching 'flu. The information could just as easily be conveyed from the snug warmth of a studio. |
|
07 Feb 11 - 11:53 AM (#3090467) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Will Fly The question, Eliza, is if Upsy-Daisy is having it off with Iggle Piggle, MackaPacka - or even both. Don't even ask about the Tombliboos... Grandpappy Will |
|
07 Feb 11 - 12:05 PM (#3090475) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza And, Will Fly, shouldn't someone have a word with messieurs Pontypine and Wottinger about..er.. contraception? |
|
07 Feb 11 - 01:45 PM (#3090547) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Will Fly I hate the Pontypines and Wottingers - for no reason - just feel like stampin' on the little buggers. Give me a Hah-Hoo any day! |
|
07 Feb 11 - 01:50 PM (#3090552) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: MGM·Lion And why do all these on the spot reporters and commentators appear to be forbidden to wear hats whatever the weather? Brrrr! |
|
07 Feb 11 - 03:11 PM (#3090621) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza Grandpappy Will, you obviously watch it as much as I do! I too hate the Pontypines.They seem to have terrible problems with wind. The Missus is so darned nosey, she wears binoculars round her neck at all times. And what do they do down the Teeny Tiny Hole? Very suspicious. (Sorry about the drift, you can see I'm totally obsessed) |
|
08 Feb 11 - 04:30 AM (#3090956) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Eliza You're right, MtheGM, I'd never particulary noticed, but it's true, none of them wears a hat. I suppose a minion holds an umbrella over them just out of sight of the camera. Another thing I resent (here I go again) is the weather presenters telling us how to react to weather. "An unpleasantly wet day" or "A beautifully sunny day". Sometimes the farmers are actually pleased to have a bit of rain, and not everyone loves the sun. Why can't they just tell us what's coming without trying to dictate our response? Actually, do we need a PERSON at all? A chart with symbols and temperatures etc. would do just as well. And does anyone else find those weird anonymous caped cyclists just before the News slightly disturbing? What's that all about? |
|
08 Feb 11 - 05:12 AM (#3090976) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Patsy Sneaking in repeated showing of a programmes again at a later time-slot copying Sky's format of scheduling with repeats. Harry Hill's Burps can be repeated 3 or 4 times which is great for those who might not have a recording device but I suspect that is few and far between these days. My guess is that ordinary 'tv' are craftily slipping in repeated programmes to fill the schedules because there isn't anything else worth showing. |
|
08 Feb 11 - 05:44 AM (#3090987) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Dave MacKenzie I don't mind the repeated repeats because my recording device can be temperamental, and not everything is on the iPlayer. |
|
08 Feb 11 - 05:55 AM (#3090995) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: MGM·Lion Indeed ~ my recording thing went wrong recently so I was glad of the Sunday morning repeat of Match of the Day. But that leads me to my main rant: does anyone in the entire Universe actually like to listen to the interminable jobs·for·the·boys chat that goes with all sports programmes? One advantage we find in recording MOTD and watching it next morning is that one can fast-forward thru the interminable self-regarding witter of Hanson & Co & just watch the footie. Another rant is that Hanson does not appear to know the simple word "goal"; if I hear him say again "It's in the back of the net" I swear I shall scream the house down. ~M~ |
|
08 Feb 11 - 06:01 AM (#3090998) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Dave MacKenzie I haven't a clue what most of the studio sports experts say - that's what the fast forward button's for. |
|
08 Feb 11 - 06:23 AM (#3091010) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: MGM·Lion Yes, Dave ~~ but that implies prerecording them rather than watching live. |
|
08 Feb 11 - 06:35 AM (#3091016) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: C-flat I quite agree about the sports pundits. Alan Shearer was a tremendous footballer who consistantly did the job he was paid to do (score goals), but that does not, in my opinion, qualify him for television work. A less interesting or less engaging speaker is hard to imagine, although Hanson and the idiot Mark Lawrenson run close. Other front runners for the golden-boot-up-the-backside award would be Lee Dixon and Paul Merson. All steeped in the great tradition of pointing out the obvious whilst spouting endless cliches. At the end of the day these guys are different class!! |
|
09 Feb 11 - 05:16 AM (#3091620) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,Patsy What is even more irritating about Hanson (to me anyway) is that he hasn't changed a hair or muscle since the 90s a bit like Barbie's Ken. Perhaps the make-up people have a set look for him and just spray him on each week. |
|
09 Feb 11 - 05:57 AM (#3091631) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: MGM·Lion He does, tho, seem to have a different tie on each time. |
|
09 Feb 11 - 06:54 AM (#3091658) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,strad Love this thread - it's not just me who gets irritated by all this! Another tooth-grinding thing is the number of times "You know" is used by people being interviewed. Andy Murray is a prime example. I find myself counting the Y K's in an interview and don't listen to the rest of the garbage anyway. And don't get me started on "Know what I mean?" |
|
09 Feb 11 - 07:31 AM (#3091674) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST, topsie I know I've said this in another recent "grumpy" thread, but it's still as irritating as ever - people being interviewed who begin every answer with "absolutely!" - though it is partly the interviewers' fault for asking leading questions and more or less telling what they expect the answer to be. |
|
09 Feb 11 - 09:16 AM (#3091738) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: melodeonboy I actually find Hanson's know-it-all take on everything quite entertaining*, and if analysis is what you want, I don't think the Match of the Day team do it badly. I also find managers with ruffled feathers quite amusing. What does bore me is interviews with players...zzzzzz. *(Mind you, I shall be listening intently for "It's in the back of the net"; I hadn't noticed that before! :)) |
|
09 Feb 11 - 09:30 AM (#3091744) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: MGM·Lion Mark Lawrenson seems to me the most knowledgeable and personable of them if one has to have the pundits' team; & dear old Gary Lineker himself, of course. & to be fair, they are often good at analysing the close calls with regard to penalties and disputed line-crossings &c: tho of course they have the advantage of hi·tech replays from different angles & so on. Wonder how long before they allow linesmen & refs access to such in cases of dispute, as already in tennis & cricket? ~M~ |
|
09 Feb 11 - 02:39 PM (#3091945) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,leeneia The first post here talked about bad camera work. "The camera work and editing is atrocious, whip pans, clumsy reframing, subject looking out of frame, cutting to and from pans and zooms. Endless classic errors of picture composition." I don't think people pay enough attention to the physical effects that camera work has on the viewer. All my life I have avoided TV and movies. I didn't realize why until one day (tipped off by a book) I sat through a movie and monitored my body. I found that I held my breath for long periods of time. Some camera work would make me feel seasick. I would be blasted by bursts of light in crazy sequence. Erratic loud noises alternated with mumbled speech. I looked at the clock every ten minutes, saying "How long, o Lord?" We read about movies losing millions, and fewer people go to movies all the time. I am convinced that fewer peeople watch TV, as well. What kind of business plan says "We'll take people's money and make them seasick." |
|
09 Feb 11 - 07:22 PM (#3092132) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Andy Jackson I've actually visited a cinema twice recently after a gap of 30 odd years. I watched in disbelief a soft focus digitally jerky offering called Burke and Hare. As a film it was ok but technically rubbish. I put it down to experience and couldn't be bothered to make a fuss. Then the other day I actually wanted to see The Kings Speech. Now that IS a good film, well worth struggling through. My struggle? Not quite so soft but still suffering digital jerkyness, reminiscent of good cartoon animation. I watched right through the credits and it was shot on Fujifilm, one of the best and capable of extremely high quality pictures. Why did I have to watch a substandard digital copy? While I'm ranting again, if you do go to see this film watch carefully. Glaring continuity errors especially obvious in the walk through the park sequence. Now you might say how difficult to control the background activity, but these were paid extras under full control of the director. They should all know their movements for each shot and repeat them exactly for each reshoot or cmare angle change. Ah well it won't stop it getting award after award I'm sure. But I shall have a grand rant if the director gets an award. Ahh the joy of a good rant. |
|
09 Feb 11 - 10:52 PM (#3092208) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: MGM·Lion It wasn't Hanson, tho still think he started the trend, but plenty of "Back of the net" in commentary of last night's Denmark v England. I didn't bother with the ½-time witter but came to the desktop & checked Mudcat instead. ~M~ |
|
10 Feb 11 - 11:08 AM (#3092485) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,leeneia Hi, Miskin. I'm glad to see that there are two of us who give some thought to how the movie is made, instead of just talking about the plot and the actors. A 'soft focus digitally jerky' movie would drive me right up the wall. |
|
10 Feb 11 - 05:53 PM (#3092773) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: Andy Jackson Thanks Leenaia. It is frustrating to have worked at the highest technical level with four tube colour TV cameras matched to Monitors with carefuly specified correct phosphors and to see the modern digital revolution. Sticking with TV, Fuji film and the Rank Cintel Flying spot telecine have never been surpassed in quality in my opinion. Digits have only one advantage, sheer ruggedness in storage and transmission, otherwise they involve compromise and lowering of quality. Isn't a good rant fun... |
|
10 Feb 11 - 05:57 PM (#3092776) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,leeneia I surmise that you've worked in broadcasting or film. I've never encountered anybody like you before. What did you do? It's interesting to hear about the technical side. |
|
10 Feb 11 - 07:28 PM (#3092833) Subject: RE: BS: Broadcasting standards RANT From: GUEST,kendall And how about that radio announcer years ago who got tongue tied and signed off with "This is the BBC, the British broadcopping castration." I'd sooner think he did it on purpose. |