Modern TV Presentation

PBC_1966

I'd be interested to know if anyone shares my views on modern TV presentation compared to the "old days."

Let me start out by saying that I'm British, and although I've traveled around Ireland I've never really had much chance to sit down and watch Irish TV. So what I'm about to say is an attack on modern British TV, but I'm sure some of you might be able to relate this to RTE as well, and I know many of you watch British channels anyway.

I'm leaving aside the terrible quality of the content and trashiness of much modern TV for the moment, and just concentrating on things which really bug me about the way it is presented these days.

First, when you watched BBC or ITV back in the 1970s and even into the early 1980s, a program ended, then there might well be a couple of seconds of black screen and silence before anything else happened. The presentation was relaxed, and if counting down to the exact start time of the next show, you might get a continuity announcer speaking fairly slowly and even leaving a few seconds of silence before the program came in.

Not so these days. Everything is done as though there isn't a moment to spare, and it seems that the continuity guys hate the idea of there being silence for one second.

If that's not bad enough, the incessant talking and previewing over the end of the previous show is getting really out of hand. Years ago, you only heard the continuity announcer talk over the end credits if it was something related to the program, e.g. "And that was the last in the present series" or "Just a reminder that next week's episode is on at the earlier time of...." or something like that.

Now we have them telling us about shows coming up next week that are in no way related. They seem incapable of letting credits roll up without saying something over them. The worst case is where they now shrink the close of the show down to half the screen, attenuate the sound right down low, and then use the other half of the screen to show previews for something else! I've even seen them show a nearly half-minute long preview of the show that's coming on next! This is really getting beyond a joke.

The previews between programs always seem to be for the same things. You get fed up with seeing them. And when a live broadcast has overrun and they're already running 10 minutes late, why on earth do they still have to run through endless previews and self-advertising, thus making the next show even later still?

Speaking of overrunning. sports pushing out other programming is something which I also find extremely irritating. Now I'm the first to admit that I'm no sports fan and I'd be quite happy if sport was taken off the air altogether, but I accept that many people like it, and it should be covered on TV -- That's fine.

What makes me mad is when sports events overrun and make everything else late. You can sit down to watch something, or set your VCR to record it, and ten minutes past the appointed time they're still going with no end in sight. Then you might get an announcement such as "We're staying live on air to cover the end of the game" or some such. Even if they do that, they don't just see the end of the game and then get on with the schedule. You still have to sit through maybe 10 minutes of post-game chat and analysis, thus making everything even later, or worse still, canceled.

O.K., that's enough of a rant for now. Anyone agree with these complaints or have others to add?

mike65

Where to start except to agree with eveything you just said.

I really hate the way everything is rushed, no time to absorb the programme you just watched and which may require a moments reflection - but NO! - on with the motley and a trailer for that programme which was already trailed 3 times today!.

Once you could watch film credits to the end, not now its either speeded up or faded rapidly and the music with it which can be disconcerting if the end sequence is part of the movies mood/tone.

DOG are another bugbear, some channels are better than others in the style of logo but really I do know which station I'm grazing!

Another pisser is the idiot presenter who will not stop
moving and gesticulating as thier voice rises and falls
like a demented tide. Then there's the fidgety cameras as pioneed by Channel 4 "Yoof TV" back in the mid-late 80s....God I feel sea-sick :eek:

I wont even mention the soap hell we're drowning in.

Mike.

I think you have waaaay too much free time to be analysing stuff like this, but yes I agree with you in a way. But there are more important things to talk about.

Pigman II

I'm leaving aside the terrible quality of the content and trashiness of much modern TV for the moment, and just concentrating on things which really bug me about the way it is presented these days.

To this and many of the subsequent paragraphs ..... You don't like it , then don't watch it.

What makes me mad is when sports events overrun and make everything else late. You can sit down to watch something, or set your VCR to record it, and ten minutes past the appointed time they're still going with no end in sight.

Then do what I do and set your VCR to record 30+ mins before and after the scheduled time. Since I've adopted that strategy I never end up missing part of a programme to due schedule shifts.

Then you might get an announcement such as "We're staying live on air to cover the end of the game" or some such. Even if they do that, they don't just see the end of the game and then get on with the schedule. You still have to sit through maybe 10 minutes of post-game chat and analysis, thus making everything even later, or worse still, canceled.

Sports programmes will never overrun just because a panel want to have 'a chat'. The will over run because of uncontrollable events such extra-time and penalty shootouts, which in case you didn't know have been in existance since the 1970s. If anything the analysis will then be trimmed in order to offset the delay caused by the aforementioned developments.

O.K., that's enough of a rant for now. Anyone agree with these complaints or have others to add? [/B]

Yes. I think you should stop watching television if it's annoying you so much.

Hecate

Then there's the fidgety cameras as pioneed by Channel 4 "Yoof TV" back in the mid-late 80s....God I feel sea-sick

ahaha, Network 7

ixoy

I gotta agree about the continuity announcers. I remember the end of Season 2 of "Six Feet Under" where it appeared

that Nate died

- which was obviously a moment you needed to reflect upon. Not so it seemed - the continuity announcer spoke over it. It angered a lot of people enough to write in and complain, and they were quiet for the repeat. Many similiar moments like this are repeated though, where you'd like a thoughtful moment to absorb what you've seen. I'm one of those people who actually sits in his chair as movie credits scroll, letting the last moments wash over me (unless it's trash like "Van Helsing"). I fully support any move to shut up those damned announcers and the subsequent program that I don't care about!!

mike65

Originally posted by Hecate
ahaha, Network 7

Thats the bugger! One of the worst things C4 ever did.

Mike.

PBC_1966

Originally posted by mike65
Once you could watch film credits to the end, not now its either speeded up or faded rapidly and the music with it which can be disconcerting if the end sequence is part of the movies mood/tone.

Definitely. The mood at the end of a movie can be spoiled by the sudden imposition of some horrible preview being faded in almost the second that the first credit appears on the screen. It kind of jerks you back to reality and is really jarring.

Then there's the fidgety cameras as pioneed by Channel 4 "Yoof TV" back in the mid-late 80s....God I feel sea-sick

Ugh! I know what you mean. I saw a few minutes of some kids show the other day and it looked like the cameraman had just swallowed a bag of jumping beans!

Originally posted by Pigman II:
Sports programmes will never overrun just because a panel want to have 'a chat'. The will over run because of uncontrollable events such extra-time and penalty shootouts, which in case you didn't know have been in existance since the 1970s. If anything the analysis will then be trimmed in order to offset the delay caused by the aforementioned developments.

If the program planners know that a game may go to extra-time or whatever, then why do they not schedule for that extra time? They can always insert an extra filler if the extra time is not needed.

I'm sure that they plan time for the chat at the end, but my point is that if the game has already run over the scheduled time, why do they still go on with that chat? If they must run late due to extra-time, then that analysis at the end should not just be trimmed, it should be cut altogether to avoid making the subsequent programs even later.

The VCR aspect is quite valid. In fact there's hardly anything I actually watch as broadcast; I record just about everything and watch it later.

PBC_1966

Originally posted by mike65
DOG are another bugbear, some channels are better than others in the style of logo but really I do know which station I'm grazing!.

Yes, that's something else that bugs me. I chose to watch something on a certain channel, and don't need to be reminded all the way through the show.

At least BBC and ITV don't have logos on constantly, although they're creeping in. Children's ITV in the afternoon has a "citv" logo stuck in the corner all the time, except during commercials.

And that's another thing about these: Why do we have to put up with them during the program but the broadcasters consider them unnecessary during commercial breaks?

sceptre

Originally posted by PBC_1966
And that's another thing about these: Why do we have to put up with them during the program but the broadcasters consider them unnecessary during commercial breaks?

The advertisers don't like anything on screen that might distract you from the advertising experience. They're held to be more important than you.

Big Ears

Originally posted by PBC_1966

If the program planners know that a game may go to extra-time or whatever, then why do they not schedule for that extra time? They can always insert an extra filler if the extra time is not needed.

I'm sure that they plan time for the chat at the end, but my point is that if the game has already run over the scheduled time, why do they still go on with that chat? If they must run late due to extra-time, then that analysis at the end should not just be trimmed, it should be cut altogether to avoid making the subsequent programs even later.

that is a bit awkward , allowing for Extra -time and penalties would be an extra 50 mins , there will be many times they have to do that Euro 2004 quarter final onwards , Champions league second round onwards any league cup or F.A. cup match , if there isnt extra time 50 mins of a 'filler' is just a waste , considering only 1 or 2 games out of 10 would go to extra time , I think it has to do with you not likeing sport realy , because even though I hate criket I can understand when it delays other sport programs , but u hate sport in general so ur opinion is bound to be different .

Pigman II

Originally posted by Big Ears
that is a bit awkward , allowing for Extra -time and penalties would be an extra 50 mins , there will be many times they have to do that Euro 2004 quarter final onwards , Champions league second round onwards any league cup or F.A. cup match , if there isnt extra time 50 mins of a 'filler' is just a waste , considering only 1 or 2 games out of 10 would go to extra time , I think it has to do with you not likeing sport realy , because even though I hate criket I can understand when it delays other sport programs , but u hate sport in general so ur opinion is bound to be different .

This is true.

Just for statistical purposes take the World Cup as an example. Since the peno shootout was introduced there have been around 338 World Cup Finals games played. Of them 84 only potentially could have gone to penalties. However only 15 (or less than 18%) of those 84 (less that 5% of the 338) actually ended up doing so. When you bear in mind this equates to 15 disruptions spread over a period of 22 years it hardly qualifies as a major interuption to your viewing pleasure.

PBC_1966

Yes, I admit that not being a sports fan is bound to color my opinion on this somewhat.

But the World Cup with 15 disruptions over 22 years (I guess you must be a sports fan, being able to quote statistics like that ) is surely just one particular example out of many? We get programs canceled due to over-running of various football, tennis, cricket games, not to mention snooker. Added together. that's a darn sight more than 15 interruptions in 22 years.

It just seems as though sport pushes everything else aside. On occasions I've sat waiting for something to start late in the afternoon on a Saturday. Grandstand or whatever the current sports show is called has already been on for about 6 hours during the day, then a game overruns and they decide to stay with it. When it finally finishes, they then spend another 10 minutes analyzing it..

When it finally ends there may be a news bulletin before the next program, and that on a Saturday seems to be half sport, often showing excerpts from the game that has just been televised in full and has only just finished!

Show sport by all means, but the planners should realize that not everybody considers sprt the most important thing on TV.

Busy Hands

Those damn continuity announcers are a major annoyance alright, however yer woman on Sky One - normally on a Sunday at Simpsons time - is an exception. Although she seems to do all the things that the pissy ones do, she has a bit of wit and cop on about her and gets away with it in my view. When RTE or TV3 do it you want to kick out at the screen, irrelevant nonsensical drivel.

Big Ears

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Yes, I admit that not being a sports fan is bound to color my opinion on this somewhat.

But the World Cup with 15 disruptions over 22 years (I guess you must be a sports fan, being able to quote statistics like that ) is surely just one particular example out of many? We get programs canceled due to over-running of various football, tennis, cricket games, not to mention snooker. Added together. that's a darn sight more than 15 interruptions in 22 years.

It just seems as though sport pushes everything else aside. On occasions I've sat waiting for something to start late in the afternoon on a Saturday. Grandstand or whatever the current sports show is called has already been on for about 6 hours during the day, then a game overruns and they decide to stay with it. When it finally finishes, they then spend another 10 minutes analyzing it..

When it finally ends there may be a news bulletin before the next program, and that on a Saturday seems to be half sport, often showing excerpts from the game that has just been televised in full and has only just finished!

Show sport by all means, but the planners should realize that not everybody considers sprt the most important thing on TV.

But the majority do and we all know majority rules , plus sport is real life and actually affects people while eastenders is something some put together when laughing their way to nthe bank from their last pay check . 1 question for ya , how come u hate sport so much ?

ixoy

Originally posted by Big Ears
But the majority do and we all know majority rules , plus sport is real life and actually affects people while eastenders is something some put together when laughing their way to nthe bank from their last pay check . 1 question for ya , how come u hate sport so much ?

Umm soaps and dramas affect real people and can do just as much as sports. For starters, they can raise important social issues, about themes like drug abuse or, recently, sexuality. They can bring them into the open and make it easier for some families to talk about them having a show to relate to.
Secondly, sport is, ultimately, just a game and of no more real importance than many a TV show. Both are driven also now by monetary reasons as well as passion for their craft. It'd only be fair to say that perhaps a documentary or current affairs program is more real.
Thirdly, the poster doesn't hate sports. What he hates, and what I dislike too might I add, is the preferential treatment given to sports whereby schedules are constantly knocked off kilter by the latest over-running tournamnet. Champions League, for one example, constantly knocked Law & Order off on Wednesday nights so that a season that would otherwise have ended months ago, is only on its sixteenth episode (and currently taken off for three weeks because of Euro 2004). THAT is what the poster objects to - not sport being broadcast but how it affects all those shows around it for, and has a knock on effect for those of us who couldn't care less about who knocks what ball into someone's net.

PBC_1966

You got it ixoy.

Personally, I'm fed up with hearing about Euro 2004. As far as I'm concerned, it's a bunch of guys being paid ludicrously large sums of money to kick a ball around a field. I fail to see what there is to get excited about. If some of you find it interesting, that's fine; we all have different interests. If you want it televised, that's fine as well, so long as it doesn't push everything else out.

I find science documentaries interesting, so let me ask the sports fans a question:

Suppose you were sitting down to watch a game scheduled to start in a few minutes and there was the tail end of a science program on. Now suppose at the end of that program, the announcer said something to the effect of "As we still have another installment of this documentary series to run, we've decided to cancel the showing of tonight's football game and continue with our science series." You will now be able to watch the game at a later date."

I bet you'd be pretty annoyed, right?

Pigman II

What he hates, and what I dislike too might I add, is the preferential treatment given to sports whereby schedules are constantly knocked off kilter by the latest over-running tournamnet.

Sporting occasions will lose the majority of their inheirant value if they are not screened live. Regular TV on the other hand can be shown at any time and still retain whatever impact it may or may not have. It's not preferential treatment, just logic.

Personally, I'm fed up with hearing about Euro 2004. As far as I'm concerned, it's a bunch of guys being paid ludicrously large sums of money to kick a ball around a field.

Well in that case you can't really complain as it is their clubs who pay them the 'ludicrously large sums of money to kick a ball around a field'. They get (relatively speaking) nothing for playing for their countries and are mainly only doing so because of national pride.

PBC_1966

Originally posted by Pigman II
Sporting occasions will lose the majority of their inheirant value if they are not screened live.

I have to ask why? Does it matter if you see the game later? Can't you still enjoy it then?

And if sports events really are of little value if not broadcast live, then why do we need edited highlights and such like to be re-broadcast over and over again in later news/sports bulletins?

Well in that case you can't really complain as it is their clubs who pay them the 'ludicrously large sums of money to kick a ball around a field'. They get (relatively speaking) nothing for playing for their countries and are mainly only doing so because of national pride.

Correct me if I'm wrong somebody, but don't these guys get tens of thousands per week for playing? I'd hardly call that "relatively little."

I agree though that if the clubs want to throw their money away on players that's their affair. What I do object to though, is when government money (i.e. our tax money) is lavished on sport. But that's probably a more suitable topic for a policitical forum than a TV debate.

Big Ears

Originally posted by PBC_1966
You got it ixoy.

Personally, I'm fed up with hearing about Euro 2004. As far as I'm concerned, it's a bunch of guys being paid ludicrously large sums of money to kick a ball around a field. I fail to see what there is to get excited about. If some of you find it interesting, that's fine; we all have different interests. If you want it televised, that's fine as well, so long as it doesn't push everything else out.

Actually internationely players dont earn that much money .

Big Ears

Originally posted by Pigman II



Well in that case you can't really complain as it is their clubs who pay them the 'ludicrously large sums of money to kick a ball around a field'. They get (relatively speaking) nothing for playing for their countries and are mainly only doing so because of national pride.

I realy should read all of a thread bwfore replying .

ixoy

Originally posted by Pigman II
Sporting occasions will lose the majority of their inheirant value if they are not screened live. Regular TV on the other hand can be shown at any time and still retain whatever impact it may or may not have. It's not preferential treatment, just logic.

As PBC is saying, is this really the case? Put a fan in a locked room, and, unknown to them, stream them the match twenty, thirty, forty minutes late - same match, right? There isn't a real difference when watching it on TV - it's entirely in the head. Oh you could argue there's a danger they could hear the score elsewhere but that's unlikely if you're mildly cautious. I mean over here we have months during which we could have certain TV shows spoilt given we're so far behind...

Well in that case you can't really complain as it is their clubs who pay them the 'ludicrously large sums of money to kick a ball around a field'. They get (relatively speaking) nothing for playing for their countries and are mainly only doing so because of national pride.

Assuming they're even from the nation they're playing for But this isn't just Euro 2004 - this is sports in general and, one I pointed out earlier, was Champions League constantly knocking off Law & Order. Now don't tell me they're not earning loads of money in those league matches....

Big Ears

Originally posted by PBC_1966


I agree though that if the clubs want to throw their money away on players that's their affair. What I do object to though, is when government money (i.e. our tax money) is lavished on sport. But that's probably a more suitable topic for a policitical forum than a TV debate.

I just have to ask again whats ur problem with sport ?

If RTE dont show a game live people will watch it on ITV or BBC or SKY sports .

I can understand u like soaps and all but for gods sake its not real , sport is and as I said majority rules .

Soaps are the most popular thing on T.V. regualry , but when major tournaments come around Sport is .

Bad news for ya is that in a month and a half the Olyimpics is starting , in the meen time when Euro 2004 is over il be watching the Copa America .(only been shown on Sky sports ,u will be thankfully to hear .)

mike65

I'd be happy with a dedicted sport mutliplex run by bbc, itv and c4 and feed through freeview if we could get it!

Mike.

PBC_1966

I don't have a problem with sports. You like sport, that's fine. I would not be objecting if it were treated on equal terms with other material, but as ixoy said, why does it get preferential treatment?

As for the current soaps, no I don't watch any of them either. The previews and odd clips I see in passing on other people's sets are depressing enough without actually sitting down to watch a whole episode. Why are the modern British soaps so gloomy?

earwicker

Originally posted by PBC_1966
You got it ixoy.

Personally, I'm fed up with hearing about Euro 2004. As far as I'm concerned, it's a bunch of guys being paid ludicrously large sums of money to kick a ball around a field. I fail to see what there is to get excited about.

Football, football, football. A load of men kicking a ball around a field.

Have you read "Understanding Football for Women"?

Go on [beat], my son.

Pigman II

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Correct me if I'm wrong somebody, but don't these guys get tens of thousands per week for playing? I'd hardly call that "relatively little."

Reread my previous post. I said YES they get paid a lot for playing for their clubs but NO they don't get paid anything (other than a nominal appearance fee) for playing for their country - which is what is currently going on in Portugal and all over your tv screen.

PBC_1966

When you get paid thousands over the odds for your regular "work," it's no doubt very easy to go play once every few years for your country for a small amount, or even for free.

By the way, anyone know just how much that "nominal" fee might be?

Big Ears

Acually theres 9 internationel games for most countries each year , you probably dont care , but its a big difference to once every couple of years . Also most players play in a couple of charity games over a season .

and finally in the response to why it gets preferential treatment , majority rules , more people watch sport than other programs (as ive said before )

Pigman II

Originally posted by PBC_1966
By the way, anyone know just how much that "nominal" fee might be?

For the Irish lads at least - last time I heard it was around 500 quid to cover about 3 days worth of commitments. When you consider than the average premiership player earns around 30k per WEEK it really shows that it's not even worth their time turning up for us ... but in fairness to them they do it anyway.