These awards are voted for by the viewers. The difference in viewers is the loyal viewers and the casual viewers, the loyal viewers took the time out to vote for the shows they love and that is how the awards are decided. Their voting is not based on ratings.
The Soap Category is interesting in that many viewers are loyal to more than one soap, however, their particular favourite soap can change from time to time depending on the quality and clearly the soap fans this year were team EastEnders, and in my own opinion EastEnders was the superior soap for the last 12 months.
I can not complain with the winners this year as everything i voted for except Game of Thrones and Saturday Night Take Away won and my votes were purely based on what i enjoy the most.
I thought the votes were by readers of The Sun, Heat magazine and the Radio Times so that's likely skew not only the vote but the nominations?
It's mainly a popularity contest rather than votes for television performance but it keeps people happy.
Didn't they used to have an In Memoriam section where they remembered people who have died? Yes I know BAFTA have one but I thought the NTAs used to do it too.
Anne Kirkbride has passed on and it's very sad but others have gone too. Linda Bellingham , Warren Clarke, Billie Whitelaw, Rik Mayall and Brian Clemens immediately comes to mind.
I think only BAFTA do that. I don't recall ever seeing that on the NTAs.
I thought the votes were by readers of The Sun, Heat magazine and the Radio Times so that's likely skew not only the vote but the nominations?
.
Anyone can vote. It's not merely "readers of The Sun, Heat magazine and the Radio Times".
Essentially it IS a popularity contest but so are the ratings figures. People whining that the "wrong" person/programme won is silly because if more people vote for them, they win. It's as simple as that.
But not enough people voted for them or your choice of programmes would have won.
Most of the winners weren't my cup of tea but it's first past the post so it's really not worth complaining about.
Your comments prove my point, only those to whom it is important, actually vote. Actors, directors and networks would far rather win a BAFTA than a public vote.
Frankly who wins these awards is of no interest to me, as most of the nominees are programmes I don't watch.
Your comments prove my point, only those to whom it is important, actually vote. Actors, directors and networks would far rather win a BAFTA than a public vote.
Possibly but not necessarily. I'm not sure what your point was - if it's that ratings matter more than these votes, I'd refer you back to MY comment about the number of viewers that actually are counted when ratings are compiled. It's a flawed system.
Frankly who wins these awards is of no interest to me, as most of the nominees are programmes I don't watch.
I think I only watched two winning programmes as a viewer but that's by the by. The winners may not reflect my taste at all but I don't feel the need to denigrate the awards. If enough viewers voted - you know, the people the programmes were made for - then why shouldn't a show win?
It really is silly to complain about these awards.
1. The GBP have no taste and shouldn't be trusted with a vote
2. That Mick Carter is a very much watered down version of the real Danny Dyer:o
3. They are an utter irrelevance when compared to the BAFTAs
To be fair, they are not to be taken seriously at all - it's just Heat, OK and Hell magazine come to life for an evening. Dermot gave the game away in his intro - "what are these awards for? To vote for whoever you fancy the pants off" - says it all really.
Truly lovely gesture by Adam and the EE crew for their tribute to Anne.
Also, what a lovely thing Brendan o'Carroll said about being privileged to
Be on the same stage as Sir David Jason, thought that was lovely. It shows there are still some stars that have respect and do think of others.
What I did find a tad disrespectful was the way Natalie Gumede came dancing
Joyously onto the stage to introduce the next catagory especially when her former colleagues were on the front row mourning one of their own, hers too not so long back.
Anyone can vote. It's not merely "readers of The Sun, Heat magazine and the Radio Times".
Essentially it IS a popularity contest but so are the ratings figures. People whining that the "wrong" person/programme won is silly because if more people vote for them, they win. It's as simple as that.
Fair enough, but its sometimes awards are not always reflective of national popularity but tenacious voting of small but significant minorities. This Morning has won four years in a row from a small audience base and one that arguably is more likely to find the time to vote(especially as iirc, they virtually beg their audience to vote). Its competitor Pointless has 5 or 6 times the audience on occasions and casual observers might find that a bit annoying.
I can't work it out either seemed to start joking and end serious
It was teasing I am sure - they are good friends ( surprisingly) it was Eamonn that interviewed Jeremy when his cancer story broke - at Jeremy's request
Some results disappointed me last night - Mary Berry beaten by Simon cowell , very surprising and xfactor beat Strictly ? Oh well I guess Strictly have an advantage in the ratings
It was teasing I am sure - they are good friends ( surprisingly) it was Eamonn that interviewed Jeremy when his cancer story broke -
Some results disappointed me last night - Mary Berry beaten by Simon Do well , very surprising and xfactor beat Strictly ? Oh well I guess Strictly have an advantage in the ratings
XF has fallen a lot over the last 4 years and the return of Simon and Cheryl has made little difference in a ratings sense. However I suspect those two have fans (especially Cheryl) significant enough and willing enough to vote to make the difference this year.
Fair enough, but its sometimes awards are not always reflective of national popularity but tenacious voting of small but significant minorities. This Morning has won four years in a row from a small audience base and one that arguably is more likely to find the time to vote(especially as iirc, they virtually beg their audience to vote). Its competitor Pointless has 5 or 6 times the audience on occasions and casual observers might find that a bit annoying.
As I understand it, an email address has to be given to avoid multiple voting. More time to vote? Voting was open for weeks so that's no excuse! Begging the audience to vote? Why not? Unless they're forcing people to vote at gunpoint no-one has to listen to what someone on the telly says.
Frankly, there's a lot of sour grapes on here from people complaining that they don't like the winners. So what? Vote for what you DO like and give it a chance to win.
You'd have to tie me to chair to watch some of the winners (and others I've only watched under protest for work purpose) but I'm not so foolish as to whine about them. They won fair and square.
XF has fallen a lot over the last 4 years and the return of Simon and Cheryl has made little difference in a ratings sense. However I suspect those two have fans (especially Cheryl) significant enough and willing enough to vote to make the difference this year.
I did vote as I picked up a link put out by Ant and Dec The naughty boys touting for votes.
On the Strictly miss last night. I suspect some folks who voted last year probably moved their vote away from Strictly to another of the talent shows. The audience here does tend to watch a few of them. To Voice (currently on tv) or BGT not just XF. Strictly was on the top of its game but its falling back with the change of presenters. May still get the viewers but when faced with simple choice of which they like best less chose Strictly than last year.
As for soap I opted for EastEnders. Voted Emmerdale for last few years. There were a few categories that I didn't vote as it was - none of the above. Not sure how many folks do this but opt for something they know. Gogglebox probably fell into that category even though it is hardly the top of their viewing list. The issue with that one was the stupid category.
All I will say is Sarah Lancashire was robbed >:( She has to be a candidate for special recognition award - all the way from Raquel to one of the best actresses in UK. Quite a journey.
I think she would have been a very worthy winner and she'll be battling Sheridan Smith for the Bafta best actress, I dare say. Sheridan Smith was superb too.
She has to be a candidate for special recognition award - all the way from Raquel to one of the best actresses in UK. Quite a journey.
She's had some bumps along the way but you're absolutely right - she's in tremendous form nowadays.
Special recognition awards always seem odd to me - a sort of consolation prize. And think of all those actors "robbed" of a Bafta when Robbie COltrane won year after year!
Somebody told me that following Bill Roache's tribute to Ann Kirkbride there was a 1 minute standing ovation by the audience, that wasn't shown because they cut to an ad break. Priorities eh ITV!? >:(
I suspect that Cowell knew he had won by the mich more than usual smug look on his face whilst sitting in the audience, at the front of course
What with Ben Haenow singing and Mel B doing a presentation he seems to have too much influence on this show
Somebody told me that following Bill Roache's tribute to Ann Kirkbride there was a 1 minute standing ovation by the audience, that wasn't shown because they cut to an ad break. Priorities eh ITV!? >:(
I posted that at 1am this morning. I was at the show on the front side block (112) and had a view of the whole arena.
Comments
I thought the votes were by readers of The Sun, Heat magazine and the Radio Times so that's likely skew not only the vote but the nominations?
It's mainly a popularity contest rather than votes for television performance but it keeps people happy.
I think it was a joke.
I think only BAFTA do that. I don't recall ever seeing that on the NTAs.
Anyone can vote. It's not merely "readers of The Sun, Heat magazine and the Radio Times".
Essentially it IS a popularity contest but so are the ratings figures. People whining that the "wrong" person/programme won is silly because if more people vote for them, they win. It's as simple as that.
Your comments prove my point, only those to whom it is important, actually vote. Actors, directors and networks would far rather win a BAFTA than a public vote.
Frankly who wins these awards is of no interest to me, as most of the nominees are programmes I don't watch.
I think I only watched two winning programmes as a viewer but that's by the by. The winners may not reflect my taste at all but I don't feel the need to denigrate the awards. If enough viewers voted - you know, the people the programmes were made for - then why shouldn't a show win?
It really is silly to complain about these awards.
1. The GBP have no taste and shouldn't be trusted with a vote
2. That Mick Carter is a very much watered down version of the real Danny Dyer:o
3. They are an utter irrelevance when compared to the BAFTAs
To be fair, they are not to be taken seriously at all - it's just Heat, OK and Hell magazine come to life for an evening. Dermot gave the game away in his intro - "what are these awards for? To vote for whoever you fancy the pants off" - says it all really.
Also, what a lovely thing Brendan o'Carroll said about being privileged to
Be on the same stage as Sir David Jason, thought that was lovely. It shows there are still some stars that have respect and do think of others.
What I did find a tad disrespectful was the way Natalie Gumede came dancing
Joyously onto the stage to introduce the next catagory especially when her former colleagues were on the front row mourning one of their own, hers too not so long back.
Agreed, on what basis does it qualify as factual? I can't think of one.
Fair enough, but its sometimes awards are not always reflective of national popularity but tenacious voting of small but significant minorities. This Morning has won four years in a row from a small audience base and one that arguably is more likely to find the time to vote(especially as iirc, they virtually beg their audience to vote). Its competitor Pointless has 5 or 6 times the audience on occasions and casual observers might find that a bit annoying.
It was teasing I am sure - they are good friends ( surprisingly) it was Eamonn that interviewed Jeremy when his cancer story broke - at Jeremy's request
Some results disappointed me last night - Mary Berry beaten by Simon cowell , very surprising and xfactor beat Strictly ? Oh well I guess Strictly have an advantage in the ratings
XF has fallen a lot over the last 4 years and the return of Simon and Cheryl has made little difference in a ratings sense. However I suspect those two have fans (especially Cheryl) significant enough and willing enough to vote to make the difference this year.
As I understand it, an email address has to be given to avoid multiple voting. More time to vote? Voting was open for weeks so that's no excuse! Begging the audience to vote? Why not? Unless they're forcing people to vote at gunpoint no-one has to listen to what someone on the telly says.
Frankly, there's a lot of sour grapes on here from people complaining that they don't like the winners. So what? Vote for what you DO like and give it a chance to win.
You'd have to tie me to chair to watch some of the winners (and others I've only watched under protest for work purpose) but I'm not so foolish as to whine about them. They won fair and square.
EDITED TO ADD:
Here are the voting T&Cs.
http://www.nationaltvawards.com/terms
I did vote as I picked up a link put out by Ant and Dec
On the Strictly miss last night. I suspect some folks who voted last year probably moved their vote away from Strictly to another of the talent shows. The audience here does tend to watch a few of them. To Voice (currently on tv) or BGT not just XF. Strictly was on the top of its game but its falling back with the change of presenters. May still get the viewers but when faced with simple choice of which they like best less chose Strictly than last year.
As for soap I opted for EastEnders. Voted Emmerdale for last few years. There were a few categories that I didn't vote as it was - none of the above. Not sure how many folks do this but opt for something they know. Gogglebox probably fell into that category even though it is hardly the top of their viewing list. The issue with that one was the stupid category.
All I will say is Sarah Lancashire was robbed >:(
I think she would have been a very worthy winner and she'll be battling Sheridan Smith for the Bafta best actress, I dare say. Sheridan Smith was superb too.
She's had some bumps along the way but you're absolutely right - she's in tremendous form nowadays.
Special recognition awards always seem odd to me - a sort of consolation prize. And think of all those actors "robbed" of a Bafta when Robbie COltrane won year after year!
The problem is that the Baftas judge the soap category on the strength of just one episode each.
What with Ben Haenow singing and Mel B doing a presentation he seems to have too much influence on this show
David Tennant, just gorgeous and so deserving of his award.
So jealous of Georgia.
I posted that at 1am this morning. I was at the show on the front side block (112) and had a view of the whole arena.
Are we supposed to know who "georgia" is?
I agree, her perfomance in Happy Valley was outstanding.