if we could organize 10 thousand gay couples to attend the murray match tomorrow and start kissing, then see how many cut aways you will get.
It's a Director thing. Some directors like it and some dont.
On the winning moment, you will also see the director will cut to a crowd cheering shot sharpish as well. They think they are bring the audience at home to the ground and part of it.
For me, it bloody annoys me, but not enough to ever complain about it out loud to anyone!!
Nothing to say in reply about the rank hypocrisy of the paper then, a reader and so supportive by any chance?
I never mentioned anything about the paper, support or otherwise, it's not relevant to broadcasting and I'm no more a fan of the Mail than I'm a fan of the BBC.
But we were talking about broadcasting in the broadcasting forum and the broadcaster the BBC, not stills in some paper, though I can see why some would like to divert from the issue of the thread about appropriateness of broadcasting what people were intimately doing for the obvious pro-BBC, anti-commercial reasons.
After all if you can spin around the BBC's actions in this case and have a pop at the Daily Mail in the same post it's two for the price of one.
Yet by saying the BBC should be no better than a tabloid isn't exactly helping your argument here! i'd expect better from the BBC, obviously you don't!
Can't you just accept I and others would prefer a recap of current scores in other matches, or as replay of an exciting moment in the last game and others, like yourself (defending this), prefer to look at intimate and personal moments in the crowd, ie voyeurism.
The BBC aren't alone here, the cameras at previous world cup games have spent more time pointing at the bouncing jugs of Brazilian ladies than they have the football. Some directors forget that people have tuned in to watch the sport, I thought the BBC were better than this though.
As for the Daily Mail, their hypocrisy never fails to amaze me.
And today they have a photograph of a celebrity's partly exposed breast as her T Shirt slipped.
The BBC aren't alone here, the cameras at previous world cup games have spent more time pointing at the bouncing jugs of Brazilian ladies than they have the football. Some directors forget that people have tuned in to watch the sport, I thought the BBC were better than this though.
Presumably that was the world feed producers, not the BBC.
Can't you just accept I and others would prefer a recap of current scores in other matches, or as replay of an exciting moment in the last game and others, like yourself (defending this), prefer to look at intimate and personal moments in the crowd, ie voyeurism.
So do the BBC not provide recaps of scores in other matches, or replay exciting moments and instead simply look for intimate and personal moments (at a public, televised event) in the crowd instead?
Or do they actually provide regular score updates and replays and this one shot was in amongst all that anyway?
Thank goodness the Daily Mail never saw this.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDnjvTM5i7k
(And another reason why James Richardson not being on 'proper' telly is a disgrace....)
After all if you can spin around the BBC's actions in this case and have a pop at the Daily Mail in the same post it's two for the price of one.
Hmmm..... seeing as you mention spin, you then go on to spin/state:
Yet by saying the BBC should be no better than a tabloid isn't exactly helping your argument here!
Now I could be wrong, but no-one (certainly not the OP) has said that at all. What they have questioned is the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail
Can't you just accept I and others would prefer a recap of current scores in other matches, or as replay of an exciting moment in the last game and others, like yourself (defending this), prefer to look at intimate and personal moments in the crowd, ie voyeurism.
And another piece of spin from yourself there - defending this is NOT the same as saying that they (the defenders) "prefer to look at intimate and personal moments".
I never mentioned anything about the paper, support or otherwise, it's not relevant to broadcasting and I'm no more a fan of the Mail than I'm a fan of the BBC.
But we were talking about broadcasting in the broadcasting forum and the broadcaster the BBC, not stills in some paper, though I can see why some would like to divert from the issue of the thread about appropriateness of broadcasting what people were intimately doing for the obvious pro-BBC, anti-commercial reasons.
After all if you can spin around the BBC's actions in this case and have a pop at the Daily Mail in the same post it's two for the price of one.
Yet by saying the BBC should be no better than a tabloid isn't exactly helping your argument here! i'd expect better from the BBC, obviously you don't!
Can't you just accept I and others would prefer a recap of current scores in other matches, or as replay of an exciting moment in the last game and others, like yourself (defending this), prefer to look at intimate and personal moments in the crowd, ie voyeurism.
you still haven't answered my question about whether or not you think the couple should have been ejected for inappropriate behaviour...
And another piece of spin from yourself there - defending this is NOT the same as saying that they (the defenders) "prefer to look at intimate and personal moments".
And yet you are defending this. So you are stating a preference by that defence.
So which DO you prefer, the inappropriate shots betweengames or my suggestion of an on-screen recap of other games/replays?
I'm having trouble finding what is just spin and what is your actual opinion.
At the moment you're seeming to deny you are in favour of these shots, but at the same time you are defending them just for the sake of arguing against me. or is agreeing with me for once that hard to swallow?
A quick question for those who actually go to the show courts at Wimbledon...
Do they show the live TV coverage/replays on a big screen inside the court? I can tell from the TV coverage that the crowd get to see the "hawkeye" sequences. In other sports (notably the WC) members of the crowd get all excited when they see themselves on screen. I just wondered if this couple would have been able to see themselves and whether they would have reacted to "being on the telly" by being embarrassed by what was shown?
And yet you are defending this. So you are stating a preference by that defence.
So which DO you prefer, the inappropriate shots betweengames or my suggestion of an on-screen recap of other games/replays?
I'm having trouble finding what is just spin and what is your actual opinion.
At the moment you're seeming to deny you are in favour of these shots, but at the same time you are defending them just for the sake of arguing against me. or is agreeing with me for once that hard to swallow?
I've read through the whole thread and I agree with your stance on the issue. I also agree that most of the other posters are ignoring the issue and going on a Mail bashing spree.
It's the BBC who are cheapen their Wimbledon coverage here, and that's what I and others have a problem with them for doing this. What the Mail does is their own business , I don't fund the Mail.
Seems to me there are a couple of different questions:
1 Is it OK to do "crowd shots" at any sporting event or concert, as a general rule of thumb? If the answer to that is "no", then I'd expect all broadcasters to be similarly complained about, including the WC coverage, If the answer is "yes, it add to the feeling of being at the event", then the next question is...
2 Was the couple in question "picked out" because they had already been "nibbling" eachother and the director/cameraman thought it would be a "cute shot" to catch them at it again. Or were they "picked out" at random (as with all the other "less offensive" crowd shots) and just happened to start nibbling and the director didn't cut away fast enough. If the former, then that does count as a bit voyeuristic. If the latter, then it's the nature of live coverage that stuff like that happens, like someone swearing on camera.
As to the contention that other scores/replays could be given priority over "this sort of stuff", if they only ever did crowd shots at changeovers, you'd have a point, but as they often do show other scores as well, I don't see it as a big problem if sometimes they go for "atmosphere". Perhaps the balance is wrong, but it always will be to somebody!
I am saying that I don't see much wrong, considering that the couple involved were in public, in full view of everyone there (including the assembled media) and were not ejected from the Court for inappropriate behaviour.
So you are stating a preference by that defence.
No, not at all - congratulations on another attempt at spinning wildly though.
So which DO you prefer, the inappropriate shots betweengames or my suggestion of an on-screen recap of other games/replays?
I have no preference, especially as the behaviour was indeed in full and open view of the public in a public area. Neither the showing of such images, nor the showing of recaps/scores bothers me much either way (score updates and replays that DO get shown between the play if you watch closely).
At the moment you're seeming to deny you are in favour of these shots,
where have I seemingly said that? Please quote the post concerned.
but at the same time you are defending them just for the sake of arguing against me. or is agreeing with me for once that hard to swallow?
IDon't kid yourself - I am expressing an opinion that such shots are not inappropriate under the circumstances as pointed out many times, and ignored by you
Really SloMo, your attempts at spinning knows no bounds here.
I never mentioned anything about the paper, support or otherwise, it's not relevant to broadcasting and I'm no more a fan of the Mail than I'm a fan of the BBC.
But we were talking about broadcasting in the broadcasting forum and the broadcaster the BBC, not stills in some paper, though I can see why some would like to divert from the issue of the thread about appropriateness of broadcasting what people were intimately doing for the obvious pro-BBC, anti-commercial reasons..
Sorry slomo but if a paper reports on a broadcaster and is then brought to the broadcasting forum then it becomes a broadcasting issue, after all, if a paper were to praise the BBC you'd soon jump in and rubbish it.
Can't you just accept I and others would prefer a recap of current scores in other matches, or as replay of an exciting moment in the last game and others, like yourself (defending this), prefer to look at intimate and personal moments in the crowd, ie voyeurism.
Likewise can you not accept that as well as being able to see recaps etc on a regular basis, I and others like to see the crowd without being called voyeurs?
One other, if the shot in particular abruptly ended and quickly switched to another scene I can imagine you and a few others here would accuse the BBC of being prudes.
Really SloMo, your attempts at spinning knows no bounds here.
I've stated my opinion clearly for all to see.
No spin in that.
Those 'spinning' would refer to those deflecting criticism, ie deflrcting the issue tobe about the Daily Mail instead of adressing the broadcasting issue at hand. i don't give two hoots what the daily mail do, it's not a broadcaster.
Those 'spinning' would refer to those deflecting criticism, ie deflrcting the issue tobe about the Daily Mail instead of adressing the broadcasting issue at hand.
Read the thread slowmo, the 'issue' is also being addressed.
And yet again, you deflect the spinning point, as I explain below.
Those 'spinning' would refer to those deflecting criticism, ie deflrcting the issue tobe about the Daily Mail instead of adressing the broadcasting issue at hand. i don't give two hoots what the daily mail do, it's not a broadcaster.
Those ;points are being addressed review the thread rather than trying to twist what others have posted.
The spinning coming from you is related to how you are choosing to reinterpret and misrepresent what others like myself have clearly stated, twisting those clear statements to imply something quite different.
The spinning coming from you is related to how you are choosing to reinterpret what others like myself have clearly stated, twisting those clear statements to imply something quite different.
You mean the words of support for this that are then denied as not being support.
Anyone reading this thread will clearly know where i stand, as i've made my point clearly but be very confused about the opinion of some who seemingly can't make up their minds about this, but would certainly prefer to talk about the daily mail.
Well, instead of accusing me of misinterpreting your opinion, perhaps you could clearly tell us, are you for/against the intimacy shots? yes or no?
I find all this complaining going on in this country beyond a joke, this is the UK, the home of the saucy postcard and double entendre humour , these days anyone would think we were a bunch of facist , perverted potential paedophiles , well the way some find the most innocent of things or flippant remarks to find something dirty or nasty in you would.
I pray that the pillocks who have their phone on the arm of the chair and Ofcom on speed dial will soon have their phones removed from them and give us all a break.
You mean the words of support for this that are then denied as not being support
Please quote the post where I have apparently posted words of support for this.
Well, perhaps you could clearly tell us, are you for/against the intimacy shots? yes or no?
Intimacy shots???? Really, you are using emotive language as well now. Yes, I have stated before that I have no preference - see my reply in post 65. they don't bother me either way.
So, if this act was so intimate (or inappropriate), should the couple have been ejected from the court by the Wimbledon authorities?
.. these days anyone would think we were a bunch of facist , perverted potential paedophiles , well the way some find the most innocent of things or flippant remarks to find something dirty or nasty in you would.
That sums up the thinkings of the brainwashed pitchfork brigade of Mail readers.
Yes, I have stated before that I have no preference - see my reply in post 65. they don't bother me either way.
A bit vague, what do you mean by "they don't bother me either way", could you elaborate so I don't misquote your opinion on this?
So is that for them or against them? Do you mind them or not mind them? i don't think this is the sort of thing you can sit on the fence over, especially when you've been so active in this debate.
So, if this act was so intimate 9or inappropriate), should the couple have been ejected from the court by the Wimbledon authorities?
That's for them to decide. If they got complaints they might. Most people just wouldn't gawk at them and i doubt they'd be reaching for their camcorders to capture the moment.
But it's not a valid comparison and another red herring from BBC supporters on this.
For instance if you were walking on the beach you might find people OK with you looking at them in their bathing costumes or kissing their partners, or even people doing that in the street - that's part of ordinary life, but then if you got your video camera out and started filming them they might have a different view!
I'm sure some people would think there was nothing wrong with that either, but it depends on your own values I guess.
There's an obvious difference between just looking and filming. Then if you think of the added element of broadcasting it nationally, then it's a whole new ball game!
Comments
It's a Director thing. Some directors like it and some dont.
On the winning moment, you will also see the director will cut to a crowd cheering shot sharpish as well. They think they are bring the audience at home to the ground and part of it.
For me, it bloody annoys me, but not enough to ever complain about it out loud to anyone!!
But we were talking about broadcasting in the broadcasting forum and the broadcaster the BBC, not stills in some paper, though I can see why some would like to divert from the issue of the thread about appropriateness of broadcasting what people were intimately doing for the obvious pro-BBC, anti-commercial reasons.
After all if you can spin around the BBC's actions in this case and have a pop at the Daily Mail in the same post it's two for the price of one.
Yet by saying the BBC should be no better than a tabloid isn't exactly helping your argument here! i'd expect better from the BBC, obviously you don't!
Can't you just accept I and others would prefer a recap of current scores in other matches, or as replay of an exciting moment in the last game and others, like yourself (defending this), prefer to look at intimate and personal moments in the crowd, ie voyeurism.
And today they have a photograph of a celebrity's partly exposed breast as her T Shirt slipped.
Presumably that was the world feed producers, not the BBC.
So do the BBC not provide recaps of scores in other matches, or replay exciting moments and instead simply look for intimate and personal moments (at a public, televised event) in the crowd instead?
Or do they actually provide regular score updates and replays and this one shot was in amongst all that anyway?
(clue: it's the second one)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDnjvTM5i7k
(And another reason why James Richardson not being on 'proper' telly is a disgrace....)
Now I could be wrong, but no-one (certainly not the OP) has said that at all. What they have questioned is the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail
And another piece of spin from yourself there - defending this is NOT the same as saying that they (the defenders) "prefer to look at intimate and personal moments".
phwoar! look at those two on the back row!
Iain
you still haven't answered my question about whether or not you think the couple should have been ejected for inappropriate behaviour...
Iain
So which DO you prefer, the inappropriate shots betweengames or my suggestion of an on-screen recap of other games/replays?
I'm having trouble finding what is just spin and what is your actual opinion.
At the moment you're seeming to deny you are in favour of these shots, but at the same time you are defending them just for the sake of arguing against me. or is agreeing with me for once that hard to swallow?
Do they show the live TV coverage/replays on a big screen inside the court? I can tell from the TV coverage that the crowd get to see the "hawkeye" sequences. In other sports (notably the WC) members of the crowd get all excited when they see themselves on screen. I just wondered if this couple would have been able to see themselves and whether they would have reacted to "being on the telly" by being embarrassed by what was shown?
K
I've read through the whole thread and I agree with your stance on the issue. I also agree that most of the other posters are ignoring the issue and going on a Mail bashing spree.
It's the BBC who are cheapen their Wimbledon coverage here, and that's what I and others have a problem with them for doing this. What the Mail does is their own business , I don't fund the Mail.
1 Is it OK to do "crowd shots" at any sporting event or concert, as a general rule of thumb? If the answer to that is "no", then I'd expect all broadcasters to be similarly complained about, including the WC coverage, If the answer is "yes, it add to the feeling of being at the event", then the next question is...
2 Was the couple in question "picked out" because they had already been "nibbling" eachother and the director/cameraman thought it would be a "cute shot" to catch them at it again. Or were they "picked out" at random (as with all the other "less offensive" crowd shots) and just happened to start nibbling and the director didn't cut away fast enough. If the former, then that does count as a bit voyeuristic. If the latter, then it's the nature of live coverage that stuff like that happens, like someone swearing on camera.
As to the contention that other scores/replays could be given priority over "this sort of stuff", if they only ever did crowd shots at changeovers, you'd have a point, but as they often do show other scores as well, I don't see it as a big problem if sometimes they go for "atmosphere". Perhaps the balance is wrong, but it always will be to somebody!
K
I have no preference, especially as the behaviour was indeed in full and open view of the public in a public area. Neither the showing of such images, nor the showing of recaps/scores bothers me much either way (score updates and replays that DO get shown between the play if you watch closely).
where have I seemingly said that? Please quote the post concerned.
IDon't kid yourself - I am expressing an opinion that such shots are not inappropriate under the circumstances as pointed out many times, and ignored by you
Really SloMo, your attempts at spinning knows no bounds here.
The BBC - and ALL other broadcasters - show crowd shots.
What's the blinking problem here??!!
Sorry slomo but if a paper reports on a broadcaster and is then brought to the broadcasting forum then it becomes a broadcasting issue, after all, if a paper were to praise the BBC you'd soon jump in and rubbish it.
Still defending it then?
Likewise can you not accept that as well as being able to see recaps etc on a regular basis, I and others like to see the crowd without being called voyeurs?
One other, if the shot in particular abruptly ended and quickly switched to another scene I can imagine you and a few others here would accuse the BBC of being prudes.
No spin in that.
Those 'spinning' would refer to those deflecting criticism, ie deflrcting the issue tobe about the Daily Mail instead of adressing the broadcasting issue at hand. i don't give two hoots what the daily mail do, it's not a broadcaster.
Read the thread slowmo, the 'issue' is also being addressed.
Those ;points are being addressed review the thread rather than trying to twist what others have posted.
The spinning coming from you is related to how you are choosing to reinterpret and misrepresent what others like myself have clearly stated, twisting those clear statements to imply something quite different.
Anyone reading this thread will clearly know where i stand, as i've made my point clearly but be very confused about the opinion of some who seemingly can't make up their minds about this, but would certainly prefer to talk about the daily mail.
Well, instead of accusing me of misinterpreting your opinion, perhaps you could clearly tell us, are you for/against the intimacy shots? yes or no?
I'm against them, by the way.
I pray that the pillocks who have their phone on the arm of the chair and Ofcom on speed dial will soon have their phones removed from them and give us all a break.
Slo, trust me, i know EXACTLY where you stand when it comes to all issues BBC..........:)
Intimacy shots???? Really, you are using emotive language as well now. Yes, I have stated before that I have no preference - see my reply in post 65. they don't bother me either way.
So, if this act was so intimate (or inappropriate), should the couple have been ejected from the court by the Wimbledon authorities?
That sums up the thinkings of the brainwashed pitchfork brigade of Mail readers.
So is that for them or against them? Do you mind them or not mind them? i don't think this is the sort of thing you can sit on the fence over, especially when you've been so active in this debate.
That's for them to decide. If they got complaints they might. Most people just wouldn't gawk at them and i doubt they'd be reaching for their camcorders to capture the moment.
But it's not a valid comparison and another red herring from BBC supporters on this.
For instance if you were walking on the beach you might find people OK with you looking at them in their bathing costumes or kissing their partners, or even people doing that in the street - that's part of ordinary life, but then if you got your video camera out and started filming them they might have a different view!
I'm sure some people would think there was nothing wrong with that either, but it depends on your own values I guess.
There's an obvious difference between just looking and filming. Then if you think of the added element of broadcasting it nationally, then it's a whole new ball game!