High standards is not "stuffy" and neither is it "outdated".
High Standards my foot, the BBc is pompous and out of date, just like our Monarchy
Have you ever been to a live recording done by the BBC? I have and you would not believe the way they act as if they are something special and far too much pampering around instead of just getting on with things. Even the presenter was making mistakes with his script, but I feel it was on purpose, maybe her thought it was funny.
True it was BBC wales, but still the BBC all the same.
High Standards my foot, the BBc is pompous and out of date, just like our Monarchy
Have you ever been to a live recording done by the BBC? I have and you would not believe the way they act as if they are something special and far too much pampering around instead of just getting on with things. Even the presenter was making mistakes with his script, but I feel it was on purpose, maybe her thought it was funny.
True it was BBC wales, but still the BBC all the same.
The BBC is special and not out of date, neither is our monarchy. What show did you see being recorded? I'd love to go to the BBC...Broadcasting House or Elstree. I'd be well excited.
The BBC is special and not out of date, neither is our monarchy. What show did you see being recorded? I'd love to go to the BBC...Broadcasting House or Elstree. I'd be well excited.
It was a Welsh talent show, I can not remember the name of it. someone I knew had a band on it and the amount of time the presenter got the name wrong, even a few mins after he was told the name. He done that will all the acts.,
There was far too much mucking around, I know things need to be good to be on air, but The the staff just seemed to be fussing about little things.
It was not even live, so any problem could be edited out.
Sorry, but I do not agree with you about the BBc being special and I think it is out of date, very pompus, just like Queenie and her croonies.
It was a Welsh talent show, I can not remember the name of it. someone I knew had a band on it and the amount of time the presenter got the name wrong, even a few mins after he was told the name. He done that will all the acts.,
There was far too much mucking around, I know things need to be good to be on air, but The the staff just seemed to be fussing about little things.
It was not even live, so any problem could be edited out.
Sorry, but I do not agree with you about the BBc being special and I think it is out of date, very pompus, just like Queenie and her croonies.
At least you got to appreciate how long it takes to film a show. Imagine how long it takes to film W1A or any BBC show for that matter.
We will have to agree to disagree on Auntie. I think it is very special and must be cherished.
At least you got to appreciate how long it takes to film a show. Imagine how long it takes to film W1A or any BBC show for that matter.
But it took a lot longer than it needed, we got there for five in the evening and yet we did not leave till way after midnight, it was a hour show for goodness sake.
We will have to agree to disagree on Auntie. I think it is very special and must be cherished.
But it took a lot longer than it needed, we got there for five in the evening and yet we did not leave till way after midnight, it was a hour show for goodness sake.
I went to a recording of Was It Something I Said? in Maidstone. It was the pilot episode and the recording took four hours, and that was for C4! With an advert break that was a twenty minute show. And that was a simple static panel show where everyone was a professional and knew what they were doing, not a talent shows with lots of acts.
This is not a "BBC" thing, it is the way TV and movies are usually made. Movies and serious drama can often get maybe two minutes of screen time done in a whole day.
Fast Good Cheap. Pick any two. You want something broadcast quality on a budget then it's going to take time. You want something broadcast quality done quickly then it's going to be expensive. You want something done cheaply and quickly then it's going to be crap.
Aye, it tends to take time to do almost any recording, and I suspect in some ways talent shows may be harder than some drama's, as normally with drama's they're working to a script with people that are likely professionals and experienced in TV, talent shows on the other hand may have a lot minor delays and retries with people who may not be very experienced in performing (let alone TV).
IIRC the likes of The IT crowd" used to take all evening to film, and that was for something where they had full rehearsals before hand, often had inset shots done on location, and had a run time of about 25 minutes (the same is true for a lot of american sit coms).
The BBC is special and not out of date, neither is our monarchy. What show did you see being recorded? I'd love to go to the BBC...Broadcasting House or Elstree. I'd be well excited.
The BBC run trips round New BH and many of the regional centres - details on the BBC web site.
I went to a recording of Was It Something I Said? in Maidstone. It was the pilot episode and the recording took four hours, and that was for C4! With an advert break that was a twenty minute show. And that was a simple static panel show where everyone was a professional and knew what they were doing, not a talent shows with lots of acts.
This is not a "BBC" thing, it is the way TV and movies are usually made. Movies and serious drama can often get maybe two minutes of screen time done in a whole day.
Fast Good Cheap. Pick any two. You want something broadcast quality on a budget then it's going to take time. You want something broadcast quality done quickly then it's going to be expensive. You want something done cheaply and quickly then it's going to be crap.
I can understand movies and drams taking a long time, but this was just some presenter introducing bands and that was it.
Too much fuss /.
I can understand movies and drams taking a long time, but this was just some presenter introducing bands and that was it.
Too much fuss /.
Thank goodness the industry in the UK still cares enough about the "fuss" around production values to make quality programmes. I've seen overseas TV that looks like a YouTube home video. I'm pretty sure ITV, who have a similar production process and cost per hour, doesn't spend the money for the fun of it.
In any case, you can't extrapolate a single recording of a regional programme to the thousands of hours of BBC production.
I can understand movies and drams taking a long time, but this was just some presenter introducing bands and that was it.
Too much fuss /.
That's the Welsh for you nought to do with the BBC.
I've worked on music shows that happened in real time and go out live, I think BBC3 had one on its opening night but it required a large studio. It would have involved soundchecks and camera run throughs either with the band or stand-ins, if its going out live there is often a full dress rehearsal.
If you are so good at making programmes go and do it, you seem to make the assumption that if you were in charge everything would run smoothly.
I've worked on large live 2-3 hour music events that are outside, involving 17 cameras and a helicopter, little rehearsal but it will be the best sound & camera people, vision mixer, director, engineers, production team and outside broadcast supplier. But even then there can be duff shots because the act does something unexpected.
Certain top flight audience participating shows may be only take 2-3 hours to record but spend 2-3 days being edited.
If the programme you went to see was a one off then there could be numerous reasons why it took as long as you say. And I'm in no doubt if it ended up looking shoddy on screen you would have been on here moaning how bad the production was.
PS. All the examples I have given are from commercial funded television, where the budgets are much bigger than for a BBC equivalent.
Well the fact that Christopher Eccleston is in 28 Days Later, eXistenZ, Shallow Grave, Gone in Sixty Seconds, Amelia , G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, Thor: The Dark World and about 40 other movies makes him a movie star in my book.
There are lots of good actors but there is a narrow range of celebrity actors that ITV like to have in their dramas.
Prior to his appearance in Dr Who, the majority of ITV viewers would probably not recognise his name (many would quite likely still not recognise his name after Dr Who!).
If the BBC is a bunch of leftie commie republicans surely the headline should be 'BBC snubs the Queen'.
Would not the left wing BBC have told the Queen to go and get stuffed if she thinks they are going to pay a German & Greek to have a jolly at tax payers expense?
Therefore I put it to you if the BBC see it as a snub that the Daily Mail story confirms the BBC is an out and out right wing Royalist propagandist machine.
But I could be totally and utterly wrong.
I mean why would a Right Wing controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham choose to show her majesty storming off, when that wasn't the case, and he ends up as Director of Television at ITV?
Here's what happened, realizing the BBC was the propaganda arm the Socialist Workers Party promoting revolution through Strictly Come Dancing that had footage of the Queen out of a sitting Royalist Fincham hatched a plan.
He decided to take the hit to protect his beloved Queen he deliberately leaked the part of the programme that showed her true colours as a foul mouthed (edited out)diva, and it was turned into her hurrying to the sitting. He resigned and was rewarded with a higher paid job at ITV and a grateful Queen has chosen to sponsor a night of horse droppings on ITV.
There are lots of good actors but there is a narrow range of celebrity actors that ITV like to have in their dramas.
Prior to his appearance in Dr Who, the majority of ITV viewers would probably not recognise his name (many would quite likely still not recognise his name after Dr Who!).
I am not so sure. Mr. Eccleston really came to prominence in 'Cracker' and later on starred in 'The Second Coming'. Both on ITV.
Dr Who should never have been dropped in the first place. The only reason it did get dropped was BBC's Michael Grade hated the show and because of the way the BBC is run he was allowed to drop a popular show he personally hated and not worry about losing money as BBC get free money no matter what F*** up's they make.
He didn't drop it in 1989. Michael Grade had moved to Channel Four in 1987.
It was Peter Cregeen, Head of Drama, who had decided to end it, along with many other shows (e.g. Bergerac and Howard's Way) because these had been shows which had been running for a long time and were considered by the viewing public to be past their best.
Comments
What is British? Oh yes, the stuffy type thing that we do in this country. Jolly good show sport.
Very BBC, outdated.
High standards is not "stuffy" and neither is it "outdated".
High Standards my foot, the BBc is pompous and out of date, just like our Monarchy
Have you ever been to a live recording done by the BBC? I have and you would not believe the way they act as if they are something special and far too much pampering around instead of just getting on with things. Even the presenter was making mistakes with his script, but I feel it was on purpose, maybe her thought it was funny.
True it was BBC wales, but still the BBC all the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjY0784vHN8
The BBC is special and not out of date, neither is our monarchy. What show did you see being recorded? I'd love to go to the BBC...Broadcasting House or Elstree. I'd be well excited.
It was a Welsh talent show, I can not remember the name of it. someone I knew had a band on it and the amount of time the presenter got the name wrong, even a few mins after he was told the name. He done that will all the acts.,
There was far too much mucking around, I know things need to be good to be on air, but The the staff just seemed to be fussing about little things.
It was not even live, so any problem could be edited out.
Sorry, but I do not agree with you about the BBc being special and I think it is out of date, very pompus, just like Queenie and her croonies.
At least you got to appreciate how long it takes to film a show. Imagine how long it takes to film W1A or any BBC show for that matter.
We will have to agree to disagree on Auntie. I think it is very special and must be cherished.
Partridge.
But it took a lot longer than it needed, we got there for five in the evening and yet we did not leave till way after midnight, it was a hour show for goodness sake.
If you say so.
I went to a recording of Was It Something I Said? in Maidstone. It was the pilot episode and the recording took four hours, and that was for C4! With an advert break that was a twenty minute show. And that was a simple static panel show where everyone was a professional and knew what they were doing, not a talent shows with lots of acts.
This is not a "BBC" thing, it is the way TV and movies are usually made. Movies and serious drama can often get maybe two minutes of screen time done in a whole day.
Fast Good Cheap. Pick any two. You want something broadcast quality on a budget then it's going to take time. You want something broadcast quality done quickly then it's going to be expensive. You want something done cheaply and quickly then it's going to be crap.
IIRC the likes of The IT crowd" used to take all evening to film, and that was for something where they had full rehearsals before hand, often had inset shots done on location, and had a run time of about 25 minutes (the same is true for a lot of american sit coms).
So it's certainly not a BBC thing.
The BBC run trips round New BH and many of the regional centres - details on the BBC web site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/tours/
I can understand movies and drams taking a long time, but this was just some presenter introducing bands and that was it.
Too much fuss /.
Thank goodness the industry in the UK still cares enough about the "fuss" around production values to make quality programmes. I've seen overseas TV that looks like a YouTube home video. I'm pretty sure ITV, who have a similar production process and cost per hour, doesn't spend the money for the fun of it.
In any case, you can't extrapolate a single recording of a regional programme to the thousands of hours of BBC production.
That's the Welsh for you nought to do with the BBC.
I've worked on music shows that happened in real time and go out live, I think BBC3 had one on its opening night but it required a large studio. It would have involved soundchecks and camera run throughs either with the band or stand-ins, if its going out live there is often a full dress rehearsal.
If you are so good at making programmes go and do it, you seem to make the assumption that if you were in charge everything would run smoothly.
I've worked on large live 2-3 hour music events that are outside, involving 17 cameras and a helicopter, little rehearsal but it will be the best sound & camera people, vision mixer, director, engineers, production team and outside broadcast supplier. But even then there can be duff shots because the act does something unexpected.
Certain top flight audience participating shows may be only take 2-3 hours to record but spend 2-3 days being edited.
If the programme you went to see was a one off then there could be numerous reasons why it took as long as you say. And I'm in no doubt if it ended up looking shoddy on screen you would have been on here moaning how bad the production was.
PS. All the examples I have given are from commercial funded television, where the budgets are much bigger than for a BBC equivalent.
There are lots of good actors but there is a narrow range of celebrity actors that ITV like to have in their dramas.
Prior to his appearance in Dr Who, the majority of ITV viewers would probably not recognise his name (many would quite likely still not recognise his name after Dr Who!).
Would not the left wing BBC have told the Queen to go and get stuffed if she thinks they are going to pay a German & Greek to have a jolly at tax payers expense?
Therefore I put it to you if the BBC see it as a snub that the Daily Mail story confirms the BBC is an out and out right wing Royalist propagandist machine.
But I could be totally and utterly wrong.
I mean why would a Right Wing controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham choose to show her majesty storming off, when that wasn't the case, and he ends up as Director of Television at ITV?
Here's what happened, realizing the BBC was the propaganda arm the Socialist Workers Party promoting revolution through Strictly Come Dancing that had footage of the Queen out of a sitting Royalist Fincham hatched a plan.
He decided to take the hit to protect his beloved Queen he deliberately leaked the part of the programme that showed her true colours as a foul mouthed (edited out)diva, and it was turned into her hurrying to the sitting. He resigned and was rewarded with a higher paid job at ITV and a grateful Queen has chosen to sponsor a night of horse droppings on ITV.
But I could be wrong.
I am not so sure. Mr. Eccleston really came to prominence in 'Cracker' and later on starred in 'The Second Coming'. Both on ITV.
What in a sexual fetish way?
Everyone starts somewhere
He didn't drop it in 1989. Michael Grade had moved to Channel Four in 1987.
It was Peter Cregeen, Head of Drama, who had decided to end it, along with many other shows (e.g. Bergerac and Howard's Way) because these had been shows which had been running for a long time and were considered by the viewing public to be past their best.
And Phillip Schofield will be as annoying as ever presenting it.
For a long time since Charles called Nicholas Witchell they nasty nan that I cannot stand, they gave favoured ITV.
Can we get Gordon the gofer, to co present from the broom cupboard?