They did just that on numerous occasions, most notably with two episodes of Series 7
It was basically a two-part story but they showed the second part first
Was that the Mr Partridge episodes? See 'floating' in the swimming pool at the beginning of one episode where we then learnt it was a trick by Mr Partridge and then he was again see in the same place at the end of the second episode. They should of course have shown them the other way around.
I was also hoping that they would explain the crazy decision to put double brand new editions of Perfection on at 6am in the morning, but not a sound.
Was that the Mr Partridge episodes? See 'floating' in the swimming pool at the beginning of one episode where we then learnt it was a trick by Mr Partridge and then he was again see in the same place at the end of the second episode. They should of course have shown them the other way around.
I was also hoping that they would explain the crazy decision to put double brand new editions of Perfection on at 6am in the morning, but not a sound.
You're quite correct about the Mr Partridge cock-up. Two posters on the Hi-De-Hi thread complained and they were fobbed off with the excuse that the episodes were chosen with running times that best fit the schedule on particular days. That's why many were shown out of order.
"We're right, the viewer wrong" attitude again.
The BBC are quite "picky" about what they will include in the programme.
The first priority is to get viewers to watch the programme. They like to include complimentary letters about running series, or even a silly complaint about one, so they can include some "promo" clips. This will be considered good marketing.
It's not about reflecting an accurate picture of the current perception of the BBC, by its many critics.
A catalogue of complaints, even those which are quite valid, won't be considered to be well received by those who can be bothered to watch TV on a Sunday at the time the programme's scheduled.
They try to achieve a balance of mostly "effusive praise and some mild criticisms."
This is dead easy, given the amount of letters, phone calls and e-mails they must get.
If they made the programme content all positive, as they could, the more worldly viewers would suss out that it's a complete, "snow job." So the odd complaint is included. Sometimes voiced by someone who seems to be in their dotage. This may be "sympathetically dismissed,"
Shades of Frankie Howerd's "Silly old fool!" comes to mind.
They want viewers to believe, given the overall content of the programme, that generally speaking, the public think they're doing a reasonable job and as far as many are concerned, this is probably true.
You're quite correct about the Mr Partridge cock-up. Two posters on the Hi-De-Hi thread complained and they were fobbed off with the excuse that the episodes were chosen with running times that best fit the schedule on particular days. That's why many were shown out of order. "We're right, the viewer wrong" attitude again.
Of course, they neither said nor implied that; which they never do. Though I agree it was a pathetic excuse.
If they made the programme content all positive, as they could, the more worldly viewers would suss out that it's a complete, "snow job."
And similarly, if they made the programme content all negative, would that not give the impression that no-one was happy with them?
So they do both compliments and complaints.
It's hard to see the problem with that. Well, for normal, rational people who don't have a bee in their bonnet about a programme they never actually watch, anyway
A rather hypocritical comment given that you're happy to comment upon other peoples.
As far as you're concerned, I certainly comment, on your comments on my opinions.
As for others?
How often do I say "each to their own?" I really don't mind what other people think about TV programmes, it makes no difference to me. Pity you can't say the same.
Hang on, let me know when you are going to stop going back and adding to your post.
That's three changes so far. At least you didn't go back and completely change it like you did last time, after I'd responded quoting the original one which made no sense. But maybe I should be thankful you didn't include the unfriendly remarks, second time around.
You then followed up with another post accusing me of poor board etiquette for quoting the original.
Unfortunately, I'm not a mind reader.
I think I've explained my perception of the programme's rationale well enough for most "normal" (your word) people to understand, other of course than for "BBC apologists."
But maybe I should be thankful you didn't include the unfriendly remarks, second time around.
Hence the edit.
Speaking of unfriendly remarks. More hypocrisy...) (BIB)
I think I've explained my perception of the programme's rationale well enough for most "normal" (your word) people to understand, other of course than for "BBC apologists."
Speaking of unfriendly remarks. More hypocrisy...) (BIB)
Perhaps you should have re-edited your post too
Is that it, or do you want to go back in and change something, again?
No, given your record, that's I think, a fair description of you.
Although I sometimes criticise the BBC, at least I do occasionally start threads on their more worthwhile TV programmes. I don't constantly knock other contributors' opinions.
Is that it, or do you want to go back in and change something, again?
So we're not allowed to edit posts now in case we change our minds?
Although I sometimes criticise the BBC, at least I do occasionally start threads on their more worthwhile TV programmes. I don't constantly knock other contributors' opinions.
And neither do I. Though I am happy to challenge them when I see fit.
So we're not allowed to edit posts now in case we change our minds?
And neither do I. Though I am happy to challenge them when I see fit.
I don't think you should "whinge" about me quoting your post and commenting on it, before you saw what I'd posted, so went back in and change it to something completely different, because the original one made no sense and contained unfriendly remarks.
I mean, and then telling me I was guilty of poor etiquette?
I don't think you should "whinge" about me quoting your post and commenting on it, before you saw what I'd posted, so went back in and change it to something completely different, because the original one made no sense and contained unfriendly remarks.
I did not see what you had posted until the following night. I edited the post within one minute posting the original. There were no other replies when I left the thread.
I did not see what you had posted until the following night. I edited the post within one minute posting the original. There were no other replies when I left the thread.
I guess that's an explanation which might satisfy some.
Note:
You can't use roll eyes any more, the facility was withdrawn as "some over-used it."
Too much football on the channel, disrupting the schedules.
Couldn't it have been put it on anther channel such as BBC3 or 4? No answer from the Beeb.
Inside Harley Street.
Questioning the questioning. Spoilt by the negative questioning especially about money.
No reply again. rolleyes
Nelson in His Own Words.
Missing arms moving around. Was the footage flipped?
Finally an answer: Yes it was flipped.
Inside No 9. Highs and lows of comedy.
Shane Allen Controller of Comedy Commissioning.
Basically saying they are trying to get a rich mix of shows on tv.
Item seems to be used to promo up coming comedy shows and praise old shows.
For instance Peter Kay's Car Share, which they show a clip from.
Looking forward to 'Boy Meets Girl'.
Back In Time For Dinner
Use of an old fashioned tin opener. Good show brought back memories.
Wasted opportunity to show issues related to today.
Too much football on the channel, disrupting the schedules.
Couldn't it have been put it on anther channel such as BBC3 or 4? No answer from the Beeb.
Inside Harley Street.
Questioning the questioning. Spoilt by the negative questioning especially about money.
No reply again. rolleyes
Nelson in His Own Words.
Missing arms moving around. Was the footage flipped?
Finally an answer: Yes it was flipped.
Inside No 9. Highs and lows of comedy.
Shane Allen Controller of Comedy Commissioning.
Basically saying they are trying to get a rich mix of shows on tv.
Item seems to be used to promo up coming comedy shows and praise old shows.
For instance Peter Kay's Car Share, which they show a clip from.
Looking forward to 'Boy Meets Girl'.
Back In Time For Dinner
Use of an old fashioned tin opener. Good show brought back memories.
Wasted opportunity to show issues related to today.
Promo clip from Peter Kay's Car Share.
BIB .1. Totally agree with this it should be on another channel. I just hate football. Why is it so important that it pushes regular programmes out! And not comment from the BBC but no surprise there.
BIB 2. I thought it was a 'we don't give a t*ss' answer from them >:(
BIB 3. This looks so good.
Does Vine have to raise his voice so high at the start
BIB .1. Totally agree with this it should be on another channel. I just hate football. Why is it so important that it pushes regular programmes out! And not comment from the BBC but no surprise there.
BIB 2. I thought it was a 'we don't give a t*ss' answer from them >:(
BIB 3. This looks so good.
Does Vine have to raise his voice so high at the start
Why should they comment on a stupid question? BBC 3 and 4 don't start broadcasting to 19:00 football started at 17:20
Why should they comment on a stupid question? BBC 3 and 4 don't start broadcasting to 19:00 football started at 17:20
More to the point, even if BBC3 and BBC4 did start broadcasting earlier why would it be alright for their schedules to be changed for football but not BBC1's??
Erm ... Let me think Oh!.. They could start it early. Now there's a thought but a bit of a stretch for the BBC lack of sense.
Sorry, but the broadcast spectrum is actually used by CBBC and Cbeebies up until 7pm (so in that respect, a very sensible decision). Maybe you should have a rethink!
Sorry, but the broadcast spectrum is actually used by CBBC and Cbeebies up until 7pm (so in that respect, a very sensible decision). Maybe you should have a rethink!
Maybe the parents could ... wait for it .... entertain their children for a while while the footie is on
Comments
Was that the Mr Partridge episodes? See 'floating' in the swimming pool at the beginning of one episode where we then learnt it was a trick by Mr Partridge and then he was again see in the same place at the end of the second episode. They should of course have shown them the other way around.
I was also hoping that they would explain the crazy decision to put double brand new editions of Perfection on at 6am in the morning, but not a sound.
You're quite correct about the Mr Partridge cock-up. Two posters on the Hi-De-Hi thread complained and they were fobbed off with the excuse that the episodes were chosen with running times that best fit the schedule on particular days. That's why many were shown out of order.
"We're right, the viewer wrong" attitude again.
The BBC are quite "picky" about what they will include in the programme.
The first priority is to get viewers to watch the programme. They like to include complimentary letters about running series, or even a silly complaint about one, so they can include some "promo" clips. This will be considered good marketing.
It's not about reflecting an accurate picture of the current perception of the BBC, by its many critics.
A catalogue of complaints, even those which are quite valid, won't be considered to be well received by those who can be bothered to watch TV on a Sunday at the time the programme's scheduled.
They try to achieve a balance of mostly "effusive praise and some mild criticisms."
This is dead easy, given the amount of letters, phone calls and e-mails they must get.
If they made the programme content all positive, as they could, the more worldly viewers would suss out that it's a complete, "snow job." So the odd complaint is included. Sometimes voiced by someone who seems to be in their dotage. This may be "sympathetically dismissed,"
Shades of Frankie Howerd's "Silly old fool!" comes to mind.
They want viewers to believe, given the overall content of the programme, that generally speaking, the public think they're doing a reasonable job and as far as many are concerned, this is probably true.
Of course, they neither said nor implied that; which they never do. Though I agree it was a pathetic excuse.
And similarly, if they made the programme content all negative, would that not give the impression that no-one was happy with them?
So they do both compliments and complaints.
It's hard to see the problem with that. Well, for normal, rational people who don't have a bee in their bonnet about a programme they never actually watch, anyway
As far as you're concerned, I certainly comment, on your comments on my opinions.
As for others?
How often do I say "each to their own?" I really don't mind what other people think about TV programmes, it makes no difference to me. Pity you can't say the same.
Hang on, let me know when you are going to stop going back and adding to your post.
That's three changes so far. At least you didn't go back and completely change it like you did last time, after I'd responded quoting the original one which made no sense. But maybe I should be thankful you didn't include the unfriendly remarks, second time around.
You then followed up with another post accusing me of poor board etiquette for quoting the original.
Unfortunately, I'm not a mind reader.
I think I've explained my perception of the programme's rationale well enough for most "normal" (your word) people to understand, other of course than for "BBC apologists."
Speaking of unfriendly remarks. More hypocrisy...) (BIB)
Perhaps you should have re-edited your post too
Is that it, or do you want to go back in and change something, again?
No, given your record, that's I think, a fair description of you.
Although I sometimes criticise the BBC, at least I do occasionally start threads on their more worthwhile TV programmes. I don't constantly knock other contributors' opinions.
Try it sometime.
And neither do I. Though I am happy to challenge them when I see fit.
I don't think you should "whinge" about me quoting your post and commenting on it, before you saw what I'd posted, so went back in and change it to something completely different, because the original one made no sense and contained unfriendly remarks.
I mean, and then telling me I was guilty of poor etiquette?
"Challenge" that.
You do make me smile.
.
Thanks for respecting the thread folks.
I guess that's an explanation which might satisfy some.
Note:
You can't use roll eyes any more, the facility was withdrawn as "some over-used it."
Too much football on the channel, disrupting the schedules.
Couldn't it have been put it on anther channel such as BBC3 or 4? No answer from the Beeb.
Inside Harley Street.
Questioning the questioning. Spoilt by the negative questioning especially about money.
No reply again. rolleyes
Nelson in His Own Words.
Missing arms moving around. Was the footage flipped?
Finally an answer: Yes it was flipped.
Inside No 9. Highs and lows of comedy.
Shane Allen Controller of Comedy Commissioning.
Basically saying they are trying to get a rich mix of shows on tv.
Item seems to be used to promo up coming comedy shows and praise old shows.
For instance Peter Kay's Car Share, which they show a clip from.
Looking forward to 'Boy Meets Girl'.
Back In Time For Dinner
Use of an old fashioned tin opener. Good show brought back memories.
Wasted opportunity to show issues related to today.
Promo clip from Peter Kay's Car Share.
BIB .1. Totally agree with this it should be on another channel. I just hate football. Why is it so important that it pushes regular programmes out! And not comment from the BBC but no surprise there.
BIB 2. I thought it was a 'we don't give a t*ss' answer from them >:(
BIB 3. This looks so good.
Does Vine have to raise his voice so high at the start
It would seem that framing continuity of the scene was more important than accuracy and continuity. rolleyes
Why should they comment on a stupid question? BBC 3 and 4 don't start broadcasting to 19:00 football started at 17:20
More to the point, even if BBC3 and BBC4 did start broadcasting earlier why would it be alright for their schedules to be changed for football but not BBC1's??
Erm ... Let me think Oh!.. They could start it early. Now there's a thought but a bit of a stretch for the BBC lack of sense.
I don't think the BBC do that as it has been shown in other complaints in drama's. Their attitude is 'the viewer won't notice' >:(
The channels share with the CBBC and CBeebies channels. So it would eat into their time.
Sorry, but the broadcast spectrum is actually used by CBBC and Cbeebies up until 7pm (so in that respect, a very sensible decision). Maybe you should have a rethink!
Yes which is why my 'Will they ever admit to being wrong?' comment is tongue in cheek.
Maybe the parents could ... wait for it .... entertain their children for a while while the footie is on