I made a 'sort of joking' schedule about how you'd avoid Strictly, Doctor Who and The X Factor. But with 5 hours, 20 minutes of content across both channels, that's near on impossible. You could, just about, do this...
BBC One
17:50 - Strictly Come Dancing
19:55 - Doctor Who
20:40 - Pointless Celebrities
21:30 - Lottery Draws
21:40 - Casualty
22:30 - BBC News
22:50 - Mrs Brown's Boys
ITV
18:40 - You've Been Framed!
19:40 - The Chase
20:40 - The X Factor
23:10 - ITV News
The beeb are insisting Dr Who- Mummy on the Orient Express needs a late slot though.
When we see this Mummy, if it's not scary I'm going to be so disappointed. ;-)
Nice editing there. So XF is starting earlier and has increased the number of acts but the long clash is SCDs fault for sticking with the same start and run time.
I made a mistake. My point still remains. There's absolutely no way The X Factor would start later than 7:30pm even with a 2 hour running time. Why shift Keyhole to 10pm unnecessarily and have a 10pm finish for X Factor unnecessarily? Strictly took the challenge to The X Factor by generating the first clash. It's nice to see that ITV aren't running scared and changing their plans to escape it.
Same reason as Strictly, Bake Off and Britain's Got Talent have increased the number of contestants since series 1? It's an effective way of filling air time.
Of course at least part of the increased number of contestants for those shows can be explained by the fact that longer runs were commissioned and in the case of Bake Off at least hasn't resulted in a horribly bloated run time. That's not the case with The X Factor. Its going to finish on the same date whether they take 12 acts through to the live shows or 20. All this means is they'll now have a couple of weeks (at least) of shows that almost everyone will agree are longer than they should be and a slog to get through. Making the first few weeks of the live shows an endurance event for the audience seems like a terrible idea for where the show is right now.
Dont start talking sense on here - it wont be appreciated.
The truth is both shows are bloated because they want the big audience for as long as they can - this year might be the first when that may not be such a good idea.
I absolutely agree that both shows are bloated and running in much longer slots than they should be. The X Factor absolutely shouldn't have 16 contestants going through to the live stages and I imagine it would be incredibly easy to cut a sizable chunk off of Strictly's run time as well. Neither of these shows needs to be running for more than 2 hours. Its insanity.
I don't know. Sheridan Smith seems like a good bet for Lead Actress. ITV have actually won that particular award the last three years - Olivia Coleman for Broadchurch, Sheridan Smith for Mrs Biggs and Emily Watson for Appropriate Adult.
Also this BAFTA criticism is somewhat unfair in general. Broadchurch, Last Tango in Halifax, The Fades, Sherlock, Misfits, Wallander, The Street (twice), Doctor Who and Shameless have been the winners the last ten years for Drama Series.
The BAFTA will be between Sheridan Smith for Cilla and Sarah Lancashire for Happy Valley. Lancashire has the edge for me but it's going to be close. And what if the vote is split between them and Keeley Hawes gets it for Line Of Duty? It's going to be fun!
I made a mistake. My point still remains. There's absolutely no way The X Factor would start later than 7:30pm even with a 2 hour running time. Why shift Keyhole to 10pm unnecessarily and have a 10pm finish for X Factor unnecessarily? Strictly took the challenge to The X Factor by generating the first clash. It's nice to see that ITV aren't running scared and changing their plans to escape it.
ITV thinking a clash is better than a later finish. I think they're right but they won't get as much grief as the BBC did.
Let them clash! I like a good battle. But the reason why we have clashes is because the shows are so long!
The BAFTA will be between Sheridan Smith for Cilla and Sarah Lancashire for Happy Valley. Lancashire has the edge for me but it's going to be close. And what if the vote is split between them and Keeley Hawes gets it for Line Of Duty? It's going to be fun!
Sarah Lancashire has the edge for me as well, but I can see Keeley Hawes taking it, Lancashire won last year which might be a disadvantage, and Smith won two years ago (beating the brilliant Rebecca Hall) with a performance that, imo, was better than the one she gave in Cilla.
Strictly is a bit bloated. X Factor's show is likely to have 8 advert breaks, so strip those out and it has effectively got a 115 minute slot for 16 acts. Meanwhile Strictly is actually 10 minutes longer at 125 mins even though it only has 14 acts. Suspect there may be some padding involved there which could be more difficult than usual with no Brucie to fluff his lines.
I've never taken a stopwatch to it, but I suspect Strictly's performance pattern is a little longer than XFs because there's the additional scoring element.
Eg. On XF they go VT > Performance > Comments, and on Strictly its VT > Performance > Comments > Scores.
Regardless, both shows are too lengthy and both will suffer in the ratings because of it. I can perfectly well understand why neither wish to back down from the slots they're in, though.
MediaGuardian also point out that Gogglebox on Friday almost matched its last series premiere in March (2.67m/11.6% v 2.73m/12.9% including +1), despite huge competition.
They did mention the early start straight after the duff duffs, pretty much, so that will help, but will still catch some out. Can't see the football affecting it though, it didn't stop the fire episode rising.
I liked it starting at 7.25 because it reminded me of the period from 2000-01 when they moved the news to ten but all the shows were still fifty minutes long so stuff regularly started at five to and ten past the hour, 'stEnders would be at 7.25 or 7.35 at least once a week and shows like Holiday, Watchdog and Top of the Pops would extend and contract each week depending on what else they had. I don't think it'll be so bad tonight, if you watched Emmerdale you'd have missed the first two minutes at most (because that had finished by 7.27) and most viewers are used to it starting a few minutes before 7.30.
this is a very interesting commission- when did C4 last air a live show like this in daytime? Light Lunch?? You'd have to go back a very long way I think.
Well, depends if you count Richard and Judy, and later Fern, as that kind of thing. I don't think this is going to be live, actually. I don't think it does much for the idea that C4 is innovative and alternative when they've now got cookery shows seven mornings a week. I also wonder the value of spinning off an existing show into an ad-funded thing because if the same team and presenters are doing both, you'd think there was potential for it to influence the non-ad-funded thing.
If rumours are to be believed then X Factor will have 16 acts to get through so even though it's a very long show it'll be pretty packed with not much room to shorten it. Can't see it moving to be honest. ITV should really plug the +1 option though.
Strictly is a bit bloated. X Factor's show is likely to have 8 advert breaks, so strip those out and it has effectively got a 115 minute slot for 16 acts. Meanwhile Strictly is actually 10 minutes longer at 125 mins even though it only has 14 acts. Suspect there may be some padding involved there which could be more difficult than usual with no Brucie to fluff his lines.
I don't like additional dancing on Strictly Come Dancing referred to as "padding", it's the whole point of the programme. If they want to do a group dance or something because they think it'd look good and be fun, why shouldn't they? It's an entertainment programme. If they really put their minds to it you could probably get Strictly done and dusted in under an hour, with the participants running on and off, but the point of the show is to entertain. Same as with Millionaire or something, if Tarrant didn't leave so many pauses they could have flown through the questions. It's not a chore. There has to be time for the show to work, to breathe.
I appreciate what people aresaying about the +1 option but I would doubt ITV would explicity promote it if only because that would involve admitting that Strictly exists.
Both are unnecessary inflated and probably wouldn't be as long if the other didn't exist/wasn't airing on that night.
I don't know about that, I remember the final of the second Pop Idol ran from 6.45 to 9.30, with no competition (although they stuck a quick news bulletin in unscheduled at 8.50 so the last half hour counted as a separate show with a higher rating).
Making the first few weeks of the live shows an endurance event for the audience seems like a terrible idea for where the show is right now.
I think even the most dedicated Factor fan is going to struggle with that running time. The duration and the scheduling will encourage people to record it and skip the ads and any other bits they feel like.
Sarah Lancashire has the edge for me as well, but I can see Keeley Hawes taking it, Lancashire won last year which might be a disadvantage, and Smith won two years ago (beating the brilliant Rebecca Hall) with a performance that, imo, was better than the one she gave in Cilla.
Should Smith and Lancashire be even competing against one another? I think Smith was amazing in many facets of her layered performance. She drew me to the story in the first place with her wonderful voice and attention to detail on character. Lancashire plays an utterly different role and puts in a completely different performance. Its too hard to divide them. I don't know if BAFTA have ever divided the award. Its just disappointing whoever wins. But Sheridan deserves alot of praise for making this role look effortless.
Great overnight for "Cilla" last night too! Write something else Mr Pope!!
Talent show overkill on Saturday night may cause people to switch off.
Talent show creep is eating into friday nights scheduing thanks to SC. Xf could have started earlier than it did. So now ITV are having to cram in a friday installment to catch up for the live shows. Or was this part of the plan by SC
Should Smith and Lancashire be even competing against one another? I think Smith was amazing in many facets of her layered performance. She drew me to the story in the first place with her wonderful voice and attention to detail on character. Lancashire plays an utterly different role and puts in a completely different performance. Its too hard to divide them. I don't know if BAFTA have ever divided the award. Its just disappointing whoever wins. But Sheridan deserves alot of praise for making this role look effortless.
Great overnight for "Cilla" last night too! Write something else Mr Pope!!
With The Emmys they separate mini series actors from drama series actors. BAFTA should do that. Lancashire's character went through an emotional wringer. It was another extraordinary performance. It will be the most hotly contested Best Actress category in years. There isn't just one frontrunner.
With The Emmys they separate mini series actors from drama series actors. BAFTA should do that. Lancashire's character went through an emotional wringer. It was another extraordinary performance. It will be the most hotly contested Best Actress category in years. There isn't just one frontrunner.
BIB: BAFTA already do this with the programmes - best single drama, best mini-series, best drama series.
With The Emmys they separate mini series actors from drama series actors. BAFTA should do that. Lancashire's character went through an emotional wringer. It was another extraordinary performance. It will be the most hotly contested Best Actress category in years. There isn't just one frontrunner.
I think maybe they divided it years ago once?? Lancashire was outstanding and really raw in her performance, Keeley Hawes looks less likely to win now for "Line Of Duty" which is now all the way into May 2015 at the BAFTA ceremony, maybe Gillian Anderson will get another nod too for her part in "The Fall", we have yet to see her in full flow! I think Aneurin Barnard also deserves best supporting actor for his part in the "Cilla" story, somewhere along the line. But the National Television Awards will be first, where im thinking Sheridan Smith will beat Sarah Lancashire as there may a sway from ITV viewers.
Talent show creep is eating into friday nights scheduing thanks to SC. Xf could have started earlier than it did. So now ITV are having to cram in a friday installment to catch up for the live shows. Or was this part of the plan by SC
Why would they start it in mid August? I know they have in the past but it hurt the figures. And the BBC started the reality show creep by Strictly having Friday night episodes due to a bulked up cast. It's getting to the point where they're trying to outdo each other in taking the mick.
Comments
The beeb are insisting Dr Who- Mummy on the Orient Express needs a late slot though.
When we see this Mummy, if it's not scary I'm going to be so disappointed.
I made a mistake. My point still remains. There's absolutely no way The X Factor would start later than 7:30pm even with a 2 hour running time. Why shift Keyhole to 10pm unnecessarily and have a 10pm finish for X Factor unnecessarily? Strictly took the challenge to The X Factor by generating the first clash. It's nice to see that ITV aren't running scared and changing their plans to escape it.
I think thats just a lot of spin - having said that I would love for it to be mega scary.
I absolutely agree that both shows are bloated and running in much longer slots than they should be. The X Factor absolutely shouldn't have 16 contestants going through to the live stages and I imagine it would be incredibly easy to cut a sizable chunk off of Strictly's run time as well. Neither of these shows needs to be running for more than 2 hours. Its insanity.
The BAFTA will be between Sheridan Smith for Cilla and Sarah Lancashire for Happy Valley. Lancashire has the edge for me but it's going to be close. And what if the vote is split between them and Keeley Hawes gets it for Line Of Duty? It's going to be fun!
EastEnders started at 19:25
They're really plugging this Furchester Hotel.
ITV thinking a clash is better than a later finish. I think they're right but they won't get as much grief as the BBC did.
Let them clash! I like a good battle. But the reason why we have clashes is because the shows are so long!
Sarah Lancashire has the edge for me as well, but I can see Keeley Hawes taking it, Lancashire won last year which might be a disadvantage, and Smith won two years ago (beating the brilliant Rebecca Hall) with a performance that, imo, was better than the one she gave in Cilla.
I've never taken a stopwatch to it, but I suspect Strictly's performance pattern is a little longer than XFs because there's the additional scoring element.
Eg. On XF they go VT > Performance > Comments, and on Strictly its VT > Performance > Comments > Scores.
Regardless, both shows are too lengthy and both will suffer in the ratings because of it. I can perfectly well understand why neither wish to back down from the slots they're in, though.
BBC Two: 4.7%
Channel 4: 4.5% inc +1
Sky Ryder Cup: 4.4%
Channel 5: 4.0% inc +1
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/29/strictly-come-dancing-x-factor-head-to-head-tv-ratings
MediaGuardian also point out that Gogglebox on Friday almost matched its last series premiere in March (2.67m/11.6% v 2.73m/12.9% including +1), despite huge competition.
I liked it starting at 7.25 because it reminded me of the period from 2000-01 when they moved the news to ten but all the shows were still fifty minutes long so stuff regularly started at five to and ten past the hour, 'stEnders would be at 7.25 or 7.35 at least once a week and shows like Holiday, Watchdog and Top of the Pops would extend and contract each week depending on what else they had. I don't think it'll be so bad tonight, if you watched Emmerdale you'd have missed the first two minutes at most (because that had finished by 7.27) and most viewers are used to it starting a few minutes before 7.30.
Well, depends if you count Richard and Judy, and later Fern, as that kind of thing. I don't think this is going to be live, actually. I don't think it does much for the idea that C4 is innovative and alternative when they've now got cookery shows seven mornings a week. I also wonder the value of spinning off an existing show into an ad-funded thing because if the same team and presenters are doing both, you'd think there was potential for it to influence the non-ad-funded thing.
It's in the Radio Times, it's a Perfect Day-style thing simulcast on all BBC TV and radio channels to promote their musical output. Two minutes long.
I don't like additional dancing on Strictly Come Dancing referred to as "padding", it's the whole point of the programme. If they want to do a group dance or something because they think it'd look good and be fun, why shouldn't they? It's an entertainment programme. If they really put their minds to it you could probably get Strictly done and dusted in under an hour, with the participants running on and off, but the point of the show is to entertain. Same as with Millionaire or something, if Tarrant didn't leave so many pauses they could have flown through the questions. It's not a chore. There has to be time for the show to work, to breathe.
I appreciate what people aresaying about the +1 option but I would doubt ITV would explicity promote it if only because that would involve admitting that Strictly exists.
I don't know about that, I remember the final of the second Pop Idol ran from 6.45 to 9.30, with no competition (although they stuck a quick news bulletin in unscheduled at 8.50 so the last half hour counted as a separate show with a higher rating).
Build... and switch off. The audience tends to start drifting after 8pm.
So what will come after S&B do we know?
I think I agree. We might see some low figures for both which neither can really afford.
I think it might be the documentary series Broadmoor before IAC.
Should Smith and Lancashire be even competing against one another? I think Smith was amazing in many facets of her layered performance. She drew me to the story in the first place with her wonderful voice and attention to detail on character. Lancashire plays an utterly different role and puts in a completely different performance. Its too hard to divide them. I don't know if BAFTA have ever divided the award. Its just disappointing whoever wins. But Sheridan deserves alot of praise for making this role look effortless.
Great overnight for "Cilla" last night too! Write something else Mr Pope!!
I believe there will be just two weeks between S&B and IAC.
With The Emmys they separate mini series actors from drama series actors. BAFTA should do that. Lancashire's character went through an emotional wringer. It was another extraordinary performance. It will be the most hotly contested Best Actress category in years. There isn't just one frontrunner.
BIB: BAFTA already do this with the programmes - best single drama, best mini-series, best drama series.
I think maybe they divided it years ago once?? Lancashire was outstanding and really raw in her performance, Keeley Hawes looks less likely to win now for "Line Of Duty" which is now all the way into May 2015 at the BAFTA ceremony, maybe Gillian Anderson will get another nod too for her part in "The Fall", we have yet to see her in full flow! I think Aneurin Barnard also deserves best supporting actor for his part in the "Cilla" story, somewhere along the line. But the National Television Awards will be first, where im thinking Sheridan Smith will beat Sarah Lancashire as there may a sway from ITV viewers.
Why would they start it in mid August? I know they have in the past but it hurt the figures. And the BBC started the reality show creep by Strictly having Friday night episodes due to a bulked up cast. It's getting to the point where they're trying to outdo each other in taking the mick.