If they were important, they would display them during the adverts:p
I don't see why they should be allowed to put them on the HD channels at the very least- HD should mean the best picture available, not "this TV displays a logo in high definition in the corner".
As for banners appearing onscreen during programmes like the US - they are just offensive and their growth can only result in more people being turned off watching TV at all.
For all I care they can do whatever they want over the credits- I never watch them.
If they were important, they would display them during the adverts:p
Depends on the breed They are supposed to be man's best friend after all. I've seen loads of DOGs on adverts, especially those for dog food and Crufts. When is that starting? I wish someone would sort out my neighbours' DOGs though. They drive me mad! They bark at odd times of the day and night and often wake me up early. woof woof
If they were important, they would display them during the adverts:p
I don't see why they should be allowed to put them on the HD channels at the very least- HD should mean the best picture available, not "this TV displays a logo in high definition in the corner".
As for banners appearing onscreen during programmes like the US - they are just offensive and their growth can only result in more people being turned off watching TV at all.
For all I care they can do whatever they want over the credits- I never watch them.
You may wish to watch the Discovery network. I know their DOG used to get bigger during the adverts and smaller during the programming.
If they were important, they would display them during the adverts:p
I don't see why they should be allowed to put them on the HD channels at the very least- HD should mean the best picture available, not "this TV displays a logo in high definition in the corner".
As for banners appearing onscreen during programmes like the US - they are just offensive and their growth can only result in more people being turned off watching TV at all.
For all I care they can do whatever they want over the credits- I never watch them.
Got to give Sky some credit here because they removed the DOGs off Sky Atlantic and Sky 1 SD/HD channels a while ago, the two most watched channels for me, they only come on for 15-20 secs at the start of the programme and after as breaks - all their SD/HD movie channels have no DOGs either. Other channels should follow by example.
As for banners appearing onscreen during programmes like the US - they are just offensive and their growth can only result in more people being turned off watching TV at all.
For all I care they can do whatever they want over the credits- I never watch them.
Ok, maybe the channel banners are annoying to you, but surely you must agree that the end of a programme being talked over, speeded up, squeezed to one size and so fourth is more annoyong than a simple message appearing at the bottom of the screen. It is particularly bad when watching the end of a film. On sunday I watched Live and Let die and the James Bond music was talked over and shrunk down to the point you could no longer read the names. The bond music is beautiful but it was spoilt because of this.
You may not watch the credits, but they are an important part of a programme - they provide the closing music, tell you whos starred in it, tell you when it was made etc all useful information.
I believe credits should be left to run with no voice-overs, not speeded up, not shrunk down or squeezed in. It spoils the end of the programme for me, and does not give the programme enough time to sink in if you know what I mean. And its also not what the programmes producers intended.
Maybe we have got so used to it we dont notice anymore (as on every channel and every programme it happens now) but it just ruins the end of the programme.
And there is no need for it, or next banners, as people know when the next programme is on just by pressing the INFO button on thier remote. And they tell you whats coming on next and whats on in an hour or so anyway before the start of every programme.
I dont mind next banners, and IMO they are way less annoying than what most channels currently do: They speak over the credits telling you whats next, often drouning out the music. They also place a next banner taking up half the screen and shrink the credits into a corner of the screen making them unreadable, squeeze them in or cut them off. You dont have time for the programme to sink in or listen to the end music. I wish channels would abolish this practise. It cant be what the programme makers intended..
Im sure most would agree that a simple unobstructive message that appears at the bottom of the screen for 5 seconds during the last 5 minutes of a programme is FAR less annoying than credit sequences being spoilt by having them talked over, shrunk, bits cut out etc.
It is pointless anyway as just before the programme starts they show a lovely picture eg blackpool seafront on C4, London eye on BBC etc and say whats coming next, whats on in an hour, what the programme contains eg flashing images etc. That is far nicer than credits being spoilt dont you agree?
I didn't know anyone actually watched the credits, but I'd far rather any message was placed there instead of spoiling the actual program itself.
Ok, maybe the channel banners are annoying to you, but surely you must agree that the end of a programme being talked over, speeded up, squeezed to one size and so fourth is more annoyong than a simple message appearing at the bottom of the screen. It is particularly bad when watching the end of a film. On sunday I watched Live and Let die and the James Bond music was talked over and shrunk down to the point you could no longer read the names. The bond music is beautiful but it was spoilt because of this.
You may not watch the credits, but they are an important part of a programme - they provide the closing music, tell you whos starred in it, tell you when it was made etc all useful information.
I believe credits should be left to run with no voice-overs, not speeded up, not shrunk down or squeezed in. It spoils the end of the programme for me, and does not give the programme enough time to sink in if you know what I mean. And its also not what the programmes producers intended.
Maybe we have got so used to it we dont notice anymore (as on every channel and every programme it happens now) but it just ruins the end of the programme.
And there is no need for it, or next banners, as people know when the next programme is on just by pressing the INFO button on thier remote. And they tell you whats coming on next and whats on in an hour or so anyway before the start of every programme.
To me, the credits are still part of the programme. A banner during the programme can be just as annoying or more so than during the credits.
Unfortunately the new media students think that the credits are their time to shine and disregard them as being part of the programme, especially if they are not bog standard list of crew - even then people may want to catch the name of an actor, composer, director etc.
To me, the credits are still part of the programme. A banner during the programme can be just as annoying or more so than during the credits.
Unfortunately the new media students think that the credits are their time to shine and disregard them as being part of the programme, especially if they are not bog standard list of crew - even then people may want to catch the name of an actor, composer, director etc.
There was alot of uproar about credit squeezing to the extent that BBC & ITV committed to showing the credits for a series atleast once unsquashed and spoken over but that lasted barely a few weeks.
I think its a massive disrespect to squash the credits to promote something.
You have the time inbetween shows and ad breaks to promote what's next and what's coming in a few days time.
ITV for me have become the worst with making the credits into a tiny box in the top corner and it needs to stop IMHO, same for talking over the end.
Alot of countries TV doesn't talk over credits or squash anymore.
Shame the UK cannot be a leader in this but.....
There was alot of uproar about credit squeezing to the extent that BBC & ITV committed to showing the credits for a series atleast once unsquashed and spoken over but that lasted barely a few weeks.
I think its a massive disrespect to squash the credits to promote something.
You have the time inbetween shows and ad breaks to promote what's next and what's coming in a few days time.
ITV for me have become the worst with making the credits into a tiny box in the top corner and it needs to stop IMHO, same for talking over the end. Alot of countries TV doesn't talk over credits or squash anymore.
Shame the UK cannot be a leader in this but.....
You know how many of them got round that right? Uniform network credits, designed to only take up 1/4 of the screen but still be legible so they can show a video promo on the top 3/4. That's the system in both Australia and the US.
The American Comedy Central does that but with the next programme, so the bottom 1/4 will be the credits for the prior show and the top 3/4 will be the start of the next show.
Also, none of you are understanding the point, the idea is that theoretically they gain more viewers by squashing/talking over the credit and using a dog. Promoting during the ad breaks don't giving the advantages of promoting during the show, if you want to win this argument you'd need to prove that they don't lose anything by not having a DOG or credit squeezes, and nobody's managed to do that.
And you're not going to, especially if you keep up with these pretentious "it's part of the show" arguments, because nobody at these broadcasters gives a shit what you consider part of the show or not...
There was recently a film I thought worth watching on one of the very minor channels (Movies For Men possibly), but I simply gave up after a couple of minutes because of the ridiculous logo in the top right corner.
Seeing as every television now has both an info button and on-screen programme guide, there is absolutely no excuse for logos whatsoever.
There was recently a film I thought worth watching on one of the very minor channels (Movies For Men possibly), but I simply gave up after a couple of minutes because of the ridiculous logo in the top right corner.
Seeing as every television now has both an info button and on-screen programme guide, there is absolutely no excuse for logos whatsoever.
See, this proves that it doesn't gain viewers and it actually loses them in some cases.
Also, none of you are understanding the point, the idea is that theoretically they gain more viewers by squashing/talking over the credit
and using a dog.
Yes, "theoretically". That means they cant know for sure, can they?
Promoting during the ad breaks don't giving the advantages of promoting during the show.
And how doesn't it? They still see whats coming up before the start of the programme and during the ad breaks. Thats plentty of reminders. They could instead advertise upcoming programmes after the credits not while theyre still running.
If you want to win this argument you'd need to prove that they don't lose anything by not having a DOG or credit squeezes, and nobody's managed to do that.
Well have they proved that these intrusions do work? No. So why should we as viewers have to try and prove that they dont?
And you're not going to, especially if you keep up with these pretentious "it's part of the show" arguments, because nobody at these broadcasters gives a shit what you consider part of the show or not...
They dont do they? Im sure the actors and producers do, who dont want to see thier names made unreadable, squashed, cut off or thier work talked over. If we all complained then theyd have to stop then.
I think the best solution will have to be a compromise. They run the credits in full screen, no voice-overs, not speeded up or altered in any other way, and they are allowed to have a tiny banner in the corner of the screen just saying "Next - Name of programme" with the writing no bigger than the credits themselves.
I think this would be far better than what they currently do.
Also, none of you are understanding the point, the idea is that theoretically they gain more viewers by squashing/talking over the credit and using a dog. Promoting during the ad breaks don't giving the advantages of promoting during the show, if you want to win this argument you'd need to prove that they don't lose anything by not having a DOG or credit squeezes, and nobody's managed to do that.
And you're not going to, especially if you keep up with these pretentious "it's part of the show" arguments, because nobody at these broadcasters gives a shit what you consider part of the show or not...
How many complain?
You have a handful of people having a grumble in this thread.
Possibly people have a grumble in the pub or when sat down watching telly about all the crap on screen.
I've never been surveyed about it though.
There are a lot of programmes that do have special credits though, even if it is just a well chosen song from the final scene of the programme/film that continues into the credits.
Yes, "theoretically". That means they cant know for sure, can they?
And how doesn't it? They still see whats coming up before the start of the programme and during the ad breaks. Thats plentty of reminders. They could instead advertise upcoming programmes after the credits not while theyre still running.
Well have they proved that these intrusions do work? No. So why should we as viewers have to try and prove that they dont?
They dont do they? Im sure the actors and producers do, who dont want to see thier names made unreadable, squashed, cut off or thier work talked over. If we all complained then theyd have to stop then.
I think the best solution will have to be a compromise. They run the credits in full screen, no voice-overs, not speeded up or altered in any other way, and they are allowed to have a tiny banner in the corner of the screen just saying "Next - Name of programme" with the writing no bigger than the credits themselves.
I think this would be far better than what they currently do.
You'd be a terrible business person, wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry when it comes to something that could make you more money? I'd imagine the general public can tune them out.
I believe the theory was people go hopping as soon after the credits come on, and a voiceover might convince them to stay.
Because you want them to change something that might lose money, and they don't want to take the risk...
The actor's union was concerned that they were missing out on jobs because the credits were unreadable, not crying because their names were illegible and they'd worked so hard (one is practical, the other emotional)...
That's an awful compromise, not to mention technically impossible for US shows. (US TV operates at a lower framerate than UKTV, so they have to be sped up.) And the whole idea is to an extent that credit squeezes need to be attention grabbing or these potential benefits are lost...
Not that any of this matters, since they're probably gaining more from it, than complaints they receive...
I have nothing more to add really. They don't bother me. Never have. I tend to watch the middle of the screen (where the action is) rather than the corners so I don't see them that much.
If they were important, they would display them during the adverts:p
I don't see why they should be allowed to put them on the HD channels at the very least- HD should mean the best picture available, not "this TV displays a logo in high definition in the corner".
As for banners appearing onscreen during programmes like the US - they are just offensive and their growth can only result in more people being turned off watching TV at all.
For all I care they can do whatever they want over the credits- I never watch them.
Comments
If they were important, they would display them during the adverts:p
I don't see why they should be allowed to put them on the HD channels at the very least- HD should mean the best picture available, not "this TV displays a logo in high definition in the corner".
As for banners appearing onscreen during programmes like the US - they are just offensive and their growth can only result in more people being turned off watching TV at all.
For all I care they can do whatever they want over the credits- I never watch them.
the CBS Action DOG really should slim down to just the CBS eye a few seconds after a few seconds.
Depends on the breed
It's still around: http://www.crufts.org.uk/
You may wish to watch the Discovery network. I know their DOG used to get bigger during the adverts and smaller during the programming.
Ok, maybe the channel banners are annoying to you, but surely you must agree that the end of a programme being talked over, speeded up, squeezed to one size and so fourth is more annoyong than a simple message appearing at the bottom of the screen. It is particularly bad when watching the end of a film. On sunday I watched Live and Let die and the James Bond music was talked over and shrunk down to the point you could no longer read the names. The bond music is beautiful but it was spoilt because of this.
You may not watch the credits, but they are an important part of a programme - they provide the closing music, tell you whos starred in it, tell you when it was made etc all useful information.
I believe credits should be left to run with no voice-overs, not speeded up, not shrunk down or squeezed in. It spoils the end of the programme for me, and does not give the programme enough time to sink in if you know what I mean. And its also not what the programmes producers intended.
Maybe we have got so used to it we dont notice anymore (as on every channel and every programme it happens now) but it just ruins the end of the programme.
And there is no need for it, or next banners, as people know when the next programme is on just by pressing the INFO button on thier remote. And they tell you whats coming on next and whats on in an hour or so anyway before the start of every programme.
Give this a read too: http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2013/feb/01/television-credits-squeeze-stop
I didn't know anyone actually watched the credits, but I'd far rather any message was placed there instead of spoiling the actual program itself.
Unfortunately the new media students think that the credits are their time to shine and disregard them as being part of the programme, especially if they are not bog standard list of crew - even then people may want to catch the name of an actor, composer, director etc.
IIRC it was last year but I don't know about this year.
There was alot of uproar about credit squeezing to the extent that BBC & ITV committed to showing the credits for a series atleast once unsquashed and spoken over but that lasted barely a few weeks.
I think its a massive disrespect to squash the credits to promote something.
You have the time inbetween shows and ad breaks to promote what's next and what's coming in a few days time.
ITV for me have become the worst with making the credits into a tiny box in the top corner and it needs to stop IMHO, same for talking over the end.
Alot of countries TV doesn't talk over credits or squash anymore.
Shame the UK cannot be a leader in this but.....
You know how many of them got round that right? Uniform network credits, designed to only take up 1/4 of the screen but still be legible so they can show a video promo on the top 3/4. That's the system in both Australia and the US.
The American Comedy Central does that but with the next programme, so the bottom 1/4 will be the credits for the prior show and the top 3/4 will be the start of the next show.
You might want to be careful what you wish for...
And you're not going to, especially if you keep up with these pretentious "it's part of the show" arguments, because nobody at these broadcasters gives a shit what you consider part of the show or not...
Seeing as every television now has both an info button and on-screen programme guide, there is absolutely no excuse for logos whatsoever.
See, this proves that it doesn't gain viewers and it actually loses them in some cases.
Yes, "theoretically". That means they cant know for sure, can they?
And how doesn't it? They still see whats coming up before the start of the programme and during the ad breaks. Thats plentty of reminders. They could instead advertise upcoming programmes after the credits not while theyre still running.
Well have they proved that these intrusions do work? No. So why should we as viewers have to try and prove that they dont?
They dont do they? Im sure the actors and producers do, who dont want to see thier names made unreadable, squashed, cut off or thier work talked over. If we all complained then theyd have to stop then.
I think the best solution will have to be a compromise. They run the credits in full screen, no voice-overs, not speeded up or altered in any other way, and they are allowed to have a tiny banner in the corner of the screen just saying "Next - Name of programme" with the writing no bigger than the credits themselves.
I think this would be far better than what they currently do.
You have a handful of people having a grumble in this thread.
Possibly people have a grumble in the pub or when sat down watching telly about all the crap on screen.
I've never been surveyed about it though.
There are a lot of programmes that do have special credits though, even if it is just a well chosen song from the final scene of the programme/film that continues into the credits.
You'd be a terrible business person, wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry when it comes to something that could make you more money? I'd imagine the general public can tune them out.
I believe the theory was people go hopping as soon after the credits come on, and a voiceover might convince them to stay.
Because you want them to change something that might lose money, and they don't want to take the risk...
The actor's union was concerned that they were missing out on jobs because the credits were unreadable, not crying because their names were illegible and they'd worked so hard (one is practical, the other emotional)...
That's an awful compromise, not to mention technically impossible for US shows. (US TV operates at a lower framerate than UKTV, so they have to be sped up.) And the whole idea is to an extent that credit squeezes need to be attention grabbing or these potential benefits are lost...
Not that any of this matters, since they're probably gaining more from it, than complaints they receive...
I decided to view it On Demand instead. No DOG. No adverts. No idents. Not even any break bumpers.
Nice one Dave!
I have nothing more to add really. They don't bother me. Never have. I tend to watch the middle of the screen (where the action is) rather than the corners so I don't see them that much.
Reminds me of when Family Guy had a dig at them..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBErTMwaIiM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uij59uy_ncw
And my favourite one (sadly the worst quality but 15 sec in)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q99567Hrjjo