DS Forums

 
 

Yet more rubbish editing - should the production campany be fired?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-12-2010, 11:35
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089

There were at least two major faults in the editing last night (at least as far as people who take more than a superficial interest in what goes on are concerned).

The worst was that we were not given the vital information that we needed to ascertain whether Chris's deal made or lost the team money. All we needed was that amount of money that the team received from ticket sales by the information centre - it would have taken a few seconds at most. As it is we're completely in the dark as to whether it was a good deal or not.

The second piece of willfully obfuscational editing was in the way Joanna's 'confrontation' with Jamie were shown. It's absurdly easy to make someone look stupid/aggressive/lazy by editing together a lot of 2-3 second clips form a day's worth of filming. To anyone who is aware of these tricks it was excruciating watching last night's episode because we were never shown enough of Jamie's responses to know whether or not Joanna's repeated attempts to get information were warranted.

Nor did we see exactly what Jamie did to cause her to say she felt intimidated. It was edited to look as if it was a ridiculous thing to say but as they didn't deign to show us what happened in the two minutes before she said that we have no way of knowing.
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 09-12-2010, 11:52
NeilyM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 629
Mm, you're assuming she was badly edited.

My opinion is the editing was a true reflection of what went on.
NeilyM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 11:56
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
Mm, you're assuming she was badly edited.

My opinion is the editing was a true reflection of what went on.
No, the whole point is I'm not assuming anything.

You admit that you are.

As we don't have the evidence that means that you are just going along with what the editors seem to be manipulating you to think without applying any critical judgement.
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 12:02
NeilyM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 629
I can't say I lose much sleep over it.

It's entertainment, no more, no less, as is posting here
NeilyM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 12:39
talentedmonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,491
Mm, you're assuming she was badly edited.

My opinion is the editing was a true reflection of what went on.
Only the people who were there, especially Nick Hewer, know this.

Subtle biased editing also helps stimulate moral popular outrage when "the wrong" candidature is fired, again we have no idea what really happens over the duration of a task, or exactly how certain people behave and carry out thier duties, so when firing times come we are often surpised.
talentedmonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 12:45
AA2009
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,252
They showed a lot more of Joanna/Jamie in a montage on You're Fired. She was nagging at him all day.
AA2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 12:48
LittleNothing
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,070
There were at least two major faults in the editing last night (at least as far as people who take more than a superficial interest in what goes on are concerned).

The worst was that we were not given the vital information that we needed to ascertain whether Chris's deal made or lost the team money. All we needed was that amount of money that the team received from ticket sales by the information centre - it would have taken a few seconds at most. As it is we're completely in the dark as to whether it was a good deal or not.

The second piece of willfully obfuscational editing was in the way Joanna's 'confrontation' with Jamie were shown. It's absurdly easy to make someone look stupid/aggressive/lazy by editing together a lot of 2-3 second clips form a day's worth of filming. To anyone who is aware of these tricks it was excruciating watching last night's episode because we were never shown enough of Jamie's responses to know whether or not Joanna's repeated attempts to get information were warranted.

Nor did we see exactly what Jamie did to cause her to say she felt intimidated. It was edited to look as if it was a ridiculous thing to say but as they didn't deign to show us what happened in the two minutes before she said that we have no way of knowing.
You are assuming here actually. You write as though it is an unequvical fact that Jamie did something to intimidate Joanna and that it was left out.
When in fact there is every chance that what we saw of Jamie's reaction to Joanna was indeed what she was reffering to and she was over reacting and trying to deflect the blame onto him and away from herself. An old trick if ever there was one.

Of course you may well be right and some kind of miss behaviour on Jamies part was edited out (my instinct tells me this isnt the case but thats just my opninon) but it is not a known fact that this went on.
LittleNothing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 12:49
The Rhydler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
The bad editing I hate is the set up when the two surviving candidates walk back in at the end of the episode. Its supposed to look natural, but there was obviously a BBC exec behind the door telling Stuart to hold back and come in after Stella to as to 'shock' the remaining candidates by seeing Silly Stuart standing there and not the imperious Liz as expected. I think its not only fair on Baggs who has been chosen ahead of Liz due to his own brave boardroom performance, and it also makes it look as if Lord Sugar has made a bad decision, which won't please his Lordship one iota.
The Rhydler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 12:54
LittleNothing
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,070
The bad editing I hate is the set up when the two surviving candidates walk back in at the end of the episode. Its supposed to look natural, but there was obviously a BBC exec behind the door telling Stuart to hold back and come in after Stella to as to 'shock' the remaining candidates by seeing Silly Stuart standing there and not the imperious Liz as expected. I think its not only fair on Baggs who has been chosen ahead of Liz due to his own brave boardroom performance, and it also makes it look as if Lord Sugar has made a bad decision, which won't please his Lordship one iota.
They have done that quite frequently on The Apprentice over the years
dont see a problem with it.
LittleNothing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 12:55
Rorschach
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Folkestone
Posts: 10,537
I don't see why the company should be fired, as they are obviously delivering just what they have been asked for.

Do you really think that the producers wanted to include a detailed breakdown of sales per person, costs, timings and so on but when they were delivered a show that didn't include this went "It's not really what we wanted at all. It seems to concentrate far more on the personalities and the final interview rather than the task. And there isn't ten minutes of background on the build up to that confrontation. Oh well it's late and I suppose it will have to do."

Of course not.
Rorschach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 12:55
The Rhydler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
They have done that quite frequently on The Apprentice over the years
dont see a problem with it.
Well. I do.
The Rhydler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 12:58
LittleNothing
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,070
Fair enough. But as it is an old Apprentice trick and has been used down the years, it is unlikley they did it just to be manipultive and mean specificly to Stuart.
LittleNothing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 13:03
Rorschach
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Folkestone
Posts: 10,537
But your problem seems to be that the show isn't what was ordered, or that the target audience should be people who take more than a superficial interest in what goes on. Therefore the production company have somehow gotten it wrong and delivered a product that is different to what the customer wanted.

It is what was ordered, that isn't the target audience and they haven't got anything wrong.

Next you'll be claiming that Strictly Come Dancing is about dancing, Big Brother was a social experiment and that people watched Property Ladder did so to pick up building tips rather than laugh when arrogant tossers got it wrong (and of course to oggle Sarah's melons).
Rorschach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 13:17
The Rhydler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
I just think that that denouement at the end weakens the show, you dont want to think of the BBC execs in there directing them, you want it to be all natural.
The Rhydler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 13:39
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
You are assuming here actually. You write as though it is an unequvical fact that Jamie did something to intimidate Joanna and that it was left out.
Please read posts more carefully before responding.

"Nor did we see exactly what Jamie did to cause her to say she felt intimidated." That does not imply that he did anything wrong. The whole point of the thread is we don't know. He could have been just standing there breathing or he could have loomed up at Joanna. Without knowing it's impossible to make any intelligent judgement. Of course, a lot of people are happy to go along with their prejudices - either way.
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 13:39
parthy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,010
Next you'll be claiming .... Big Brother was a social experiment
Oh right to the end, BB addicts of my acquaintance were still trying to trot that out as justification for watching.
parthy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 14:03
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
The worst was that we were not given the vital information that we needed to ascertain whether Chris's deal made or lost the team money.
Agreed. I suspect it's because the deal didn't bring in very much, and it was too complicated to explain why it was a good deal anyway. The point is, any benefit you get from the deal effectively counts double, because you are not only gaining it, you are preventing the other team from gaining it.

For example, if the agency increased your sales by 15%, then it's still worth paying them 25% of your total, if the alternative would be for the other team to get them and pay them 25% of the 15%. I think.

I can understand them not giving the raw numbers in the main show, because without analysis they'd be misleading. Lord Sugar would look like an idiot for applauding. And I can understand them not giving the analysis, either, because it would be too complicated. I think it's a shame they don't give more details, either on You're Fired or else on their website, where interested people could find out.

This goes for a lot of things. I'd like to know Joanna's and Chris's sales figures, for example, but they've not been mentioned.

The second piece of willfully obfuscational editing was in the way Joanna's 'confrontation' with Jamie were shown.
I agree with this, too. People have said Joanna was terrible in the first two episodes, much improved since then, and now relapsed at the end. I don't think she changed much and it's mostly editing. (Also, I don't think she was terrible then or now.)
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 14:33
Fireball XL5
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,282
Please read posts more carefully before responding.

"Nor did we see exactly what Jamie did to cause her to say she felt intimidated." That does not imply that he did anything wrong. The whole point of the thread is we don't know. He could have been just standing there breathing or he could have loomed up at Joanna. Without knowing it's impossible to make any intelligent judgement. Of course, a lot of people are happy to go along with their prejudices - either way.
Perhaps you should think more carefully before writing posts.

What you're saying in effect is that you're asking the editors to portray something that didn't happen in order to show that Joanna was over-reacting.

If something did happen they can show it, but if Jamie wasn't intimidating Joanna then they can't show that he was, can they? Yet you'd still be asking for evidence that Jamie didn't do something. Think about it.
Fireball XL5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 14:41
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
Perhaps you should think more carefully before writing posts.
And perhaps you should do likewise.

What you're saying in effect is that you're asking the editors to portray something that didn't happen in order to show that Joanna was over-reacting.
They just needed to show a little more of the run up.

There was a small chunk cut from the first point where Joanna was standing in the doorway to Jamie's explosion.

Omitting that means we are in the dark as to both Joanna and Jamie's behaviour immediately before the spat.

If something did happen they can show it, but if Jamie wasn't intimidating Joanna then they can't show that he was, can they? Yet you'd still be asking for evidence that Jamie didn't do something. Think about it.
The just needed to show a few more seconds before Jamie erupted.

Simple really.
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 15:29
shuggster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 29
I've just watched that segment back on iplayer, there is no cut between when things are calm in the doorway and the bit where Joanna first says "your scaring me Jamie your acting like a madman" it is all one continuous uncut unedited shot,to be honest I wasnt sure if there was an edit myself until I saw it a second time. Here is a link with the timecode.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ours/?t=11m30s

Also for the next cut along Joanna and Jamies speech overlap in a natural way there could not have been anything more than a split second cut here futhermore Jamie has his back turned to Joanna and is walking away which clearly shows nothing aggressive could have taken place in the small time omitted from the sequence (infact it shows he was trying to diffuse the situation).

Given this I would suggest that the fair reasonable and most probable outcome is that what we have seen in the edit here is a fair representation of what happened.
shuggster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 17:25
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
I've just watched that segment back on iplayer, there is no cut between when things are calm in the doorway and the bit where Joanna first says "your scaring me Jamie your acting like a madman" it is all one continuous uncut unedited shot,to be honest I wasnt sure if there was an edit myself until I saw it a second time. Here is a link with the timecode.
There's no cut there. No one ever said there was.

We see Jamie being physically aggressive in that shot.

We see them walking down the passage with Jamie doing his 'I'm not with her' thing and dawdling - clearly trying to wind her up.

Then there's a cut and we see Joanna going into the doorway. Then there's another cut and the main scene starts.

(infact it shows he was trying to diffuse the situation).
He was using a common ploy that people who are trying to wind someone up use. He was trying to so sound incredibly calm whilst at the same time completely ignoring her concerns.

Eventually he lost it and made the physically aggressive gesture.

Then he has the cheek to accuse Joanna of being aggressive.

It's only at this stage that Joanna points out that actually he's been aggressive and, as it actually erupted into a physical demonstration of aggression she felt threatened.

Given this I would suggest that the fair reasonable and most probable outcome is that what we have seen in the edit here is a fair representation of what happened.
Well, yes.

Jamie continues to ignore Joanna and brushes her concerns aside and when she, as PM, tries to point out that they need to get a move on (we saw him dawdling a few seconds earlier) he loses it and makes a physical display of aggression.
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 18:07
shuggster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 29
Thats your twisted characterisation of the situation, the bulk of opinion on here disagrees, but you keep banging that drum.
shuggster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 18:32
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
Thats your twisted characterisation of the situation
ROFLMAO!

It's very easy to make blasé statements such as 'twisted characterisation' but if you want to gain any credibility with anyone other than the Joanna haters you'll need to do a bit of work and explain why your 'characterisation' of the situation is better than mine.
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 19:55
shuggster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 29
I'm not a hater, I don't think Joanna is a winning candidate but I didn't really have a problem with her before this episode, I think dismissing others views as being "haters gotta hate!" is a bit blasé.

There's no cut there. No one ever said there was.
There was a small chunk cut from the first point where Joanna was standing in the doorway to Jamie's explosion..
The video shows you're mistaken about this, but then you deny you said it only a few posts after saying it, shifting ground to before the doorway segment. I know you're not really going to come around to my view of things but this sort of thing does drive me nuts, anyway C'est la vie, I dont think theres too much more ground to cover with this debate really so I'm happy to ceasefire if you are.
shuggster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 20:06
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
I think dismissing others views as being "haters gotta hate!" is pretty blasé.
Straw man alert!!!

Just because a lot of those who hate someone jump on a bandwagon based on some particular event does not mean that everyone who makes a comment about that event is necessarily a hater. At some point I've made criticisms of most of the candidates but I certainly don't hate any of them.

The video shows you're mistaken about this,
No I wasn't.

Look at it again.

At the end of the first section in the doorway she turns around and walks into the building.

She is then shown facing outwards.

Unless she can move at infinite speed there was a cut.

but then you deny you said it only a few posts after saying it, shifting your ground to before the doorway segment. I don't really expect you to come around to my view of things but it would be nice if you were consistant with your own position.
Not sure what you mean by this but as you are demonstrably wrong about the cut after the first doorway section (as anyone who looks at the piece can clearly ascertain for themselves) I don't suppose it really matters.
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:29.