She never actually said that, though.

It will make it a different programme, and I was pointing out what the difference will be between BBC and C4.

Yes, I'm guessing based on every single television programme that's been broadcast on commercial television in the UK since the 1950's.

I mean, I admit, it's a bit of a reach, but there you go.

It won't alter the format, though.


You're guessing because you have absolutely no idea what Channel 4's plans are in terms of the time slot.

You are still not automatically correct. The running time might still be 58 minutes as it is now. Now obviously there will be less of the actual program, but the running time could remain the same.

At the end of the day - we don't know. Nothing has been confirmed by Channel Four. So far we have one judge down, and a format we all know. That's all we know so far.

Which is the point I've been making.

But people will continue to make stuff up, then use that to attack Channel 4.

I also still think it's ridiculous how people who claim to be fans of the show have already decided not to at least give it a chance when it moves.

So rather than ten or fifteen minutes of adverts on an hour programme there would then be twenty five minutes of adverts at least.

I am sure that the country house location has changed once before.


That has been the subject of speculation, to my knowledge there has been no firm indication from anyone at C4 that this might or would be the case.

No it's not ridiculous.

I like the team.
I like Mel, I like Sue, neither will be there.
I like Mary, she isn't there.
I prefer not to have adverts or sponsorship.
Yes I like Paul but on his own with new presenters it's not the same show.

Better have found memories than have them ruined. Like a favourite resort to go on holiday, when you know they will put up, big commercial developments, you move on, and have good memories.

GBBO as a show is dead, yes the name lives on, that's it, a name, it will be very very different.

Agree, you are an experienced voice of reason, some people just make things up.

Who is that snide comment aimed at?

You can play semantics here, but this is what she wrote in a piece for the Telegraph:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...tish-bake-off/

Nearly the same


There are numerous direct quotes and one piece written by her, with "just as it is".

It's not playing semantics - she did not say the show would be exactly the same.

She said it would be made by the same people and that "[they] love it just as it is". That suggests that as far as possible it will be the same, but it's not a commitment to being absolutely identical.

I never claimed it would.

Having advertising breaks will have an impact on the pacing of the show.

Many years ago there was a review in the London Evening Standard of a new one hour ITV drama which was glowing and gushing about how great it was, and what a rip-roaring storyline it had etc.

Next day, after the TV broadcast, the same critic apologised to readers who may have watched the show based on his review.
He had written his review based on watching a special showing in advance, in a screening cinema, where it had no advertising breaks.
He said the breaks ruined the tension and the pacing of the drama, and it was not the same show he had watched without breaks.

IIRC Mark Little said the same of Neighbours when it was on the BBC.
Nobody in Australia could understand the appeal of Neighbours in the UK, but when shown with no ad breaks it became a different show completely.

With the BBC Bake Off, nobody watching gets up to make a cup of tea or pop to the loo in the middle of the baking for the showstopper.
A 3 minute break in the middle of the mad scramble to finish making the final products will make it a different show, like it or not

I never said you did.

No, but you did reply to me that it won't change the format, when I have never mentioned the format at any time.

I am simply making it clear, as it seems everyone has to be particularly clear in what they post, that I have never mentioned the format.

You twice quoted posts of mine where I discussed the format. It's therefore not exactly unreasonable to think that you too were talking about the format.

And yet I never used the word format at any time, and did use the word different!!!!

It doesn't matter - you quoted two posts of mine where I made reference to the format. It's therefore not unreasonable to assume that you too were referring to the format.

If you weren't, then why quote my posts?

The first post of yours I quoted i spoke only of differences. I mentioned that adverts would make a difference.

The second post of yours I quoted, I only quoted the specific part where you mention the word format. I pointed that I was only speaking of what would be different.

You then used the word format again in another post I quoted. I pointed out that I never claimed otherwise.

Now, we can go on like this for as long as you wish, it's up to you.

I've got better things to do with my time. We'll just agree that you're wrong and move on.

Hahaha. Yes, that's what I would expect from you.

Now if you can point out anywhere in my original reply to your post 1883 where I used the word format, I will admit I am wrong. To help you my post is 1885 and contains 10 words.

So you fire in and find where I use the word format in that post.

And if you cannot find the word format in post 1885, you are going to look very silly.

You quoted a post where I was specifically discussing the format. Whether or not you explicitly mentioned the format is irrelevant - it's not unreasonable to expect your post to also be referring to the format.

It really is as simple as that.

You're wrong. Let it go and move on instead of continuing to drag the thread off-topic.