YouTube Gold

Pet hate of mine. Announcers often make the mistake of saying that they "hope" to correct the fault "as soon as possible". One doesn't "hope" to do something "as soon as possible". The wording on the network graphic is correct.

I suspect this was summer 1995 when BBC One and BBC Two's network control areas were completely revamped. Some early teething problems with the new technology perhaps. Can't recall if some content was played out from server then - possible that they suffered a server crash and were unable to recover? The tech would really have been in its infancy back then.

Don't know if this is the 1995 or 1996 playout of this film. Either way, it would've been from the new network control areas (which went live in early summer 1995). As far as I can recall, the new announcer booths had mini-disc machines installed them. No more cart and gram machines.

Well, it’s a little confusing as the YouTube videos are dated 1996, but on TV Ark where the original clip is from it was dated 1995.

http://web.archive.org/web/20161130073643/http://www2.tv-ark.org.uk:80/mistakes/bbc.html

I would say it’s 1996 as ‘the second of tonight’s Warren Beatty films’ is mentioned, and the film beforehand was Dick Tracy.

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbcone/london/1996-08-20#at-23.55

What makes me wonder is why did they only seem to discover the fault when the film was supposed to start? If the tape was having problems, I imagine they'd merely stall instead of introduce the film anyway and find that it can't play.

I saw this a while back, I do wonder if those OBs (which I assume were provided by BBC Resources at the time, or even English Regions) had the CGs locally and burned into their output, as each one seems to be in a different place, some in completely wrong (almost mode 7) fonts. Also confused as to why Imran's in Sparkbrook was used as a location...

I thought that "we hope" was the standard wording here, at least in the early stages of a fault? That might change once it is known for definite that it will be possible to return ("we are moving the film to another machine and we will be back with it in a few minutes")?

It's semantics I know, but to say "we will" is a very definite, and can make you look a bit daft if the next announcement is "we now can't". It's about not over promising.

I think that was how they did Election 97, with the OBs generating the location bug on site. That is why they were all big and ugly, to be doable from the old kit that was being pressed into service in some places.

People say "we hope" mostly because it's an uncertain situation and there are sometimes no guarantees that they will be able to return to the programme. Understandable. BUT, when you use the word "hope" in conjunction with the phrase "as soon as possible", that's where the problem arises.

The word "possible" means "may happen - but is not certain". So, it already covers both potential outcomes - i.e., being able to rejoin the programme and not being able to rejoin the programme. When you say "we will return to the programme as soon as possible" what you're saying is "we'll get back to the programme, if that outcome is at all achievable". Those who believe the use of word "will" (in the context of our breakdown apology) guarantees a positive outcome are wrong to think so.

By saying "We hope to return to the programme as soon as possible", you're effectively applying doubt ("hope to") on top of doubt ("as soon as possible"). The result: a sentence that is not terribly meaningful.

CORRECT: we will return to the programme as soon as possible.
INCORRECT: we hope to return to the programme as soon as possible.

CORRECT: we hope to return to the programme in around 2 minutes.
(To be used in a scenario where you are confident: (a) that the problem will be fixed; (b) that'll just take a couple of minutes).

The bigger issue with voiceover/presenter talent these days is pronunciation. American pronunciation of words is getting to epidemic proportions in this country. It's pathetic.

That's what makes me wonder was it some sort of server crash. And this would've been the early days of such tech.

I thought they were still running tape security copies well into the days of dual running analogue and digital pres suites?

I think so, yes. It's difficult to know for certain what happened here. It's certainly a very odd one. It almost smacks of someone realising (from the info on the VT clock, during the 10 second countdown) that they'd loaded the wrong file/tape entirely. And then they scrambled to find the correct one - weren't successful - and just abandoned the broadcast. I can't recall if 1996 was still tape only for programmes - I suspect it was actually.