TV Monkey's posts, page 5

222 search results, most recent first

TV
TV Monkey

bbc.co.uk

JAS84 posted:
There seems to be a minor fault on iPlayer. I just watched Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, yesterday's Doctor Who episode, but when you first load the page, it says click to view in full screen. I did, but it appeared in a window not unlike when a programme has signing, with a BBC One logo in the top left apparently left over from the splash screen. Going out of full screen and back into it manually sorted it out, so it's just annoying.

Also, no ident played. When did iPlayer stop doing that?


It's not a fault, you were looking at the HD version of Doctor Who, which automatically goes full screen like all HD content on the iPlayer.

The SD version works exactly as it always has: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mm5c9/Doctor_Who_Series_7_Dinosaurs_on_a_Spaceship/
TV
TV Monkey

BBC One

Paul Clark posted:

One thing they do quite well - the apt (and sometimes humourous) popular song choices they come up with to accompany the narration & shots of the properties; I admit, some of the track selections have had me laughing!


Yes, they really are excellent, someone on the production team must have a lot of fun coming up with them.

I also enjoy how awful, yet enthralling the male presenter is. Especially when he interviews the buyers.
TV
TV Monkey

The Voice UK

davidmcg posted:

My one main concern for the live shows are the fact that Sunday nights are a pre-record. Social Media and forums are pretty much a no-go for those not wanting to find out the result.


Has the result leaked? It doesn't seem to have been a problem for Strictly which also has a pre-recorded results programme.
TV
TV Monkey

BBC One

Cando posted:
TV Monkey posted:


Or the new schedule will involve a hell of a lot more repeats.

It will be interesting to see how that decision affects shows like Homes Under The Hammer, which recently finished a mammoth 180 episode series, or Pointless which is currently on a 70 episode run. Both are massively popular so it would seem bizarre to cut the series length, unless it's merely changing from a 70 episode series to four separate series containing 15 episodes, or something similar.

I suspect they'll try a lot more clever scheduling, I've noticed new episodes of Homes Under The Hammer now only air on Monday, Wednesday and Friday with repeats in the other slots, presumably to make the series last longer. Pointless also seems have a pattern where they show a few weeks of repeats and then a few of new episodes and so on.


That BBC news article is very badly worded, in Broadcast where the news originated it makes clear that he is only talking about the 9.15-10.00, 11-11.45, and 3.00-3.45pm slots. Homes under the hammers, Doctors, Bargain Hunt, Pointless, Perfection and flog it and their long runs are all safe.

The 9.15 slot is already limited to 15 or 25 episode runs[Fake Britain, The 1952 show, Rip off Britain, the estate were in, Heir Hunters,Wanted down under ] and in the last year since the to buy or not to buy has ended the 11am slot has moved in the same direction.
The only real news here is the 3pm slot is becoming more varied.


Thanks for clarifying that. The BBC article made it seem like the whole schedule would be restricted in this way.

Mixing shorter running shows in certain slots alongside some bigger commissions seems like the right way to go. Something like The 1952 Show was a great little programme, but one that could only ever work in a short run (that was only five episodes).
TV
TV Monkey

BBC One

gottago posted:
nwtv2003 posted:
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned....

Shake up to BBC daytime, Cash in The Attic and To Buy or not to buy to end...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17857585


Quote:
In future, commissioned shows look set to have runs of no more than 15 episodes, with the exception of Doctors and "one big drama per quarter".

The new strategy is part of the Delivering Quality First initiative aimed at saving money.
As much as I celebrate the demise of those two awful programmes in particular, surely shorter runs of programmes is going to cost them one hell of a lot more?


Or the new schedule will involve a hell of a lot more repeats.

It will be interesting to see how that decision affects shows like Homes Under The Hammer, which recently finished a mammoth 180 episode series, or Pointless which is currently on a 70 episode run. Both are massively popular so it would seem bizarre to cut the series length, unless it's merely changing from a 70 episode series to four separate series containing 15 episodes, or something similar.

I suspect they'll try a lot more clever scheduling, I've noticed new episodes of Homes Under The Hammer now only air on Monday, Wednesday and Friday with repeats in the other slots, presumably to make the series last longer. Pointless also seems have a pattern where they show a few weeks of repeats and then a few of new episodes and so on.
TV
TV Monkey

Freeview: The DTT Thread

Brekkie posted:
Also it would be a mistake not to take the opportunity to put the shopping channels in their own dedicated section - four of the seven proposals they made did this and viewers questioned approved of the move, but shopping channels on the whole didn't. Failing to remove them though just means they're not futureproofing at all.


While it makes the EPG look a bit of a mess (especially in the 30s and 40s), you can completely understand why someone like QVC, who have been on the service for nearly ten years, don't want to be pushed down from channel 16 to somewhere in the 90s.
TV
TV Monkey

How On Earth Do They Film Those Border Patrol Documentaries

Airline often used to have people look at the camera and start slagging easyJet off.

Given Sky have been repeating 10-15 year old episodes for years now I'm surprised they've not decided to make any more, it must have been quite cheap to make and obviously can be repeated forever more.
TV
TV Monkey

bbc.co.uk

DVB Cornwall posted:
I note that they still haven't sorted the Live pages issue.


It's pretty poor stuff, they went from a system that worked well to one that has failed several times and has now been replaced with a simple page of text, complete with "please refresh this page for updates". Awful.
TV
TV Monkey

bbc.co.uk

Yeah, there's a few variations on there, I've also seen one similar to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16842668 but with an image exactly where the video is (and the same size as the video is, rather than the full width), but the article I saw it on appears to have changed now.

But the major problem with my earlier link and the one you posted is that the different sized images and boxes mean the text starts at three different places on the page, and it looks horrid.
TV
TV Monkey

bbc.co.uk

I think they've done a pretty good job with the sports site, but there's plenty of problems with it.

I don't mind the yellow but it does seem like an error not to have the actual BBC Sport logo in there somewhere. But then I have the same problem with all the TV and the Radio 1/1X/3 websites as well, in my opinion two BBC logos close to each other is a better solution than this weird system they have at present.

The navigation bar changing colour from black to white serves no purpose whatsoever and is rather distracting.

In the articles, I really don't like the comment and feature boxes being on the left of the page, it makes everything quite difficult to read and would look far better on the right, like on the news site.

The note above about the correspondents pages on the BBC News site is another good one, they have a lot of blogs on the sport site the should be integrated into the actual sites rather than held somewhere else.

They appear to have gone back and turned some older pages into the new style but without adding a big picture to the top of the article, the result is this complete mess: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14464225
TV
TV Monkey

The Sport Thread

Jon Wells posted:

The argument for too many presenters is not about the excess cost, although transport cost would be lower and you could probably get someone like Dan Walker to do Final Score at not much extra cost in the current climate, but lack of consistency.


But this is all supposition on your part, you have no idea whether Dan Walker would want to do Final Score, or how much more money he'd want. Interviews with Jeff Stelling often state the considerable amount of time he spends preparing for his results programme, add in all the Football Focus interviews, online features, research and rehearsals there may not be time for one presenter to do both both FF and FS properly, you might end up with a shared presenter but a much worse product for viewers.

Brekkie posted:
Steve Williams posted:
And Gary Lineker does loads of work, there was that time after the 2006 World Cup when a week later he presented Sport Relief, then a week later he did the Open and then he had two weeks' break before the Premier League was back. This summer he'll be doing the Euros and the Olympics with a month between them, then straight back to Match of the Day.

My heart bleeds for him.


Great contribution to the thread, that.
TV
TV Monkey

The Sport Thread

I know people like to play "fantasy rotas" on here but some of the comments on here are ridiculous.

People seem to be under the impression that the BBC are paying these presenters a massive salary to sit there doing nothing. Gary Lineker has a contract to do Match of the Day and a handful of live games each season, you can't just say to him you're doing Football Focus as well, you'd have to renegotiate his contract, with no guarantee he'd want to work from before noon until gone midnight.

Quite a lot of research goes into these programmes as well, Dan Walker doesn't rock up 5 minutes before Football Focus and go on air, he's working on the programme all week.

Apart from people wanting as few sports presenters as possible what difference does it make if one presenter covers 3 sports or you have 3 separate ones? Several names mentioned in this thread, including Claire Balding and Rishi Persad are freelance so there isn't even a cost saving to be made. In fact it helps to have a large pool of freelance staff in case any are busy doing something else when you need them, it means you never have to throw anyone in at the deep end.

This is trying to solve a non-existent issue, there's more than enough stability in the BBC's major sports, turn on Match of the Day and you'll see Lineker, Wimbledon and you'll see Sue Barker, the F1 and Jake Humphrey, Hazel Irvine on the snooker and so on.