NO MORE NZnewswatch

That studio for Sky News AU is great. Now if only Sky News AU actually have a Massie overhaul, presentation wise.

Studio looks good but hate the plasmas reading "Sky News News". That needs to be avoided.

It was a graphic i had i will fix it tonight

I dont feel you have explained your mocks very well and from the few small scraps of information i can find in this thread i'm assuming that these are NOT supposed to be Virtual Reality Studios and you have in fact designed Sets that would be built. (Please correct me if i'm wrong)

Based on my above assertion, regardless of how long this mock took you or its level of originality or the quality of its execution, i cant give you more than 1/5.

The following is for anyone who wants to know my reasons 'Why?' - Also apologies to the OP if not all of what i'm about to say applies to this specific mock because i'm using your thread as a place to dump this neutral-tempered ramble.

There are two types of mocks that are typically submitted to the Gallery; Original Designs, and Recreations.

A Recreation is where a creator is attempting to replicate the original design as closely as possible. Simple as that. I personally rate these based on the scope of their ambition (Title Sequence would rate better than Astons) and how close the execution is to the original. (In the absence of the ability to physically build a Studio Set a computer generated version will suffice.)

Original Designs, are what the designer would do if they were in charge of designing for a particular television property - be it an entire channel or a specific programme. I personally rate these based on originality and execution.

Whilst any original design is limited to the designer's imagination and technical ability, an original mock design is not restricted to the wants and desires of a client, ie; the production team. If the designer is working for themselves they can simply produce whatever design takes their own fancy.

Whether you are producing for a client or for yourself you still have to stick to all of the design rules, conventions and requirements for whatever type of new product it is you are creating.

When designing new graphics for print you need to stick to the correct paper sizes and printable area.
When designing new graphics for Broadcast you need to stick to the correct screen dimensions and safe areas.
When designing for a new construction (or Studio Set) you need to have the dimensions for all the component parts of that construction INCLUDING the dimensions of the space it will occupy.

In the real world, If you dont stick to the correct paper sizes or safe areas or spatial dimensions then your new design is pointless and is unable to be used for its intended purpose.

A new and original mock design should be treated as if it were going to be used in the real world.

Any introduction of fantasy, such as imaginary screen dimensions or fairytale studios will not be tolerated and will guarantee you a bad rating from me.

Creating original graphics for a TV channel or programme of your own invention is stupid IMO. I feel that when there are so many existing programmes and channels for which you can design, why would anyone want to invent something new? You'd have to spend so much time coming up with the entire concept for the programme/channel, useless things like target audience, content, purpose etcetera for what? This is not the place to pitch new ideas for tv shows.

I've probably said most of what i've written here repeatedly over the years in many other threads with various levels of incoherence and 9 times out of 10 it will be ignored. I just had to get this off my chest.

Again, apologies to the OP that not all of what i've said applies to your mock. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to work out which bits are relevent to you.

Best Regards
Phil aka SomeRandomStuff

Well Congratulations once again someone has made me choose to leave this forum.

Goodbye i will not miss you and i certanly know you wont miss me.

Regards Grady

What, because of criticism (which you asked for)

Does this sort of thing usually happen? If you ask for criticism and you don't like what you heard, then you didn't want criticism at all.

With respect Grady, there are industry graphic designers that have had to scrap concepts and start from scratch. Learn to take constructive criticism.

SomeRandomStuff, yes people have to accept criticism on this website, but the bottom line is you went way too far. It was just too much. Next time try to suggest basic improvements instead of just overloading......

I think it's unfortunate that NZnewswatch has chosen to draw stumps - while I thought some of his mocks were formulaic and derivative, in general I think they were better than the average quality around here. Certainly, there was much promise in his designs.

Criticism is useful when it is constructive. And while I think SomeRandomStuff was probably trying to be constructive, I think it was an error to line up a bunch of general criticisms in this thread. As SRS acknowledges, not all of his comments were necessarily relevant to NZnewswatch. Despite that acknowledgement, he chose not to offer guidance as to which remarks were specific to NZnewswatch's work. That is unhelpful.

I also take issue with the substance of some of SRS's comments. In particular, I don't accept that:


Mock designs are, by their nature, an exercise in fantasy. If a particular station has a set crammed into a closet, I don't think it's unreasonable that someone might - in this forum - offer an alternative vision based on a larger space. Sure, some might design studio mocks to existing specifications - but that is a preference, not a requirement. (To clarify though, I accept that mocks for on-screen graphics should adhere to safe areas etc.)

NZnewswatch, I hope you reconsider your decision - I've enjoyed seeing your work here. SomeRandomStuff, you also have made a valuable contribution to this place - I have been consistently impressed by your audio work - but I respectfully disagree with your comments in this thread.

I decided on a long post because I thought i needed to explain my rating criteria fully and unabiguously but i accept by doing so that my post was unfairly ambiguous as to which parts applied to this mock.

So let me try again...

The Sky News studio is very visually appealing.

I have been forced to give this mock 1/5 because it failed one of MY basic criteria: Spatial Dimensions.

It is a requirement for me that any original Studio Set design use the dimensions of the space it will occupy, and for that space to exist in reality. I've been pretty consistent on this and there are going to be people who disagree but that is just how i see it.

Once a mock fails one of my basic criteria there is no point suggesting basic improvements or commenting on things like time spent or originality or quality of execution, because the mock itself has failed regardless of how pretty the pictures look.

As to whether i have gone 'too far' ...i guess that is for others to decide. It is regrettable that the OP seems to have chosen to leave the forum based on my post. It was not my intention to drive anyone away with my remarks.

I realise that my posts are blunt, but i dont agree with the seemingly pervasive need to sugar-coat opinions in this gallery.

My opinion is unchanged, but i would like to apologise for the manner in which it was delivered. It was not my intention to offend.

So on screen graphics should adhere to guidelines but set designs shouldn't? As some one who exclusively designs/recreates sets on here I can tell you that the space is an important part of the research. Sure if you were doing a new BBC News set from TVC you could move it from TC7 to TC4 (although S&PP wouldn't have agreed to it) but if you are to put it in a completely imaginary building, you, in my view, must build that new building. When creating a mock design realism is one of the most important aspects, you can't for example create a CBBC package in Times New Roman. That's why when I create a mock design I take into account budget constraints, size constraints, stylistic choices of the broadcaster, how it fits in with the brand etc.

When designing a BBC mock, for instance, one mustn't go extravagant (unless it's for something like an election when they seem willing to chuck everything at it), they must stick to the studio sizes of the broadcaster - which when designing regional studios can be a real challenge. The BBC also has stylistic preferences which distinguish their news studios from that of other broadcasters. BBC sets tend to have circular or oval desks and the bulk of the set must be grey, white or black with the only colour coming from lightboxes in order to improve versatility or the occasional red panel. And that is just a start. Once you say it can be fantastical then why can't I have floating chairs or holograms or use Elstree D for BBC One News Bulletins. You can't be an ardent stickler for guidelines in one area and not the other.

When I mark mocks I have 5 criteria.
1 - Skill - simply how skillful is it to make?
2 - Safezones - does it fit into studio/on screen safezones?
3 - Look good - does it actually look good?
4 - Brand inkeeping - if it is adding to an already existing brand is it inkeeping with that brands style?
5 - Likelihood factor - would it actually be put on the air.

If you are going to produce a set design - you need to show how it would work and explain parts of the set that may need explaining. If you are going to produce a graphic set - you must include animations etc. If you are producing a visual identity (i.e. BBC logos) you must include an entire set and produce some sort of pdf detailing how it would work in various forms.

Also from what I remember about this mock, before it was deleted, I was slated for years for having 24 sided polygons as circles.