The Newsroom

BBC Breakfast

From 6am (April 2012)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
CI
cityprod
I just think it would look better in Studio B at NBH, than it does now in Salford.


The News at Ten looked amazing when it came from TC1 for the 2010 elections. I'm not sure that alone is a good enough argument for moving it full time to a huge studio though.


The Andrew Marr Show only uses the left side of B, and it looks great on Sunday Mornings, and I see no reason why Breakfast wouldn't have looked just as good doing the same thing.
DO
dosxuk
I just think it would look better in Studio B at NBH, than it does now in Salford.


The News at Ten looked amazing when it came from TC1 for the 2010 elections. I'm not sure that alone is a good enough argument for moving it full time to a huge studio though.


The Andrew Marr Show only uses the left side of B, and it looks great on Sunday Mornings, and I see no reason why Breakfast wouldn't have looked just as good doing the same thing.


The point is that saying a programme should use a different studio because it would look better is a pointless argument, because there will always be a bigger and better studio which would make it look even greater.
CI
cityprod
I just think it would look better in Studio B at NBH, than it does now in Salford.


The News at Ten looked amazing when it came from TC1 for the 2010 elections. I'm not sure that alone is a good enough argument for moving it full time to a huge studio though.


The Andrew Marr Show only uses the left side of B, and it looks great on Sunday Mornings, and I see no reason why Breakfast wouldn't have looked just as good doing the same thing.


The point is that saying a programme should use a different studio because it would look better is a pointless argument, because there will always be a bigger and better studio which would make it look even greater.


How is improving up to 50% of a TV programme pointless?

A TV programme of any kind, is basically 3 elements.

The content
The visuals
The audio.

The content is the most important part individually, that makes up 50% on its own. The other two make up the other 50%. You could argue that the audio is as important as the visual, and I wouldn't disagree, or you could argue that the audio needs to complement the visual and enhance it, and I wouldn't disagree with that either.

The point is, the media is an industry where if you stand still, you go backwards, because everybody's trying to progress, make things better. Not necessarily bigger, or greater, but better. If you are the leader of the pack, you have the target on your back, and you are there to be shot at. Why would you not try to improve, on a set that barely stages the show, and doesn't look great doing it.

A set is there to act as staging for the programme. Right now, it ain't a great stage. Why would you not try to improve on that?
DO
dosxuk
I just think it would look better in Studio B at NBH, than it does now in Salford.


The News at Ten looked amazing when it came from TC1 for the 2010 elections. I'm not sure that alone is a good enough argument for moving it full time to a huge studio though.


The Andrew Marr Show only uses the left side of B, and it looks great on Sunday Mornings, and I see no reason why Breakfast wouldn't have looked just as good doing the same thing.


The point is that saying a programme should use a different studio because it would look better is a pointless argument, because there will always be a bigger and better studio which would make it look even greater.


How is improving up to 50% of a TV programme pointless?


You're talking nonsense. Rolling Eyes

And as we all know, you never back down from an argument, regardless of how wrong you are, so I can't be bothered to converse with you any longer.
SC
scottishtv Founding member
Hahahahaha. The cityprod Scoring Systemâ„¢ is priceless, yet also rather embarrassing.
IS
Inspector Sands

The content is the most important part individually, that makes up 50% on its own.

I've heard your radio show and that explains a lot Laughing
CI
cityprod
I just think it would look better in Studio B at NBH, than it does now in Salford.


The News at Ten looked amazing when it came from TC1 for the 2010 elections. I'm not sure that alone is a good enough argument for moving it full time to a huge studio though.


The Andrew Marr Show only uses the left side of B, and it looks great on Sunday Mornings, and I see no reason why Breakfast wouldn't have looked just as good doing the same thing.


The point is that saying a programme should use a different studio because it would look better is a pointless argument, because there will always be a bigger and better studio which would make it look even greater.


How is improving up to 50% of a TV programme pointless?


You're talking nonsense. Rolling Eyes

And as we all know, you never back down from an argument, regardless of how wrong you are, so I can't be bothered to converse with you any longer.


I'm talking nonsense, so you're taking your ball and playing elsewhere? That's nonsense.

And I'm perfectly capable of admiting when I'm wrong on something. But this wasn't right or wrong, this was giving an opinion, just doing it strongly, cos I happen to believe I'm not far off the mark.
LL
London Lite Founding member

The content is the most important part individually, that makes up 50% on its own.

I've heard your radio show and that explains a lot Laughing


Brave man.
bilky asko, eanok and Inspector Sands gave kudos
IS
Inspector Sands
Brave man.

What, for listening or making that comment? Very Happy
AM
amosc100
I just think it would look better in Studio B at NBH, than it does now in Salford.


The News at Ten looked amazing when it came from TC1 for the 2010 elections. I'm not sure that alone is a good enough argument for moving it full time to a huge studio though.


The Andrew Marr Show only uses the left side of B, and it looks great on Sunday Mornings, and I see no reason why Breakfast wouldn't have looked just as good doing the same thing.


The point is that saying a programme should use a different studio because it would look better is a pointless argument, because there will always be a bigger and better studio which would make it look even greater.


How is improving up to 50% of a TV programme pointless?

A TV programme of any kind, is basically 3 elements.

The content
The visuals
The audio.

The content is the most important part individually, that makes up 50% on its own. The other two make up the other 50%. You could argue that the audio is as important as the visual, and I wouldn't disagree, or you could argue that the audio needs to complement the visual and enhance it, and I wouldn't disagree with that either.

The point is, the media is an industry where if you stand still, you go backwards, because everybody's trying to progress, make things better. Not necessarily bigger, or greater, but better. If you are the leader of the pack, you have the target on your back, and you are there to be shot at. Why would you not try to improve, on a set that barely stages the show, and doesn't look great doing it.

A set is there to act as staging for the programme. Right now, it ain't a great stage. Why would you not try to improve on that?



As a non-TV person (only a string interest in the industry) - I watch BBC Breakfast because of the content, and not the aesthetics. To be fair, I actually think it is a waste of space to have the business desk separated from the rest of the couch area (but I understand it is used to so the couch area can be set up for the next item) As for the screen, yes can be a bit difficult, but I am sure they had the same problem down in London when it came from there, all thanks to the circular couch!
LL
London Lite Founding member
Brave man.

What, for listening or making that comment? Very Happy


A bit of both to be fair!
CI
cityprod

The content is the most important part individually, that makes up 50% on its own.

I've heard your radio show and that explains a lot Laughing


Good to know you've heard it, hope you'll keep listening.

Newer posts