EO
In the midst of all the discussion about the new Breakfast studio being a bit too small, it's struck me that almost nobody has mentioned what I consider to be a far bigger problem than its size. The thing that's most offensive about it is that it basically consists of a sofa in front of some big screens. Since when did that a studio set make?
To my mind this all started with the 2003 BBC News set. The previous set had featured a backdrop of a real, actually-existent newsroom, albeit touched up a bit and doubled in size. That was acceptable as it looked real and, more importantly, looked good. The 2003 set introduced a backdrop made up entirely of a CGI image of a non-existent, eerily deserted red and white newsroom. Halfway through that set's life the image was changed, which I thought rather undermined any notion that it might have been real. Since then more virtual newsrooms have come and gone, with one constant: they've never, ever looked convincing. I don't even think they're supposed to and I can't imagine there are many people who believe they are real.
I think they're incredibly tacky, and I find it hard to believe that they've been the mainstay of BBC News's set designs for the best part of a decade. The big screens are neither fish nor fowl: are they there to project a fake newsroom or to present graphics and live two-ways? Actually, it's both, even though the latter completely undermines the former. And yes, I know, the modern viewer is more sophisticated and probably knew all along that that newsroom wasn't actually there behind the presenters. But if that's the case, why bother with the pretence of having it in the first place?
You could point to cityscapes and say that they're equally fake and disingenuous, given that the presenter is likely sitting in some darkened studio somewhere with not a window in sight. But I think that a cityscape makes a good background because it gives a sense of place to a news programme, particularly a regional one. It reflects that the news is a window on the world, and it gives a sense that the people bringing you the news are doing so from the heart of the place they're covering (this often being the capital in the case of national news). I think this all holds true even when the viewer is aware that the backdrop is not a window.
Fake cityscape backdrops of non-existent places are borderline IMO. Really depends on the execution but most of the time I think they look pretty poor.
Now Breakfast has done something more ridiculous than ever before and combined fake newsroom and fake cityscape. So now not only are we supposed to believe that there's some kind of green and idyllic land behind Bill and Susannah, but that between them and the window there is a kind of void, in which the BBC have deigned to hang up some Breakfast-branded banners and stick a few trendy red chairs. Perhaps they over-specified the amount of office space required, or maybe they couldn't get enough staff to move up north. But I wouldn't imagine the BBC are too concerned that they'll be getting complaints about licence fee-payers' money being wasted on empty office space, because they know that the viewers know that it's all fake. So what's the bloody point then?!!! Tacky tacky tacky, in the extreme.
Thankfully, in the pictures that have been emerging of the new sets in Broadcasting House, it looks like things will be different. As far as I can make out (and I hope I'm right) none of the studios will have newsroom backdrops bar the one that actually backs onto the newsroom. And that looks like it's going to be quite spectacular. So it's good to see the BBC are finally moving away from this bizarre idea that I don't think has ever really worked. It's just a shame that Breakfast has started its new life in Salford with the most ridiculous implementation of it to date.
I hope this topic can keep its own thread as it's not exclusively about Breakfast and were I to post it in the Breakfast thread it would get swallowed up in other discussion.
To my mind this all started with the 2003 BBC News set. The previous set had featured a backdrop of a real, actually-existent newsroom, albeit touched up a bit and doubled in size. That was acceptable as it looked real and, more importantly, looked good. The 2003 set introduced a backdrop made up entirely of a CGI image of a non-existent, eerily deserted red and white newsroom. Halfway through that set's life the image was changed, which I thought rather undermined any notion that it might have been real. Since then more virtual newsrooms have come and gone, with one constant: they've never, ever looked convincing. I don't even think they're supposed to and I can't imagine there are many people who believe they are real.
I think they're incredibly tacky, and I find it hard to believe that they've been the mainstay of BBC News's set designs for the best part of a decade. The big screens are neither fish nor fowl: are they there to project a fake newsroom or to present graphics and live two-ways? Actually, it's both, even though the latter completely undermines the former. And yes, I know, the modern viewer is more sophisticated and probably knew all along that that newsroom wasn't actually there behind the presenters. But if that's the case, why bother with the pretence of having it in the first place?
You could point to cityscapes and say that they're equally fake and disingenuous, given that the presenter is likely sitting in some darkened studio somewhere with not a window in sight. But I think that a cityscape makes a good background because it gives a sense of place to a news programme, particularly a regional one. It reflects that the news is a window on the world, and it gives a sense that the people bringing you the news are doing so from the heart of the place they're covering (this often being the capital in the case of national news). I think this all holds true even when the viewer is aware that the backdrop is not a window.
Fake cityscape backdrops of non-existent places are borderline IMO. Really depends on the execution but most of the time I think they look pretty poor.
Now Breakfast has done something more ridiculous than ever before and combined fake newsroom and fake cityscape. So now not only are we supposed to believe that there's some kind of green and idyllic land behind Bill and Susannah, but that between them and the window there is a kind of void, in which the BBC have deigned to hang up some Breakfast-branded banners and stick a few trendy red chairs. Perhaps they over-specified the amount of office space required, or maybe they couldn't get enough staff to move up north. But I wouldn't imagine the BBC are too concerned that they'll be getting complaints about licence fee-payers' money being wasted on empty office space, because they know that the viewers know that it's all fake. So what's the bloody point then?!!! Tacky tacky tacky, in the extreme.
Thankfully, in the pictures that have been emerging of the new sets in Broadcasting House, it looks like things will be different. As far as I can make out (and I hope I'm right) none of the studios will have newsroom backdrops bar the one that actually backs onto the newsroom. And that looks like it's going to be quite spectacular. So it's good to see the BBC are finally moving away from this bizarre idea that I don't think has ever really worked. It's just a shame that Breakfast has started its new life in Salford with the most ridiculous implementation of it to date.
I hope this topic can keep its own thread as it's not exclusively about Breakfast and were I to post it in the Breakfast thread it would get swallowed up in other discussion.