The glassy look to the globe in the opening titles is great, but the whole thing forms up too quickly (to allow for that horrible purple swirling wipe effect to the wide shot). In the previous titles the "1", "6" and "10" formed nicely out of the swirls reaching fruition simultaneously with the musical crescendo. Now the whole title sequence seems rushed, and the softening of the musical crescendo leaves the theme tune feeling rather feeble."
I totally agree! Although it's still not as short as the 1999 titles, they didn't seem rushed! Overall, (apart from the glossy globe) I prefered the last titles. It had a better ending, and wasn't rushed, and the 1, 6 and 10 looked nice the way they animated.
David Lowe will be annoyed with what the BBC have done with his work!
The glassy look to the globe in the opening titles is great, but the whole thing forms up too quickly (to allow for that horrible purple swirling wipe effect to the wide shot). In the previous titles the "1", "6" and "10" formed nicely out of the swirls reaching fruition simultaneously with the musical crescendo. Now the whole title sequence seems rushed, and the softening of the musical crescendo leaves the theme tune feeling rather feeble."
I totally agree! Although it's still not as short as the 1999 titles, they didn't seem rushed! Overall, (apart from the glossy globe) I prefered the last titles. It had a better ending, and wasn't rushed, and the 1, 6 and 10 looked nice the way they animated.
David Lowe will be annoyed with what the BBC have done with his work!
I think you'll find David Lowe actually did the new re-work of the music.
Was thinking yesterday how good the astons would look on news 24. Nice and tidy. Plus, finally the titles don't look so out of place, in particular with the ten. Everything fits together nicely.
If you saw
Broken News
last year it had a perfect parody of the pointlessness of presenters standing up in the "standing news." Funny how the real news is now becoming a parody of
Broken News
.
Anyway, couple of questions:
After the first correspondant (Daniel Sandford?) handed back to Huw from the Home Office it looked like they briefly cut to the input for the video-wall. There was a lot of skyline around the live feed but as you can see in the cap it doesn't match perfectly with the neighbouring skyline, I'm wondering why this is necessary?
Also, are the keyboard and mouse wireless or just for show?
The joins/corners of the backdrop monitors are dreadful... but were they ever going to be perfect, given that they are using real monitors rather than portable projectors or CSO?
Err - they are projectors, just lots of separate projectors rather than a couple of big ones. However they aren't separate monitors - effectively they are a bunch of projectors mounted in a huge framework.
The screens in front are separate bits of screen material, as you have to arrange the fresnel lensing in the screens (the bits that make them brighter than just a flat piece of screen) with the fresnel bits aligned with each individual projector. You can't just have a uniform screen the whole size of the wall - as it would be too dim. You could, i suppose, make a large screen with individual fresnel areas on it, but I suspect this would cost a fortune, and you'd never be able to get it into the studio!
Of course have to have a supporting frame on all four edges of the screens, so you have to find some means of hiding it. (Not a problem Sky have had with their flat news walls)
I'm sorry but I just don't buy this problem with presenters standing up.
Anyone who knows anything about presenting information will know that the more varieties of methods you use to present, the more information will sink in.
I do a few training courses and I know that if I sat at the front behind a desk and talked for 30 minutes people would soon drift off. So I stand up sometimes, other times sit down, often get everyone to turn their chairs round and talk from the back of the room, sometimes get everyone to follow me outside and sit on the grass and talk to them there. I used Powerpoint when it's needed, then I'll stop and instead use a flip chart, sometimes I'll even bring out an OHP because it's different!
Some may call these gimmicks, but I know that if I was on a course I'd prefer this to sitting down listening to the same presentation method for hours.
The news is the same. Obviously there's a line which must not be crossed. Too much 'gimmickery' and it'll get in the way of the presentation, but I certainly think the BBC have it right.
Most of the Sky News changes presentation wise I like. I don't think it's a gimmick to have 3 presenters. It's just 'new'. I don't think it's a gimmick to have multiple presentation positions. However, Live at Five crosses the line. "Lets go NATIONWIDE!" is pointless and gets in the way of the information.
I don't know if this is relevant but after downloading the file from Lee, thanks for that, I was wondering if the titles would look better if they didn't have all those "streamers" flying about but were just the main animation of the globe and sections of red.
I think the 10 titles seem to work better than the others in the current format, but somehow fail to deliver at the end, perhaps because of the music.
