GS
Why is he past it? Does he stumble on his lines, does he miss cues? I've been watching the new News at Ten and he seems to be performing very well alongside Julie.
Even on the first night when he turned to the wrong camera, and was obviously told down his earpiece to move to the right one, he switched to it without even a stutter in his speech or blinking. I think he's still on top of his game
In my opinion a good newsreader should not draw attention to themselves. You should be listening to what they are saying, not how they are saying it.
I think he's over-rated myself - and in answer to your point he not only looked to the wrong camera 3 times, he *did* stumble on the words on the opening night.
He's by no means alone in that respect - Pete Burns on BBC Three's 60 Seconds didn't do very well either, and she only had one minute out of sixty to get right.
I think the point is valid that they needn't have pulled Trev out of retirement for NaT when Mark does the nooze extremely well for 2/3 the price.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Mr-Stabby posted:
Brekkie posted:
Alot of respect for what Trevor has done, but like Peter Sissons he is now simply past it - and certainly was never in the league of Michael Buerk IMO.
Why is he past it? Does he stumble on his lines, does he miss cues? I've been watching the new News at Ten and he seems to be performing very well alongside Julie.
Even on the first night when he turned to the wrong camera, and was obviously told down his earpiece to move to the right one, he switched to it without even a stutter in his speech or blinking. I think he's still on top of his game
In my opinion a good newsreader should not draw attention to themselves. You should be listening to what they are saying, not how they are saying it.
I think he's over-rated myself - and in answer to your point he not only looked to the wrong camera 3 times, he *did* stumble on the words on the opening night.
He's by no means alone in that respect - Pete Burns on BBC Three's 60 Seconds didn't do very well either, and she only had one minute out of sixty to get right.
I think the point is valid that they needn't have pulled Trev out of retirement for NaT when Mark does the nooze extremely well for 2/3 the price.
BR
Like it or not, news presentation has moved on - and Trevor hasn't. Yes he's capable of sitting behind the desk and reading an autocue, and yes he does have that air of authority, but I don't think he's very engaging with the viewer.
The likes of Mark Austin, Jon Snow, John Suchet and even Julie Etchingham seem to get the stories across better IMO - with Trevor you just want to turn off.
I've found the "new" News at Ten to be terribly dated in it's search for a nostalgic audience. Yes, it shouldn't be full of celebrity led pap, but I think it's a mistake to be seemingly aiming at the same audience as the BBC bulletin. In going for the "BBC News" audience they are neglecting the "ITV News" viewers.
Content wise I preferred the old ITV News at Ten - it may not have been as high brow and was arguably dumbed down, but it was different to what the BBC were offering and in 30-minutes offered a decent round up of all the days top stories, both nationally and locally, without skimming on the top stories.
IMO it needs Mark in ASAP, it needs to insert a bit of pace and most importantly it needs to establish itself as a genuine alternative to the BBC bulletin. I do think though it would be a nice touch to get Trevor to record a voice over to introduce the bulletin.
Different issue, but just a thought from today's Independent interview with Kate Silverton - the One o'clock News gets 500,000 more viewers than ITV's "flagship" News at Ten.
The likes of Mark Austin, Jon Snow, John Suchet and even Julie Etchingham seem to get the stories across better IMO - with Trevor you just want to turn off.
I've found the "new" News at Ten to be terribly dated in it's search for a nostalgic audience. Yes, it shouldn't be full of celebrity led pap, but I think it's a mistake to be seemingly aiming at the same audience as the BBC bulletin. In going for the "BBC News" audience they are neglecting the "ITV News" viewers.
Content wise I preferred the old ITV News at Ten - it may not have been as high brow and was arguably dumbed down, but it was different to what the BBC were offering and in 30-minutes offered a decent round up of all the days top stories, both nationally and locally, without skimming on the top stories.
IMO it needs Mark in ASAP, it needs to insert a bit of pace and most importantly it needs to establish itself as a genuine alternative to the BBC bulletin. I do think though it would be a nice touch to get Trevor to record a voice over to introduce the bulletin.
Different issue, but just a thought from today's Independent interview with Kate Silverton - the One o'clock News gets 500,000 more viewers than ITV's "flagship" News at Ten.
LW
Are we talking about Dead or Alive 's fontman or something?!
http://www.musictowers.com/assets/gallery/P/pic_1-25-2007_3-13-39_PM_7056.jpg
Gavin Scott posted:
Pete Burns
on BBC Three's 60 Seconds didn't do very well either, and
she
only...
Are we talking about Dead or Alive 's fontman or something?!
http://www.musictowers.com/assets/gallery/P/pic_1-25-2007_3-13-39_PM_7056.jpg
MB
Because it would have cost more money.
Bollards. Total and utter bollards.
The 1988-1993 titles ALWAYS showed the correct time - even if one minute early or late - or one hour - because the hands on the CGI Big Ben were generated live at the top of each programme. If they could do that in 1988, why can't they do it now? We supposedly have better graphics and editing software these days that work in real-time, on-the-fly.
Actually, he was right. The titles are not rendered live and it would have cost a lot of money (in the thousands) to get a new set done.
Do I have to spell it out? I thought there was a modicum of intelligence in these here boards. The question remains - why NOT have the clock hands rendered live, and superimposed over the base graphics, as was done from 1988-1993. Once the money was paid and the kit was in place, there was no further expense involved in having the time change responsively on air.
As I said - with today's better technology it should either cost the same, or less - and be easier and quicker to set up pre-rendered base graphics and a real-time rendered clock overlay, warped in time to the base graphics.
itsrobert posted:
Mark Boulton posted:
Jugalug posted:
Quote:
Why didnt they set the clock to 11 for the late news titles?
Because it would have cost more money.
Bollards. Total and utter bollards.
The 1988-1993 titles ALWAYS showed the correct time - even if one minute early or late - or one hour - because the hands on the CGI Big Ben were generated live at the top of each programme. If they could do that in 1988, why can't they do it now? We supposedly have better graphics and editing software these days that work in real-time, on-the-fly.
Actually, he was right. The titles are not rendered live and it would have cost a lot of money (in the thousands) to get a new set done.
Do I have to spell it out? I thought there was a modicum of intelligence in these here boards. The question remains - why NOT have the clock hands rendered live, and superimposed over the base graphics, as was done from 1988-1993. Once the money was paid and the kit was in place, there was no further expense involved in having the time change responsively on air.
As I said - with today's better technology it should either cost the same, or less - and be easier and quicker to set up pre-rendered base graphics and a real-time rendered clock overlay, warped in time to the base graphics.
GS
Are you talking about Dead or Alive 's fontman or something?!
http://www.musictowers.com/assets/gallery/P/pic_1-25-2007_3-13-39_PM_7056.jpg
I think it's pretty obvious I *am*.
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/bbc35.jpg
Gavin Scott
Founding member
little white dot posted:
Gavin Scott posted:
Pete Burns
on BBC Three's 60 Seconds didn't do very well either, and
she
only...
Are you talking about Dead or Alive 's fontman or something?!
http://www.musictowers.com/assets/gallery/P/pic_1-25-2007_3-13-39_PM_7056.jpg
I think it's pretty obvious I *am*.
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/bbc35.jpg
RO
Are you talking about Dead or Alive 's fontman or something?!
http://www.musictowers.com/assets/gallery/P/pic_1-25-2007_3-13-39_PM_7056.jpg
I think it's pretty obvious I *am*.
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/bbc35.jpg
Fantastic!! Nice find Gavin.
rob
Founding member
Gavin Scott posted:
little white dot posted:
Gavin Scott posted:
Pete Burns
on BBC Three's 60 Seconds didn't do very well either, and
she
only...
Are you talking about Dead or Alive 's fontman or something?!
http://www.musictowers.com/assets/gallery/P/pic_1-25-2007_3-13-39_PM_7056.jpg
I think it's pretty obvious I *am*.
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/bbc35.jpg
Fantastic!! Nice find Gavin.
TO
Its a discussion that I got lost on a few pages back and I know discussion has moved on but going back to The Late News now having the generic ITV brand, I would like to say it is a good move because its not News at Ten, but its pretending to be. They should go the whole way and dump Julie from that bulletin and have James & Nina co presenting. If News at Ten is to stay distinct from ITV News, then the presenters need to stay within the show. Mark and Mary make a good team and they shouldn't be split up but Mark shouldn't cross over the two shows. When Trevor is phased out of News at Ten, he shouldn't be replaced by Mark but perhaps Alistair from the Lunchtime News with Geraint taking the position on the Lunchtime News. Another method would be to dump Julie again and have Mark and Mary do News at Ten with Julie on the Evening News with one of the male anchors. But this would defeat the purpose of having Julie there as a recognisable face while Trevor is phased out.
BR
Exactly. Only possible reason I can think of is the new titles were made by an outside company, while perhaps the old ones were made in house, so hence could be changed easier. But still, you'd think especially knowing the Friday bulletin would be later they'd put it in their brief that the clockface could be changed easily if necessary.
Mark Boulton posted:
Do I have to spell it out? I thought there was a modicum of intelligence in these here boards. The question remains - why NOT have the clock hands rendered live, and superimposed over the base graphics, as was done from 1988-1993. Once the money was paid and the kit was in place, there was no further expense involved in having the time change responsively on air.
As I said - with today's better technology it should either cost the same, or less - and be easier and quicker to set up pre-rendered base graphics and a real-time rendered clock overlay, warped in time to the base graphics.
As I said - with today's better technology it should either cost the same, or less - and be easier and quicker to set up pre-rendered base graphics and a real-time rendered clock overlay, warped in time to the base graphics.
Exactly. Only possible reason I can think of is the new titles were made by an outside company, while perhaps the old ones were made in house, so hence could be changed easier. But still, you'd think especially knowing the Friday bulletin would be later they'd put it in their brief that the clockface could be changed easily if necessary.
JO
"The best thing in life are free
But you can give it to the birds an' bees
I need some money, Need some money. Oh yeah, what I want"
Quote:
But still, you'd think especially knowing the Friday bulletin would be later they'd put it in their brief that the clockface could be changed easily if necessary.
"The best thing in life are free
But you can give it to the birds an' bees
I need some money, Need some money. Oh yeah, what I want"
IT
Exactly. Only possible reason I can think of is the new titles were made by an outside company , while perhaps the old ones were made in house, so hence could be changed easier. But still, you'd think especially knowing the Friday bulletin would be later they'd put it in their brief that the clockface could be changed easily if necessary.
Spot on. Mr. Boulton, I do have intelligence. Sadly, you seem to be jumping to conclusions before you have the facts. The titles were made by an outside company and with the ongoing downsizing at ITN (remember the job cuts over recent years?) they can't justify splashing more money on titles just to get the clock hands to move. Let's face it, aside from us lot, who exactly would a) notice and b) be bothered by that?
itsrobert
Founding member
Brekkie posted:
Mark Boulton posted:
Do I have to spell it out? I thought there was a modicum of intelligence in these here boards. The question remains - why NOT have the clock hands rendered live, and superimposed over the base graphics, as was done from 1988-1993. Once the money was paid and the kit was in place, there was no further expense involved in having the time change responsively on air.
As I said - with today's better technology it should either cost the same, or less - and be easier and quicker to set up pre-rendered base graphics and a real-time rendered clock overlay, warped in time to the base graphics.
As I said - with today's better technology it should either cost the same, or less - and be easier and quicker to set up pre-rendered base graphics and a real-time rendered clock overlay, warped in time to the base graphics.
Exactly. Only possible reason I can think of is the new titles were made by an outside company , while perhaps the old ones were made in house, so hence could be changed easier. But still, you'd think especially knowing the Friday bulletin would be later they'd put it in their brief that the clockface could be changed easily if necessary.
Spot on. Mr. Boulton, I do have intelligence. Sadly, you seem to be jumping to conclusions before you have the facts. The titles were made by an outside company and with the ongoing downsizing at ITN (remember the job cuts over recent years?) they can't justify splashing more money on titles just to get the clock hands to move. Let's face it, aside from us lot, who exactly would a) notice and b) be bothered by that?
BR
Well obviously enough people for it to be ditched within a month.
itsrobert posted:
Spot on. Mr. Boulton, I do have intelligence. Sadly, you seem to be jumping to conclusions before you have the facts. The titles were made by an outside company and with the ongoing downsizing at ITN (remember the job cuts over recent years?) they can't justify splashing more money on titles just to get the clock hands to move. Let's face it, aside from us lot, who exactly would a) notice and b) be bothered by that?
Well obviously enough people for it to be ditched within a month.