Overall I think it's a bit of a mess. New set is quite nice and refreshing but some angles are a bit too colourful and busy.
The titles look poor recoloured, the nice idea of the different colours of political parties from the originals is totally lost. The titles and astons neither truly match the new set background - which has 'Question Time' in a totally different font.
The astons haven't evolved for years - they're a horrible throwback to the very worst of the Gill Sans obsessed period pre 2003.
The problem is the programme itself. It has a terrible image problem at the moment. Its chairman is overdue for replacement and as Jacob Rees-Mogg of all people pointed out, completely out of his depth in terms of inciciveness, wit and direction. The panellists, reflecting today's political world, are always polarising and hawkish. The journalists are always lightweight columnists pandering to their audiences or genuinely horrible people like like McK*nzie and Mel Phillips. Anyone who speaks sense is almost always less well-known or an educated person, and therefore derided as irrelevant or not living in the real world. The audiences are increasingly ill-informed and reactionary, and suspicions of BBC bias by both sides lead to an air of derision. Put it out of its misery. Kill it off. It does absolutely NOTHING for political, societal, cultural discourse in this country and in its current form is little more than 60+ minutes of BtL.
I'm glad someone pointed out that they've recoloured the old titles because I thought I could see them in there! Obviously they've done a bit more than recolour them and chucked other graphical bits on top, but I was sure I could see the old titles through the mist! They're not great, and the end of the titles where the logo is in an odd gradient whilst the BBC logo isn't is a bit weird, but the set is quite nice (minus the 'Question Time' written at the side in what looks like Arial!).
The astons haven't evolved for years - they're a horrible throwback to the very worst of the Gill Sans obsessed period pre 2003.
The problem is the programme itself. It has a terrible image problem at the moment. Its chairman is overdue for replacement and as Jacob Rees-Mogg of all people pointed out, completely out of his depth in terms of inciciveness, wit and direction. The panellists, reflecting today's political world, are always polarising and hawkish. The journalists are always lightweight columnists pandering to their audiences or genuinely horrible people like like McK*nzie and Mel Phillips. Anyone who speaks sense is almost always less well-known or an educated person, and therefore derided as irrelevant or not living in the real world. The audiences are increasingly ill-informed and reactionary, and suspicions of BBC bias by both sides lead to an air of derision. Put it out of its misery. Kill it off. It does absolutely NOTHING for political, societal, cultural discourse in this country and in its current form is little more than 60+ minutes of BtL.
Well, from someone who's been in the audience, asked a question and was selected to take part in the pre-broadcast warm up as a mock panelist 2 years ago I will of course disagree with some of your statements about the audience.
However, a change of host would be welcomed, the likes of Jeremy Vine would be a good shout.
One thing that puzzles me about the new set is why is the 'tail' on the Q a ramp? I know they used to have disability ramps on the old set but it just makes the Q look a little odd. The set itself is an improvement on the old one though the backing seems to have Question Time written on it in a random font, not stylised as per the titles.
I have to say I agree with several of the points raised by Michael. Guests are a particular issue for the programme - they seem to stick to the same few faces who pop up regularly (hence the regular appearances of the likes of Chuka Umunna who sent themselves to the backbenches). Balance is also an issue - some weeks, like this week, they'll have 4 right-wing figures and one 1 left-wing figure on the panel and others it'll swing the other way. I only really watch it when someone interesting is on like Armando Ianucci or Ian Hislop - otherwise it is just people toeing the party or editorial line which is just a bit dull. In terms of replacement host I'd like someone like Kirsty Wark, who does Arts QT, or Huw Edwards, who's already replacing Dimbleby elsewhere. I do, however, think Dimbleby is still as witty as he was - his quip about 'viewers may want to stay around for This Week with Andrew Neil although I'd have no idea why you would' a while back remains one of my favourites. Although setting yourself up for Jacob Rees-Mogg wasn't his finest moment.
I could imagine Kirsty Young being a very good replacement too - and both her or Wark would be preferable to the likes of Jeremy Vine and Huw Edwards (I don't know why but I don't think it's a role that would suit Huw).
Agree though the guests are a real problem, but although it's a show I don't watch regularly at all I do find little to fault with it or David Dimbleby.
I could imagine Kirsty Young being a very good replacement too - and both her or Wark would be preferable to the likes of Jeremy Vine and Huw Edwards (I don't know why but I don't think it's a role that would suit Huw).
Agree though the guests are a real problem, but although it's a show I don't watch regularly at all I do find little to fault with it or David Dimbleby.
My money would have been on Jeremy Paxman taking the chair, had he not departed the beeb - with Vine being the number two choice. There's some youtube clips with Jeremy Vine conducting various Question Time type discussion panels and he's extremely good.
That said John Humphrys has covered for Dimbleby in the past, so unless they want a more youthful face, he could also be in the frame.
Or there could be various hosts, with 2 or 3 presenters like Vine, Wark or Humphrys rotating. That would bring a new dynamic to the show, although I can appreciate why the BBC would want the same face every week for consistency.
It's all speculation of course.
Last edited by Worzel on 17 January 2016 12:10am - 3 times in total
Wouldn't rule out the guest host option or rota of hosts - hate it myself but it's not something the BBC are really averse too.
I suspect Humphreys and Paxman have missed the boat really - the BBC should be looking for someone who can front it for the next 10-20 years, not the next couple of years. And whilst I hope they opt for the best person for the job one advantage of a female host is although they are the moderator, not on the panel, having a female host in the mix week in week out make the panel seem less male dominated.
Wouldn't rule out the guest host option or rota of hosts - hate it myself but it's not something the BBC are really averse too.
I suspect Humphreys and Paxman have missed the boat really - the BBC should be looking for someone who can front it for the next 10-20 years, not the next couple of years. And whilst I hope they opt for the best person for the job one advantage of a female host is although they are the moderator, not on the panel, having a female host in the mix week in week out make the panel seem less male dominated.
Personally, the gender of the host doesn't really bother me (or the average viewer to some extent) - it's how they react as role of chair when the likes of 'difficult' people appear on the show, such as George Galloway or Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.
As you say the best and most qualified person should get the job - as with any job.
My money would still be on Jeremy Vine. Here's example of him chairing the Community Care Live Question Time in 2008. I thought he was pretty good at it.
