I am still loving it actually, Dog/Harshy. Maybe I haven't watched it sufficiently continuously to make a proper judgement, but from what I have seen, I like it. A lot.
They've got lots of space, and it adds a nice touch. I don't think it harms the channel to have plenty of positions to present things from. Let's not forget, News 24 have three presentation areas to do things from (mostly as a response to what Sky did in 2002)... I don't see you calling that stupid. The rotating desk allows them to do different backdrops, so the WNT show has a different 'feel' to it than the others - and that works well.
I'd agree with you if it were well executed. However the rotating set seems to massively compromise the quality of some of their shots. The World News Tonight James + 3 guests was embarassingly badly shot, almost no shots, and very few relationships. (The only shot favouring James was unusable - though they did use it...) If you compare it to something comparable on the N24 set - like Dateline London - it was noticably poorer. I'm not claiming Dateline is fantastic - just that the execution of long form debate style chat is better - with more relationship shots being used, more variety on groups, better coverage and use of reaction shots etc. I have a feeling that they are making life more difficult for themselves by rotating the set - though it could just be that they are stuffed with semi-fixed camera positions anyway. (Some of the shots used were horribly high-angle, and massively off the eyeline)
The SET is very impressive. The SHOTs are not. A good set shot badly is not a good set IMHO. If the design of the set or studio stops you shooting it effectively, then it is not a good set.
There are lots of presentation locations - however many of the shots and much of the lighting is compromised in some of these - and the previously slick execution has been lost. I'm not claiming the lighting and camerawork on News 24 is better, just that the high quality Sky used to achieve has reduced.
Many of the interviews on Sky now seem to be done by bouncing between one or two shots. That works much better when you shoot tightly, as they used to. Now they are shooting to show off the set, and shooting much wider, the lack of variety and pace in the coverage of interviews is noticable - and it wasn't before. It is visually duller - the set is more interesting, but the camera work isn't. The jib is being wasted. Shooting wider is also noticably more distancing - Sky's main selling point in many ways was the fact you could see the presenters' eyes clearly - a great relationship feature. They seem to have, as ITN have, thrown that away. WNT is particularly bad in this regard - though I notice they did finally find a tight over the shoulder last night for down-the-lines, though they then stuck with it rather than varying it for long periods.
Quote:
The content of News 24 remains OK, but the 'interminable' two ways are still there, sometimes they seemingly can't be bothered/can't do lives more than once, so they end up with ''earlier I spoke to the BBC's...'' and playing out a recorded interview with a correspondent, which is just poor.
Though arguably no poorer than standing around chatting to your two co-presenters in an inane manner.
Hopefully that will settle down. Remember when they got thier previous set they showed it off for a while with some unusual shots from the newsroom, or the bizzare shots when they first got to play with the pole cam.
“Only yesterday, the Labour Party were devising policy in smoke filled rooms, the Labour government are now trying to make smoke filled rooms as socially acceptable as fetishism with wild beasts”
Martin Stanford's just after coming up with an, er, obvious way of rectifying any problems with the new 16:9 graphics, if rather blunt and expensive...
"This is now a widescreen channel... if you still have a 4:3 TV. go buy a new one!"
They've got lots of space, and it adds a nice touch. I don't think it harms the channel to have plenty of positions to present things from. Let's not forget, News 24 have three presentation areas to do things from (mostly as a response to what Sky did in 2002)... I don't see you calling that stupid. The rotating desk allows them to do different backdrops, so the WNT show has a different 'feel' to it than the others - and that works well.
I'd agree with you if it were well executed. However the rotating set seems to massively compromise the quality of some of their shots. The World News Tonight James + 3 guests was embarassingly badly shot, almost no shots, and very few relationships. (The only shot favouring James was unusable - though they did use it...) If you compare it to something comparable on the N24 set - like Dateline London - it was noticably poorer. I'm not claiming Dateline is fantastic - just that the execution of long form debate style chat is better - with more relationship shots being used, more variety on groups, better coverage and use of reaction shots etc. I have a feeling that they are making life more difficult for themselves by rotating the set - though it could just be that they are stuffed with semi-fixed camera positions anyway. (Some of the shots used were horribly high-angle, and massively off the eyeline)
The SET is very impressive. The SHOTs are not. A good set shot badly is not a good set IMHO. If the design of the set or studio stops you shooting it effectively, then it is not a good set.
There are lots of presentation locations - however many of the shots and much of the lighting is compromised in some of these - and the previously slick execution has been lost. I'm not claiming the lighting and camerawork on News 24 is better, just that the high quality Sky used to achieve has reduced.
Many of the interviews on Sky now seem to be done by bouncing between one or two shots. That works much better when you shoot tightly, as they used to. Now they are shooting to show off the set, and shooting much wider, the lack of variety and pace in the coverage of interviews is noticable - and it wasn't before. It is visually duller - the set is more interesting, but the camera work isn't. The jib is being wasted. Shooting wider is also noticably more distancing - Sky's main selling point in many ways was the fact you could see the presenters' eyes clearly - a great relationship feature. They seem to have, as ITN have, thrown that away. WNT is particularly bad in this regard - though I notice they did finally find a tight over the shoulder last night for down-the-lines, though they then stuck with it rather than varying it for long periods.
Quote:
The content of News 24 remains OK, but the 'interminable' two ways are still there, sometimes they seemingly can't be bothered/can't do lives more than once, so they end up with ''earlier I spoke to the BBC's...'' and playing out a recorded interview with a correspondent, which is just poor.
Though arguably no poorer than standing around chatting to your two co-presenters in an inane manner.
As regards to framing, I think Sky have got it right, the framing shows the depth and the activity in the newsroom, I think News 24 at times frame a bit too tightly with their projector, presenter shot, it looks bad in 4:3, as people have pointed out it's gimmicky, now I personally don't mind gimmicks, so as longs as it does not compromise the content of the channel, which seems to have been affected dramatically since relaunch, what made Sky News brilliant was the ability to break news first, but now it looks like News 24 are doing this job better, while Sky seem to be too busy with their so called features and gimmicks, that they are not doing their job of actually giving the news.
James Rubin isn't an experienced presenter, it shows, maybe he will improve over time, but how much time will Sky News give which is the big 64,000 dollar question.
This from today's Irish Independent. Guess they'd (Sky) rather this wasn't posted on the forum, but what the heck:
Sky TV crew 'attacked' mum and child at Becks wedding
]Broadcasting giant ordered to pay €18,000 in damages
SKY TV's attitude to a mother and daughter at the Posh and Becks wedding was "appalling, aggressive, and downright crude", a judge said.
The glitzy celebrity wedding took place in the eye of the world's media at Luttrellstown Castle six years ago. It was the wedding of the decade.
But yesterday Mr Justice Esmond Smyth said a Sky camera team had effectively assaulted Lila O'Hagan and her 10-year-old daughter, Karla Millward.
They attempted to push and manhandle them in order to get a better camera position, he said, and he awarded the two David Beckham fans more than €18,000 damages against BSkyB, presenter Georgina Arnold and camera team Patrick Barron and James McKiernan.
SNIGGERED
Judge Smith said that when Ms O'Hagan stood her ground, Barron and McKiernan sniggered and smirked at her.
Karla had burst into tears and had become deeply upset at the sight of her mother being so deeply humiliated, the court heard.
Pat O'Connell, counsel for Ms O'Hagan and Karla, told the Circuit Civil Court they had driven and sailed overnight by car and ferry from their home in Preston, Lancashire, for the big day.
When they got to Luttrellstown Castle at 6.30am on July 4, 1999, they were the first spectators to arrive for the celebrity wedding. He said that some time later the Sky crew arrived and tried to force his clients away from where security guards had put them. Barron and McKiernan had also used foul language, he said, and Georgina Arnold eventually told her team to "get them out of there".
When Ms O'Hagan held on to the barrier, Ms Arnold told the men: "Do whatever you have to do to get them out of there." Barron and McKiernan grabbed Ms O'Hagan by the arms in a bid to pull her away. Karla started to cry when she saw her mother being manhandled. Some spectators told the men to leave her alone.
The matter had been reported to the Garda Siochana and summonses had been issued.
Declan Buckley, counsel for the defendants, said Ms Arnold had apologised to Ms O'Hagan at the scene of the incident.
Karla cried as she told the court she had become very upset at how the men were treating her mother. She had suffered from nightmares after the event, which had taken months forher to partiallyerase from her mind.
The judge said: "Sky had no lawful right, good, bad or indifferent, to move anyone and they manhandled Ms O'Hagan in a very rough and insensitive way, as a result of which she had suffered bruising to her arms."
Judge Smith said Barron, of Berwick Hall, Churchtown, Dublin, and McKiernan, of Oldcastle Avenue, Sutton, Dublin, had then adopted a sniggering and smirking attitude and had told Ms O'Hagan and Karla it had been their own fault because they had been in the wrong place.
He said the defendants had, at a very late stage and having filed a full defence, conceded liability.
Mr Buckley had suggested that sometime after the incident Ms Arnold had said she was sorry.
"This apology came a bit late in the day for what was a very cruel and almost hysterical and desperate act by a camera team wanting to the their story first," Judge Smith said.
He awarded Karla €7,500 damages and her mother €9,000 damages, with €1,593 special damages.
He hoped that if Ms O'Hagan and Karla decided on a return visit to Dublin they would do so in happier circumstances.
Now this is something wierd in the past week's context...at 12 noon - a bulitten that looks and feels like a regular Sky News bulitten (pre-relaunch that is), presented double-headed from the desk. No fancy running around the studio or headlines sequences that go on for ages, just a traditional news bulitten.
The presenter (can't remember his name) said it was Sky News Today, but the voice-over simply said "Live fom the Sky News Centre, This is Sky News with..." etc.
Sorry if this has been asked already on this thread (I don't have the patience to go through 60 pages) but is there a specific reason why they're not using the 24-hour clock? It just looks wrong!
Sky's argument for not using it is that most people don't 'think' in 24 hour time. The Live at 5 blog explains it as, ''nobody says let's meet at the cafe at 1700 hours''.
I'm not really that bothered about the time on the clock, I just wish they'd make it a little smaller. The dog is just a bit too long for my liking.
The Saturday Live show was good this morning. Only caught the last 45 minutes or so, but was impressed with what I saw. Stanford is the perfect presenter for it, too.
Martin Stanford's just after coming up with an, er, obvious way of rectifying any problems with the new 16:9 graphics, if rather blunt and expensive...
"This is now a widescreen channel... if you still have a 4:3 TV. go buy a new one!"
Hmm...diplomatic...
To be fair, I think he said it "tounge-in-cheek", and only had about 15 seconds till the TOTH.