Points of View

I thought that was a spoof when I heard that one!
I've only watched it since around January so I've always known the current theme.

It's these opening titles I remember best




The comments about the first programme are funny "rubbish", "utter drivel"

12 million!! How much does You've Been Framed get now?

I'm surprised they didn't counter the negative comments with positive ones like they do nowadays.

I prefer the way they used to use short snappy quotes as part of the script, they don't do that thesedays either.

I'm not sure the writers of those letters would appreciate only being allowed two words of their quite long letters being read out.

POV went through quite a change midway through the Wogan years - think they realised they couldn't get away with just playing the whole thing for laughs anymore. I did enjoy the Anne years though - Vine's gives too much airtime to vocal but ultimately pointless campaigns like that one to turn off background music, which they claimed to get a victory on by putting a music-less version of a documentary on the red button, once.

Me too, but even as a prepubescent TV pres fan, it always slightly annoyed me that the animated 'characters' spelling out POINTS during the opening sequence didn't actually join together or form up at the end of the title sequence.

The use of the curly letters in the end frames to spell out 'Points of View' just comes out of nowhere! *gasp*

Goodness. Makes you realise how annoying Anne Robinson has got over the past 20 years.

BBCi continues to exist on Digiguide:

http://digiguide.tv/list/BBC+Interactive

This channel was only launched on Digiguide in December last year.

I hate Points of View so much, I used to love it when Anne did it but nowadays it lets correspondents just talk rubbish without ever correcting them. I said it in the Breakfast thread but this week some bore was allowed to moan at length about Breakfast moving to Salford with no constructive criticism at all and then say he was sure the ratings had plummeted, which they haven't, and he should have been corrected as that was massively unfair on Breakfast. And then Kay Benbow of Cbeebies was gracious in admitting they were looking into bringing in more female lead characters, as a correspondent had suggested, and they made Benbow look stupid, making snide comments about how she'd caved in and the viewer had touched a nerve. If they apologise, they get slagged off, if they don't they get slagged off as well.

It happens all the time, there was a complaint when Harry and Paul was on about there being audience laughter and Vine simply said smugly "So, canned laughter - people do notice". And that was it. They didn't bother checking whether it was canned laughter - which it wasn't - but just let another ill-informed comment go out unchecked. I know the point is to represent the viewer but if they're just talking rubbish it achieves nothing.

The Beeb already gets a load of ill-informed rubbish flung at it, it doesn't need its own programmes to start doing it as well. It's awful.

I agree, however, I do think that the guy stood outside the MediaCity UK studios moaning about the lack of celebrity guests on Breakfast actually made himself look foolish, and a bit of an oddball whinger.

Regarding the second story, I found it funny that a stay-at-home mum with time to sit and analyse Children's TV listings was complaining about a supposed lack of work-orientated, focused lead female role models for her kids.

Well we realise that he looked foolish and an oddball whinger, because we know that the programme has in fact remained pretty much the same apart from a new set. The problem is, there will be many people who would be sitting at home nodding along, damaging Breakfast's reputation. There is no doubt Breakfast should have been allowed to put its views forward in order to basically destroy any of the arguments shown by those viewers. The same thing happened on Newswatch a few weeks ago.