CY
Yet you watch it every year, and relish in telling everyone how terrible it is. You need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
I know it's a pres forum, but some of you need a sense of perspective. Lavish shows are expensive to make, and the Beeb obviously has decided to settle on a fairly formulaic format in recent years. So what?! It raises money therefore the end result is worth it.
With the majority of households in Britain now having digital TV, I'm sure you're not short of other channels to watch. Please don't sit and force yourself to be so 'poorly entertained' for my benefit.
We watch each year in the vain hope it will get better. It used to be an entertaining show and you would look forward to it, now it's formulaic. The BBC think that because it gets large audiences it's fine as it is, even though in some cases people are probably watching it because it's there and nothing else is on. Live shows are difficult but with a bit of planning you can make entertaining television such as Comic Relief.
There's nothing wrong with the charity, it's the execution of the end product that's the problem I have with it. I'd rather better performers gave up their time and effort to be on the show than tone deaf newsreaders and lead footed soap stars. If that was served up on any other show people would complain. There's not much variety with endless singing. We get singing on The X Factor or those Andrew Lloyd Webber musical shows. There is virtually no other type of entertainment on TV anymore.
Children In Need was never a lavish spectacle years ago, but it was an entertaining one and that's something that it hasn't been for quite a few years.
And I don't need to wait until a telethon to give to charity I do that anyway to Children with Leukaemia, NSPCC and Cancer Research UK amongst others.
scottishtv posted:
Yet you watch it every year, and relish in telling everyone how terrible it is. You need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
I know it's a pres forum, but some of you need a sense of perspective. Lavish shows are expensive to make, and the Beeb obviously has decided to settle on a fairly formulaic format in recent years. So what?! It raises money therefore the end result is worth it.
With the majority of households in Britain now having digital TV, I'm sure you're not short of other channels to watch. Please don't sit and force yourself to be so 'poorly entertained' for my benefit.
We watch each year in the vain hope it will get better. It used to be an entertaining show and you would look forward to it, now it's formulaic. The BBC think that because it gets large audiences it's fine as it is, even though in some cases people are probably watching it because it's there and nothing else is on. Live shows are difficult but with a bit of planning you can make entertaining television such as Comic Relief.
There's nothing wrong with the charity, it's the execution of the end product that's the problem I have with it. I'd rather better performers gave up their time and effort to be on the show than tone deaf newsreaders and lead footed soap stars. If that was served up on any other show people would complain. There's not much variety with endless singing. We get singing on The X Factor or those Andrew Lloyd Webber musical shows. There is virtually no other type of entertainment on TV anymore.
Children In Need was never a lavish spectacle years ago, but it was an entertaining one and that's something that it hasn't been for quite a few years.
And I don't need to wait until a telethon to give to charity I do that anyway to Children with Leukaemia, NSPCC and Cancer Research UK amongst others.
:-(
A former member
WAIT A MIN!
we had that corrie and westenders in scotland ages ago!
we had that corrie and westenders in scotland ages ago!
JA
Yet you watch it every year, and relish in telling everyone how terrible it is. You need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
I know it's a pres forum, but some of you need a sense of perspective. Lavish shows are expensive to make, and the Beeb obviously has decided to settle on a fairly formulaic format in recent years. So what?! It raises money therefore the end result is worth it.
With the majority of households in Britain now having digital TV, I'm sure you're not short of other channels to watch. Please don't sit and force yourself to be so 'poorly entertained' for my benefit.
We watch each year in the vain hope it will get better. It used to be an entertaining show and you would look forward to it, now it's formulaic. The BBC think that because it gets large audiences it's fine as it is, even though in some cases people are probably watching it because it's there and nothing else is on. Live shows are difficult but with a bit of planning you can make entertaining television such as Comic Relief.
There's nothing wrong with the charity, it's the execution of the end product that's the problem I have with it. I'd rather better performers gave up their time and effort to be on the show than tone deaf newsreaders and lead footed soap stars. If that was served up on any other show people would complain. There's not much variety with endless singing. We get singing on The X Factor or those Andrew Lloyd Webber musical shows. There is virtually no other type of entertainment on TV anymore.
Children In Need was never a lavish spectacle years ago, but it was an entertaining one and that's something that it hasn't been for quite a few years.
And I don't need to wait until a telethon to give to charity I do that anyway to Children with Leukaemia, NSPCC and Cancer Research UK amongst others.
But you know what? There is a vast majority of people in the UK who like those singing shows (although we're stretching it a bit with the X factor) and personally I would rather see more live singing (like we're seeing tonight - virtually NO lip-syncs!) on television than some prats prancing about or hanging from rooftops on ribbons, or cackhanded magicians - whatever passes for reality these days.
I am being very pleasantly entertained tonight, and I wasn't watching it in the vain hope that it would get better. I'm not interested in whether you wait for telethons or not - but if all you watch for CIN is to see whether it will improve on last year cynically, then you must live a pretty dull, boring and bitter life.
cylon6 posted:
scottishtv posted:
Yet you watch it every year, and relish in telling everyone how terrible it is. You need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
I know it's a pres forum, but some of you need a sense of perspective. Lavish shows are expensive to make, and the Beeb obviously has decided to settle on a fairly formulaic format in recent years. So what?! It raises money therefore the end result is worth it.
With the majority of households in Britain now having digital TV, I'm sure you're not short of other channels to watch. Please don't sit and force yourself to be so 'poorly entertained' for my benefit.
We watch each year in the vain hope it will get better. It used to be an entertaining show and you would look forward to it, now it's formulaic. The BBC think that because it gets large audiences it's fine as it is, even though in some cases people are probably watching it because it's there and nothing else is on. Live shows are difficult but with a bit of planning you can make entertaining television such as Comic Relief.
There's nothing wrong with the charity, it's the execution of the end product that's the problem I have with it. I'd rather better performers gave up their time and effort to be on the show than tone deaf newsreaders and lead footed soap stars. If that was served up on any other show people would complain. There's not much variety with endless singing. We get singing on The X Factor or those Andrew Lloyd Webber musical shows. There is virtually no other type of entertainment on TV anymore.
Children In Need was never a lavish spectacle years ago, but it was an entertaining one and that's something that it hasn't been for quite a few years.
And I don't need to wait until a telethon to give to charity I do that anyway to Children with Leukaemia, NSPCC and Cancer Research UK amongst others.
But you know what? There is a vast majority of people in the UK who like those singing shows (although we're stretching it a bit with the X factor) and personally I would rather see more live singing (like we're seeing tonight - virtually NO lip-syncs!) on television than some prats prancing about or hanging from rooftops on ribbons, or cackhanded magicians - whatever passes for reality these days.
I am being very pleasantly entertained tonight, and I wasn't watching it in the vain hope that it would get better. I'm not interested in whether you wait for telethons or not - but if all you watch for CIN is to see whether it will improve on last year cynically, then you must live a pretty dull, boring and bitter life.
CO
Interesting we've had two Boyzone performances from Belfast so far with potentially another by Enya to come, while there's only one potential performance to come from Scotland (Sharleen Spiteri) and perhaps one from Wales (Stereophonics?).
And having Christine Bleakley on the show earlier, it's almost a mini attempt at BBC NI trying to infiltrate the network's big night
And having Christine Bleakley on the show earlier, it's almost a mini attempt at BBC NI trying to infiltrate the network's big night
PT
Oh give over, you're just clutching at straws now, charity aside, you know as well as we do that this is a "presentation" forum so don't get personal saying people have dull, boring and bitter lives.
I agree however, this has stayed together well tonight, they've ditched the live "on set" panel quizzes (i.e. Buzzcocks last year).
JAH posted:
I am being very pleasantly entertained tonight, and I wasn't watching it in the vain hope that it would get better. I'm not interested in whether you wait for telethons or not - but if all you watch for CIN is to see whether it will improve on last year cynically, then you must live a pretty dull, boring and bitter life.
Oh give over, you're just clutching at straws now, charity aside, you know as well as we do that this is a "presentation" forum so don't get personal saying people have dull, boring and bitter lives.
I agree however, this has stayed together well tonight, they've ditched the live "on set" panel quizzes (i.e. Buzzcocks last year).
SE
London's contribution was with Konnie Huq and one of the younger BBC London male reporters from Wembley Arena.
Phil Lavelle, who also occasionally presents the Breakfast & Lunchtime programmes.
Martin Phillp posted:
Andrew posted:
Have you all got fairly famous celebrities hosting in your region rather than newsreaders?
Yorkshire have got Ian White and Toby Foster. I imagine Hull have probably got Peter Levy
Yorkshire have got Ian White and Toby Foster. I imagine Hull have probably got Peter Levy
London's contribution was with Konnie Huq and one of the younger BBC London male reporters from Wembley Arena.
Phil Lavelle, who also occasionally presents the Breakfast & Lunchtime programmes.
SC
That's a lie - there's plenty on.
I'm sure the BBC would too - but to be honest I think their celeb bookers have actually done a fairly good job.
scottishtv
Founding member
cylon6 posted:
in some cases people are probably watching it because it's there and nothing else is on.
That's a lie - there's plenty on.
cylon6 posted:
I'd rather better performers gave up their time.
I'm sure the BBC would too - but to be honest I think their celeb bookers have actually done a fairly good job.
FA
I've enjoyed tonight's programme, its been very entertaining, and even though there is a lot of music, I think that they've done a few different things too, more so than usual. Enjoyed the Gok Wan Corrie sketch very much.
Nice to hear the return to the old tune, I wonder why they ditched it, and why they've now brought it back.
The set looks nice, and they've touched it up nicely. It's amazing that people say things about the reuse of the set, but do you remember how many years that they used the set with the light tubes?
Many users say how Children In Need used to be different, but its been practically the same for as long back way into the 90's as I can remember, so can somebody actually share facts of what used to be different about it, what they used to do for 7 hours instead of what they do now, and how it was more entertaining please.
Nice to hear the return to the old tune, I wonder why they ditched it, and why they've now brought it back.
The set looks nice, and they've touched it up nicely. It's amazing that people say things about the reuse of the set, but do you remember how many years that they used the set with the light tubes?
Many users say how Children In Need used to be different, but its been practically the same for as long back way into the 90's as I can remember, so can somebody actually share facts of what used to be different about it, what they used to do for 7 hours instead of what they do now, and how it was more entertaining please.
IS
Saw more than usual as it was on in the pub I was in tonight. It's far better than the old days when there was a heavy chat show element with guests appearing on the sofa with Terry.
Not much that really interested me though. The start was awful - very bland which made no impact at all
Not much that really interested me though. The start was awful - very bland which made no impact at all
BE
I think that is partly to do with nostalgic eyes. But I do think everything has become a lot slicker, take the newsreaders for example. Back in the 90s I can remember them doing the bare necessities, which truthfully was a bit naff but more entertaining than these days mainly because they can actually sing quite well and the whole thing seems a bit too well rehearsed. I think that's why other journalists started to criticise it, it doesn't seem as fun as it used to.
In reality though I doubt they could get away with putting out the show they did in the earlier 90s and get anywhere near as much money as they do now.
Ben
Founding member
fanoftv posted:
Many users say how Children In Need used to be different, but its been practically the same for as long back way into the 90's as I can remember, so can somebody actually share facts of what used to be different about it, what they used to do for 7 hours instead of what they do now, and how it was more entertaining please.
I think that is partly to do with nostalgic eyes. But I do think everything has become a lot slicker, take the newsreaders for example. Back in the 90s I can remember them doing the bare necessities, which truthfully was a bit naff but more entertaining than these days mainly because they can actually sing quite well and the whole thing seems a bit too well rehearsed. I think that's why other journalists started to criticise it, it doesn't seem as fun as it used to.
In reality though I doubt they could get away with putting out the show they did in the earlier 90s and get anywhere near as much money as they do now.