Christmas TV 2018

Looks like the voting figures have joined to the trend of BBC secrecy (somehow allowed) regarding to voting figures after being the only set they voluntarily released (Eurovison being released under EBU rules.)

Alot of people are not happy about that short list...

So this year's SPOTY broadcast managed to annoy both sport and non-sport fans?

One that was clearly realised while they were still on air, as they went back to him before the winner announcement at the end.

They did play the classic theme - the 'fanfare' section was used when Mo Farah brought the trophy in near the beginning.

But I agree, I thought it was very bad this year. Clearly they have tried to move it on a bit this year, but I disagreed with the various decisions - the canning of the live orchestra seemed a shame, the lack of the classic theme tune at the end appeared bizarre, especially as they ended with the George Ezra performance which simply went on too long and there were bland shots of people milling around on the stage. It should be the orchestra playing the theme tune, whilst the credits roll with shots of the winner and the crowd. Job done.

They also did quite a bad job of shoehorning in the other awards, I felt, tying them into guests who were already on the stage, such as when Gareth Southgate got Coach of the Year - there was no build-up to the award.

And that Three Lions performance... not to mention the Billy Monger howler (but credit to them for getting him back at the end of the show)

Hopefully the various production decisions that were made this year will be revoked next year, as I really think this was a comparatively weak show to previous years.

And thank goodness they did. Still a very bad error to make though. Finding someone with an inspirational tale only to cut them off so you can fit in a 'Three Lions' performance and a clip from Michael McIntyre's Big Show isn't the Beeb's finest hour.

And ending on George Ezra rather than the actual SPOTY winner should've seen whoever suggested it being laughed out the room.

Well, I'm looking forward to seeing some proof for this and not just guesswork. In Frank Bough's autobiography (published in 1980) he talks about it notoriously always overrunning in the seventies so unless you're suggesting they were "deliberately" doing it then (when it certainly wasn't followed by a big show like The Apprentice), I find that a bit hard to believe.

Bough says the only time it didn't overrun was in 1978 because there was a work-to-rule on at the time and they were told they'd be faded out if they didn't finish dead on time, much to their consternation as Prince Charles was presenting the award.





Dear me. I know everyone's entitled to an opinion over whether a TV show is any good or not, but suggesting the production team are "brainless" and "a disgrace" is highly unpleasant.

Your entitled to your opinion aswell but im not changing mine, the actions of the production team were a disgrace, and to believe said people are above recalled is questionable in itself. There made bad choices and decisions, which in their own eyes were wrong and there tried to correct, as highlighed above. The whole programme was disgrace in what was chosen, and why certain things was done... its personality NOT popularity. I would rather believe the team were brainless and not devious in their actions. Do you know whats highly unpleasant? when there cut short list so it conforms with their agenda or image.

Blimey, it's only a TV show.

Not having seen it, what is he going on about? What was wrong with the shortlist?

Im not the only one who was highly critical over that much reduced short list.. Certain controversial figures juat so happend to get the cut

Consider that comment of mine a bit "heat of the moment" - I was just trying to stop the complaints about the show overrunning every year, and the schedule never being changed to prevent this, when there had already been at least one suggestion (however absurd) as to why this is the situation.

Mind you, it *is* kind of easy to suggest - even if there is no concrete proof - that the overrun is deliberate these days, given what SPOTY features now and the fact that it *is* followed by a show like The Apprentice (seven million continue to watch despite the candidates seemingly getting more desperate every year). In Frank's day, of course, things weren't so slick and sophisticated, and reality TV wasn't a phenomenon.




There were only six contenders on the shortlist - in previous years there have been at least ten (and just two years ago there were as many as sixteen).

At least it included Lizzy Yarnold and Dina Asher-Smith - the 2011 shortlist, in contrast, had ten male contenders and not a single female contender. One of two genuinely bad moves that year, of course - the other being holding the event on a Thursday instead of a Sunday.

Well, certainly they're quite relaxed about ending dead on time, but it's not possible to say that the overrun is deliberate - because how much benefit is there from deliberately overrunning? The theory is that it's so the announcement gets a big audience because people are tuning in for The Apprentice, but so what? Just so the press office can tweet out a slightly higher peak the next morning? Is it really worth it?

The event overrunning does inconvenience people - we saw that the other year when the Radio Times were caught out by the overrun and tweeted the winner of The Apprentice ten minutes early. BBC1's social media accounts are certainly affected so they can tweet things out about it, then there are the various promotions on iPlayer, and the news channel obviously has to improvise an extra ten minutes because the news on BBC1 is no longer starting on the hour. So it clearly puts people out. If they're deliberately overrunning they're certainly not telling anybody else.



Yes, although it's not necessarily possible to make comparisons with previous years because of the change in the way they did the voting - it may well have been decided that six was the maximum number of nominees that they could effectively cover during the show. In the past there were more nominees but they were announced earlier and so there was plenty of time to discuss their various merits in the build-up. It could certainly easily have been an editorial decision as the requirement to give ten (or more) nominees completely equal coverage during the programme could have made for rather boring television. You certainly spend a lot of time going over phone numbers. It may even be the case that they decided in previous years hardly anyone votes for the nominees at the bottom so it's a waste of money opening the phone line. Could be anything.



The latter is simply a guess, based on no evidence at all. The rest of this is hardly constructive criticism. Imagine anyone actually involved in the programme reading someone on the internet calling them "brainless". It's embarrassing to read.