Daybreak - the launch onwards

When I was in NYC, I woke up at the crack of dawn and went down to Rockefeller Plaza for Today (I was one of the mad people standing outside waiving to the camera!!!)

From what I could see, they don't have as many lighting issues as their windows are on a steep slant inwards towards the studio: so they don't have reflections as the camera looks staight through the glass and the reflections bounce down to the floor (if that makes any sense)

Understand the reason for Daybreak's blinds, however, couldn't they have been white / grey and semi opaque: and they could have coloured them any way they wanted with all the LED washers they seem to have?

When the blinds are down, it feels all a bit too enclosed (I'm never happy, as I thought they should have blinds, and now I don't like them!!!)

Wonder what the studio looks like from outside with the blinds? Im sure they did an exterior shot of the studio in the weeks that they launched, and you could clearly see the presenters and set etc...

I bet it looks like a mass of yellow.

http://www.tv-live.org.uk/wb/media/daybreak/56.jpg

http://www.tv-live.org.uk/wb/media/daybreak/28.jpg
Pictures from http://www.tv-live.org.uk/

See, these images is what the studio to me is all about, watching the sunrise, and the ambience of the morning. I know we wont get shots like that every morning, but I feel with these blinds, we wont get to see that anymore.

What do you mean? We are going to see the views when these is one to see, and the blinds are there so that we don't have to stare at black squares all morning when it's dark.

Exactly, the sun doesn't rise until practically the end of the programme at the moment. I'm sure come April, they'll lift the blinds until October.

Unless it's a miserable cloudy morning, in which case it doesn't matter whether it's after sunrise or not - they should leave the blinds down.

Did anyone see Ross King's V sign on "In the mix" after the 7 o'clock news? Very funny but not for breakfast telly.

I assume you mean this:

http://i53.tinypic.com/312zd7d.jpg

It wasn't funny, in itself. However, this is an example of the sort of banal and childish presentation techniques used on 'Daybreak'.

Chiles has even tried to promote the programme by denegrating himself as 'boring and grumpy' in recent media interviews, perhaps that's in an attempt to move away from the 'pseudo-Citv' style. If so, it's not being replicated by the daily programme.

The Hollywood Correspondent (Ross 'someone or other') was feigning sleep/coma as a sign of boredom with the output from London. I don't blame him.

Why would someone's 'lucky numbers' be of interest to anyone about to go to work? Why would it be amusing at all, at any time of day?

The fact that they were all giggling in London like loons at the sight of two fingers, is evidence enough of the level this programme has sunk to.

It all came across as rather desperate and pathetic to me. But see for yourself (and don't forget to send in your own suggestions to my premium rate text/phone number)

http://s273.photobucket.com/albums/jj219/StuartPlymouth/ITV-Daybreak-Bored-130111.mp4

The lucky numbers comes across as a bit of a This Morning type fixture, like they recently studied peoples feet. But on Daybreak it was only emails, and its not like they had a report on it... I didn't see any problem with it. Neither is there any problem with the layed back style of 'In The Mix'. It's a conversation with news items dropped in, I really like it. Daybreak hasn't sunk at all, I'd say the opposite infact.

Daybreak still has its problems but its leaps and bounds better than it was on launch day. Tasmin's much better now, In The Mix is a great section, and Christine impressed me this morning when interviewing the mother of the girl who died from Swine Flu. Finally we seemed to see Christine as an interviewer instead of being the one who keeps quiet when guests are on.

I've started dipping in for more extended periods of time lately, and I'm starting to enjoy it. I do need to have a bit of balance with BBC Breakfast, but STV+1 is giving me a double chance to see something I like.

'Sad and pathetic' I don't find it, more 'hit and miss', but the hit part is increasing.

What I do find odd is why someone would capture a 3 hour programme and upload it purely to sneer at at.

Tum tee tum.

I thought it was funny, if it helps. The humour wasn't especially in the gesture, but the ambiguity of it. He wasn't pretending to fall asleep of his own accord, but was triggered to do so by the presenters saying it was boring. It's self-deprecating, and that's often funny.

Actually, someone mentioned that there may be something interesting on Thursday's programme, so I recorded it.

I never found out what it was: but I did still have the programme recorded when it was mentioned by another member, so I took the time and effort to upload the relevant material they mentioned.

I thought that was of use to other people, and I also made a useful contribution to the board.

Gav, you must snap out of this 'bitch first, think later ' mode that you have.

It's not helpful to criticise constantly. It's getting beyond tiresome for more than just me!