ST
Surely the view through the window shouldn't be a focal point in the first place!
I don't watch BBC Breakfast because of their animated background, so I'm hardly likely to switch channels just to see an illuminated cathedral in some of the views of the main presenters.
It's not exactly a tiny feature either, it's the main focal point seen through the window.
Surely the view through the window shouldn't be a focal point in the first place!
I don't watch BBC Breakfast because of their animated background, so I'm hardly likely to switch channels just to see an illuminated cathedral in some of the views of the main presenters.
GS
You're contradicting yourself here, unless I'm mis-reading.
If you think it will look bad as a "metal box with black shiny panels", why would you then be sniffy about them lighting up the main exterior focal point?
Gavin Scott
Founding member
The view from the window must be non-existent now until at least 7:00am, so otherwise they will just look as though they're sat in a metal box with shiny black panels for the first hour.
I don't watch BBC Breakfast because of their animated background, so I'm hardly likely to switch channels just to see an illuminated cathedral in some of the views of the main presenters.
You're contradicting yourself here, unless I'm mis-reading.
If you think it will look bad as a "metal box with black shiny panels", why would you then be sniffy about them lighting up the main exterior focal point?
ST
You're not misreading as my argument does indeed appear contradictory, damn you!
However, one comment is really just about the need for more studio furniture to supplement the bare interior , where as the other is discussing the external vista.
Lighting up St Paul's Cathedral will only alter the external view for the main presenter close-up shots; it won't help the 'metal box' image during their oft-repeated sweeping studio shots, as the rest of the skyline will be in darkness and still look like a 'metal box with shiny black panels'.
You're contradicting yourself here, unless I'm mis-reading.
If you think it will look bad as a "metal box with black shiny panels", why would you then be sniffy about them lighting up the main exterior focal point?
If you think it will look bad as a "metal box with black shiny panels", why would you then be sniffy about them lighting up the main exterior focal point?
You're not misreading as my argument does indeed appear contradictory, damn you!
However, one comment is really just about the need for more studio furniture to supplement the bare interior , where as the other is discussing the external vista.
Lighting up St Paul's Cathedral will only alter the external view for the main presenter close-up shots; it won't help the 'metal box' image during their oft-repeated sweeping studio shots, as the rest of the skyline will be in darkness and still look like a 'metal box with shiny black panels'.
EE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3Sc57mjhOY&feature=related
The above link reminds me a lot of Daybreak.
Although, Daybreak should really be this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUb2d84Sjh4
The above link reminds me a lot of Daybreak.
Although, Daybreak should really be this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUb2d84Sjh4
JB
It's meant to be their version of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Vjk4eC4lM
What on earth is with the singing thing at the end of todays show (friday), it's a load of crap!
It's meant to be their version of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Vjk4eC4lM
IS
The lit up St Pauls always looked great behind the presenters a lot better than just blackness. It's not a focal point, it's not distracting, it's just a nice thing to have in the background
I remember seeing one episode of London Tonight when the lights went out on St Paul's mid-way through. It was so unusual, and looked just wrong, that they made a little item out of it at the end of the programme
I remember seeing one episode of London Tonight when the lights went out on St Paul's mid-way through. It was so unusual, and looked just wrong, that they made a little item out of it at the end of the programme
JA
So - is this programme still haemorrhaging money or not? With all this St Pauls lighting and money being chucked at the new set, can't help but feel they're trying to revive something that's not been going long enough to warrant reviving...
The thing still looks weird. The sofas are completely wrong. Mum said a while ago to me that it looked like the interviewees are in a different studio to the presenters, they're that far away. Part of that is this insistence on having to put SPC into the backdrop - why? It's a building. It looks a lot nicer with a general panorama - at least it wouldn't look like they're trying to cram as much into a tiny corner as possible.
News bird is still sh*te, and there's still about as much chemistry between the lot of them as unripened mangos. But let's see what happens.
The thing still looks weird. The sofas are completely wrong. Mum said a while ago to me that it looked like the interviewees are in a different studio to the presenters, they're that far away. Part of that is this insistence on having to put SPC into the backdrop - why? It's a building. It looks a lot nicer with a general panorama - at least it wouldn't look like they're trying to cram as much into a tiny corner as possible.
News bird is still sh*te, and there's still about as much chemistry between the lot of them as unripened mangos. But let's see what happens.
BR
Getting back to the topic, however, I'd be grateful if somebody could explain to me how on earth Daybreak was nominated for the National Television Awards. It beggars belief that a broadcast that was no more than two weeks old could be included in the list. What's even more striking is that it's inclusion on the nomination list came after the broadcast had haemorrhaged viewers and displayed only a marginal increase on its predecessor. Given that the majority of the reviews for the broadcast were less than forthcoming in their praise, it destroys what little credibility the NTA had in the first place.
Not sure if shows are put forward by the networks or if the shortlist is done independently, but really it can't be in interests of ITV to have Daybreak nominated and risk the humiliation of it losing out to GMTV. Unless it's kind of nominated by default as a submission from "ITV Breakfast Limited".
Getting back to the topic, however, I'd be grateful if somebody could explain to me how on earth Daybreak was nominated for the National Television Awards. It beggars belief that a broadcast that was no more than two weeks old could be included in the list. What's even more striking is that it's inclusion on the nomination list came after the broadcast had haemorrhaged viewers and displayed only a marginal increase on its predecessor. Given that the majority of the reviews for the broadcast were less than forthcoming in their praise, it destroys what little credibility the NTA had in the first place.
Not sure if shows are put forward by the networks or if the shortlist is done independently, but really it can't be in interests of ITV to have Daybreak nominated and risk the humiliation of it losing out to GMTV. Unless it's kind of nominated by default as a submission from "ITV Breakfast Limited".
NG
Presumably the frosting helps reduce the severe reflection issues that the newsreading position has. (Prompt, other presenters, other bits of set etc.) The view behind Tasmin isn't anything to write home about - in hindsight it may have been a better idea to have had more set/lighting elements to break things up a bit behind some positions rather than acres of glass.
The One Show doesn't have a killer view - but their main presenter and guest shots always have a bit of window and a bit of set/lighting in them - with the main window shots being the wides.
I can see why they've set Daybreak as they have - to feature St Pauls in the main two-shot. In hindsight that may have compromised the rest of the set, and the way it is shot, pretty massively.
noggin
Founding member
I think when it's dark they need some more LED panelling, which they can move when it starts to get light
The glass behind the newsreader seemed to have a frosted panel stuck onto it this morning. It looked very odd. Has anyone any idea why it's suddenly appeared?
The glass behind the newsreader seemed to have a frosted panel stuck onto it this morning. It looked very odd. Has anyone any idea why it's suddenly appeared?
Presumably the frosting helps reduce the severe reflection issues that the newsreading position has. (Prompt, other presenters, other bits of set etc.) The view behind Tasmin isn't anything to write home about - in hindsight it may have been a better idea to have had more set/lighting elements to break things up a bit behind some positions rather than acres of glass.
The One Show doesn't have a killer view - but their main presenter and guest shots always have a bit of window and a bit of set/lighting in them - with the main window shots being the wides.
I can see why they've set Daybreak as they have - to feature St Pauls in the main two-shot. In hindsight that may have compromised the rest of the set, and the way it is shot, pretty massively.
NG
On the other hand - on shows like these the first few months (6?) are always teething periods where you work through what works and what doesn't and then fine tune to rectify. You can't expect to launch perfectly with a show like this - you hope to, and do all you can to, but there will always be things you learn.
Also - there is often an issue with sets that the designer is there from launch, and is wedded to his/her vision of "the set". Once they are no longer there day-to-day and/or producers/editors start taking decisions, "the set" gets modified. Usually with flowers first...
noggin
Founding member
So - is this programme still haemorrhaging money or not? With all this St Pauls lighting and money being chucked at the new set, can't help but feel they're trying to revive something that's not been going long enough to warrant reviving...
On the other hand - on shows like these the first few months (6?) are always teething periods where you work through what works and what doesn't and then fine tune to rectify. You can't expect to launch perfectly with a show like this - you hope to, and do all you can to, but there will always be things you learn.
Also - there is often an issue with sets that the designer is there from launch, and is wedded to his/her vision of "the set". Once they are no longer there day-to-day and/or producers/editors start taking decisions, "the set" gets modified. Usually with flowers first...