Eurovision 2011 - 10/12/14 May 2011

A large flat video screen plonked at the back and dwarfing the not particularly huge performance area - meaning only very wide shots read well on-camera, and anything tighter started to moire and look messy (Serbia was a good case in point). Best performances often had mainly black in the screens. I liked the LED strips in the stage floor and the wider auditorium - they worked nicely at times - but again they aliased horribly on some shots.

Norway's ability to drop down different bits of physical set, and have layers of lighting (albeit lots of it was meshy LED) gave more variety, and more texture.

The other issue in Dusseldorf was that the stage was a relatively small circular area set a long way forward from the screens - diminishing the scale of the performances, dwarfing them with regards to the screens.

Was it me or were there fewer extra bits of stage used for specific performances than last year (Russia and the UK had their LED panels and Sweden the glass box, and a few others had round podia - but not as many as Moscow or Oslo? No Greek travellator, no UK stairways etc.)

The "lots of money" is a relative thing. AIUI the cost per hour of the BBC licensing the contest is comparable to (if not lower than) a standard BBC entertainment show (Strictly etc.) - even if you fold in the delegation costs.

It's often described as very good value - particularly if it delivers 9.5m (and a peak of 13+m) as it did this year.



The BBC pays for a licence to show it, as do all the other broadcasters. The licence level is set by the EBU based on the population of the country and its economic wealth.

It's a separately funded entity from the BBC's EBU membership AIUI - under which we get access to Eurovision (the network not the contest) and EBU facilities, and news feeds.



It would cost us more to replace it with equivalent programming... (Though less to replace it with a factual repeat)

from ……..
JJDUBOVIE on TWITTER
15-May-2011 @ 18:22

Something which was bugging me - what were those perpex things around the edge of the main stage for?

Looked like they were ducting the low smoke onto the stage to us.

Why they couldn't have been removed when not needed I don't know.

Thanks. Any behind the scenes vids of the set being changed between performances too - quite a logistical challenge I imagine to get the kit off and onto stage in just 45 seconds or so.

Vents for the dry ice for the "moody" numbers I think. Suspect there were too many of them to be set and struck between numbers - and they presumably needed to be pretty well sealed. I guess they were made of transparent acrylic to minimise their appearance?

The last couple of years have used a very clever laser marking system - where lasers project coloured light spots where different bits of set should go - and where performers should stand at the start. Beats a gazillion bits of tape dirtying up a nice glass floor!

Not particularaly when you've got two ramps and almost everything is on wheels. One crew dash on stage and push the previous act down one ramp off stage, while another crew push the stuff for the next act up the other ramp and onto stage. They were using a laser again to provide virtual tape-marks to indicate where each bit of kit goes, so to get the stuff on you just push until it lines up with the marks, and then run off stage.

Ola, who normally does the production blogs, was there in a smaller role this year, and did this - http://www.eurovisionfamily.tv/user/Ola+Melzig/blog/

All I can say the set looked magnificant from inside the Dusseldorf Arena, where I watched it live. The right-hand side white perspex thing helped form the mini stage where the presenters did their links.

And sitting 5 rows from the stage I had an absolute blast - great show, great production.

Regarding the LED backdrop, I can see the pro's and con's when you compare it to last year's lights show. In fact, I thought some of the images on the LED screens made the stage look as if it went further back than it actually did. The Pillars during Greece's performance for instance.

So the show was broadcast live in Australia including a televote. Does anyone have any caps of the graphics used down under?

Yep - I have a feeling the set and stage looked better in the stadium than it did on-camera at times. There is always a balance to be had between designing a stage for the auditorium (and getting buzz and atmosphere) and designing it for TV. This year I think the design favoured those in the auditorium and the TV wide shots (a la X Factor), whereas for truly stunning viewing at home you really need to design the set for coverage purposes (including some killer close-ups and some involving shots), and I don't think Dusseldorf quite got there on those terms.

Don't get me wrong - it was an slick show and a very well executed set - I just don't think it quite delivered as much as it could to the audience at home. Moscow in 2009 delivered a breathtaking set with amazing use of LED, and NRK couldn't match that scale, and sensibly didn't bother, and instead innovated in stage design element terms, and delivered amazing variety. Germany didn't really match either of them.

I'm sure it was amazing in the arena - it always will be ! I was lucky enough to go to the semifinal and the final in 2005 in Kiev - and it was a brilliant experience.


Yep - I thought Germany absolutely nailed the LED for Lena's performance, and I loved the songs that didn't use it as a video screen and instead used it more as an animating star cloth, mainly filled with black and sparkles. Austria (which was like watching an X Factor winners song performance) was very well done in that manner I thought.

Where Dusseldorf didn't deliver for me was in coverage, and presentation. I agree the graphics were very slick, and I thought the tilt-shift postcards were beautiful - but do we need postcards these days? I loved the way NRK "never left the arena" with their virtual countries, flags and video screens. I also thought that the interval act was a very poor choice. I'm sure it was brilliant in the arena, where no doubt the performers were household names, but compared to the NRK Flash Mob dance - it just didn't have the jaw drop factor. I know loads of people who aren't huge Eurovision fans but watch for some fun were blown away by last year's interval. Simply a great idea amazingly executed - and presumably the cost of it was covered by not having to do anything clever for post cards?

I suspect Norway spent less than Germany, but delivered a better show... (Maybe having a real venue helped in Oslo?)