TV Home Forum

Eurovision 2011 - 10/12/14 May 2011

Dusseldorf (May 2010)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
NG
noggin Founding member
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.


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.

Yep.

Was it me or were there fewer bespoke bits of staging for different numbers than previous years - and those that were there were smaller scale? I'm thinking back to Jade Ewen having a staircase, Ukraine having lots of light boxes for Shady Lady, Ukraine having large steel wheels, Sakis from Greece having the lifting travelator etc. Felt smaller scale in those terms - in fact the actual performance area on the stage felt smaller as well?

Quote:

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/


Yep - doesn't Ola usually manage the stage and lighting build - but I think he's related to the Nordic broadcasters (he's Swedish I think) - so has been involved in most contests in recent years (as Swedish/Norwegian/Finnish broadcasters have effectively provided a lot of the production teams and facilities over the last 10 years or so with the exception of Athens and Dusseldorf)

As he presumably wasn't involved with the German teams (they will presumably have done the set and light with local teams) he had time to blog?
BO
squawkBOX
What a fab fab event! I was there in person for the jury final and the grand final and they were fantastic.

For the jury final I was stage left, so got a good close view of the stage and a lot of the production elements and for the final I was at the back of the arena just above the floor (better for enjoying the event).

They didn't rehearse the confetti and streamers and as you can see, it put the spidercam out of action!

http://imageshack.us/m/839/3295/572642886685aba715a5z.jpg

It is interesting watching the feed back on BBC ONE HD and comparing to the internal video, it is funny how different the uncompressed feed can be compared to the end seen by the BBC.

The audio was brilliant in the hall. The levels were great and it wasn't ear poppingly loud.

I loved the voting setup and the split videowall screen:
http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/9166/57263600041ee1a49243b.jpg
DV
DVB Cornwall
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev received Eldar and Nigar

The President congratulated the winners of ESC-2011 on the brilliant victory

President Ilham Aliyev and his spouse Mehriban Aliyeva received the winners of Eurovision Song Contest 2011 held in Düsseldorf, Germany. The Head of State and President of Heydar Aliyev Foundation, First Lady of Azerbaijan Mehriban Aliyeva congratulated the representatives and wished them successes in their activity.

from ……..

EN.ITV.AZ/EUROVISION_SONG_CONTEST_2011
16-May-2011 @ 20:41
NE
Neo

Was it me or were there fewer bespoke bits of staging for different numbers than previous years - and those that were there were smaller scale? I'm thinking back to Jade Ewen having a staircase, Ukraine having lots of light boxes for Shady Lady, Ukraine having large steel wheels, Sakis from Greece having the lifting travelator etc. Felt smaller scale in those terms - in fact the actual performance area on the stage felt smaller as well?

Yes, I think so, the previous few years (especially 2008-2009, but also 2010) have had a lot bigger set pieces and the stages looked bigger too. I think the biggest (and one of the few) set pieces this year were some smallish boxes that were supposed to be buildings for Rockerfeller Street/Estonia.
Last edited by Neo on 17 May 2011 6:42am - 4 times in total
NE
Neo

Only major complaint is the obsession with Twitter/Facebook this year - they go to all the effort of blocking out the Vodafone logo but think nothing of mentioning Twitter/Facebook about 30 times over the evening.


Twitter and Facebook are free to join and millions of people are already on them. It makes absolutely sense for the BBC to use a platform that their viewers are already engaging with to allow them to get in touch, rather than waste the licence fee developing their own version of Twitter that nobody would use. Plus, every time the Twitter and Facebook addresses were mentioned, so was the BBC Eurovision site where people could also leave comments.

The BBC is supposed to be free of advertising. Blanking out logos of a phone company and then showing on screen "Twitter.com" etc. and talking about Twitter/Facebook all the time doesn't make sense. The BBC shouldn't be advertising Twitter.com or Facebook at all. There are other ways for people to get in touch with the BBC if they want them to.
OV
Orry Verducci
Neo posted:
The BBC is supposed to be free of advertising. Blanking out logos of a phone company and then showing on screen "Twitter.com" etc. and talking about Twitter/Facebook all the time doesn't make sense. The BBC shouldn't be advertising Twitter.com or Facebook at all. There are other ways for people to get in touch with the BBC if they want them to.

The BBC is supposed to be free of paid advertising, and when any brands are shown they aren't supposed to give them undue prominance.

Therefore they can't show the Eurovision sponsorship, such as the Vodafone logo, as they have paid the EBU which the BBC is part of for their logos to be displayed and given priority over their competitors.

The social network sites on the other hand haven't paid the BBC to use and promote them, and none of them are given priority over the others, so for example Twitter and Facebook along with the BBC website were given equal advertising. Also they weren't advertising the services themselves at all, they just mearly provided new easy ways to contact them over these services if the viewers just happen to be members of them, which I imagine a good number are these days.
NE
Neo
Therefore they can't show the Eurovision sponsorship, such as the Vodafone logo, as they have paid the EBU which the BBC is part of for their logos to be displayed and given priority over their competitors.

What about when they broadcast the Orange BAFTA Film Awards, sponsored by Orange, with the Orange logo and name appearing on the podium throughout the programme, and they say something like "and here's a special award decided by/given out by Orange", but they blank out a competing phone company on the Eurovision programmes.

Quote:
The social network sites on the other hand haven't paid the BBC to use and promote them, and none of them are given priority over the others, so for example Twitter and Facebook along with the BBC website were given equal advertising. Also they weren't advertising the services themselves at all, they just mearly provided new easy ways to contact them over these services if the viewers just happen to be members of them, which I imagine a good number are these days.

Well nothing's stopping them from saying "email the BBC" or use a particular newsgroup or the open source version of Facebook (there's supposed to be an open source one, not called Facebook) or "contact us at bbc.co.uk" on a certain BBC page. And yes, they could write/help to write/specify their own system, and make it open source if they wanted to.
Last edited by Neo on 17 May 2011 4:31pm - 4 times in total
DV
DVB Cornwall
Sorry, the arguments against Twitter and Facebook are irrational when they are both regarded as prime vehicles for social interaction between firms and their consumers. Open source versions don't stand a chance at present. Using EM to contact the organisation is fine but third parties don't see the interaction which is so useful and available on both SM platforms.

There are clear financial advantages for the BBC to use Facebook and Twitter rather than using their own moderated services, as they realise by shutting down 606 and other in house boards. There's no financial cost to the user either.

The use of developed services is to me logical and sound. The fact that these are commercial has to be accepted that no 'Government' or 'National' agency is going to waste time and resources creating an equivalent or alternative platform, indeed it would be most undesirable in my view for them to engage in such development.
DO
dosxuk
Neo posted:
Well nothing's stopping them from saying "email the BBC" or use a particular newsgroup or the open source version of Facebook (there's supposed to be an open source one, not called Facebook) or "contact us at bbc.co.uk" on a certain BBC page. And yes, they could write/help to write/specify their own system, and make it open source if they wanted to.


What does open source have to do with anything? Are you saying they should start advertising Android on all their programmes because it's open source? I think you're forgetting the number one reason the BBC are now using these social networks - because everyone else is. There's no point creating their (open sourced?) own version of Facebook simply to allow viewers to contact them - it would be an obscene waste of the license fee.

Do you have a problem when they show aerial photos of London in the Apprentice and you can clearly recognise the BT logo at the top of BT Tower?
NE
Neo
What does open source have to do with anything?

It isn't advertising a particular company.
Quote:

Are you saying they should start advertising Android on all their programmes because it's open source?

No they shouldn't advertise a particular company. They should say "message us at the BBC" or something. Email doesn't need to use one specific company, nor do the other options I mentioned.
Quote:

I think you're forgetting the number one reason the BBC are now using these social networks - because everyone else is. There's no point creating their (open sourced?) own version of Facebook

There's no point them creating their own open-source version of Facebook - someone else already has created an open-source version of it. But they don't need to create/use a program like Facebook when there are lots of other ways people could message the BBC.
Quote:

simply to allow viewers to contact them - it would be an obscene waste of the license fee.

The BBC are always writing new apps, etc. I don't see why it would be a lot more expensive to do something like that, or ask a group of open source coders to do something to their specifications, which would cost about nothing. But like I said, there's plenty of ways people could send messages to the BBC already, without using Facebook/Twitter.
Quote:

Do you have a problem when they show aerial photos of London in the Apprentice and you can clearly recognise the BT logo at the top of BT Tower?

Don't know.
Last edited by Neo on 17 May 2011 5:05pm
DO
dosxuk
Neo posted:
Neo posted:
Well nothing's stopping them from saying "email the BBC" or use a particular newsgroup or the open source version of Facebook (there's supposed to be an open source one, not called Facebook) or "contact us at bbc.co.uk" on a certain BBC page. And yes, they could write/help to write/specify their own system, and make it open source if they wanted to.


What does open source have to do with anything?

It isn't advertising a particular company.
Quote:

Are you saying they should start advertising Android on all their programmes because it's open source?

No they shouldn't advertise a particular company. They should say "message us at the BBC" or something. Email doesn't need to use one specific company, nor do the other options I mentioned.


But open source products have brands. Numerous companies are using Android, so advertising it isn't advertising a particular company.

And what exactly does "message us at the BBC" mean? How would viewers react to that? Confusion and uninterest I'd imagine.

Neo posted:
Quote:

I think you're forgetting the number one reason the BBC are now using these social networks - because everyone else is. There's no point creating their (open sourced?) own version of Facebook

There's no point them creating their own open-source version of Facebook - someone else already has created an open-source version of it.


There's an open source version of Facebook, with no brand, which everyone can access immediately, but doesn't have a company behind it?

I'm sorry, but you're talking nonsense. There's no point in putting a caption / voiceover saying "contact us on the open source version of Facebook", because nobody will know what they're talking about, or even "get in contact with us on your favourite social network", because there are hundreds (probably thousands of them) and it would be impossible for one production team to monitor all of them.

I have far more an issue with the "Follow Lord Sugar's thoughts on @bbcapprentice" appearing on the current series of The Apprentice than with them asking for people to contact them on a convienient method (for the viewer).
NE
Neo

There's an open source version of Facebook, with no brand, which everyone can access immediately, but doesn't have a company behind it?

Yes, it's called Diaspora (I think it's still being developed right now though), and it has funding of over $200,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_%28software%29
https://joindiaspora.com/

Quote:
I'm sorry, but you're talking nonsense. There's no point in putting a caption / voiceover saying "contact us on the open source version of Facebook", because nobody will know what they're talking about, or even "get in contact with us on your favourite social network", because there are hundreds (probably thousands of them) and it would be impossible for one production team to monitor all of them.

They can say "email us at eurovision@bbc.co.uk" or contact us at "www.bbc.co.uk/eurovision".
Last edited by Neo on 17 May 2011 5:24pm - 6 times in total

Newer posts