TV
Garraways ego has got the better of her now shes the #1 female presenter. At least Fiona was foot in mouth bad. Kate is just bad.
It will be interesting to see how they approach the impending changes. I can't see them having 2 presenters on air for 2 and a half hours Monday-Thursday and 3 and a half on a Friday. I wouldn't be surprised if LK Today started at 8am and ran through to 9.25am (then they could justify reducing 4 salaries) with the return of Entertainment Today on Fridays (whether or not in a different guise e.g. Richard Arnolds show).
Ain't watched the prog for months.
Can't stand Garraway, or Fiona Phillips, when she was on.
Can't stand Garraway, or Fiona Phillips, when she was on.
Garraways ego has got the better of her now shes the #1 female presenter. At least Fiona was foot in mouth bad. Kate is just bad.
It will be interesting to see how they approach the impending changes. I can't see them having 2 presenters on air for 2 and a half hours Monday-Thursday and 3 and a half on a Friday. I wouldn't be surprised if LK Today started at 8am and ran through to 9.25am (then they could justify reducing 4 salaries) with the return of Entertainment Today on Fridays (whether or not in a different guise e.g. Richard Arnolds show).
Last edited by TV Geek on 3 March 2010 10:32pm
FA
Garraways ego has got the better of her now shes the #1 female presenter. At least Fiona was foot in mouth bad. Kate is just bad.
It will be interesting to see how they approach the impending changes. I can't see them having 2 presenters on air for 2 and a half hours Monday-Thursday and 3 and a half on a Friday. I wouldn't be surprised if LK Today started at 8am and ran through to 9.25am (then they could justify reducing 4 salaries) with the return of Entertainment Today on Fridays (whether or not in a different guise e.g. Richard Arnolds show).
Don't Breakfast go with the same presenters from 6 - 9.15? Wouldn't it be possible that GMTV could do that, surely keeping the current presenters on air longer would justify their salaries.
I think losing Penny is a terrible thing. Are people thinking that she was pushed or jumped before she was?
I think I would have looked to getting rid of some of the others. I do like the idea of the same presenters through the morning, making it feel like one programme. I also like the idea of John Stappleton becoming a senior reporter for big stories. But as stated earlier, why lose the two with most journalistic experience to make the show more serious.
Should it become more serious. I'm not too sure. I think that the programme should be a bright, happy wake up call, and I don't agree that with the credit crunch & 'doom & gloom' Britain that a more serious programme is needed. Surely more people would prefer a programme that can lift their mood whilst reporting the stories.
This may be looking at things with rose tinted glasses, but even this clip... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dmv3EWBH6M shows GMTV to be a better programme in my eyes, and this was only August 2008. Even Penny at her podium desk, and for some reason after not seeing it for a while, the set looks lovely.
Ain't watched the prog for months.
Can't stand Garraway, or Fiona Phillips, when she was on.
Can't stand Garraway, or Fiona Phillips, when she was on.
Garraways ego has got the better of her now shes the #1 female presenter. At least Fiona was foot in mouth bad. Kate is just bad.
It will be interesting to see how they approach the impending changes. I can't see them having 2 presenters on air for 2 and a half hours Monday-Thursday and 3 and a half on a Friday. I wouldn't be surprised if LK Today started at 8am and ran through to 9.25am (then they could justify reducing 4 salaries) with the return of Entertainment Today on Fridays (whether or not in a different guise e.g. Richard Arnolds show).
Don't Breakfast go with the same presenters from 6 - 9.15? Wouldn't it be possible that GMTV could do that, surely keeping the current presenters on air longer would justify their salaries.
I think losing Penny is a terrible thing. Are people thinking that she was pushed or jumped before she was?
I think I would have looked to getting rid of some of the others. I do like the idea of the same presenters through the morning, making it feel like one programme. I also like the idea of John Stappleton becoming a senior reporter for big stories. But as stated earlier, why lose the two with most journalistic experience to make the show more serious.
Should it become more serious. I'm not too sure. I think that the programme should be a bright, happy wake up call, and I don't agree that with the credit crunch & 'doom & gloom' Britain that a more serious programme is needed. Surely more people would prefer a programme that can lift their mood whilst reporting the stories.
This may be looking at things with rose tinted glasses, but even this clip... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dmv3EWBH6M shows GMTV to be a better programme in my eyes, and this was only August 2008. Even Penny at her podium desk, and for some reason after not seeing it for a while, the set looks lovely.
DA
Davidjb
Founding member
Hmm must admit I think ITV have gone and really put another nail in the coffin for GMTV. They want a more serious news agenda yet there letting go the two people who bring a more serious feel to the program. Kate Garroway has nothing more than an ego to feed, can't stand her really, nothing credible about her at all. Emma is better than Kate but still not really an asset to the program. My bet is once Penny & Jon have gone (ok reduced hours for Jon) the ratings will dip further.
TO
I can't believe Penny has been cut! 
GMTV just won't be the same without her, there will be no more of her fantastic little quips in a morning. Personally, I would have liked Emma to have gone, (I knew that was highly unlikely) I find her very patronising at times and her laugh really grates on me
GMTV just won't be the same without her, there will be no more of her fantastic little quips in a morning. Personally, I would have liked Emma to have gone, (I knew that was highly unlikely) I find her very patronising at times and her laugh really grates on me
JO
Wrong bloody decision.
So they want to have a sense of 'news' with the programme, so they decide to axe the two presenters with the most credibility in terms of journalism. I find it laughable the show wants to become more newsy, while also keeping Ben behind the desk. I mean seriously, he is ridiculous in terms of presenting any news items. They should have sacked him, he has a lot to fall back on. Bring somebody like Nick Dixon in to be a presenter, he has a lot of personality and is a better journalist than Ben will ever be. Him and Emma would be a great little duo.
Chuck Kate on the Friday slot with Andrew.
So they want to have a sense of 'news' with the programme, so they decide to axe the two presenters with the most credibility in terms of journalism. I find it laughable the show wants to become more newsy, while also keeping Ben behind the desk. I mean seriously, he is ridiculous in terms of presenting any news items. They should have sacked him, he has a lot to fall back on. Bring somebody like Nick Dixon in to be a presenter, he has a lot of personality and is a better journalist than Ben will ever be. Him and Emma would be a great little duo.
Chuck Kate on the Friday slot with Andrew.
TV
It would be possible- I'm just not sure they will. ITV don't seem to allow their presenters to work 5 day weeks with 2 hour shows as it is!
The cynical side of me is thinking that if the ratings dip further, then ITV can justify applying to OFCOM for a merger of GMTV and ITV1 on the grounds that GMTV is losing profitability as a stand alone station. Then hello ITV News at Breakfast.
To rescue GMTV they don't need to make massive changes but they do need to make the right choices, and this isn't one of them. This time last year This Morning was a sinking ship, and a new presenter and a tweaked look later and their audience is up 20%.
Don't Breakfast go with the same presenters from 6 - 9.15? Wouldn't it be possible that GMTV could do that, surely keeping the current presenters on air longer would justify their salaries.
It would be possible- I'm just not sure they will. ITV don't seem to allow their presenters to work 5 day weeks with 2 hour shows as it is!
The cynical side of me is thinking that if the ratings dip further, then ITV can justify applying to OFCOM for a merger of GMTV and ITV1 on the grounds that GMTV is losing profitability as a stand alone station. Then hello ITV News at Breakfast.
To rescue GMTV they don't need to make massive changes but they do need to make the right choices, and this isn't one of them. This time last year This Morning was a sinking ship, and a new presenter and a tweaked look later and their audience is up 20%.
JO
Well, who is the Holly Willougby of the news world at the moment?
Quote:
To rescue GMTV they don't need to make massive changes but they do need to make the right choices, and this isn't one of them. This time last year This Morning was a sinking ship, and a new presenter and a tweaked look later and their audience is up 20%.
Well, who is the Holly Willougby of the news world at the moment?
TV
Well, who is the Holly Willougby of the news world at the moment?
I don't think its so much Holly as a name which is the reason for the ratings rise, more that she works well with Phil. They've done nothing to the format, its identical to how it was this time last year. What GMTV really needs to do is recapture a great pairing which it hasn't had since Eamonn & Fiona, and none of the current 4 are hardly going to be able to do that.
Quote:
To rescue GMTV they don't need to make massive changes but they do need to make the right choices, and this isn't one of them. This time last year This Morning was a sinking ship, and a new presenter and a tweaked look later and their audience is up 20%.
Well, who is the Holly Willougby of the news world at the moment?
I don't think its so much Holly as a name which is the reason for the ratings rise, more that she works well with Phil. They've done nothing to the format, its identical to how it was this time last year. What GMTV really needs to do is recapture a great pairing which it hasn't had since Eamonn & Fiona, and none of the current 4 are hardly going to be able to do that.
NE
The cynical side of me is thinking that if the ratings dip further, then ITV can justify applying to OFCOM for a merger of GMTV and ITV1 on the grounds that GMTV is losing profitability as a stand alone station. Then hello ITV News at Breakfast.
Your post doesn't make sense -GMTV has effectively merged with ITV( well ITV buying the remaining 25%), so they can change the name regardless - they don't need Ofcom's permission. They just couldn't do it before as they didn't own all of it. But i can't see them changing the name anyway - even their not that stupid!!
The only thing they can't really change is the times ( as technically it's still a separate license.)
The cynical side of me is thinking that if the ratings dip further, then ITV can justify applying to OFCOM for a merger of GMTV and ITV1 on the grounds that GMTV is losing profitability as a stand alone station. Then hello ITV News at Breakfast.
Your post doesn't make sense -GMTV has effectively merged with ITV( well ITV buying the remaining 25%), so they can change the name regardless - they don't need Ofcom's permission. They just couldn't do it before as they didn't own all of it. But i can't see them changing the name anyway - even their not that stupid!!
The only thing they can't really change is the times ( as technically it's still a separate license.)
TV
Because if they merge it with ITV1 they can effectively cut costs even further. GMTV is still a separate broadcaster with its own quota to fill, which they'd also be able to appeal against and would possibly be able to cut the running time. If ITV News was to take over the breakfast slot, as GMTV is technically a separate channel, there would have to be a new contract in place (more money from ITVs pocket). It also makes more sense to have one consistent news provider rather than running a smaller organisation which is much weaker. And they probably won't be able to justify axing GMTV whilst its fairly popular.
With ITV News broadcasting on ITV1 (and not GMTV) at breakfast time, they get all of their correspondents and presenters practically free of charge, whereas if it was ITV News on GMTV, all of the correspondents and presenters effectively become freelance which enables them to get work elsewhere whilst being at ITV/GMTV, hence losing their 'faces'. And having the ITV News team on the morning of a big story is far better than what they currently have. They'll be able to compete with the BBC and Sky for coverage, and not have Gloria De Piero talking on a phone whilst on the M25.
Its all fairly complicated and confusing, but I'm guessing in the long term its best for ITV to run ITV1 as a 24 hour channel, which by the sounds of it they'll be doing in all but technicalities and wasting unnecessary money.
Your post doesn't make sense -GMTV has effectively merged with ITV( well ITV buying the remaining 25%), so they can change the name regardless - they don't need Ofcom's permission. They just couldn't do it before as they didn't own all of it. But i can't see them changing the name anyway - even their not that stupid!!
The only thing they can't really change is the times ( as technically it's still a separate license.)
The only thing they can't really change is the times ( as technically it's still a separate license.)
Because if they merge it with ITV1 they can effectively cut costs even further. GMTV is still a separate broadcaster with its own quota to fill, which they'd also be able to appeal against and would possibly be able to cut the running time. If ITV News was to take over the breakfast slot, as GMTV is technically a separate channel, there would have to be a new contract in place (more money from ITVs pocket). It also makes more sense to have one consistent news provider rather than running a smaller organisation which is much weaker. And they probably won't be able to justify axing GMTV whilst its fairly popular.
With ITV News broadcasting on ITV1 (and not GMTV) at breakfast time, they get all of their correspondents and presenters practically free of charge, whereas if it was ITV News on GMTV, all of the correspondents and presenters effectively become freelance which enables them to get work elsewhere whilst being at ITV/GMTV, hence losing their 'faces'. And having the ITV News team on the morning of a big story is far better than what they currently have. They'll be able to compete with the BBC and Sky for coverage, and not have Gloria De Piero talking on a phone whilst on the M25.
Its all fairly complicated and confusing, but I'm guessing in the long term its best for ITV to run ITV1 as a 24 hour channel, which by the sounds of it they'll be doing in all but technicalities and wasting unnecessary money.
Last edited by TV Geek on 4 March 2010 12:10am