Don't watch it very often, but the changes that GMB have made are ghastly. That desk is just awful, it's like a receptionists desk at a dental practice. The whole studio looks far too clinical now. The 2015 studio was warm and inviting, this studio update is really cold and off putting.
Agree completely with you (daybreakfan45) about the desk. Look at the old desk and the new desk side by side and you can see how dull and grey it now looks.
Agree completely with you (daybreakfan45) about the desk. Look at the old desk and the new desk side by side and you can see how dull and grey it now looks.
It was lit up really nicely and looked bright and modern (though I still preferred the original desk) but now it just looks drab and awful.
The studio looks so cold in the second picture. These tweaks have made the studio worse as it just looks so dull now. The only improvement is the new weather screen.
Agree completely with you (daybreakfan45) about the desk. Look at the old desk and the new desk side by side and you can see how dull and grey it now looks.
It was lit up really nicely and looked bright and modern (though I still preferred the original desk) but now it just looks drab and awful.
The studio looks so cold in the second picture. These tweaks have made the studio worse as it just looks so dull now. The only improvement is the new weather screen.
It isn't neccesarily the set tweaks that make it look cold, but it's the lighting. They are capable of changing the tone of the studio lights slightly to make it look warmer. It improved later in the week.
It isn't neccesarily the set tweaks that make it look cold, but it's the lighting. They are capable of changing the tone of the studio lights slightly to make it look warmer. It improved later in the week.
You're right, it looks better in that tweet and could be improved even further if with better lighting, but the removal of the wood in the weather area still makes it look colder than before. They will probably mess with the lighting over time to see what looks best.
So either I'm missing a newer thread - in which case apologies, feel free to move this to a newer one or delete the comment - but comment on Good Morning Britain seems to have come to a standstill on here. And I'm tempted to suggestion that's a good sign for the show.
People are more likely to complain than praise, and more likely to spot glaring flaws than go "Hmm, that's working alright". And it does seem that GMB has now settled into a decent little groove. It now seems to be able to balance the serious news with the pseudo-This Morning style and celeb fluff in a far better way, and like him or not Piers and Susanna do have chemistry and provide an alternative to the BBC's far straighter set-up.
It certainly not perfect - the reports from the US demonstrated the limited resources they have to play with versus the BBC, and the insistence that there had been a controlled explosion (despite it becoming quite clear early doors that wasn't precisely the case - a robot was in the process of disarming it when it blew up) raise a few doubts in your head in terms of reliability, although to be fair the situation wasn't entirely clear.
However, they now seem comfortable in the set-up, able to have a bit of a laugh, and change gears - ultra-serious to ridiculous - without too much hassle. Much improved I reckon.
So either I'm missing a newer thread - in which case apologies, feel free to move this to a newer one or delete the comment - but comment on Good Morning Britain seems to have come to a standstill on here. And I'm tempted to suggestion that's a good sign for the show.
People are more likely to complain than praise, and more likely to spot glaring flaws than go "Hmm, that's working alright". And it does seem that GMB has now settled into a decent little groove. It now seems to be able to balance the serious news with the pseudo-This Morning style and celeb fluff in a far better way, and like him or not Piers and Susanna do have chemistry and provide an alternative to the BBC's far straighter set-up.
It certainly not perfect - the reports from the US demonstrated the limited resources they have to play with versus the BBC, and the insistence that there had been a controlled explosion (despite it becoming quite clear early doors that wasn't precisely the case - a robot was in the process of disarming it when it blew up) raise a few doubts in your head in terms of reliability, although to be fair the situation wasn't entirely clear.
However, they now seem comfortable in the set-up, able to have a bit of a laugh, and change gears - ultra-serious to ridiculous - without too much hassle. Much improved I reckon.
I agree what you say, I think it's more watchable than the BBC Brekie, even though GMB does now and again go over top on showbiz features I.e. The 2016 oscars special. Despite the ratings, the show is getting a lot publicity at the moment as they have such a controversial figure on it, that is Piers Morgan, who is not everybody's cup a tea, for once ITV Breakfast are sticking to there guns with the line up.
Despite the ratings, the show is getting a lot publicity at the moment as they have such a controversial figure on it, that is Piers Morgan, who is not everybody's cup a tea, for once ITV Breakfast are sticking to there guns with the line up.
Are they getting publicity of the right kind, and is it possibly only from people with vested interests?
BBC Breakfast don't seem to harp on about their presenters with somewhat inane PR articles in the Daily Mail or elsewhere.
Isn't it worrying that GMB have PR articles promoting the
unpopular
nature of one of their main presenters?
Is that
really
the best way to promote a programme: "Our judgement can be misguided - just look at our badly chosen presenters".
It's not really selling professionalism to me, just a cheap gimmick.
