TOTH had Susanna's
'Good Morning Britain'
line, in vision, with a wide shot of the desk. Then the headline sequence played out as normal. There's also a tweak to the split-screen.
Wide shot idea is good, it brings the whole 'one team' idea together. Could've been executed a lot better though, having the ITV fold on a monitor zoomed in so that the fold is full frame. Then have the camera, ‘steadicam’ probably, to pull back for Susanna to do her line and then wipe to the top story. The line could be revised too to be honest…
I'm not crazy about the new TOTH. I don't think there is any thing wrong with the idea of it but it wasn't executed very well. Ben was looking over his notes and I think it would have looked better if we didn't have the camera move into shot and rather have it positioned directly in the middle with all presenters looking forward and then "Good Morning Britain". With the name tag coming up it made it feel rushed IMO and that would probably go better after the intro. With all that said I think I prefer the old way I don't like how it was "welcome to the programme" yet the titles still had to air, and before everyone goes many shows have a pre-title open it don't think it works for GMB. Having the "Good Morning Britain, [insert headlines]" just flows more easily for me.
I'm not crazy about the new TOTH. I don't think there is any thing wrong with the idea of it but it wasn't executed very well. Ben was looking over his notes and I think it would have looked better if we didn't have the camera move into shot and rather have it positioned directly in the middle with all presenters looking forward and then "Good Morning Britain". With the name tag coming up it made it feel rushed IMO and that would probably go better after the intro. With all that said I think I prefer the old way I don't like how it was "welcome to the programme" yet the titles still had to air, and before everyone goes many shows have a pre-title open it don't think it works for GMB. Having the "Good Morning Britain, [insert headlines]" just flows more easily for me.
It wasn't bad, I agree it didn't look very good ben sifting through his notes. Its like he looked up, and was like oh we're on air! Theres nothing wrong with the moving camera but I feel they should leave the name-strap until after the headlines, it doesn't seem to fit in there.
I'm not crazy about the new TOTH. I don't think there is any thing wrong with the idea of it but it wasn't executed very well. Ben was looking over his notes and I think it would have looked better if we didn't have the camera move into shot and rather have it positioned directly in the middle with all presenters looking forward and then "Good Morning Britain". With the name tag coming up it made it feel rushed IMO and that would probably go better after the intro. With all that said I think I prefer the old way I don't like how it was "welcome to the programme" yet the titles still had to air, and before everyone goes many shows have a pre-title open it don't think it works for GMB. Having the "Good Morning Britain, [insert headlines]" just flows more easily for me.
It wasn't bad, I agree it didn't look very good ben sifting through his notes. Its like he looked up, and was like oh we're on air!
Theres nothing wrong with the moving camera
but I feel they should leave the name-strap until after the headlines, it doesn't seem to fit in there.
I suppose there isn't if it's done right and for me it looked a bit weird. The long shot like the one used here looks good IMO:
I just don't like that it's supposed to be a quick fire thing but we see the ITV transition and then a move and the presenter saying "welcome to the programme" I just think save it for later.
Nothing groundbreaking with the "new" opening, but at least they're trying new things out.
This is the whole
if it ain't broke don't fix it
thing, I have never heard any one go "the opening is appalling, you can't see who is talking to you". It was always fine and although I'm open to them changing it up you suggest the old had faults.
Nothing groundbreaking with the "new" opening, but at least they're trying new things out.
This is the whole
if it ain't broke don't fix it
thing, I have never heard any one go "the opening is appalling, you can't see who is talking to you". It was always fine and although I'm open to them changing it up you suggest the old had faults.
I'm not quite sure how you worked out that I'm suggesting that the old opening had faults. 2+2=8?
I simply pointed out that it is nice to see them trying new things out - with any part of the programme. Of course, if it ain't broke... But then again how do progress if you don't do new things?
Nothing groundbreaking with the "new" opening, but at least they're trying new things out.
This is the whole
if it ain't broke don't fix it
thing, I have never heard any one go "the opening is appalling, you can't see who is talking to you". It was always fine and although I'm open to them changing it up you suggest the old had faults.
I'm not quite sure how you worked out that I'm suggesting that the old opening had faults. 2+2=8?
I simply pointed out that it is nice to see them trying new things out - with any part of the programme. Of course, if it ain't broke... But then again how do progress if you don't do new things?
It was just your use of "at least" as though to imply what I was suggesting.
