DU
Totally agree!
I wouldn't say it's the worst, but it's certinally overhyped and made out to be much better than it is.
You're all so wrong.
I saw Episode 1 of Series 1 again the other week on BBC Two (late night).
Nearly pissed myself laughing.
You either 'get it' and love it immensely or don't get it and hate it.
Chalk and cheese- nothing in the middle.
james2001 posted:
TVF posted:
GarryMc posted:
No. TV's worst sitcom is The Office.
Totally agree!
I wouldn't say it's the worst, but it's certinally overhyped and made out to be much better than it is.
You're all so wrong.
I saw Episode 1 of Series 1 again the other week on BBC Two (late night).
Nearly pissed myself laughing.
You either 'get it' and love it immensely or don't get it and hate it.
Chalk and cheese- nothing in the middle.
HA
Yep it's annoying really, they should have invested some time and effort into getting UKTV to broadcast some 16:9 programmes, and improving the content of UK Gold, but no they have spend six months with BumbleBee to produce more on screen clutter.
harshy
Founding member
james2001 posted:
Yuk, that looks awful. Can't they just let us watch the programmes and assume we're all smart anough to use the EPG to find out what's next? My mum does that instinctivly when a programme ends. I just don't see what they're trying to achieve with these things, something like that is very likely to annoy even your average viewer who doesn't usually care about such things. Me? It looks like I'll be avoiding the UKTV Channels even more. It's such a shame this shíte is spreading accross channels like wildfire. Seems like everyone's ignoring the overhwelmingly negative response to the the BBC's in programme pointers.
Yep it's annoying really, they should have invested some time and effort into getting UKTV to broadcast some 16:9 programmes, and improving the content of UK Gold, but no they have spend six months with BumbleBee to produce more on screen clutter.
GM
nodnirG kraM
GarryMc posted:
No. TV's worst sitcom is The Office.
Love the balanced, reasoned debate we get on this forum!
GS
I don't mind it. It is similar to, but slightly smaller than, the images shown on the previous page.
The placement on the bottom of the screen is much less intruding than at the top, although your eye is drawn to it nonetheless.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
james2001 posted:
And is it as bad as it sounds?
I don't mind it. It is similar to, but slightly smaller than, the images shown on the previous page.
The placement on the bottom of the screen is much less intruding than at the top, although your eye is drawn to it nonetheless.
JA
james2001
Founding member
The big problem with this is that it can only get worse from here. It's going to open the floodgates for more channels to use this crap, and the stuff that is there is going to get worse. And I think that using something like this shows that they have a very low opinion of their viewers- saying they need big flashy in-your-face graphics or they won't know what's on. It's patronising, and it's manly that reason I refuse to watch the channels. You wouldn't continue to use a shop where all the staff treated you like idiots, why shoyld you watch a channel that's essentially doing the same?
GS
I'm sure you will hate me for saying it, but I really do find some of these on screen pointers quite useful.
I'm afraid I really don't plan my viewing and, but for a few strong fixtures in the schedules, I simply browse my way through an evening's telly.
Last night I caught, "The Judas Gospel" on National Geographic. Fascinating programme, that I only became aware of about an hour before it aired. I would have been directed to it by some pointer/trail or other marketing device and I'm very glad I was.
Let's keep it in perspective. An on screen pointer lasts about 15 seconds within a programme. They are *going* to happen on a network of several channels. They would be stupid not to attempt to retain as much audience share as possible.
Its not so bad having it at the bottom of the screen, so its not such a big deal.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
james2001 posted:
The big problem with this is that it can only get worse from here. It's going to open the floodgates for more channels to use this crap, and the stuff that is there is going to get worse. And I think that using something like this shows that they have a very low opinion of their viewers- saying they need big flashy in-your-face graphics or they won't know what's on. It's patronising, and it's manly that reason I refuse to watch the channels. You wouldn't continue to use a shop where all the staff treated you like idiots, why shoyld you watch a channel that's essentially doing the same?
I'm sure you will hate me for saying it, but I really do find some of these on screen pointers quite useful.
I'm afraid I really don't plan my viewing and, but for a few strong fixtures in the schedules, I simply browse my way through an evening's telly.
Last night I caught, "The Judas Gospel" on National Geographic. Fascinating programme, that I only became aware of about an hour before it aired. I would have been directed to it by some pointer/trail or other marketing device and I'm very glad I was.
Let's keep it in perspective. An on screen pointer lasts about 15 seconds within a programme. They are *going* to happen on a network of several channels. They would be stupid not to attempt to retain as much audience share as possible.
Its not so bad having it at the bottom of the screen, so its not such a big deal.
BI
Maybe it's just me, but I think they could a just as good job with strategically palced trails & announcements over the idents before programmes. Something like Sky One does just before going into the final part of a programme with a menu showing what on now, next & after. Possibly adding the same infor for other channels in the network to a similar slide would do a much better job. I'd personally prefer a credit squeeze- at least they do not intrude on the programmes themselves.
I personally do not know of a single person who ha actually changed their viewing plan because of an in programme pointer. They usually look through the EPG- they're certinally aware of what's next on the channel because it pops up when you change channel. And the fact is, if you don't want to watch something, no amount of IPPs or flashy graphics are going to change that. And let's not forget the rapid increase in the prevalance of SKY+ & other PVRs- rendering these graphics useless anyway.
Personally, I think if they are going to use them, then they shuold be coming out of advert breaks, not at the end of a show. At least at that point, you aren't immersed in a programme and therefore it's not distracting your attention or ruining the atmosphere.
And I personally think the experience of IPPs on BBC1 & 2 is proof enough that viewers don't like them, otherwise they wouldn't have been featured on Points of View (noticably without a single comment in their favour, either on the show or the POV website), and they wouldn't have dropped their use.
Personally, I think the people who come up with these ideas are seriously misguided to believe that people don't find these things distracting, or that they even make a significant different to viewing figures (sure, maybe the odd person watches a show because of an IPP, but it's doubtful to be significant amount of viewers). And the big flashy ones, with moving video screens are more likely to alienate and annoy viewers, even the ones who wouldn't usually care about these things. And there's the fact we've gone for years without needing these things, why do they suddenly think they need them now? Quite simply, if a channel is showing programmes people want to see then people are going to watch them regardless of graphics. And if a channel is showing crap people don't want to watch, no amount of in-programme promotion is going to change that.
I personally do not know of a single person who ha actually changed their viewing plan because of an in programme pointer. They usually look through the EPG- they're certinally aware of what's next on the channel because it pops up when you change channel. And the fact is, if you don't want to watch something, no amount of IPPs or flashy graphics are going to change that. And let's not forget the rapid increase in the prevalance of SKY+ & other PVRs- rendering these graphics useless anyway.
Personally, I think if they are going to use them, then they shuold be coming out of advert breaks, not at the end of a show. At least at that point, you aren't immersed in a programme and therefore it's not distracting your attention or ruining the atmosphere.
And I personally think the experience of IPPs on BBC1 & 2 is proof enough that viewers don't like them, otherwise they wouldn't have been featured on Points of View (noticably without a single comment in their favour, either on the show or the POV website), and they wouldn't have dropped their use.
Personally, I think the people who come up with these ideas are seriously misguided to believe that people don't find these things distracting, or that they even make a significant different to viewing figures (sure, maybe the odd person watches a show because of an IPP, but it's doubtful to be significant amount of viewers). And the big flashy ones, with moving video screens are more likely to alienate and annoy viewers, even the ones who wouldn't usually care about these things. And there's the fact we've gone for years without needing these things, why do they suddenly think they need them now? Quite simply, if a channel is showing programmes people want to see then people are going to watch them regardless of graphics. And if a channel is showing crap people don't want to watch, no amount of in-programme promotion is going to change that.