PT
I seem to remember moaning about this last year. Its a shame as it isn't live anymore as the editing down just ruins it.
IS
It hasn't been live for many years, possibly not since the disasterous first one
It not being live is probably a good thing, just look at the mess that the British Comedy Awards gets into every year by being live.
BTW anyone know who that bloke was that got on stage during the Kaiser Chiefs (think it was them) award
nok32uk posted:
I seem to remember moaning about this last year. Its a shame as it isn't live anymore as the editing down just ruins it.
It hasn't been live for many years, possibly not since the disasterous first one
It not being live is probably a good thing, just look at the mess that the British Comedy Awards gets into every year by being live.
BTW anyone know who that bloke was that got on stage during the Kaiser Chiefs (think it was them) award
CD
This forum is for discussing television presentation and I do believe filmic effects would fall under that category. Not that I would be one of these people you call 'freaks' to be posting about filmic effects, but there are a lot of bright people out there who have a keen interest in the directorial aspect of a programme and I'm sure a lot of people appreciate their views even if you do not.
JCB posted:
I can't believe we're now 1hr in and not one freak has complained about the filmic effect! This time last year there was about 3 pages full of whining 
This forum is for discussing television presentation and I do believe filmic effects would fall under that category. Not that I would be one of these people you call 'freaks' to be posting about filmic effects, but there are a lot of bright people out there who have a keen interest in the directorial aspect of a programme and I'm sure a lot of people appreciate their views even if you do not.
PT
No guests for the ITV2 show then?
Middlemissmuffet overload!
Didn't realise Peter Kay did the v/o's on the main show. I thought it was his namesake Vernon.
Middlemissmuffet overload!
Didn't realise Peter Kay did the v/o's on the main show. I thought it was his namesake Vernon.
JA
james2001
Founding member
Especially people like me who does producing/directing on an amature level and would hope to be professional one day. Looking at it the way I do, it saddens me that so many so-called "professionals" clearly don't care about the overall presentation of their work, and just want to slap something on haphazardly, just because everyone else is. I am happy (and indeed do) to sit up to 3AM twiddling in Premiere Pro making sure my work comes out decent. Slapping on film effects because everyone else does it isn't a good enough reason to use it. From a production/diectorial viewpoint, it just makes it look shoddy, especially with the awful motion blur they're using- a straight film look would be a hundred times better, but it still shouldn't be there. It's an awards ceremony, not an big-budget action drama. The sooner they follow the Smash Hits Poll Winners & the MTV VMAs and ditch the film look, the better
DA
I only knew because they were kicking up a big fuss about him recording the links in Manchester, rather than London. From that, they assumed that meant he wouldn't be going to the awards, even though he did.
nok32uk posted:
Didn't realise Peter Kay did the v/o's on the main show. I thought it was his namesake Vernon.
I only knew because they were kicking up a big fuss about him recording the links in Manchester, rather than London.
From that, they assumed that meant he wouldn't be going to the awards, even though he did.
JA
I don't think they used the filmic effect 'just because eveyone else does'. It genuinely makes a production look a lot richer, like a lot of money has been ploughed into it. It makes it look like they have the same big budget as films do.
I personally do not have a problem with it, I think it makes things like this look better - mind you I suppose the output could look a lot different on an old TV, possibly making it look worse, but when viewed on a big 32-inch screen it looks superb.
Onto the Brit Awards itself, and I turned off after half an hour this year. I usually love the Bris and i actually look forward to seeing it every year - but it's getting worse.
Chris Evans is NOT the right man for the job - he doesn't have that 'oomph' that you need to present the Brits..Ben Elton did a much better job.
As someone has said before, it was just a big bore! Chris Martin, James Blunt, KT Tunstall, Kanye West... BORING! Where was the Spice Girls-esque performance?? The Chumbawumba? Robbie??? This year totally lacked in everything that made the Brits what it was.
Also, I felt it somewhat spolt it this year by the tabloids and TV/Radio revealing all the winners - i know it happens all the time, but it really annoys me and actually means there is no point really watching the show as you already know who has won what!
jay
Founding member
james2001 posted:
Especially people like me who does producing/directing on an amature level and would hope to be professional one day. Looking at it the way I do, it saddens me that so many so-called "professionals" clearly don't care about the overall presentation of their work, and just want to slap something on haphazardly, just because everyone else is. I am happy (and indeed do) to sit up to 3AM twiddling in Premiere Pro making sure my work comes out decent. Slapping on film effects because everyone else does it isn't a good enough reason to use it. From a production/diectorial viewpoint, it just makes it look shoddy, especially with the awful motion blur they're using- a straight film look would be a hundred times better, but it still shouldn't be there. It's an awards ceremony, not an big-budget action drama. The sooner they follow the Smash Hits Poll Winners & the MTV VMAs and ditch the film look, the better
I don't think they used the filmic effect 'just because eveyone else does'. It genuinely makes a production look a lot richer, like a lot of money has been ploughed into it. It makes it look like they have the same big budget as films do.
I personally do not have a problem with it, I think it makes things like this look better - mind you I suppose the output could look a lot different on an old TV, possibly making it look worse, but when viewed on a big 32-inch screen it looks superb.
Onto the Brit Awards itself, and I turned off after half an hour this year. I usually love the Bris and i actually look forward to seeing it every year - but it's getting worse.
Chris Evans is NOT the right man for the job - he doesn't have that 'oomph' that you need to present the Brits..Ben Elton did a much better job.
As someone has said before, it was just a big bore! Chris Martin, James Blunt, KT Tunstall, Kanye West... BORING! Where was the Spice Girls-esque performance?? The Chumbawumba? Robbie??? This year totally lacked in everything that made the Brits what it was.
Also, I felt it somewhat spolt it this year by the tabloids and TV/Radio revealing all the winners - i know it happens all the time, but it really annoys me and actually means there is no point really watching the show as you already know who has won what!
IS
Also, I felt it somewhat spolt it this year by the tabloids and TV/Radio revealing all the winners - i know it happens all the time, but it really annoys me and actually means there is no point really watching the show as you already know who has won what!
But it's a live event that is televised, you can't expect the media not to mention what happened until ITV broadcast it. The winners are in the public domain as soon as the first person walks out of the auditorium.
It's just like when broadcasters give out the results of a Grand Prix that happened over night - there's no way you can suppress the information
jay posted:
Also, I felt it somewhat spolt it this year by the tabloids and TV/Radio revealing all the winners - i know it happens all the time, but it really annoys me and actually means there is no point really watching the show as you already know who has won what!
But it's a live event that is televised, you can't expect the media not to mention what happened until ITV broadcast it. The winners are in the public domain as soon as the first person walks out of the auditorium.
It's just like when broadcasters give out the results of a Grand Prix that happened over night - there's no way you can suppress the information
JA
Also, I felt it somewhat spolt it this year by the tabloids and TV/Radio revealing all the winners - i know it happens all the time, but it really annoys me and actually means there is no point really watching the show as you already know who has won what!
But it's a live event that is televised, you can't expect the media not to mention what happened until ITV broadcast it. The winners are in the public domain as soon as the first person walks out of the auditorium.
It's just like when broadcasters give out the results of a Grand Prix that happened over night - there's no way you can suppress the information
I know! Doesn't make it any less annoying though does it??
I don't see why they couldn't broadcast it almost live, like they tried before - at least it gives people a reason to actually watch the show. Or if they think it's too risky for ITV1, why not show it live on ITV2 followed by the edited down version on ITV1 a day later...
It happens with all award shows, not just the Brits.
jay
Founding member
Inspector Sands posted:
jay posted:
Also, I felt it somewhat spolt it this year by the tabloids and TV/Radio revealing all the winners - i know it happens all the time, but it really annoys me and actually means there is no point really watching the show as you already know who has won what!
But it's a live event that is televised, you can't expect the media not to mention what happened until ITV broadcast it. The winners are in the public domain as soon as the first person walks out of the auditorium.
It's just like when broadcasters give out the results of a Grand Prix that happened over night - there's no way you can suppress the information
I know! Doesn't make it any less annoying though does it??
I don't see why they couldn't broadcast it almost live, like they tried before - at least it gives people a reason to actually watch the show. Or if they think it's too risky for ITV1, why not show it live on ITV2 followed by the edited down version on ITV1 a day later...
It happens with all award shows, not just the Brits.