SOT Advert Breaks...
 

In message , Mike Henry
writes
In , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Scott wrote:
Unified across the channels under their control. So they all go to a break
at exactly the same time. Before there was some tolerance allowed for each
part of a show. Now they simply crash in and out of it - unless it's been
made to the new standard. And it doesn't half show - you get breaks in the
middle of a scene on ITV3, etc.

I thought that having a break in the middle of a scene was a breach of
Ofcom rules...

I've seen a break in the middle of a sentence.

Most television programmes are treated like the original "soaps".

Their purpose is to sell stuff, and to those in charge, the content is
only relevant in it's ability to "groom" the viewer for buying.

That's why they think it's OK to cover the screen In graffiti, and have
breaks only 4 mins in, and 4 mins from the end, and squash the credits,
and, well you know the rest.

They've always hated their stuff being recorded, and what better way to
stop it than to make it so ugly, no-one would want to keep it.
--
Ian

SOT Advert Breaks...
 

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:42:23 +0000, Ian
wrote:

In message , Mike Henry
writes
In , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Scott wrote:
Unified across the channels under their control. So they all go to a break
at exactly the same time. Before there was some tolerance allowed for each
part of a show. Now they simply crash in and out of it - unless it's been
made to the new standard. And it doesn't half show - you get breaks in the
middle of a scene on ITV3, etc.

I thought that having a break in the middle of a scene was a breach of
Ofcom rules...

I've seen a break in the middle of a sentence.

Most television programmes are treated like the original "soaps".

Their purpose is to sell stuff, and to those in charge, the content is
only relevant in it's ability to "groom" the viewer for buying.

That's why they think it's OK to cover the screen In graffiti, and have
breaks only 4 mins in, and 4 mins from the end, and squash the credits,
and, well you know the rest.

Indeed. But I wonder why the BBC do this (the graffiti and squashed
credits that is)?

They've always hated their stuff being recorded, and what better way to
stop it than to make it so ugly, no-one would want to keep it.

And noone would want to watch it either.

M.

SOT Advert Breaks...
 

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:01:30 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

Mark wrote:

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:44:13 GMT, Paul Heslop
wrote:

Roderick Stewart wrote:

In article , ChrisM wrote:
Anyolne noticed that quite a few channels now don't indicate the end of the
ad break - especially with films. It just goes from the last advert straight
back into the film. I'm sure they used to play a little tune or something
between the ads and the restart of the film...
The cynic in me says its to encourage you watch the adverts 'cause if you're
in the kitchen making a cuppa, you won't know when the film has started
again, and you're likely to miss a minute or two...

I assume it's to make it more difficult to find an edit point when spooling
through at high speed on your PVR. Without an easily recognisable sponsor's
caption I sometimes hit the reverse button a bit late so it takes a little
longer to spool back to the exact frame. But I persevere. It's worth it just to
watch the programme without interruptions.

Rod.

Yeah, i think you have it right. I normally look for that little
blackout section after the caption or prog title to edit cleanly and
it is getting harder to find.

It's probably also to make it very difficult to automate the removal
of adverts.

M

Yep, but mainly I'd say just to make it a royal pain in the ass. I
wonder what they have done with that system which was supposed to stop
us being able to turn over during ad breaks?

Hide the remote control? ;-)

M

SOT Advert Breaks...
 

In article ,
Ian wrote:
I thought that having a break in the middle of a scene was a breach of
Ofcom rules...

I've seen a break in the middle of a sentence.

Indeed - especially on the channels showing re-runs - like say ITV3. The
break appears to just happen regardless of the actual prog. If there's
background music often in the middle of a phrase. No programme was ever
made like that.

Easily proved as the original EOP & BOP caption and sting are missing.

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

SOT Advert Breaks...
 

In article , Mark wrote:
Most television programmes are treated like the original "soaps".

Their purpose is to sell stuff, and to those in charge, the content is*
only relevant in it's ability to "groom" the viewer for buying.

That's why they think it's OK to cover the screen In graffiti, and have*
breaks only 4 mins in, and 4 mins from the end, and squash the credits,*
and, well you know the rest.

Indeed. *But I wonder why the BBC do this (the graffiti and squashed
credits that is)?

They want you to buy the DVD.

They've clearly forgotten that they're supposed to be a public service
broadcaster so that their primary obligations are towards the people to
whom they are broadcasting. They think they're a commercial outfit
committed to the acquisition of money like all the others, the broadcasts
being merely a storefront for their core business, and thus behave more
like them every day. By doing so they gradually erode any possible
justification for being financed by methods any different from those of the
commercial broadcasters and are thereby sowing the seeds of their own
demise. You mark my words.

Rod.

SOT Advert Breaks...
 

In article , Ian
wrote:
In message , Mike Henry
writes
In , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Scott
wrote: Unified across the channels under
their control. So they all go to a break at exactly the same time.
Before there was some tolerance allowed for each part of a show. Now
they simply crash in and out of it - unless it's been made to the new
standard. And it doesn't half show - you get breaks in the middle of a
scene on ITV3, etc.

I thought that having a break in the middle of a scene was a breach of
Ofcom rules...

I've seen a break in the middle of a sentence.

Most television programmes are treated like the original "soaps".

Their purpose is to sell stuff, and to those in charge, the content is
only relevant in it's ability to "groom" the viewer for buying.

That's why they think it's OK to cover the screen In graffiti, and have
breaks only 4 mins in, and 4 mins from the end, and squash the credits,
and, well you know the rest.

The squashing of the credits is really beginning to bug me as in several
programmes I have seen a character but not recognised the actor plying
them. I've remembered the characters name at the end of the programme and
as soon as I want to see the actors name in the credits they squash it down
so I can't read it!

SOT Advert Breaks...
 

The message
from Mark contains these words:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:42:23 +0000, Ian
wrote:

In message , Mike Henry
writes
In , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Scott wrote:
Unified across the channels under their control. So they all go to
a break
at exactly the same time. Before there was some tolerance allowed
for each
part of a show. Now they simply crash in and out of it - unless it's been
made to the new standard. And it doesn't half show - you get breaks
in the
middle of a scene on ITV3, etc.

I thought that having a break in the middle of a scene was a breach of
Ofcom rules...

I've seen a break in the middle of a sentence.

Most television programmes are treated like the original "soaps".

Their purpose is to sell stuff, and to those in charge, the content is
only relevant in it's ability to "groom" the viewer for buying.

That's why they think it's OK to cover the screen In graffiti, and have
breaks only 4 mins in, and 4 mins from the end, and squash the credits,
and, well you know the rest.

Indeed. But I wonder why the BBC do this (the graffiti and squashed
credits that is)?

One would hope this is the run up to a total reversion to the 'Good Old
Days' when continuity was just that (i.e. an announcer filling in the
gaps _between_ programs) with the resultant boost in viewing figures
being used to justify (and carry out - with 'predjudice') the complete
elimination of the "Branding" dept.

It's only my own personal theory, of course, but the fact that the BBC
have been airing the 'Charlie Brookers Screenwipe" series where he has
so eloquently expressed my (and most everyone elses) total and utter
contempt of and disgust with the practice of squashing end credits,
shouting over the end credits and even popping up annoying graphics just
_before_ the end credits, rather suggests they are giving the
'Marketing' and 'Branding' depts employees advance warning to go in
search of a 'real job'. :-)

They've always hated their stuff being recorded, and what better way to
stop it than to make it so ugly, no-one would want to keep it.

Not really an issue if you have basic mpg editing facilities to top and
tail and snip out the ads. It's either going to be a 'must have'
program' which the broadcaster might discard in order to recycle the
storage media, or else, you're going to save a small fortune over the
cost of buying the DVD release. In this case, any such edits will be a
statement which effectively says "Up yours, you feckin' greedy b'caster!
I'm not going spend my hard earned on your marketing scams!"

And no one would want to watch it either.

For ITV, this is generally true anyway! It seems (IMHO) that it is only
Channel Four which has regular exceptions to this rule.

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

SOT Advert Breaks...
 

In article , Michael Chappell wrote:
The squashing of the credits is really beginning to bug me as in several
programmes I have seen a character but not recognised the actor plying
them. I've remembered the characters name at the end of the programme and
as soon as I want to see the actors name in the credits they squash it down
so I can't read it!

Thank goodness for the likes of Digiguide and IMDB. The broadcasters
themselves should of course be able to provide basic background information
about their own programmes with the minimum of fuss, but if they can't or
won't, then at least it is available elsewhere.

Rod.

SOT Advert Breaks...
 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:08:33 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Michael Chappell wrote:
The squashing of the credits is really beginning to bug me as in several
programmes I have seen a character but not recognised the actor plying
them. I've remembered the characters name at the end of the programme and
as soon as I want to see the actors name in the credits they squash it down
so I can't read it!

Thank goodness for the likes of Digiguide and IMDB. The broadcasters
themselves should of course be able to provide basic background information
about their own programmes with the minimum of fuss, but if they can't or
won't, then at least it is available elsewhere.

Just where do you think imdb gets its entries from?

It's not from a carefully prepared list in a large font from the
broadcaster

It's not typed in by the production company

Its not as a direct xml file transfer to imdb's servers

It's not sent on a CD via TNT

Squashed credits severely reduce the ability of those that populate
imdb free of charge for the benefit of the rest of us to do their
work.

Squashed credits stink.




--

SOT Advert Breaks...
 

On 7 Dec, 13:12, Mike wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:08:33 -0000, Roderick Stewart

wrote:
In article , Michael Chappell wrote:
The squashing of the credits is really beginning to bug me as in several
programmes I have seen a character but not recognised the actor plying
them. I've remembered the characters name at the end of the programme and
as soon as I want to see the actors name in the credits they squash it down
so I can't read it!

Thank goodness for the likes of Digiguide and IMDB. The broadcasters
themselves should of course be able to provide basic background information
about their own programmes with the minimum of fuss, but if they can't or
won't, then at least it is available elsewhere.

Just where do you think imdb gets its entries from?

It's not from a carefully prepared list in a large font from the
broadcaster

It's not typed in by the production company

Its not as a direct xml file transfer to imdb's servers

It's not sent on a CD via TNT

Squashed credits severely reduce the ability of those that populate
imdb free of charge for the benefit of the rest of us to do their
work.

Squashed credits stink.



Given the low esteem that many people here hold programme makers in,
perhaps those in the credits don't deserve to be given credit, because
credit where credit's due, hence lack-of-credit where lack-of-credit's
due?