Top Gear - obvious canned laughter

Chris J Dixon wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:

The audience, 600-700 people were herded in at about 1:00pm.
It was freezing cold in there, no warm up man as such, Clarkson
came on and did his usual hurling abuse at various targets in the
audience for ten minutes, then one of the production team ran through
what was going happen.

Presumably this is when they select the audience members who are
deemed sufficiently photogenic, and are then marshalled to be
visible in the background of the set pieces.

Yes, of course !!

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:39:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I've worked on just about every type of audience show both at the BBC and
later Thames TV. I'd say the 'experience' for the studio audience varied
dramatically according to the individual show. A well rehearsed one where
the talent knew their lines etc well could be ok, but one with constant
retakes like watching paint dry. Although, of course, having to work on
such things taints my judgement.
One with a decent warm up man and a cast etc who make the audience welcome
isn't so bad for free - especially for a coach party with drink taken.;-)

In other words, the shows that work best for an audience experiencing
them in real time, like a theatre show, are the ones that are
presented to the audience in real time, like a theatre show.

Radio live audence shows can work a lot better than TV, because there
are no prop or costume changes, and the performers can have their
scripts in front of them, so there's no need for a well prepared
performance to stop till the end. I recall going with a bunch of TV
colleagues to several recording sessions for ISIRTA, which usually ran
without any stops or pauses for about 40 minutes to make a 30 minute
broadcast, so we always felt that we'd got more by being there. And it
was actually funny.

This was before the age of the internet of course, when it was still
possible for carefully managed PR to spread faster than the truth, but
somehow they're still getting away with it. I wouldn't be interested
in doing anything for a TV show unless they paid me to be there.

There's still no problem getting audiences for such shows. I have a pal
who loves going to as many as he can - and often has to enter a ballot for
tickets.

I know. Depressing isn't it? If only they knew.

Rod.

Martin wrote:

Quite so. But I'd prefer the programs to be funny enough that I
laugh without that.

-- Richard
Programs aren't usually funny are they? Not that I know much about
computers.

Bill

Pedant: 1 Rest: 0

A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism and
precision. It isn't pedantry to point out a gross error, for instance
when the use of an incorrect word has made complete nonsense of
something. To not point it out would be unkind, because it would allow
the perpetrator to continue displaying his ignorance.

Bill

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:23:59 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

Despite this, there was lots of loud laughter at nearly
everything the three 'stars' said. One can only assume that Top Gear has
become yet another victim of the BBC's canned laughter department.

That's been going on for a while with TG. Oftentimes I've observed the
audience who, by the sound they were just making on the audio track,
should have been rolling around the floor wetting themselves.
Nothing, nada, not a grin cracked anywhere.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Martin wrote:

Quite so. But I'd prefer the programs to be funny enough that I
laugh without that.

-- Richard
Programs aren't usually funny are they? Not that I know much about
computers.

Bill

Pedant: 1 Rest: 0

A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism and
precision. It isn't pedantry to point out a gross error, for instance when
the use of an incorrect word has made complete nonsense of something. To
not point it out would be unkind, because it would allow the perpetrator
to continue displaying his ignorance.

Bill 1 Martin 0

--
JohnT

JohnT wrote:

Quite so. But I'd prefer the programs to be funny enough that I
laugh without that.

-- Richard
Programs aren't usually funny are they? Not that I know much about
computers.

Bill

Pedant: 1 Rest: 0

A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism and
precision. It isn't pedantry to point out a gross error, for instance
when the use of an incorrect word has made complete nonsense of
something. To not point it out would be unkind, because it would allow
the perpetrator to continue displaying his ignorance.

Bill 1 Martin 0

Especially as I found a gently humorous way to bring his error to his
attention, rather than resorting to sarcasm or similar abuse. That's me
all over you see, kind and thoughtful, always ready to help my fellow
man in any way possible. Oh I am lovely!

No

Grimly Curmudgeon Wrote in message:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:23:59 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

Despite this, there was lots of loud laughter at nearly
everything the three 'stars' said. One can only assume that Top Gear has
become yet another victim of the BBC's canned laughter department.

That's been going on for a while with TG. Oftentimes I've observed the
audience who, by the sound they were just making on the audio track,
should have been rolling around the floor wetting themselves.
Nothing, nada, not a grin cracked anywhere.


There's nothing like discontinuous recording for killing the mood
of the audience.

It would be interesting to know, but I'd guess they rarely if ever
do Top Gear in one straight run. I can't see people like Lewis
Hamilton hanging around in what after all would be an aircraft
hangar side-office. I'd also guess TG is done a bit like TOTP
used to be - minimum audience number necessary for the wide shots
- as that would be the easiest to floor manage.

You'd like to hope they show the inserts in their entirety, but
again, it must be really tempting to spin through and just do the
studio links. I haven't seen evidence of other than small
courtesy monitors, and if that's all there are, keeping the
audience enthused must be hard.

I think the set is rather tired and could do with a revamp, not
least to improve the audience experience.
--
a sig



----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://www.piaohong.tk/newsgroup

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:38:27 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:23:59 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

Despite this, there was lots of loud laughter at nearly
everything the three 'stars' said. One can only assume that Top Gear has
become yet another victim of the BBC's canned laughter department.

That's been going on for a while with TG. Oftentimes I've observed the
audience who, by the sound they were just making on the audio track,
should have been rolling around the floor wetting themselves.
Nothing, nada, not a grin cracked anywhere.

I've long since lost interest in TG. It might be better showing it on
Cbeebies.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:19:09 +0000 (GMT), nospam
wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon Wrote in message:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:23:59 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

Despite this, there was lots of loud laughter at nearly
everything the three 'stars' said. One can only assume that Top Gear has
become yet another victim of the BBC's canned laughter department.

That's been going on for a while with TG. Oftentimes I've observed the
audience who, by the sound they were just making on the audio track,
should have been rolling around the floor wetting themselves.
Nothing, nada, not a grin cracked anywhere.


There's nothing like discontinuous recording for killing the mood
of the audience.

It would be interesting to know, but I'd guess they rarely if ever
do Top Gear in one straight run. I can't see people like Lewis
Hamilton hanging around in what after all would be an aircraft
hangar side-office.

Don't they have luxury trailers (caravans) for the presenters and
top-grade guests?

This is just one example of the type of vehicle available.

http://www.on-set.com/vehicles.php?id=6#

From:
http://www.on-set.com/index.php



I'd also guess TG is done a bit like TOTP
used to be - minimum audience number necessary for the wide shots
- as that would be the easiest to floor manage.

You'd like to hope they show the inserts in their entirety, but
again, it must be really tempting to spin through and just do the
studio links. I haven't seen evidence of other than small
courtesy monitors, and if that's all there are, keeping the
audience enthused must be hard.

I think the set is rather tired and could do with a revamp, not
least to improve the audience experience.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:38:18 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:39:40 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:38:27 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:23:59 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

Despite this, there was lots of loud laughter at nearly
everything the three 'stars' said. One can only assume that Top Gear has
become yet another victim of the BBC's canned laughter department.

That's been going on for a while with TG. Oftentimes I've observed the
audience who, by the sound they were just making on the audio track,
should have been rolling around the floor wetting themselves.
Nothing, nada, not a grin cracked anywhere.

I've long since lost interest in TG. It might be better showing it on
Cbeebies.

or between 3 am and 4 am.

I hope the toddlers are asleep at that time.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?