BBC Television programmes  permalink

POV - 27/10

Messages: 1 - 44 of 44
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Bidie-In (U2747062) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Congrats to all those who got a mention - StewieGriffin, Bryanluc and of course Hollybeau.

    But how on earth could the entertainment chap say - straight faced - that The Voice "got 9 million viewers week after week"? Once the spinning chairs went the ratings went into freefall! Towards the final it was scraping 6 million and once dropped below 4 million. Averaged out I think the series ratings would stand at 6 million at best.

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Congrats to all those who got a mention - StewieGriffin, Bryanluc and of course Hollybeau.

    But how on earth could the entertainment chap say - straight faced - that The Voice "got 9 million viewers week after week"? Once the spinning chairs went the ratings went into freefall! Towards the final it was scraping 6 million and once dropped below 4 million. Averaged out I think the series ratings would stand at 6 million at best. 
    And GZ

    I could see the entertainment chap's nose growing as he spoke-another one who won't admit- maybe we got this wrong.

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Congrats to all those who got a mention - StewieGriffin, Bryanluc and of course Hollybeau.

    But how on earth could the entertainment chap say - straight faced - that The Voice "got 9 million viewers week after week"? Once the spinning chairs went the ratings went into freefall! Towards the final it was scraping 6 million and once dropped below 4 million. Averaged out I think the series ratings would stand at 6 million at best. 
    I won't bother listening back, but when asked about The Voice, I think he started by saying "we tried to do something difficu....different."

    A Freudian slip?

    I agree that criticisms are not addressed properly at all.

    It does seem they look on this board, but cherry pick, with perhaps one adverse crit but two complimentary ones, even if the main thread has been adverse.

    The program has a total air of ignoring criticism.

    And what was the ref to the new "superstars" all about?
    It wasn't explained, but put me in mind of the old 1970's sports competition, which many cannot take part in now, ie highly insured footballers etc. So what's this? Using Olympic people who may not get other chances?

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by NethLyn2 (U14722036) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    If the entertainment guy had actually bothered to be briefed before the interview he'd have known about one of the other voice contestants releasing his album because he was on BBC Breakfast on Saturday morning! But good that GZ got a question in, though it's yet another wrong accent smiley - smiley

    Right now much more serious events show that the BBC can get something wrong, good luck getting anyone to admit it without real pressure.

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    But good that GZ got a question in, though it's yet another wrong accent  

    Maybe, on this board, we should sign off with what our accent is, so they get it right.

    Signed

    Bootjangler
    North London, not middle english, but not cockney by any means, and if you do that, I'll bleedin' well sue mate.

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    GZ was read out in a Birmingham accent! (And not Birmingham Alabama) Congrats to Holly, Grandadpop, BryanLuc, Geometry Man, and all the others who got a mention smiley - applause

    My favourite quote from Mark Lindsay? "It's been a big year for 2012". Well, yes......smiley - doh

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    My favourite quote from Mark Lindsay? "It's been a big year for 2012". Well, yes...... 

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who went "huh?" at that comment.
    And I doubt it's being pedantic to just expect, "It's been a big year."

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Bidie-In (U2747062) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    If the entertainment guy had actually bothered to be briefed before the interview he'd have known about one of the other voice contestants releasing his album because he was on BBC Breakfast on Saturday morning!  

    Instead, he went on about the next series. And kept repeating the statistic about highest number of viewers for a Saturday night entertainment show.

    Of course there will be a second series - So You Think You Can Dance? got a second series, before sinking without a trace.

    Still Leanne is producing an album even as we speak....for release "later in the year". 9 weeks and counting?

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Quizzimodo (U551071) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    His comments on the Voice actually made me angry.

    The propaganda about the viewing figures (wrong according to all the figures released at the time)
    The mealy mouthed excuses for Leanne disappearing without trace (without ever acknowledging that other contestants HAVE had BBC exposure since)

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Jinkin Jimmy (U15221212) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Now that I know the name Mark Lindsay and having listened to POV list his "credits", I am astounded that one man is in control of the majority of programmes that I despise on BBCtv. Long may I despise his so called entertainment brand.

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    But how on earth could the entertainment chap say - straight faced - that The Voice "got 9 million viewers week after week"? 
    I just rewatched it to see exactly what he said as regards the ratings which was "an average of nine million viewers watched it each week"... well, I'm afraid that he wouldn't make a good politician or mathematician as if your ratings START at nine million and drop markedly week after week, your average is going to be rather less than nine...

    Especially as he went on to reiterate "nine million viewers a week". There's doubletalk and management speak but this was just plain WRONG. None of the numbers I've seen come close to supporting nine million as an average figure across the shows duration... but I think it says a lot about the rot in the gravy train that the only rejoinder to whether The Voice was an expensive failure was the (inaccurate) recitation of the viewing figures.

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Bidie-In (U2747062) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    He used our Phil-aps argument that the purpose of The Voice was 'to provide a peak time entertainment show for the BBC on a Saturday night', and 'it succeeded in that'.

    It also succeeded in making the winner less well known than she was on week 1....smiley - doh

    If he wants ratings to rave about, Call The Midwife got 9 million plus EVERY SINGLE WEEK and has now been sold to other countries. The Voice format - which loses viewers when the chairs stop turning in whatever country shows it - cost an eye watering £25 million. The BBC simply did not research the show properly. They believed Cowell wanted it and became determined to buy - with no thought as to the likely appeal of the product.

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    But how on earth could the entertainment chap say - straight faced - that The Voice "got 9 million viewers week after week"? 
    I just rewatched it to see exactly what he said as regards the ratings which was "an average of nine million viewers watched it each week"... well, I'm afraid that he wouldn't make a good politician or mathematician as if your ratings START at nine million and drop markedly week after week, your average is going to be rather less than nine...

    Especially as he went on to reiterate "nine million viewers a week". There's doubletalk and management speak but this was just plain WRONG. None of the numbers I've seen come close to supporting nine million as an average figure across the shows duration... but I think it says a lot about the rot in the gravy train that the only rejoinder to whether The Voice was an expensive failure was the (inaccurate) recitation of the viewing figures. 
    The average audience was 9.05 million (source BARB). The third show was the highest at 11.99 million and the penultimate was the lowest at 5.25 million. No other show of that type has done as well on its first outing. As far as the winner was concerned I have always said, and this was confirmed, that the BBC's objective was to make an entertainment show not promote the winners album.

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Bidie-In (U2747062) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Hi Phil-ap! smiley - smiley

    I think the Beeb should have pushed Leanne's single when it was released. Now they have had Tyler Thingy on Breakfast - will they do the same when/if Leanne gets an album released?

    I hope so.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Quizzimodo (U551071) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    But how on earth could the entertainment chap say - straight faced - that The Voice "got 9 million viewers week after week"? 
    I just rewatched it to see exactly what he said as regards the ratings which was "an average of nine million viewers watched it each week"... well, I'm afraid that he wouldn't make a good politician or mathematician as if your ratings START at nine million and drop markedly week after week, your average is going to be rather less than nine...

    Especially as he went on to reiterate "nine million viewers a week". There's doubletalk and management speak but this was just plain WRONG. None of the numbers I've seen come close to supporting nine million as an average figure across the shows duration... but I think it says a lot about the rot in the gravy train that the only rejoinder to whether The Voice was an expensive failure was the (inaccurate) recitation of the viewing figures. 
    The average audience was 9.05 million (source BARB). The third show was the highest at 11.99 million and the penultimate was the lowest at 5.25 million. No other show of that type has done as well on its first outing. As far as the winner was concerned I have always said, and this was confirmed, that the BBC's objective was to make an entertainment show not promote the winners album. 
    Thank you Phi-ap for coming on here & explaining why us humble licence fee payers are wrong & the BBC is right

    What would we do without you?

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by deansay (U5811575) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Well when JV read out all the entertainment programmes he had brought to BBC channels, except for HIGNFY, I sat their saying 'rubbish' to the rest of them. I do realise that I am in a minority, but nothing he had done has entertained me, excepting for the odd one mentioned.

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Thank you Phi-ap for coming on here & explaining why us humble licence fee payers are wrong & the BBC is right

    What would we do without you?  


    Just a quick look at "The Voice" thread shows Phil-ap as a fan, when the majority of posts were not as such. However, the POV program chooses to use one of hs points to represent all else.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    He used our Phil-aps argument that the purpose of The Voice was 'to provide a peak time entertainment show for the BBC on a Saturday night', and 'it succeeded in that'.

    It also succeeded in making the winner less well known than she was on week 1....smiley - doh

    If he wants ratings to rave about, Call The Midwife got 9 million plus EVERY SINGLE WEEK and has now been sold to other countries. The Voice format - which loses viewers when the chairs stop turning in whatever country shows it - cost an eye watering £25 million. The BBC simply did not research the show properly. They believed Cowell wanted it and became determined to buy - with no thought as to the likely appeal of the product. 
    Bidie do really believe that Leanne is less well known now than when she started on The Voice. If you think The Voice cost a lot then drama is even more expensive. Cowell didn't want it, he has his own shows, but ITV did because they are too dependant on Cowell.

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Quizzimodo (U551071) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Thank you Phi-ap for coming on here & explaining why us humble licence fee payers are wrong & the BBC is right

    What would we do without you?  


    Just a quick look at "The Voice" thread shows Phil-ap as a fan, when the majority of posts were not as such. However, the POV program chooses to use one of hs points to represent all else.

     
    If the BBC make it, Phil-ap is a fan of it.

    His posts can be ignored in the same way someone who is 100% negative can be ignored

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    But how on earth could the entertainment chap say - straight faced - that The Voice "got 9 million viewers week after week"? 
    I just rewatched it to see exactly what he said as regards the ratings which was "an average of nine million viewers watched it each week"... well, I'm afraid that he wouldn't make a good politician or mathematician as if your ratings START at nine million and drop markedly week after week, your average is going to be rather less than nine...

    Especially as he went on to reiterate "nine million viewers a week". There's doubletalk and management speak but this was just plain WRONG. None of the numbers I've seen come close to supporting nine million as an average figure across the shows duration... but I think it says a lot about the rot in the gravy train that the only rejoinder to whether The Voice was an expensive failure was the (inaccurate) recitation of the viewing figures. 
    The average audience was 9.05 million (source BARB). The third show was the highest at 11.99 million and the penultimate was the lowest at 5.25 million. No other show of that type has done as well on its first outing. As far as the winner was concerned I have always said, and this was confirmed, that the BBC's objective was to make an entertainment show not promote the winners album. 
    Thank you Phi-ap for coming on here & explaining why us humble licence fee payers are wrong & the BBC is right

    What would we do without you?  
    So are you disputing my figures?

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    It's a clear case of bandwagon broadcasting. Talent shows are the flavour of the week and so, the BBC is trying to trump Britain's Got Talent or X-Factor or whatever The Voice was up against by fighting fire with fire - something that results in 100% more fire.

    Needless to say, even if you try and out X-Factor the X-Factor and succeed, you've failed... the fact that they spent a HUGE tranche of our money on a turkey like The Voice and are now saying DEMONSTRABLY untrue things about its popularity as justification for this error just shows there are some very serious problems at the BBC and yet no indication there is even a hint of alarm about this, let alone an inclination to prevent it happening again.

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Oops. Turns out they were right. Well, shame on me.

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Thank you Phi-ap for coming on here & explaining why us humble licence fee payers are wrong & the BBC is right

    What would we do without you?  


    Just a quick look at "The Voice" thread shows Phil-ap as a fan, when the majority of posts were not as such. However, the POV program chooses to use one of hs points to represent all else.

     
    If the BBC make it, Phil-ap is a fan of it.

    His posts can be ignored in the same way someone who is 100% negative can be ignored 
    I don't mind if you ignore me just don't ignore the facts. As you are 100% negative shall I ignore you. The audience figures were as follows by week in millions:
    1. 9.44
    2. 9.93
    3. 10.71
    4. 11.99
    5. 11.24
    6. 10.51
    7. 9.36
    8. 6.54
    9. 6.79
    10. 5.25
    11. 7.82
    Actually I was wrong it was the fourth episode that got the highest audience not the third.

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Quizzimodo (U551071) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Wiki (yes I know not always the most reliable source) has the series average of 8.54 million

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    Thank you Phi-ap for coming on here & explaining why us humble licence fee payers are wrong & the BBC is right

    What would we do without you?  


    Just a quick look at "The Voice" thread shows Phil-ap as a fan, when the majority of posts were not as such. However, the POV program chooses to use one of hs points to represent all else.

     
    If the BBC make it, Phil-ap is a fan of it.

    His posts can be ignored in the same way someone who is 100% negative can be ignored 
    I don't mind if you ignore me just don't ignore the facts. As you are 100% negative shall I ignore you. The audience figures were as follows by week in millions:
    1. 9.44
    2. 9.93
    3. 10.71
    4. 11.99
    5. 11.24
    6. 10.51
    7. 9.36
    8. 6.54
    9. 6.79
    10. 5.25
    11. 7.82
    Actually I was wrong it was the fourth episode that got the highest audience not the third. 
    That is still not 9 million every week-and most of these shows the figures rise as they reach the final -this one dropped away-that cannot be disputed.

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Bidie-In (U2747062) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    He used our Phil-aps argument that the purpose of The Voice was 'to provide a peak time entertainment show for the BBC on a Saturday night', and 'it succeeded in that'.

    It also succeeded in making the winner less well known than she was on week 1....smiley - doh

    If he wants ratings to rave about, Call The Midwife got 9 million plus EVERY SINGLE WEEK and has now been sold to other countries. The Voice format - which loses viewers when the chairs stop turning in whatever country shows it - cost an eye watering £25 million. The BBC simply did not research the show properly. They believed Cowell wanted it and became determined to buy - with no thought as to the likely appeal of the product. 
    Bidie do really believe that Leanne is less well known now than when she started on The Voice. If you think The Voice cost a lot then drama is even more expensive. Cowell didn't want it, he has his own shows, but ITV did because they are too dependant on Cowell. 
    Phil-ap, that was meant to be a JOKE! smiley - doh

    I did read that Cowell wanted T.V. format - but maybe that was just press rumour. He does come up with his own formats after all. Unlike the BBC entertainment department.*

    (*yes, yes, I know - Fame Academy....joking again).

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Quizzimodo (U551071) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    And it lost against BGT in both average ratings & audience share

    If this is the BBC's idea of a success then I'd hate to see a failure*










    *coughBonekickerscough

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    I will say that averages are worthless and I will never understand why people obsess about them, especially as when we look at the actual TREND in the show it's not up but it's DOWN. The average is boiling down everything to a single meaningless number that says absolutely nothing about anything.

    Looking at the overall trend is what actually tells the story of the shows success... or lack thereof.

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Quizzimodo (U551071) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    I will say that averages are worthless and I will never understand why people obsess about them, especially as when we look at the actual TREND in the show it's not up but it's DOWN. The average is boiling down everything to a single meaningless number that says absolutely nothing about anything.

    Looking at the overall trend is what actually tells the story of the shows success... or lack thereof. 
    And there's also audience satisfaction

    Those of us that stuck with it were all pretty similar in our criticisms of it

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by incandescent (U14877400) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    I don't mind if you ignore me just don't ignore the facts. As you are 100% negative shall I ignore you. The audience figures were as follows by week in millions:
    1. 9.44
    2. 9.93
    3. 10.71
    4. 11.99
    5. 11.24
    6. 10.51
    7. 9.36
    8. 6.54
    9. 6.79
    10. 5.25
    11. 7.82
    Actually I was wrong it was the fourth episode that got the highest audience not the third. 

    That is still not 9 million every week... 

    Agreed, but nobody has said the show achieved 9 million per week. Those figures do average at 9 million a week.

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    I don't mind if you ignore me just don't ignore the facts. As you are 100% negative shall I ignore you. The audience figures were as follows by week in millions:
    1. 9.44
    2. 9.93
    3. 10.71
    4. 11.99
    5. 11.24
    6. 10.51
    7. 9.36
    8. 6.54
    9. 6.79
    10. 5.25
    11. 7.82
    Actually I was wrong it was the fourth episode that got the highest audience not the third. 

    That is still not 9 million every week... 

    Agreed, but nobody has said the show achieved 9 million per week. Those figures do average at 9 million a week. 
    The entertainment guru did not say average -he said audiences were 9 million a week-that is the point

    I got the calculator out too by the way

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    The entertainment guru did not say average -he said audiences were 9 million a week-that is the point

    I got the calculator out too by the way 

    Actually, the first time he said it averaged nine million and the SECOND time (when responding to "Was it an expensive mistake?"), he said it was getting nine million every week.

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    And it lost against BGT in both average ratings & audience share

    If this is the BBC's idea of a success then I'd hate to see a failure*










    *coughBonekickerscough 
    BGT is well established. As a comparison X Factor averaged 7.4 million in its first series. I am not a particular fan of The Voice but would defend the BBC's decision to put it on.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Quizzimodo (U551071) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    I never mentioned X Factor


    These are the figures for the first series of BGT:

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Pretty similar as an average & audience share but the main difference is whereas the Voice's ratings fell over the run, BGT's rose

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    I never mentioned X Factor


    These are the figures for the first series of BGT:

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Pretty similar as an average & audience share but the main difference is whereas the Voice's ratings fell over the run, BGT's rose
     
    You are always referencing X Factor and I mentioned it because it is more similar to The Voice than BGT. However I am glad you agree with me that the average audience for the first series of The Voice was greater than that for the first series of both BGT and X Factor. I do acknowledge however that something must be done to prevent the audience drop off in the live stages.

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Chelle (U3043549) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    really disappointed with what the guy on today's pov said we could look forward to over christmas, I know he's the entertainment guy, so it wouldn't be drama etc but I'd expect something more than just specials of all the same old rubbish.

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    really disappointed with what the guy on today's pov said we could look forward to over christmas, I know he's the entertainment guy, so it wouldn't be drama etc but I'd expect something more than just specials of all the same old rubbish.  Yes, lets hope the drama dept has a few treats for us. Otherwise I'll be watching the other channels.

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) ** on Sunday, 28th October 2012

    I just caught up with todays extravaganza. That bloke was really smug.

    'Lot's of people will be very very upset if they mess around with the Apprentice' He said.

    I and many others were very very upset when the BBC cancelled Zen but that didn't make any difference. You still went ahead and did it. smiley - grr

    Does the BBC actually think that the public is under the apprehension that what we want counts for anything? You will still go on and do what you want and yah boo sucks to the people who pay for it.

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by moaningminnie54 (U14285226) on Monday, 29th October 2012

    I think that if The Aprentice continues to be a primetime 9pm "show", then it belongs on BBC 2. I detest these "tell you off" /tears 'n' hugs thingies... they're sooooooo last decade.

    Something gripping on a sibling chanel, pref BBC1 at the same time would be much apreciated by many.
    You know ...some entertainment, escapism, actors acting, a story-fictitious or otherwise, a few laughs, something to turn to when you need switch off.

    The mild "jeapardy" situation fronted by a stubbly chinned rich cockney bloke pointing his finger. Well it just isn't cutting it for "lots of people"

    I demand better.

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by aviddiva (U13145965) on Monday, 29th October 2012

    My favourite quote from Mark Lindsay? "It's been a big year for 2012". Well, yes...... 

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who went "huh?" at that comment.
    And I doubt it's being pedantic to just expect, "It's been a big year."

     
    So it's all good - way to go!

    I'm guessing Mark Lindsay meant that the series Twenty Twelve had had a good year.

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Monday, 29th October 2012

    So it's all good - way to go!

    I'm guessing Mark Lindsay meant that the series Twenty Twelve had had a good year. 

    WAY TO GO!

    Reply to this message 41

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Spinning_head (U10049943) on Tuesday, 30th October 2012

    <quote>Bidie do really believe that Leanne is less well known now than when she started on The Voice. If you think The Voice cost a lot then drama is even more expensive. Cowell didn't want it, he has his own shows, but ITV did because they are too dependant on Cowell.</quote
    Erm, Phil...

    Leanne who? I gave up watching that nonsense after the the first programme. What I remember of that was that just THREE acts featured in the first half-hour. The rest of that half-hour was filled with the judges blather.

    More style than substance!

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Spinning_head (U10049943) on Tuesday, 30th October 2012

    Oops... I forgot the >

    smiley - biggrin

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Bidie-In (U2747062) on Wednesday, 31st October 2012

    Questioned at the Edinburgh TV festival, a high ranked BBC bod was unable to name the winner - just 3 months after the show finished. smiley - doh

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

Back to top

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.