BBC Television programmes  permalink

Too many camera shots per minute

Messages: 1 - 50 of 157
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Snookhams (U14765788) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    Does anyone agree with me that there are too many camera changes per minute. I just about get focused on a shot and it is gone. I counted 47 different shots on a music programme in one minute. Do the producers think this is enjoyable. We even get shots so close that it is difficult to make out what we are seeing. Please tell you producers to stop flitting from one shot to another so quickly .

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    I think the pacing of television has changed in order to keep the interest of an audience which over the past twenty years has become used to being bombarded with and processing a lot of visual information very quickly in action films and video games. I don't see it going backwards anytime soon.

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    I agree with all that has been said so far. It is to much. It often makes me feel quite sea sick!

    In my opinion, it is motivated my laziness on the part of TV producers. Instead of creating pace and interest through the writing (yes EastEnders 'writers', I am talking to you!) it is created through the editing...wrongly in my view.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by BooBoo2 (U1168789) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    Does anyone agree with me that there are too many camera changes per minute. I just about get focused on a shot and it is gone. I counted 47 different shots on a music programme in one minute. Do the producers think this is enjoyable. We even get shots so close that it is difficult to make out what we are seeing. Please tell you producers to stop flitting from one shot to another so quickly . 

    Totally agree.

    On a similar note the recent coverage of the BDO darts world championship was extraordinary. The frantic change of camera angles and subject matter made me feel like a paranoid schizophrenic on speed. If was all to much and I decided not to watch the final. It felt like the director had a new toy which we all had to suffer.

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Maxibaby (U14151672) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    This is probably what is taught in the Meedja Studies degree course. With any luck, the audience is so occupied trying to keep up with the flitting about of the visuals, they will be less likely to notice the poor content of much of what is broadcast. I find it makes me feel giddy, and it would be a delight to just have well focused steady shots rather than hippy hoppy aren't I clever and innovative bouncing about shots which few people seem to like.

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by sweetspanishfly (U6119839) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    Bring back the days with ONE camera and a turret lens.

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by SAB888 (U14777346) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    This is probably what is taught in the Meedja Studies degree course. With any luck, the audience is so occupied trying to keep up with the flitting about of the visuals, they will be less likely to notice the poor content of much of what is broadcast. I find it makes me feel giddy, and it would be a delight to just have well focused steady shots rather than hippy hoppy aren't I clever and innovative bouncing about shots which few people seem to like.  Have to agree with you.

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    I would feel happier with two given their half life!!

    But there used to be a great skill in camera motion - but now there are too many cameras and thus it is easier to cut them up (than employ good camera operators)

    Having said that Having on one occasion directed Point of View with Four cameras rather than three (in those days two cameras were looking at music stand with our letters on them) having the alternative shot of Barry Took was very useful ....
    But it did cause comments in the next weeks edition- viewers did not like him Turning to the other camera - so the issue is many years old!

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Vox_Populi (U3226170) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    Does anyone agree with me that there are too many camera changes per minute. I just about get focused on a shot and it is gone. I counted 47 different shots on a music programme in one minute. Do the producers think this is enjoyable. We even get shots so close that it is difficult to make out what we are seeing. Please tell you producers to stop flitting from one shot to another so quickly .  It's called ART, lovie. smiley - biggrin

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by MsA (U14389417) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    I think the pacing of television has changed in order to keep the interest of an audience which over the past twenty years has become used to being bombarded with and processing a lot of visual information very quickly in action films and video games. I don't see it going backwards anytime soon.   I agree. The sad thing is however that it doesn't allow any time for reflection. It's in those moments, when a shot endures, that we assimilate and process what we've seen. Often it results in our having a follow-on thought. That's particularly the case with drama and wildlife documentaries. So young people, who appear to want a change of shot every second or two, aren't using their thought processes at all when viewing such material. They lose much as a result, and so will the world. It's thinking that develops compassion.

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    I think the pacing of television has changed in order to keep the interest of an audience which over the past twenty years has become used to being bombarded with and processing a lot of visual information very quickly in action films and video games. I don't see it going backwards anytime soon.   I agree. The sad thing is however that it doesn't allow any time for reflection. It's in those moments, when a shot endures, that we assimilate and process what we've seen. Often it results in our having a follow-on thought. That's particularly the case with drama and wildlife documentaries. So young people, who appear to want a change of shot every second or two, aren't using their thought processes at all when viewing such material. They lose much as a result, and so will the world. It's thinking that develops compassion.   I don't think that's necessarily always the case. What you're saying is true enough, but most TV drama these days is going to end up on DVD and the Producers are aware of that, so what you're given is a quick, visual hook which is rewarded by repeated viewings from which the viewer will potentially draw more than they did on the first viewing.

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Going_once (U14931925) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    Does anyone agree? - Yes.

    Only going to get worse, computers and phones with all that touchscreen whizzing about - focus and it's gone. I've given up Pointless because they never rest on the question and/or the pictures long enough for me to get my eye in. I touch-type really fast, ex secretary, but can't eye-focus that fast and never will. You have to start young.

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    Does anyone agree? - Yes.

    Only going to get worse, computers and phones with all that touchscreen whizzing about - focus and it's gone. I've given up Pointless because they never rest on the question and/or the pictures long enough for me to get my eye in. I touch-type really fast, ex secretary, but can't eye-focus that fast and never will. You have to start young.  
    Which is possibly the point. Prime time TV is often aimed at a younger audience, understandably. The fault isn't with the programme makers but with older viewers who can't keep up. It's not 1979 anymore.

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Going_once (U14931925) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    It was never 1979. I know I'm over the hill - it's peaceful here.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by zen humbug (U14877400) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    Does anyone agree with me that there are too many camera changes per minute. I just about get focused on a shot and it is gone. I counted 47 different shots on a music programme in one minute. Do the producers think this is enjoyable. We even get shots so close that it is difficult to make out what we are seeing. Please tell you producers to stop flitting from one shot to another so quickly .  It's called ART, lovie. smiley - biggrin 
    The professional term is "fatuous editing".

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    I agree with all that has been said so far. It is to much. It often makes me feel quite sea sick!

    In my opinion, it is motivated my laziness on the part of TV producers. Instead of creating pace and interest through the writing (yes EastEnders 'writers', I am talking to you!) it is created through the editing...wrongly in my view. 
    Sorry, the notion that Eastenders uses rapid cutting/editing to create the illusion of pace is just patently false. It's certainly lazy, yes but I think that saying increasing the number of shots per minute is a way to improve pacing is a lot like saying adding clipart makes a presentation more compelling.

    Which isn't to say people don't try and get away with it - just that it doesn't work.

    But while I would certainly agree that the editing on Eastenders has never been particularly good and in recent years both the direction and editing (and audio quality for some reason) has become flat out amateurish at times, I really don't think one can accuse of it of excessive cuts.

    A show like the so-bad-it-was-almost-not-horribly-boring-and-stupid Hunted is where eyes should firmly be pointed for this kind of charge and it has little to do with the pacing - because it didn't matter how many times you cut between two people pausing dramatically between hackneyed dialogue - and everything to do with DIRE fight choreography.

    The proliferation of the technique is endemic far more in action scenes because it allows for essentially any footage to be stuck together and for the waif-like female heroine to have somehow floored a dozen men that each individually look as if they could have killed her with their index finger... but cue on seizure inducing "action" scene and they're all disposed of and our protagonist hasn't a hair out of place.

    So, it is indeed a technique borne of laziness but while I'd be the first to have the Crayon Crew in the dock for their crimes against television - I really don't see how this is something they're particularly guilty of.

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by germinator (U13411914) on Tuesday, 15th January 2013

    I agree Snookams, this 'technique' is often associated with loud intrusive 'music', either of which is sufficient to cause me to change channel or turn off immediately; but as suggested helpfully upthread, I am not in the target audience, but just a tired old licence-payer.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Fred (U15549179) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    Yes

    Some are so bad the continuity announcer should say "This programme contains flashing images"

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    When making documentaries about history and/or the arts, it must be quite difficult to decide how long each shot should be on the screen. It is quite irritating when an interesting work of art, or an historic manuscript appears, and then vanishes before the viewer has had a chance to inspect it properly.

    From the point of view of the documentary producer, I understand that if they allowed even a couple of seconds for this, the pace of the programme would be slowed down and many viewers would complain that it was dull.

    I remember a very good Open University series about Italian Renaissance art and architecture which must have been 20 years ago. The camera lingered lovingly over the buildings and the paintings, and the voice-over commentary was fairly dry and to the point. The result was - to me at least - an absolute delight.

    If there is a programme that contains many shots of very interesting things, it is worth recording the show first. Then when you are watching you can pause and have a good look at anything particularly interesting that comes up. A good subject for this kind of treatment is Dr. Ramirez' series, "Illuminations - the Private Lives of Medieval Kings" which is currently being repeated. smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by MsA (U14389417) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    I think the pacing of television has changed in order to keep the interest of an audience which over the past twenty years has become used to being bombarded with and processing a lot of visual information very quickly in action films and video games. I don't see it going backwards anytime soon.   I agree. The sad thing is however that it doesn't allow any time for reflection. It's in those moments, when a shot endures, that we assimilate and process what we've seen. Often it results in our having a follow-on thought. That's particularly the case with drama and wildlife documentaries. So young people, who appear to want a change of shot every second or two, aren't using their thought processes at all when viewing such material. They lose much as a result, and so will the world. It's thinking that develops compassion.   I don't think that's necessarily always the case. What you're saying is true enough, but most TV drama these days is going to end up on DVD and the Producers are aware of that, so what you're given is a quick, visual hook which is rewarded by repeated viewings from which the viewer will potentially draw more than they did on the first viewing.  That may be true for some people, but surely not most viewers? I would have thought the the entire purpose behing making any serious drama or documentary is to make people think. Not to make their heads spin around and feel nauseous.

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    I think the pacing of television has changed in order to keep the interest of an audience which over the past twenty years has become used to being bombarded with and processing a lot of visual information very quickly in action films and video games. I don't see it going backwards anytime soon.   I agree. The sad thing is however that it doesn't allow any time for reflection. It's in those moments, when a shot endures, that we assimilate and process what we've seen. Often it results in our having a follow-on thought. That's particularly the case with drama and wildlife documentaries. So young people, who appear to want a change of shot every second or two, aren't using their thought processes at all when viewing such material. They lose much as a result, and so will the world. It's thinking that develops compassion.   I don't think that's necessarily always the case. What you're saying is true enough, but most TV drama these days is going to end up on DVD and the Producers are aware of that, so what you're given is a quick, visual hook which is rewarded by repeated viewings from which the viewer will potentially draw more than they did on the first viewing.  That may be true for some people, but surely not most viewers? I would have thought the the entire purpose behing making any serious drama or documentary is to make people think. Not to make their heads spin around and feel nauseous.   Thing is, I don't think it actually has that effect on a lot of the younger segment of the audience who, as I said earlier, are used to processing information faster. And some dramas are clearly designed to benefit from repeat viewing. the way people watch TV is changing thanks to new 'on demand' technology.

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    Thing is, I don't think it actually has that effect on a lot of the younger segment of the audience who, as I said earlier, are used to processing information faster. And some dramas are clearly designed to benefit from repeat viewing. the way people watch TV is changing thanks to new 'on demand' technology. 
    The thing is - when I think of the high quality, critically and popularly acclaimed TV of the past decade or two... I'm just not sure I see a prevalence of fast cutting.

    As has been previously suggested, it seems to mostly be the hacks with degrees from universities that used to be swimming pools in meeja studies that use fast cuts to cover up their inadequacies as directors and editors.

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    I don't think something like Sherlock fits into that category...

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by JanetDoe (U10211737) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    I don't think that's necessarily always the case. What you're saying is true enough, but most TV drama these days is going to end up on DVD and the Producers are aware of that, so what you're given is a quick, visual hook which is rewarded by repeated viewings from which the viewer will potentially draw more than they did on the first viewing. 
    Those words sound as if you are quoting your Meeeja Studies professor.

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    I don't think something like Sherlock fits into that category...  It's a rule of thumb and as I've said before - it's not an inherently bad thing. It's when it's used poorly or excessively that it becomes an issue... it's much like CGI in that respect.

    When it becomes a crutch for the insufficiency of the programme, that's when it's a problem.

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    I don't think that's necessarily always the case. What you're saying is true enough, but most TV drama these days is going to end up on DVD and the Producers are aware of that, so what you're given is a quick, visual hook which is rewarded by repeated viewings from which the viewer will potentially draw more than they did on the first viewing. 
    Those words sound as if you are quoting your Meeeja Studies professor. 
    I don't have a "meeja studies professor", and I find your insinuation insulting. If you can't contribute anything sensible to the discussion, don't bother to comment.

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Snookhams (U14765788) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    Anyone who calls someone Lovie would not no anything about art

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    Anyone who calls someone Lovie would not no anything about art  But would they know enough about English to differentiate between 'no' and 'know', or not to use a double negative?

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Fred (U15549179) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    Anyone who calls someone Lovie would not no anything about art  But would they know enough about English to differentiate between 'no' and 'know', or not to use a double negative? 

    I shouldn't but smiley - biggrin

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    I don't think that's necessarily always the case. What you're saying is true enough, but most TV drama these days is going to end up on DVD and the Producers are aware of that, so what you're given is a quick, visual hook which is rewarded by repeated viewings from which the viewer will potentially draw more than they did on the first viewing. 
    Those words sound as if you are quoting your Meeeja Studies professor. 
    I don't have a "meeja studies professor", and I find your insinuation insulting. If you can't contribute anything sensible to the discussion, don't bother to comment. 
    I assume you're the one deeming whatt is and what isn't a worthy contribution?

    To be honest, it does sound like the kind of pseudo-intellectual management speak that you'd get from a professor in a made-up degree at a college/swimming pool, so really - I think that Janet Doe's comment is an entirely worthy and relevant contribution... your thin skin is irrelevant.

    Also, does anyone watch motion sickness inducing shakycam/fast cuts/rapid panning and go "WOAH! I've gotta watch this!"

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Bethgem (U14263559) on Wednesday, 16th January 2013

    Also, does anyone watch motion sickness inducing shakycam/fast cuts/rapid panning and go "WOAH! I've gotta watch this!" 
    Certainly Not! smiley - steam

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by JanetDoe (U10211737) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    I don't think that's necessarily always the case. What you're saying is true enough, but most TV drama these days is going to end up on DVD and the Producers are aware of that, so what you're given is a quick, visual hook which is rewarded by repeated viewings from which the viewer will potentially draw more than they did on the first viewing. 
    Those words sound as if you are quoting your Meeeja Studies professor. 
    I don't have a "meeja studies professor", and I find your insinuation insulting. If you can't contribute anything sensible to the discussion, don't bother to comment. 
    Sorreeeeeeeeeee! But I'm not the ony one who thought that and I'm obviously under the mistaken impression that this forum is for the experssion of opinions - that was my (and at least one other person's) opinion (msg 30).

    Changing the subject, what really gives me motion sickness is when the camera goes round and round a couple's heads when they are speaking so the background goes past at a rate of knots. Have to turn away or change channels.

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Thursday, 17th January 2013



    As has been previously suggested, it seems to mostly be the hacks with degrees from universities that used to be swimming pools in meeja studies that use fast cuts to cover up their inadequacies as directors and editors. 

    A Director or Cameraperson or film editor would be *very* unlikely to have a degree in Media Studies.

    Media studies is a purely academic degree, which looks at the role of media in society.


    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Maxibaby (U14151672) on Thursday, 17th January 2013



    As has been previously suggested, it seems to mostly be the hacks with degrees from universities that used to be swimming pools in meeja studies that use fast cuts to cover up their inadequacies as directors and editors. 

    A Director or Cameraperson or film editor would be *very* unlikely to have a degree in Media Studies.

    Media studies is a purely academic degree, which looks at the role of media in society.


     
    .......... then perhaps it might be appropriate if the Directors, cameraperson or editor paid a bit of attention to making a production watchable, not nausea-inducing, and didn't pick up so quickly on insider fashions in presentation. In other words, how about considering what the viewers want to watch rather than how it will be received by other Directors, camerapersons or editors? A good idea of viewer preferences can easily be obtained by reading this Board.

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by JanetDoe (U10211737) on Thursday, 17th January 2013



    As has been previously suggested, it seems to mostly be the hacks with degrees from universities that used to be swimming pools in meeja studies that use fast cuts to cover up their inadequacies as directors and editors. 

    A Director or Cameraperson or film editor would be *very* unlikely to have a degree in Media Studies.

    Media studies is a purely academic degree, which looks at the role of media in society.


     
    Not at my local university., where it includes production of documentary, animated, corporate and other films.

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by germinator (U13411914) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    "Thing is, I don't think it actually has that effect on a lot of the younger segment of the audience who, as I said earlier, are used to processing information faster. And some dramas are clearly designed to benefit from repeat viewing. the way people watch TV is changing thanks to new 'on demand' technology."
    If this is true, the BBC could do us all a favour by prefacing such footage with a simple alert " The following programme/footage includes some rapid information processing opportunites, (which younger viewers may wish to enjoy and/or record and older viewers to avoid)."

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by shilkman (U13628054) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    Yes the darts is a real case in point with camera at the back of the room zooming too and fro as if its controlled by some maniac. The same occurs in the Millican show too. The new "toy" is the boom mounted camera which they seem to have to use to full effect to the detriment of the viewing audience!

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by germinator (U13411914) on Thursday, 17th January 2013



    As has been previously suggested, it seems to mostly be the hacks with degrees from universities that used to be swimming pools in meeja studies that use fast cuts to cover up their inadequacies as directors and editors. 

    A Director or Cameraperson or film editor would be *very* unlikely to have a degree in Media Studies.

    Media studies is a purely academic degree, which looks at the role of media in society.


     
    I think it depend which Media Studies degree is studied:
    www.bangor.ac.uk/cre...

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 17th January 2013



    As has been previously suggested, it seems to mostly be the hacks with degrees from universities that used to be swimming pools in meeja studies that use fast cuts to cover up their inadequacies as directors and editors. 

    A Director or Cameraperson or film editor would be *very* unlikely to have a degree in Media Studies.

    Media studies is a purely academic degree, which looks at the role of media in society.


     
    .......... then perhaps it might be appropriate if the Directors, cameraperson or editor paid a bit of attention to making a production watchable, not nausea-inducing, and didn't pick up so quickly on insider fashions in presentation. In other words, how about considering what the viewers want to watch rather than how it will be received by other Directors, camerapersons or editors? A good idea of viewer preferences can easily be obtained by reading this Board.  
    No. A good idea of the gripes of a vocal minority of viewers, most of them middle aged or older, can be easily obtained by reading this board. The majority who are generally pretty happy with what they're watching don't generally feel the need to comment on it. If these techniques were indeed "nausea-inducing" in the majority of viewers, they wouldn't be used. As it is, the fact that shows like Sherlock and Doctor Who, which routinely use them, also routinely get between seven and nine million viewers per episode seems to me to suggest that they are probably working for most of their audience.

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Jan-Ann (U14322193) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    I would have thought the the entire purpose behing making any serious drama or documentary is to make people think. Not to make their heads spin around and feel nauseous.
     
    It doesn't make me nauseous but it does make my head spin, (or at least my eyes), because I just look away when the constantly changing flashes of colour are showing.

    This method of showing pics is totally useless. You cannot absorb anything being shown, and I believe that applies to the youngest most able minded viewer, not just the ones who are losing their grey cells.

    It can be roped in with BGM as an unwanted nuisence. My favourite view, the F1 Motor Racing, has both thrown in and both detract from the quality and enjoyability of the programme. I want to see that driver and hear him speaking, not multiple flashes of every angle with every genre of music over the top.

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by angelictennisfan (U8898769) ** on Thursday, 17th January 2013



    As has been previously suggested, it seems to mostly be the hacks with degrees from universities that used to be swimming pools in meeja studies that use fast cuts to cover up their inadequacies as directors and editors. 

    A Director or Cameraperson or film editor would be *very* unlikely to have a degree in Media Studies.

    Media studies is a purely academic degree, which looks at the role of media in society.


     
    .......... then perhaps it might be appropriate if the Directors, cameraperson or editor paid a bit of attention to making a production watchable, not nausea-inducing, and didn't pick up so quickly on insider fashions in presentation. In other words, how about considering what the viewers want to watch rather than how it will be received by other Directors, camerapersons or editors? A good idea of viewer preferences can easily be obtained by reading this Board.  
    No. A good idea of the gripes of a vocal minority of viewers, most of them middle aged or older, can be easily obtained by reading this board. The majority who are generally pretty happy with what they're watching don't generally feel the need to comment on it. If these techniques were indeed "nausea-inducing" in the majority of viewers, they wouldn't be used. As it is, the fact that shows like Sherlock and Doctor Who, which routinely use them, also routinely get between seven and nine million viewers per episode seems to me to suggest that they are probably working for most of their audience.  
    What a selfish attitude. Typically "put up, and shut up". Just like the attitude of the people who make the programmes.

    I'm with those who don't like constant changing camera angles. It makes me dizzy.

    Why all this obsession with catering for the "yoof" market? I would suggest that most people who watch TV on a regular basis are older and don't "get" all this fast cut nonsense.

    Reply to this message 41

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    I'm 43 and I have no problem with it. I also don't see how I'm being "selfish" in understanding that the TV companies need to pull in viewers of all ages, not just the over forties. Whether you like it or not, people of all ages and with all manner of likes and dislikes watch TV.

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Phrasmotic 4 August 2012 (U5509534) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    Does anyone agree with me that there are too many camera changes per minute. I just about get focused on a shot and it is gone. I counted 47 different shots on a music programme in one minute. Do the producers think this is enjoyable. We even get shots so close that it is difficult to make out what we are seeing. Please tell you producers to stop flitting from one shot to another so quickly .  Nothing sums up the OP's point better than this clip of a performance of song a like by a singer I admire. I can't beyond the first verse, as there are cutaways every 2-3 seconds, or maybe even quicker than that in some cases.

    www.youtube.com/watc...

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    This fast cutting for me is like wearing one of those celice things the Jesuits have - suffering for soul-improving mortification? It's lined up with three or four others. These silly fads are crosses we apparently have to bear.

    I don't think it appeals to 'yoofpeople' especially but that might be dragged out as a justification for doing something the perpetrators delude themselves is Cool and Now etc etc.

    It plainly makes watching more difficult and is a pain in the eyeballs but I don't think the makers are bothered about that. I think there's a lack of goodwill and responsibility towards viewers - an alienation. They seem to lack the pride in their work of previous professionals ..... and a lack of professionalism. It would be interesting to see an account of how things are with these semi-competents; what their guiding attitudes are.

    Not to moan about the state of education causing it all, I think there is now a feeling that they don't really care about their work, their calling, about doing things well .... much less think of it as a craft or care about the subjects, about learning, culture. Perhaps it is a result of immersion in technology leading to a distance ...... maybe it is now just a look-fashion thing.

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    In what way does that prevent you from enjoying the song?

    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 17th January 2013


    It plainly makes watching more difficult  
    It plainly doesn't for everyone. I think there's a lack of goodwill and responsibility towards viewers - an alienation. They seem to lack the pride in their work of previous professionals ..... and a lack of professionalism. It would be interesting to see an account of how things are with these semi-competents; what their guiding attitudes are.

    Not to moan about the state of education causing it all, I think there is now a feeling that they don't really care about their work, their calling, about doing things well .... much less think of it as a craft or care about the subjects, about learning, culture. Perhaps it is a result of immersion in technology leading to a distance ...... maybe it is now just a look-fashion thing. 
    This is possibly the silliest post on this subject so far. Not doing things the way you personally like them done displays a lack of professionalism or pride in their work? Seriously? How would you know that they don't have pride in what they do? Just because you don't like the finished result, doesn't mean the people creating it aren't proud of it. Conversely, there are probably programmes you've liked in the past that the Producer or Director absolutely hated making and has no pride in at all!

    Reply to this message 46

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    Ha ..... you're just an apologist. No, I don't like something if the evidence of my eyes tells me it's no good ..... and I've been involved and thought enough about it all to have an informed opinion .... a point of view - my pov, thanks
    ..... and btw, you're welcome to yours.

    I don't have time for all that relativism stuff. "That's just your opinion .... " Too right. Throughout history in different fields you can see variations in attitudes and sometimes, no, people didn't care as much, and it shows.

    With much of the current output it's worse. I wonder if they are in their right mind to serve up stuff which, here at least, draws thousands of complaints about the same old things. More blame should properly be directed at those higher up who ok mediocrity.

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    Ha ..... you're just an apologist. No, I don't like something if the evidence of my eyes tells me it's no good ..... and I've been involved and thought enough about it all to have an informed opinion .... a point of view - my pov, thanks
    ..... and btw, you're welcome to yours.

    I don't have time for all that relativism stuff. "That's just your opinion .... " Too right. Throughout history in different fields you can see variations in attitudes and sometimes, no, people didn't care as much, and it shows.

    With much of the current output it's worse. I wonder if they are in their right mind to serve up stuff which, here at least, draws thousands of complaints about the same old things. More blame should properly be directed at those higher up who ok mediocrity. 
    Have you read the old East Enders thread? Thousands upon thousands of posts, and at least three quarters of them complaining about the fact that probably the single most watched programme on British TV is rubbish. But if that's the case, then why is it probably the single most watched programme on British TV? These boards attract a tiny fraction of the viewing public, and nine times out of ten, only because they want to complain about something they personally didn't like. As a representative sample, it's meaningless.

    The evidence of your eyes, as you put it, tells you one thing and one thing only: whether or not YOU like what you're looking at. If you don't, that's your problem, not the programme makers'. You are not the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not good quality television.

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Dorset-Viewer (U14388837) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    Totally agree. Watching Dan Snow's Locomotion the other night was an avalanche of images. If you add to that loud, intrusive background music and perhaps an overbearing presenter with a very strong personality and programs become unwatchable. Maybe the BBC feels that unless there is an assault on the senses we will lose concentration and switch channels - which of course we end up doing. Programs aired early evening suffer greatly from these problems and we come to realise that they are aimed at a different audience.

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 17th January 2013

    Totally agree. Watching Dan Snow's Locomotion the other night was an avalanche of images. If you add to that loud, intrusive background music and perhaps an overbearing presenter with a very strong personality and programs become unwatchable. Maybe the BBC feels that unless there is an assault on the senses we will lose concentration and switch channels - which of course we end up doing. Programs aired early evening suffer greatly from these problems and we come to realise that they are aimed at a different audience.  Wellif they're aimed at a different audience, then it isn't a problem, is it?

    Reply to this message 50

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2014 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.