I wish they would stop this dreadful habit of superimposing a voice over the last minute or so of a programme. Many people enjoy familiar closing music. It's infuriating to have its volume turned down in favour of some moronic so-called announcement.
Jim Hawkins
You mean the Daily Mail tends to sound like me. I think for myself.
Good for you, but many elderly people don't use the internet and struggle with recording devices.
Bill
Most elderly people get up early. I wish I could sleep past 5am
I also hate the way they shrink the credits - just when I'm trying to see the name of an artist who I recognise but don't remember.
If credits ain't necessary for the purpose intended, chop them off completely. But of course they'd not do this as it would mean making longer real programmes.
I relly dony have a problem with te Beeb and Chrisdtianity. Frdstly theres hardly any of it, secondly its on at infeasibly weird times, and thirdly there are a lot more channels these days to watch.
I'd be a lot more upset if i WAS a christian. Islam and Juidaism are what the beeb pushes now. Although I ws a BIT irritated when they did a program opn tedark agres, and all they had to say was with repect to christianity in the dark ages. They missed everything else off..
Still what is te Beeb for, if not to push agendas?
That can really annoy me, too. Quite a few years ago now I remember watching a series on Jazz, which I fou nd actually a bit unsatisfactory because almost all the music was in the fo rm of bleeding chunks rather than complete pieces; at the end of one progra mme we had a big build up to them actually playing the whole of West End Bl ues (I think it was) without any truncation or voice-over, which was then r uined by the continuity announcer inserting a plug for something...
I remember a R4 broadcast from a Quaker service. Mostly silence
So which media channel would you say was the fairest and most balanced?
Pissed or phone?
all three
The inbred media fuckwits at the beeb say that if you really want to know who is in a particular programme you can use sources such as imdb, completely failing to realise that not everyone has the internet and imdb is, in the main, populated by amateurs pressing pause and transcribing programme credits, that are now near invisible due to shrinking or beng scrolled at an excessive speed.
IMHO all programs should be shown in full, with no shrinking of credits, no voiceovers, with a clear font, and at a speed at which they can all be easily read.
I'd also significantly reduce the volume of all programme promotions and continuity announcements so they are of a lower volume than that of the programmes either side of the break.
No that's a fallacy.
Bill
The Other Mike :
You're welcome to your opinion of course, but that's not very good for viewers who have no interest in the credits, and don't see why they should be subjected to them.
I wish they would start programmes on time, and leave the trailers etc to the end of the programme. Whenever I record anything from a BBC channel I get a bit of the preceding programme and several minutes of trailers, then I miss the end of the programme because it over-runs. "Only Connect" is a prime example - I never know who won.
They have the choice of going for a pee/making a cup of tea.
Quite. There's a reason why credits are played down and that's because many viewers are bored by them and wander off or switch channel, and that's regarded as a Bad Thing. People who want to see credits in full, with no shrinking, no voiceovers, with a clear font, and at a speed when they can all be easily read, are a small minority and shouldn't be pandered to at the expense of everyone else. Unless you can think of a good reason.
Why does the film/TV industry think we need credits at all. After all if I buy a toothbrush the box does not contain details of everyone involved in its design, production and distribution so why should a film or TV programme.
You buy a toothbrush. You haven't bought the film - all you're paying for is to watch it.
The majority of those involved in the making of a film are self employed. So their next job depends on how good they are at previous ones. Hence the credits.
I can quite understand the majority having no interest in this. So the answer is to remove them totally. Not mess around with them, so they are impossible to read. Because that is then neither one or the other.
Plenty of other small minorities are pandered to by the media.
Very true, but of interest only within the industry, who have plenty of other sources for that information. IMDB certainly isn't "just a bunch of amateurs pressing pause and transcribing the credits".
Ah remember when ah were a lad... film credits used to be worth watching. Jokes would be slipped in. Out-takes. Bloopers. A bonus scene at the end.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.