Poor Treatment of Viewers - Eureka (spoiler)

[HDCriticalFan]

I just had to get this off my chest.

The practice of putting a banner over a programme to advertise another is pretty annoying. It really irked me in this week's "Town Called Eureka" though.

Allow me to explain - but I'll need to issue a spoiler warning for those who haven't watched it yet.


S

P

O

I

L

E

R



S

P

A

C

E


Still with me ? OK.

We are three years into this, and it's a show in which people do not die off regularly (unlike, say, 24, BSG or Lost - although they tend to come back here as well !).

All of a sudden, in the last five minutes, we see Nathan Stark sacrifice himself to save, well, everything. The sheriff has to go and see Alison as she prepares for her wedding to Nathan, not knowing that the ceremony planned to start in a few moments will never go ahead.

The sheriff enters the dark tent in which she is fussing in front of the mirror. She turns, looks at him and wonders what is wrong ... and then a bright banner unfurls from the region of her forehead to advertise that Battlestar starts next !!!

To add insult to injury, when the closing quirky theme tune is dropped in favour of a very sombre piece of music (given the harrowing final few moments as Alison begins to grieve) ... the picture is squished and a cheery Sky voice-over artist chips in with some more adverts.


Sky aren't alone in doing this. Why can't broadcasters be a bit more sensitive ? At the very least, for their flagship primetime premieres they could check that no one dies in the final moments and/or that the producers have not seen fit to alter the final credit sequence for some reason.





Regards

[Rizob]

While i've never seen the programme you're talking about, i know exactly what you mean. I've noticed the giant banners in a lot of U.S aired programmes and i just prey it gets shot down with complaints over here before it gets too widespread.

As for the voice that comes in just as the credits roll, this is definitely something i hate. Especially if it's a moving ending which blends into the credits and then 5 seconds later BAM the voice comes in 10 times louder than the movie through your AV system, causing you to scramble for the remote to turn it down!

[hammer man]

Originally Posted by Rizob

As for the voice that comes in just as the credits roll, this is definitely something i hate. Especially if it's a moving ending which blends into the credits and then 5 seconds later BAM the voice comes in 10 times louder than the movie through your AV system, causing you to scramble for the remote to turn it down!

A classic example of this was Cloverfield from Anytime yesterday.

[HDCriticalFan]

Originally Posted by hammer man

A classic example of this was Cloverfield from Anytime yesterday.

Crikey ! I thought that Anytime was immune from that sort of thing.

I turned off (the rather pointless) Anytime many months ago when I thought that it was causing my box to crash. What I remember of it was that there was no on screen logo (on Sky One at least) and no ad breaks. I assumed that they wouldn't do in-programme banners (as there was no following programme) or voice overs (for the same reason). Have they changed this now ? Suddenly I am not that bothered about the lack of Anytime on my box after all !





Regards

[Starburst]

I didn't watch Tuesdays recording after seeing (but not reading this thread) and recorded this mornings and watched it before the footy.
I do agree it's the little things that can really get your back up and those include garish banners and poorly timed automated voice overs.

It could be worse...

[hammer man]

Originally Posted by HDCriticalFan

Crikey ! I thought that Anytime was immune from that sort of thing.

Regards

Some woman started rabbiting on about another film/prog coming up. Turned it off halfway through what she was saying.

[HDCriticalFan]

Originally Posted by Starburst

It could be worse...

Yikes ! Is that from the US ?

My fear is that if we just quietly accept these intrusions they will just become worse and worse.

I was in the US on business many years ago and I tried to watch a film on TV ... there were advert breaks so often (it seemed like every five minutes ... and they lasted about five minutes each !) I just couldn't maintain my interest and had to give up.

Even here in the UK it keeps getting worse. I've just watched Moving Wallpaper on ITV. I realised that I just don't watch ITV (not mere snobbery, they just don't show anything that I am interested in) and I was gobsmacked when, with two minutes to go, the bottom QUARTER of my screen went dark and an advert appeared. I know that it was "only" a comedy (and not a drama) but it was in the middle of a scene and actors were "doing their job" at the time. I think that this is outrageous and quite an insult to the performers. It's a bit like talking in the theatre.




Regards

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by HDCriticalFan

Yikes ! Is that from the US ?

My fear is that if we just quietly accept these intrusions they will just become worse and worse.

Yep, not the worse example either just one I happened to watch that afternoon.

The problem is easily solved, make onscreen inhouse advertising in every form part of the 24 hour allocation thus at a stroke they all vanish including the DOG as broadcasters use the time for paying advertisers.

Anyone still here remember the Scifi "head" which took half the screen, can't find the image but it was big.

[Martin J.]

I was a little put out by the end of Ross Kemp in Afghanistan last night. Over his final piece to camera and almost over a still of the soldier who had died during filming, was a big blue banner advertising what was coming next.

Given how sombre the ending was, and how even the continuity announcer managed to stay quiet through the list of all those who had lost their lives, that banner stuck out like a sore thumb.

[eiren]

There was a big rant or two from Charlie Brooker on his Screenwipe about the increase in popularity on doing this... even the BBC has guidelines instructing how to do it.

It's a shame the broadcasters have such little respect for the content of their programming these days.

[HDCriticalFan]

Originally Posted by Martin J.

I was a little put out by the end of Ross Kemp in Afghanistan last night. Over his final piece to camera and almost over a still of the soldier who had died during filming, was a big blue banner advertising what was coming next.

Given how sombre the ending was, and how even the continuity announcer managed to stay quiet through the list of all those who had lost their lives, that banner stuck out like a sore thumb.

I could not agree more.

This was the very closing frames of the last episode of a landmark piece of programming ... the sort which any Public Service Broadcaster could be proud of (BBC - why didn't you make it ? This is just the sort of thing the licence fee is for.). It was a very "Black and White" moment and the blue banner was absolutely obscene.


Shame on you Sky.


When they went on to add that 149 soldiers had died up to 27th February I was saddened. When they scrolled through the list of all of their names the shocking truth of the situation started to come home to me ... that each of the 149 was a person, with parents, siblings, partners, even children. I feel no shame in admitting that I had to reach for the kleenex box.

Well done Ross. He should get an award for this. Are people here aware that he is the driving force behind the programme ? i.e. he wasn't simply called up by a production company looking for an available familar face ... the whole show is pretty much his idea (I believe that he comes from a military family).




Regards

[richard plumb]

I remember Charlie Brooker talking about this. The BBC's 'solution' isn't to be more sensitive to the content of the program, its to change the programs so they don't dare put anything useful in the end credits, so the BBC can merrily squish it up and talk all over it.

[Knyght_byte]

This bugs me as well.....one reason why if I moved out I think I would actually ditch TV and buy box sets of stuff I like. As most of it is on Sky, the £700 a year I would save would happily buy all the box sets.

Would also mean more gaming time

I dont care when its just your average episode, but when its a poignant moment they really should think about it a bit more.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by Knyght_byte

This bugs me as well.....one reason why if I moved out I think I would actually ditch TV and buy box sets of stuff I like. As most of it is on Sky, the £700 a year I would save would happily buy all the box sets.

Would also mean more gaming time

I dont care when its just your average episode, but when its a poignant moment they really should think about it a bit more.

If the only stuff you're watching on Sky is available on box sets, surely you could just get one mix and the HD Pack for £315 per year?

[Knyght_byte]

Originally Posted by derek500

If the only stuff you're watching on Sky is available on box sets, surely you could just get one mix and the HD Pack for £315 per year?

I'm currently staying with my parents, who like the sport, If I'm taking the sport I might as well take the movies as well, hence having a full world package and a multiroom plus HD.

But if I moved out, I wouldnt need the sport, the multiroom and would probably ditch the movies too....but its still going to work out the same as buying the box sets and I get to keep those....