Points of View : 17th October

Doghouse Riley, I agree with everything you have said.

As for the original subpoint (the main point being the BBC's insulting response) about background music being too loud - as one gets older (which, if they're lucky, our smart-arse posters will do in due course) it gets more difficult to discern individual sounRAB when assailed by a lot of them at once.

Resorting to subtitles is something I quite often do for particularly difficult sequences, eg in American shows where the fashion seems to be to slur or to speak like a cartoon duck, but having to read subtitles and watch the images at the same time is not exactly relaxing. And to have to do it in programmes where the background music is making no positive contribution is galling.

parthena
 
Because it is a forum 9or "message board" as you always seem to describe it, seeing as you have stated so many times that you don't come here to engage in a debate), a place where people discuss things, or in your oft-repeated view, where people merely post opinions. I was posting an opinion, entirely in keeping with the T's & C's and posting guidelines.
 
Or maybe people have the right to complain about a show if they aren't happy with it (especially when it's on a channel where programmes are funded with their money)? As you have the right to ignore their complaints, if it bothers you so.
 
Actually, your; "Absolutely" reaRAB as echoing the post you quoted, which was in fact an "instruction."

So sorry, I don't call that an "opinion."
 
Exactly!

The time honoured BBC excuse of; "Those who complain about the music being too loud, either have hearing problems or are watching on duff equipment" is a complete nonsense, as when viewers complain about "loud music" in a programme they really mean anything from just a few, or several parts of it.

As I've mentioned before, usually when the programme maker wants to add some more drama, or in many cases, make a pathetic attempt to deflect the viewer's attention to some pretty lame acting or an otherwise flat part in the narative, they ramp up the music.

I often watch TV over a book. It makes me smile when in a drama, the music suddenly gets loud, so I think to myself "something exciting must be happening now!" I look up and often it was nothing worth bothering about. It's just the programme makers up to their usual tricks.

As I've said before, no one has ever complained abou the music not being loud enough in a programme.
 
Nope. Didn't miss the point at all. My advice of "stop watching it" still stanRAB. Might I also add that it does not require one thread per episode cluttering up the forums just to repeat the same thing, ad nauseum.
 
Oh It's "advice" now is it?
It reaRAB like an instruction.

But you still missed the point, the comment was about the BBC's attitude towarRAB viewers, expressed on the programme and not the programme itself.

Oh and you're "moderating too" are you?
It's not your business to tell others whether they should or shouldn't start a thread on a specific programme.

"Don't like it, Don't watch it" must be the most pointless post on any thread.



If you've nothing better to add to a thread why don't you just scroll down instead?


That's neither advice, nor an instruction, just a suggestion that'll probably fall on deaf ears.
 
I see it as an opinion, you see it as an echoed instruction, so we will have to agree to differ on that one.


As for PoV itself as a programme, I think that we all know what to expect from the programme, so it should not really come as a surprise when your "suits" (I hate that word as a description btw, and that's an opinion) appear and neither say nothing of any worth nor accept that they, nor the production team, were wrong.
 
I suppose the very title ''Points of View'' implies an exchange of opinions, not that the BBC will actually do anything about it. Similarly ''Newswatch'' is people watching the News and moaning, not requiring the BBC to take action.
 
You've your opinion, I've mine, so yes let's leave it at that.




Why do you hate the description?

I think it's an accurate description of the "style over substance" of a lot of people in many organisations and politics, who follow the mantra; "if you look good, some people will think you know what you're doing, even if you're talking nonsense."

So I'm afraid there will be plenty of opportunities in the future when the reference will definitely apply.
 
I just do - I find it to be a generic and dismissive term. Managers or controllers (or whatever their job title is) seems more appropriate to me. Then I judge them on the content of their presentation, answers or dialogue.

But maybe that's just me.
 
Err..

It's meant to be, when I use it, as the BBC have a number of them who've been spouting nonsense for years and we're paying their inflated salaries.

I use it when I've witnessed a typical example, as here. This no doubt highly paid woman, tried to excuse the loud volume of the music about which there were complaints with "it may have sounded onerous as we'd shortened the programme."

You have to smile, don't you?
 
Just answering your question as to why I don't like the term.



Agreed on that one. An odd answer, although one where there is some perverse, if flawed, logic. If loud music is used correctly to highlight a particular scene or event within a programme, it might be accepted as adding to the tension/drama. But used in a short programme where no such tension or drama had been created (i.e used to create false dramatic tension) would make it overbearing. But that totally misses the point of the initial complaint.
 
The trouble is people think that just because something does not coincide with their point of view it is ''wrong''. Factual mistakes can be dealt with and shown to be right or wrong.But the BBC is not necessarily ''wrong'' just because you disagree with something somebody is saying.
 
Very true, and by the same token a programme producer is more likely than not to see his/her own creative decisions as being correct (otherwise those decisions would not have been taken in the first place).

Having said that, it would be refreshing to hear, once in a while, that they accept that on reflection, they got it wrong. It does happen sometimes, certainly on other programmes.
 
Well the head of Radio 2 admitted the Jonathan Ross Sachsgate affair was wrong and she resigned over it (or rather got the bullet).And Peter Fincham admitted he got it wrong over that trailer for the BBC Queen docco and walked. So I suppose it does happen sometime.
 
Back
Top