recent TREND is really annoying on tv shows.. (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

David VP, we get your point, now please drop it, and go start a thread in support of all of the junk on TV channels. Coming back to this thread with the same talking points will get your posting privileges suspended for thread crapping.

 

[MickeS]

When CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the other newsstations just present their news, I don't care about their tickers and other stuff, since they normally frame the pictures with that in mind. Those stations are all about providing news in a quick and informative manner.
However, sometimes MSNBC runs reports and specialty shows, and sometimes they too squeeze the picture, in order to get the tickers in. I don't watch those shows there.
I actually like CNN Headline News, since it gives me information quickly, but I can't stand to watch it for more than 10-15 minutes, it gives me a headache. They seem to take that into account though, the way the news are structured.

 

[Jeff D.]

Pretty much nobody gives a flying leap about the credits anyhow

Maybe you don't, but I feel they are important. Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, the people listed in the credits all play an important role in bringing the show you just watched to the screen. It is ignorant to 'discredit' them the way the networks do by squishing them to the side, making the text unreadably tiny and then scrolling it by at light speed just to promote the next show. Just another in a long line of despicable practices by the networks.

/Jeff

 

[Jeff D.]

I thought I'd ask this, since it seems the appropriate place - and this question is directed to our UK members (hopefully some read this thread).

Does the BBC now adopt this terrible practice for their credits? I ask, because I am a faithful viewer of EastEnders, which is available to us on satellite on BBC Canada. The episodes are about 1 year behind, and just recently the credits changed with the text being significantly reduced in size and designed to take up but a sliver of the screen. It looked to me like it had been designed so the rest of the screen could be used for adverts etc.

I always admired british television (at least the Beeb) to be very un-American. I'd hate to see that changing.

/Jeff

 

[Mike Broadman]

Those who are interested in reading the credits are an extremely tiny, financially insignificant portion of the audience. Most people don't care, and why should they? No one is saying that the people who worked on the show aren't important- of course not, that makes no sense. But how does it help anyone to sit there and their names? Does it increase their pay or give them more work? Are they aware of your noble desire to learn all of their names?
The idea of complaining about commericialisim on TV does seem a bit odd. TV is a commercial business by its very nature. From a business perspective, the show is just filler in between advertisements.
However, that being said, I generally feel that a business can make more money in the long run by treating its customers well. Offending or annoying the consumer for small gain is not good business.
Squishing credits: doesn't annoy most people. In fact, I bet more people are interested in hearing about that network's programming than about reading the credits; and most just don't care. Therefore, it makes sense to do this.
Squishing the show (a la TNN w/ Star Trek): This is just beyond retarded. I was eager to catch some old eps, but quickly proceeded to rant and rave and throw non-damaging items at the TV screen. I assumed the black bar thing would go away, but it just sat there, mocking me...
For those still confused about this: the black bar on TNN for Trek ruins the OAR (which was standard TV 1.33:1) and is only there for advertising. The "black bars" on letterboxed movies preserve the cinematic OAR (longer than TV), and are therefore necessary. It's not a matter liking one black bar over another, it's a matter of showing the goddamn thing the right way and having just a smattering of respect for the presentation, which, in the long run, results in more money by developing a loyal viewership.
If a network is able to keep a loyal audience by being respectful and pleasing that audience, these people will come back to the station. If one watches the station regularly and sees the same commercials, he/she will be much more likely to purchase the product. Advertising works on a very subconscious level: if you're in the grocery store getting Peanuts, and you've seen the Planters commercial regularly, you will get Planters instead of the cheaper, equally good generic peanuts without realising it.
I admit I'm no marketing or business genius, but it's just a matter of good customer relations, which in this case, means show the freakin' TV show the right way.
As for the station logo on the bottom, I think it's stupid but I don't mind it. It's not covering up anything, it's small and in the bottom. The 'H' on the History Channel or the planet thingy on the Sci-Fi Channel are easily ignored. However, sometimes they fly in or appear in the middle of a scene and move around. That's obnoxious. I don't let it stop me from watching something, but I guess I can see why it would annoy some folks.

 

[Todd K]

More shows should do like Seinfeld did, and actually continue the show while the end credits play. This way it's harder for the stations to butcher the screen.

 

[Jeff D.]

From a business perspective, the show is just filler in between advertisements.

That may be, but this business better wake up and realize people watch TV for the shows, not the advertisements. If this continues, these shows will be practically non-existant and everyone will switch off.
/Jeff

 

[Mark C.]

I can't wait for all the seasons of Star Trek TNG to come out on DVD. Then I'll never watch TNN and its insulting picture "squeeze play'' again.

 

[MickeS]

I admit I'm no marketing or business genius, but it's just a matter of good customer relations, which in this case, means show the freakin' TV show the right way.

Exactly. I wonder how many viewers TNN has gained/lost because of this practice. Of course, I bet there are a lot of people who don't care that the picture is squeezed.... :frowning:
/Mike

 

[Jack Briggs]

Or even notice it, for that matter.

I had tried to watch TNG for as long as I could take it, but gave up on TNN's atrocious handling of it four months ago. Now, the Season One boxset of TNG is here, and I've made it through to "Where No One Has Gone Before," just thrilled with the stress-free experience of watching a correctly proportioned picture beautifully transferred onto DVD, and with nary a message bar and station logo in sight.

TNN is history, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Why not make a list of the stations who use these abusive (to the viewer/consumer) practices?

TNN (& Oxygen)- the "ad squeeze"

WB & ABC- Text ads at the end of the commercial break (when the show starts again)

History Channel- giant, yellow logo.

Others?

I understand the logos must stay. BUT, BUT, do they have to be so obnoxious? What ABC uses during primetime isn't so bad (nearly transparent). Why can't everyone go with a small, unobtrusive, translucent logo?

 

[Chuck L]

I really believe that a lot of this comes from Network's and such not wanting people to tape and library their shows.

That way, if you really want the show, you will purchase them on DVD or tape...which ever they see fit. In this age of consumerism...one cannot help but thing that this is the reasoning behind it.

What is really bad about it is that almost every channel does it in some respect. Unless you stop watching television all together, it doesn't look like you can get around it.

 

[Jack Briggs]

"I understand the logos must stay."

Who says? The networks have made these things increasingly obnoxious simply because viewers haven't had the wherewithal to raise their voices in protest. If enough of them did, and a well-publicized boycott of the most offensive stations were begun with the appropriate publicity, then there might be some action.

I used to dash e-mails off to the really offensive stations, yet I got tired of all the form-letter "replies" ("thank you for your interest...").

With the exception of PBS and Enterprise, I find myself watching less and less television--mostly because of these odious in-program promotions.

And if you should e-mail one of these channels and receive a "reply" telling you how viewers find the station-bug logos so helpful, then remind the network to run the logos during commercial breaks if they're so intent on being "helpful."

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

I think its doing a disservice to the makers of a TV show to have their shows butchered like this. I wonder if they approve of this rude practice?

No, they hate it. They had to fight to require TV stations to air the credits for series and movies at all. However, the contracts that mandated this were signed long before the kind of manipulation we see now was thought of, or prehaps even technically feasible. When the networks figured out they could make the credits unreadable and recoup this "dead time" by using part of the screen and the soundtrack to promote their next show without violating the letter of the union contracts, they went for it. This practice has, in fact, been a bone of contention in recent union contracts (including the last SAG contract) but it is so far down the priority list for most of the unions that it is dropped early in the process in favor of pay and other issues.

I believe at least one lawsuit has been filed claiming that the credit squeeze is for all practical purposes a violation of the requirement that credits be shown (since the would seem to imply that they be readable, or what's the point of showing them.) I don't know what the outcome was, though.

More than one member of a Hollywood union has gotten a job as a result of some studio type seeing something on TV and noting a name in the credits. And the people who work in the more anonymous jobs in TV and movies (those that only get listed in the end credits) have a right to expect that their names will be displayed, if only so mom and dad back in Dubuque can get a thrill. The practice is not only a disservice to viewers (I like reading the credits - it is often amusing to see the name of a big time director listed as "second assistant camera operator" or a current star as "Man in white hat"), but to the people who work hard to give us the shows and films to watch. I hope the unions are able to put an end to it, for all our sakes.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Todd Hochard]

I find myself watching less and less television--mostly because of these odious in-program promotions.

Me, too.

I was talking about the concept of branding as the reason that the logos must stay. But, they need to re-familiarize themselves with watermarked paper- not really obtrusive, hardly visible. This, I can deal with.

I've seen one example of this going the other way. On the Disney Channel, Playhouse Disney (in the AM) had a large, obnoxious, TV-looking thing, with mouse ears. They've changed it to a clear, cloud looking thing that you can hardly see. While I'd prefer nothing, I can live with that.

I cannot live with the text ("Coming up next:...") or the continuous squeeze (or any squeeze during the program).

Todd

 

[Jack Briggs]

And you know? I hate it that we've reached the point where we are grateful for some networks having toned down their station bugs, as you've mentioned, Todd. The major PBS affiliate in L.A. (there are four) has at least made its KCET logo small and opaque--but it still annoys the hell out of me that it's there at all.

This all started happening back in 1993 or 1994. I remember when I saw the first station bug that refused to go away after a station break; an uneasy feeling crept over me.

Now, here we are eight years later, and we're thankful for networks that use "less obtrusive" bugs.

I remember when The Discovery Channel first went with its bug about three years ago: It wasn't even opaque then. So, there I was, my eyes torn between the huge, animated, and busy logo and the program itself. After a while, I ceased watching the channel.

Meanwhile, getting back to the other theme in this thread: Dimunized credits rolling at warp speed while an announcer (with graphic) promotes the next show or the "video of the program you've just watched" have all resulted in my dumping cable four months ago (that is, in addition to some programming changes the cable provider made).

My thinking then was that I'd sign up for a DSB provider sometime in March. But I've been enjoying the relatively less obnoxious behavior of the OTA channels. Combine that with a new DVD player I purchased for my bedroom system, and I can't justify paying for the privilege of seeing The History Channel's big yellow "H" bug again. Besides, most of the network's "history" documentaries are vastly inferior to PBS's productions anyway.

Cable seems like one huge bug- and promotion-infested wasteland of a memory to me now. I really don't care to go back to it or to sign up with DirecTV and experience it all over again (though with a much clearer picture).

Blame most of this on the fucking station bugs.

 

[Anthony Hom]

I heard on CNET radio one time that TNN was toying the idea of a ditching commercial breaks and going with full time banner of streaming ads while a show or movie is playing. I would rather have commercial breaks. Guess you can always put a matte on your TV to block off the part that part of the screen that's streaming an ad.

 

[MickeS]

Anthony, I would actually prefer that they DIDN'T interrupt, and used banners instead, as long as they could maintain the proper aspect ratio. Why? Because inevitably there will be a way to block out the ads, be it with mattes or electronics, and then I get commercial free TV.
Of course, they'd probably come up with a system where the banner moved around between the four sides of the picture in a random pattern, so you couldn't use mattes... in that case, I'd prefer the breaks.
/Mike

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Hey Jack, I don't mean to sound smug or anything but it sounds like you've just figured out what I knew 10 years ago (even without the onscreen "bugs", cable was NOT worth paying for!!) I had free cable for a few months recently and I STILL would not watch it- the guy who lived in the apartment I moved into had forgotten to cancel his service so they kept it on for a while, and I just checked it every few days and wondered why anyone would pay to have this crap turned on. Since it's gone off I still haven't unpacked my indoor antenna so I've been getting literally NO TV for about 2 months, and I don't miss it one bit! (Well, I miss the way it used to be, but the way it is right now I don't miss getting it!)

BTW, if people really complain to Wal-Mart about widescreen DVDs, why don't they complain about logos on their TVs??

 

[Todd Hochard]

Most of what I watch is on HBO (Six Feet Under, Sex and the City, Sopranos, Band of Brothers, etc.), so as such, I pay for the "whole enchilada." Plus, I get EIGHT HD channels (PBS, HBO, Showtime not available OTA).

Perhaps I've overstated my "love" of the station bugs. I'm simply stating that, from the point of burn-in, I no longer have to worry about it on some stations. As much as I like to watch some History channel stuff, I don't often do so, for fear of the big yellow H appearing permanently on my $5000 TV.

Going back to that Playhouse Disney thing- Until about 4 weeks ago, they had NO commercials during the entire morning of kid's programming. Only ads for other shows on Playhouse Disney. No merchandise ads, no "Come to Disney World", nothing. Essentially like HBO, where the only ads are for their other programs (the 10 minute making-of faux commercials notwithstanding).

And then, they added one McDonald's commercial and ruined it. Up to this point, I was impressed with Disney's restraint in indoctrinating future hyper-consumers.

Todd