Something odd is happening on factual TV programmes. I am seeing this a lot now, and it’s certainly a style. You will have seen it - it’s where the presenter - the only person on screen is not talking to camera (and therefore the viewer), but is talking off camera. My original thoughts were that it was a method used to break in new presenters - by giving them a human to talk to. However, Fiona Bruce, who is well versed in the art of delivering information straight to camera is doing it in that art restoration programme. I don’t understand it - why do they feel the need to not talk to the camera? I just feel I am watching half a conversation and am not included in it.

I think it stems from documentary programmes where the producer/director is talking to the person in front of the camera. You sometimes hear the voice off asking questions. When this is edited to lose the off-screen voice, you still get the impression the subject is talking to someone else, and we're listening in. I'm okay with that, as the subject isn't "presenting" in the traditional sense.

It gets messy when the voice-over narration is the same person who is looking off-camera. That's wrong to me, and a fad that must stop.

I just remembered some US "factual" shows like those on Discovery/Quest use this technique a lot. It's worse there because the off-camera look bits are so obviously scripted and it comes over as stilted. Mythbusters makes it work because you often see the production team in shot.

I seem to remember Jamie Oliver doing this when he first started doing TV shows, and I'm fairly certain I remember reading, (or hearing) somewhere that it was because he was so nervous about being filmed.

However, I may be wrong...

You don’t even get the off camera voice any more. that threw me when it started. Why is the presenter being interviewed? Why is the interviewer not on camera? I understand that in the context of a documentary, where the subject is clearly not a TV professional in any sense of the word, but when a newsreader does it, it has clearly gone beyond just simple coaching or support. It has become part of the language being used, and I just don’t understand what they are trying to communicate to me in that context.

There's so much that annoys me about TV presentation these days.

There's a fashion on the BBC News channel to namecheck everyone when handing over. For example, the anchor will hand over to the business presenter across the studio, who will thank them profusely: "Tim, Molly, thank you very much indeed."

It's a wonder they don't namecheck the floor manager and camera operators as well. Such a cosy love-in annoys me intensely, because it's like the viewer is an afterthought.

And what about when they give their names at the start of a show? The one speaking will physically look at their colleague, as if to say "That's so-and-so, there, right there, sitting next to me, that's their name that is, not my name or me, but them."

I reckon most of this rubbish comes from across the pond. It's an affectation we really don't need. I really shouldn't get started.

Didn't someone raise this issue earlier? In another thread?

Not really noticed it TBH but then again I don't watch much TV these days.

Ooh! Ooh! Here's another!

Anchor: Breaking news, over to Mike, our reporter on the spot. It's been bad, hasn't it, Mike?

"Yes, absolutely right, Sophie. It's been really bad, what's happened, now here's something I recorded earlier which says everything I've just said all over again."

(Cuts from VT back to reporter on the spot.)

"Yes, now, here's a summary of my report without adding anything of substance to what you just saw, in case you didn't understand what I was saying. Back to you in the studio, Sophie."

Anchor: Thanks, Mike. That was Mike, there, on the spot, thank you.

Argh!

You are not related to Charlie Brooker are you?

TBH, as each day passes, the news more closely resembles The Day Today / Brass Eye.
I watched a couple of episodes of The Day Today recently and it suddenly doesn't seem like satire anymore!

Off-topic, but... Man freed after getting his head stuck in bin in Aberdeen

I insist you add tthat to the 'tales of fail' thread immediately

I'm sure I've already made a comment, but have none in this thread.

Found it: >clicky<

Another annoying trend I've noticed twice this week - can't remember the other drama, but just watched Monroe on ITV1 and the overuse of fake lens flare effects are so distracting. These horizontal bands of "light" add nothing to the story telling, they're just there because the director has discovered a new suite of effects to play with it seems. Pretty much every scene had a horizontal light beam in it.

It's like watching a JJ Abrams film, once you start noticing these fake effects you can't concentrate on the scene. I couldn't concentrate on his recent Star Trek film because of these annoying effects. Please, just stop it!!

Apparently the lens flare in Star Trek wasn't CGI. It was deliberate.

Deliberate or not, it was still fecking annoying!!


JJ Abrams uses it in all his recent films - anyone seen Super8, jeesus talk about overusing an effect. I wouldn't mind if it was used sparingly in selected scenes, but he uses it in every single scene in his films. And it's not even how light reflects in real life either, completely unnatural and unnecessary IMHO. It just distracts you from what's going on.

I had to turn off Monroe tonight as it was driving me mad.

EDIT: Super8 was the JJ Abrams film I was thinking of, not 8mm!