2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 29, 2017 22:34:13 GMT
I do sometimes wonder if I'm reading things correctly!!
Anyhow, we used to be a family of Casualty watchers but stopped quite a while ago. Saw the single-shot episode tonight as we were on BBC1 so just stuck with it. It was really, really well executed. Had the potential for the device to become boring or stale or a hindrance to the storytelling, but whatever they did to make sure it ran smoothly and that itworked, it really paid off. Some of the acting was a little questionable but it was enjoyable and very well produced, and the BBC should be applauded for accepting and continuing to take on innovative television 'firsts' and not patronising their audience and demographic but actually programming things that an audience didn't even know were out there to enjoy.
I saw a bit of an interview with one of the actors from the show who said that the idea wasn't particularly daunting to many of the cast, who have done stage work and are used to starting a piece and running it uninterrupted for at least the length of an episode of Casualty, and actually it was many of the crew who found the idea a challenge. So many of the "behind the scenes" workers were also learning and adding extra skills to their craft and deploying different areas of expertise to produce a very different and interesting piece of television making. And yes, there was difference. When you watch a piece of single-shot footage, it's very noticeable. Quick cut-away shots and clever editing add as much to the drama as the script and the acting and it's only when you're presented with a drastic change, you actually feel the effect. The storytelling changes, the pace changes and the tone changes. You almost feel as if it's some sort of virtual reality game and the camera doing the single-shot filming is an extra character: you, the audience. Maybe it wasn't noticeable for some, but that's all the more reason why the BBC (or whoever) should be applauded for doing it, for the benefit of those who *do* notice, not pandering to those who don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 22:57:03 GMT
Costs would be similar, you gain some, you lose some.
What it does, is use a technique that gives an urgency and reality to a narrative. Urgency in that it happens in real time and reality because the actor is in control. Occasionally it gets used for key sections, the classic opening to Touch of Evil, for example, or, on TV, a memorable section of the first season of True Detective, Rarely will a whole narrative be covered this way. The most obvious example, is the wonderful film 'Russian Ark' which was in another league of complexity and cast size.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 29, 2017 23:08:04 GMT
Shhh. It's actually ketchup.  |
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 30, 2017 1:07:18 GMT
Sometimes it feels like the Daily Mail comment page on here. Getting annoyed about something you can't even be arsed to watch and then complain it's a waste of money based on zero facts. Utterly ridiculous. Even if it did cost more than a standard episode maybe they have cut costs on other episodes to afford it you know like TV series do all the bloody time. 1. I'm not annoyed. 2. I don't lke the programme, or the actors. The bits of it that I have seen have been trashy rubbish. If you like it then fine. I woulbt't dream of dismissing your opinion. Enjoy! 3. Two wrongs dont make a right. The BBC should stop spending license payers money on pointless, self indulgent sh*te. |
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 30, 2017 1:19:04 GMT
Costs would be similar, you gain some, you lose some. How do you know?  |
|
185 posts
|
Post by boybooshka on Jul 30, 2017 5:01:00 GMT
Sometimes people do get your point, they just disagree with it. And sometimes they don't, and argue against something you didn't actually say. |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 30, 2017 5:29:24 GMT
Sometimes it feels like the Daily Mail comment page on here. Getting annoyed about something you can't even be arsed to watch and then complain it's a waste of money based on zero facts. Utterly ridiculous. Even if it did cost more than a standard episode maybe they have cut costs on other episodes to afford it you know like TV series do all the bloody time. 1. I'm not annoyed. 2. I don't lke the programme, or the actors. The bits of it that I have seen have been trashy rubbish. If you like it then fine. I woulbt't dream of dismissing your opinion. Enjoy! 3. Two wrongs dont make a right. The BBC should stop spending license payers money on pointless, self indulgent sh*te. Then why post about it and use it to attack the BBC. What is the point. I haven't seen Casualty for years. I don't know anymore than you do about it. The only difference is that I'm not making sweeping judgements about it based on my ignorance unlike you. Two wrongs don't make a right? That doesn't even make sense. If they have an annual budget and spend more here and less elsewhere then what harm does it do. And what's wrong with a bit of creative ambition from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 6:36:29 GMT
I would imagine that they were given a budget for the entire season and allocated it how they chose. Some episodes will cost more than others but it all comes out of the same predetermined pot. Even if they spent 90% of the budget on a single scene and did the rest of the season using props from Poundland and sets made from cereal boxes it'll still cost the same in the end.
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 30, 2017 8:07:14 GMT
That's the same logic as government departments spending their remaining budget on rubbish in March, before the end of the financial year. Instead of being financially prudent they adopt the "we've got it so we'll spend it" principle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 8:55:09 GMT
It's nothing like that because it's not a continuing spend. The BBC is setting aside a fixed amount of money for a fixed amount of programming. How the programme makers deliver that is up to them, but whatever they do it won't cost the BBC a penny more or a penny less because the money has been allocated to that project.
A better analogy would be winning a holiday with a fixed amount of spending money. You can spend a load of money on one event-filled day and spend the rest of the time looking round free museums or you can spend the same amount of money each day, but either way it's your choice and the cost will be the same no matter what you do.
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 30, 2017 9:08:37 GMT
The point I'm making is that is was wasted on this particular programme.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 10:10:35 GMT
Costs would be similar, you gain some, you lose some. How do you know? Own experience and from conversations with filmmakers. Your biggest enemy on set regarding cost is time, it's a frustrating place as you wait for others to do their job before you can move on, a tracking shot as complex as this done traditionally would require numerous different set ups with actors and crew waiting around. The amazing tracking shot in Atonement was originally supposed to be a montage, for example. Joe Wright said he needed extra money to shoot it properly but was told that he couldn't have it. He took the quicker (so cheaper) option and filmed it in one take (4 or 5 versions), in doing so producing arguably the film's most memorable scene. Suggesting that it would be similar is being very conservative. It is likely that this will have cost less in terms of filming and, of course, there is no extensive editing process. Where it does 'cost' is in the nerves of actors and crew, you can't go wrong or fix things in the edit. |
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 30, 2017 10:20:09 GMT
The point I'm making is that is was wasted on this particular programme. Yes but you're saying it's a complete waste of time and money just because *you* don't like it. *You* think it's "self indulgent sh*te" and therefore licence fee payers money should stop being spent on it. Well, what about the people who did like it? You said earlier that you wouldn't dream of dismissing someone who did like it, and if they liked it, then fine. But you seem to think that your opinion and taste of this particular episode is somehow far superior and should therefore dictate what money should be spent on. Or should the BBC only be making programmes and episodes that you personally like in the first place?
You can't and pick choose which bits of the BBC your licence fee is spent on to make sure it's only the bits you like. That's the beauty. It's great TV because someone somewhere will like something that's broadcast by the BBC. You don't like Casualty. OK, cool. You'll like something else! |
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 30, 2017 10:30:30 GMT
The point I'm making is that is was wasted on this particular programme. Yes but you're saying it's a complete waste of time and money just because *you* don't like it. What about the people who did like it? Or should the BBC only be making programmes and episodes that you personally like? Well I'm giving my opinion about it, if that's what you mean. But I'm not saying it's a waste just because *I* don't like it, I think it's wasted on the typical Casualty viewer because (brace yourself for a sweeping generalisation) I don't think most of the people who watch that sort of show would give a flying four X! |
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 30, 2017 10:51:47 GMT
Yes but you're saying it's a complete waste of time and money just because *you* don't like it. What about the people who did like it? Or should the BBC only be making programmes and episodes that you personally like? Well I'm giving my opinion about it, if that's what you mean. But I'm not saying it's a waste just because *I* don't like it, I think it's wasted on the typical Casualty viewer because (brace yourself for a sweeping generalisation) I don't think most of the people who watch that sort of show would give a flying four X! I see! Well I can't sit here and type that you are categorically wrong because I've absolutely no idea but I can do a quick search of the #CasualtyOne hashtag on twitter to see the general online consensus. Obviously that's a tiny snapshot of viewers (viewing figures for the episode were about 5.17m (30.6% share), which is very good, I'd say) but it does give an immediate reaction from anyone and everyone, from TV enthusiasts to the great unwashed. I'd say for every 10/15 tweets of glowing praise, there are 1 or 2 negative. That's to not dismiss the negative comments, they are there and they are frequent, but some were directed at the quality of script and acting as opposed to the camera work of this specific episode (equally as valid), but there is a majority of praise. What I'd say is, comments - positive and negative - show that viewers were indeed paying attention. They saw something was different, or if they were already fans of Casualty it's possible some already knew the single-shot episode was going to be a thing, and decided to make an informed opinion about it. As with theatre, division is also good sign of TV. People are talking, people are discussing, it made an impact. They didn't just sit there in a vegetative state staring blankly at the TV and let it go over their heads, with no opinions what-so-ever. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 30, 2017 11:28:16 GMT
I watch Casualty every week, we've known about the single shot episode for months. It was Casualty's version of a live episode to celebrate its 30th anniversary. I didn't love the script and some of the acting, but once I got over the wobbly camerawork, which made me a bit seasick to begin with, it was definitely a standout episode and will go down in Casualty history.
|
|
1,351 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Jul 30, 2017 12:15:30 GMT
Yes but you're saying it's a complete waste of time and money just because *you* don't like it. What about the people who did like it? Or should the BBC only be making programmes and episodes that you personally like? Well I'm giving my opinion about it, if that's what you mean. But I'm not saying it's a waste just because *I* don't like it, I think it's wasted on the typical Casualty viewer because (brace yourself for a sweeping generalisation) I don't think most of the people who watch that sort of show would give a flying four X! So not dismissing an opinion, just an entire audience... well, thanks for that. I'll continue to enjoy the programme and hope that, as an obviously inferior being, I'm still welcome to comment here! (Tongue only half in cheek.) |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 30, 2017 12:25:41 GMT
That's Casualty's best overnight rating since Jan 16 so it seems to have done well anyway.
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 30, 2017 12:45:59 GMT
Well I'm giving my opinion about it, if that's what you mean. But I'm not saying it's a waste just because *I* don't like it, I think it's wasted on the typical Casualty viewer because (brace yourself for a sweeping generalisation) I don't think most of the people who watch that sort of show would give a flying four X! I see! Well I can't sit here and type that you are categorically wrong because I've absolutely no idea but I can do a quick search of the #CasualtyOne hashtag on twitter to see the general online consensus. Obviously that's a tiny snapshot of viewers (viewing figures for the episode were about 5.17m (30.6% share), which is very good, I'd say) but it does give an immediate reaction from anyone and everyone, from TV enthusiasts to the great unwashed. I'd say for every 10/15 tweets of glowing praise, there are 1 or 2 negative. That's to not dismiss the negative comments, they are there and they are frequent, but some were directed at the quality of script and acting as opposed to the camera work of this specific episode (equally as valid), but there is a majority of praise. What I'd say is, comments - positive and negative - show that viewers were indeed paying attention. They saw something was different, or if they were already fans of Casualty it's possible some already knew the single-shot episode was going to be a thing, and decided to make an informed opinion about it. As with theatre, division is also good sign of TV. People are talking, people are discussing, it made an impact. They didn't just sit there in a vegetative state staring blankly at the TV and let it go over their heads, with no opinions what-so-ever. That means I'm right then I'm afraid that searching for that hashtag will only give you a completely skewed view because those are the teeny weeny minority of viewers who do care enough to comment on twitter about it. The other 99% were more concerned with their mobile phones and their supersize takeaway pizzas to give the aforementioned flying four x. |
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 30, 2017 13:06:04 GMT
I see! Well I can't sit here and type that you are categorically wrong because I've absolutely no idea but I can do a quick search of the #CasualtyOne hashtag on twitter to see the general online consensus. Obviously that's a tiny snapshot of viewers (viewing figures for the episode were about 5.17m (30.6% share), which is very good, I'd say) but it does give an immediate reaction from anyone and everyone, from TV enthusiasts to the great unwashed. I'd say for every 10/15 tweets of glowing praise, there are 1 or 2 negative. That's to not dismiss the negative comments, they are there and they are frequent, but some were directed at the quality of script and acting as opposed to the camera work of this specific episode (equally as valid), but there is a majority of praise. What I'd say is, comments - positive and negative - show that viewers were indeed paying attention. They saw something was different, or if they were already fans of Casualty it's possible some already knew the single-shot episode was going to be a thing, and decided to make an informed opinion about it. As with theatre, division is also good sign of TV. People are talking, people are discussing, it made an impact. They didn't just sit there in a vegetative state staring blankly at the TV and let it go over their heads, with no opinions what-so-ever. That means I'm right then I'm afraid that searching for that hashtag will only give you a completely skewed view because those are the teeny weeny minority of viewers who do care enough to comment on twitter about it. The other 99% were more concerned with their mobile phones and their supersize takeaway pizzas to give the aforementioned flying four x. Nah. It means you're behaving rather narrow-minded and blinkered for some sake or other, but OK, for pedantry's sake - I can't sit here and type that you are categorically wrong or right. But it's based slightly more in fact than making it up, no? You've no idea what those not on twitter thought of it. Neither do I which is why I said I can't say you're wrong. But because you don't know either, that's why I can't say you're right. You're generalising (as you said) based on pretty much nothing, just so it suits your argument and makes you right all the time and it means you can keep saying it you can never be wrong. Well then, I say that the majority of the other 99% might not have twitter accounts but watched it and still hugely enjoyed it as a one-off change to the usual set-up to celebrate the 30th Anniversary of a programme that they enjoy but either don't have social media to comment, or decided not to as is their prerogative. All whilst enjoying a takeaway and owning far more brain cells that you've attributed to them. Oh look, that means I'm right then |
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 30, 2017 14:12:32 GMT
I can't say you're wrong. But because you don't know either, that's why I can't say you're right. You're generalising (as you said) based on pretty much nothing, just so it suits your argument and makes you right all the time and it means you can keep saying it you can never be wrong. There, that's better!  |
|
2,452 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatremadness on Jul 30, 2017 14:50:44 GMT
I can't say you're wrong. But because you don't know either, that's why I can't say you're right. You're generalising (as you said) based on pretty much nothing, just so it suits your argument and makes you right all the time and it means you can keep saying it you can never be wrong. There, that's better! Haha! I have no argument for that, that was pretty funny and gave me a good laugh  they are my words after all, you'd be a great editor of a newspaper!  |
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 30, 2017 14:53:22 GMT
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 30, 2017 15:26:00 GMT
We provide a safe outlet... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 19:53:28 GMT
We provide a safe outlet... The Admin Team is always right. |
|
they are my words after all, you'd be a great editor of a newspaper! 
