The Tube documentary
 

Am I the only person who gets the feeling that this BBC series is nothing
more than LU propaganda? All the staff are happy go lucky and enjoy their jobs,
everyone is wonderful, the station staff "love meeting people", the system runs
well - sorry , its just spin and BS that would have done Alistair Cambell
proud. The recent channel 4 documentary where the staff didn't have to appear
on screen (and so toe the corporate line or else) I suspect was far more honest.

B2003

The Tube documentary
 

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 10:32:22 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

Am I the only person who gets the feeling that this BBC series is nothing
more than LU propaganda? All the staff are happy go lucky and enjoy their jobs,
everyone is wonderful, the station staff "love meeting people", the system runs
well - sorry , its just spin and BS that would have done Alistair Cambell
proud. The recent channel 4 documentary where the staff didn't have to appear
on screen (and so toe the corporate line or else) I suspect was far more honest.

Yes, this series is almost uniformly positive, and the Ch4 universally
negative. Even if both are factually correct, they're obviously
selectively edited from a much larger volume of material to go one way
or the other. As always, the balanced truth is probably somewhere in
between.

The Tube documentary
 

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:21:08 +0000
Recliner wrote:
Yes, this series is almost uniformly positive, and the Ch4 universally
negative. Even if both are factually correct, they're obviously
selectively edited from a much larger volume of material to go one way
or the other. As always, the balanced truth is probably somewhere in
between.

It would help if they got some of the basic commentary right. In the last
episode the narrator waffled on about "down at acton depot" while the screen
clearly showed a shed full of victoria line trains. I know the average viewer
wouldn't realise or care but if they can't even be bothered to get the simple
stuff correct it does make me wonder about whether the commentary can be
trusted about anything.

B2003

The Tube documentary
 

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:51:16 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:21:08 +0000
Recliner wrote:
Yes, this series is almost uniformly positive, and the Ch4 universally
negative. Even if both are factually correct, they're obviously
selectively edited from a much larger volume of material to go one way
or the other. As always, the balanced truth is probably somewhere in
between.

It would help if they got some of the basic commentary right. In the last
episode the narrator waffled on about "down at acton depot" while the screen
clearly showed a shed full of victoria line trains. I know the average viewer
wouldn't realise or care but if they can't even be bothered to get the simple
stuff correct it does make me wonder about whether the commentary can be
trusted about anything.

I must admit to not noticing that error.

The Tube documentary
 

In message , at 11:51:16 on Wed, 7 Mar
2012, d remarked:
It would help if they got some of the basic commentary right. In the last
episode the narrator waffled on about "down at acton depot" while the screen
clearly showed a shed full of victoria line trains.

There's a fly-on-the-wall UK Customs show on at the moment which keeps
showing a photo of Heathrow (end of runway 23) with a voice-over saying
it's Gatwick!

Had to laugh out loud the other day, when they said "and it's not just
passengers smuggling goods in..." over the shot of a passenger plane
landing. Both of us watching immediately said "the crew", but it turned
out they meant "in freight shipments", and the shot of the plane was
completely out of context.
--
Roland Perry

The Tube documentary
 

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:02:11 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
Had to laugh out loud the other day, when they said "and it's not just
passengers smuggling goods in..." over the shot of a passenger plane
landing. Both of us watching immediately said "the crew", but it turned
out they meant "in freight shipments", and the shot of the plane was
completely out of context.

I think some of the worst editing for transport related stuff has been
in Portilos railway journeys. He'll get into one type of train, they'll do
a tracking shot of a 2nd type and he'll get off from 3rd type at the
destination with an optional interior shot of a 4th. I can't imagine if
they were doing a program involving a car they'd have someone driving off
in an astra, filling up a golf at a petrol station then tuning up in a focus
but for every other form of transport it seems continuity and accuracy doesn't
matter.

B2003

The Tube documentary
 

In message , at 12:42:31 on Wed, 7 Mar
2012, d remarked:
I can't imagine if
they were doing a program involving a car they'd have someone driving off
in an astra, filling up a golf at a petrol station then tuning up in a focus

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191708
--
Roland Perry

The Tube documentary
 

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:42:31 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:02:11 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
Had to laugh out loud the other day, when they said "and it's not just
passengers smuggling goods in..." over the shot of a passenger plane
landing. Both of us watching immediately said "the crew", but it turned
out they meant "in freight shipments", and the shot of the plane was
completely out of context.

I think some of the worst editing for transport related stuff has been
in Portilos railway journeys. He'll get into one type of train, they'll do
a tracking shot of a 2nd type and he'll get off from 3rd type at the
destination with an optional interior shot of a 4th. I can't imagine if
they were doing a program involving a car they'd have someone driving off
in an astra, filling up a golf at a petrol station then tuning up in a focus
but for every other form of transport it seems continuity and accuracy doesn't
matter.

It's probably a matter of familiarity, as well as a case of using the
shots you have available. Most film editors routinely use and probably
own cars, so they know quite a bit about them. They also have no
trouble getting hold of the right shots, and can easily re-shoot if
needed.

They know much less about trains and planes, and even if they do, it's
not so easy to rustle up a suitable clip to go with (say) Portillo's
recorded commentary. As discussed previously, it's a particular issue
with aerial shots, where they can't afford to hire helicopters to film
all the actual trains that he travels on, so they probably film a
whole batch in one session. But I do think they've done a better job
with the most recent series.

It's even worse with planes. They certainly can't afford to film the
planes that supposedly feature in anything other than a big budget
feature film, so they have to resort to a stock library.