I prefer 'Chanel 9'
Channel Five will as of today be known as Channel Five, or rather, Channel Five has regained the "Channel" it lost when it decided that "Five" was a more happening moniker for a TV station. The Channel Five logos before and after Five years after its 1997 launch*, Channel Five spunked not inconsiderable amounts of cash to …
The hate comes from the Star which invents and inflates stories to attack and/or degrade anything Muslim.
The hate feeds the EDL and feeds them lies that in turn feeds their racism.
Desmond owns the Daily Express which is a pillar of modesty and what is right. At the same time Desmond owns several websites and publications that encourage misogyny through 'porn.
If you like it -- I can only pity you.
I dunno whether to be impressed by your ability to bring race into a discussion about the relative virtues of two logos that have only the word "Channel" to distiguish them or to think that perhaps you should maybe take a stroll in the fresh air occassionally and then perhaps you'd realise the world isn't always quite as black as you seem to paint it.
Option 2 I think.
On the one hand we have the well known (and entirely correct) Reg hatred all things whale song inspired. On the other we have the we-ran-it-up-the-flag-pole-and-no-one-saluted judgementalism of the 'vox pop' comments.
Who cares what people think of the logo. Put on decent programs and people will watch. Put on crap and they won't. Having the latest 'branding' that makes the target demographic feel 'warm and fuzzy' won't change that.
I noticed the quality slipping even further than I thought possible after the Dirty Desmond takeover, when a recent documentary had a misspelling in the title bracketing the ad breaks.
(I know that means I've admitted to watching a Channel Five programme).
Flicking through the channels over the weekend, I was also amused to see C5 trailing an "all new" episode of Law And Order. Originally broadcast in 2006.
I don't believe that changing the name / logo will make a ha'porth of difference.
However, I would suggest that the quality and type of programming being broadcast might be more of an issue for most people.
We seem to see nothing but a flood of glossy US imports, poor plotlines, rubbish scripts, second rate acting, remakes of 50s / 60s programmes that were shite then and are still just as bad, meaningless quiz shows or "reality" shows about pathetic c list celebs. It would be nice to occasionally see something with a bit more intellectual meat
Mine's the one with "Miserable old Fart" on the back in studs.
This post has been deleted by its author
Dirty Desmond, the psycho smut-peddler of old London town!
I think I last watched the channel around 5 years ago, it was iffy then so I doubt it has got any better since. He saved money sacking everyone and probably coughed up the same amount "rebranding" the station, all those brainstorming sessions and lunches at Satchi to come up with one extra word in the name, don't come cheap!
Why oh why can't the ident visibility be left to the set-top-box? Then the consumer can be given the choice of enbling or disabling them, or enabling with control over the alpha so we can protect our expensive high end Kuro plasmas from burn in from this sort of visual poo.
I think you're confused by all this telly talk.
Idents are the bits just before the programmes, used to identify the channel.
The annoying logos in the corner of the screen are DOGs (digitally originated graphics). It seems to have become a tradition now that whenever a broadcaster changes their DOG, they have to ramp the brightness up for a week or so then put it back to the normal level.
And as for letting the box generate it, many set-top-boxes can't render alpha levels in images over video, and if you could turn it off completely the marketing people would have panic attacks at the thought that you might not instantly know what channel you're watching should you want to know.
>And as for letting the box generate it, many set-top-boxes can't render alpha levels in images over video, and if you could turn it off completely the marketing people would have panic attacks at the thought that you might not instantly know what channel you're watching.
As an inveterate time-shifting PVR owner they may have a point(*). I'm barely aware of the concept of 'channels' these days. I have an EPG with a few hundred lines of text on it and I browse that looking for stuff to mark for recording but that's as far as it goes. The closest I come to the concept is knowing that when I reach the first gap I have to jump to 520 to get to the rest of the good stuff.
(*)Although frankly I'd be happier not being reminded I can see how the idiots that work in marketing might be wetting themselves about that.
Current STBs may not be able to generate alpha images, but doesn't mean they can't start building that into newer tech. In fact I most current STBs can in fact do alpha as most can do alpha EPG, so they are capable of it.
As for marketing, they can go F themselves. There is no place for them in the age of time shifting and tailored programming.
Just flicked onto "Channel Five", no sorry, "five" - oopps no, I do mean "Channel Five" and they started the Justin Lee Colins thing with the old 'five' dog - it was quickly removed and there was no dog until after the break. Well if they can't get it right then how am I supposed to?
Channel 5 is dire; I don't know why they even bother. Last time I accidentally switched to 5, there was some sort of bizarre program where Keith Chegwin was the host. What's the problem with that? He was naked. Yep, a naked Cheggers. Unbelievable. And very sad to see his career has sunk to a depth where he would even consider accepting that assignment.
BBC1 and BBC2 are pretty good. ITV is BBC without the good bits; Channel 4 is ITV without the good bits, and Channel 5 is Channel 4 without the good bits. And Sky is bazillions of adverts that you have to pay for, with occasional brief program breaks.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021