ITV in with new Cycling Show

[EltonFrog]

In your opinion.

In my opinion, there are already shows and a YouTube stuffed with videos about riding, much of the cycle show is different because it does stuff that you don't see anywhere else.

Yes of course it's my opinion, I wouldn't be typing anyone else's opinion, that would be pointless.

 

[Crankarm]

Why can't guys on here who think it could be done so much better get together to do a show and broadcast it on Youtube?

Because most of them have absolutely no idea just how much it costs to produce an hour of television. A two-man HD crew with kit will cost you around £1,000 per ten-hour day, plus expenses, and that doesn't include hotel bills, paying the director, edit time, grading, etc. And in a day you can typically shoot enough footage for a five-minute VT.

Good television isn't cheap.

I wouldn't have thought the production costs would be anything like that if the biggest critics on here were doing a programme. Made by cyclists for cyclists. If it was a goer then the advertising revenue could pay the huge production costs when it took off. That is the beauty of Youtube and similar such broadcasting platforms, you don't have the huge costs that perhaps other production companies have. Film it on an i-phone if you want. Once it gets a few thousand hits and people start talking about it .........favourably then you can start to factor in the true costs. Simples. But the important thing is to get the content and quality right from the start. It can't be that hard.

 

[EltonFrog]

I wouldn't have thought the production costs would be anything like that if the biggest critics on here were doing a programme. Made by cyclists for cyclists. If it was a goer then the advertising revenue could pay the huge production costs when it took off. That is the beauty of Youtube and similar such broadcasting platforms, you don't have the huge costs that perhaps other production companies have. Film it on an i-phone if you want. Once it gets a few thousand hits and people start talking about it .........favourably then you can start to factor in the true costs. Simples. But the important thing is to get the content and quality right from the start. It can't be that hard.

There you go. Why don't you do it then?

 

[Peowpeowpeowlasers]

I wouldn't have thought the production costs would be anything like that if the biggest critics on here were doing a programme. Made by cyclists for cyclists. If it was a goer then the advertising revenue could pay the huge production costs when it took off. That is the beauty of Youtube and similar such broadcasting platforms, you don't have the huge costs that perhaps other production companies have. Film it on an i-phone if you want. Once it gets a few thousand hits and people start talking about it .........favourably then you can start to factor in the true costs. Simples. But the important thing is to get the content and quality right from the start. It can't be that hard.

Sorry but you really don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Making good television isn't easy, it requires skills learnt over many years, skills which you and "cyclists" don't have. And an iPhone? Purlease.

 

[dellzeqq]

well, I asked the redoubtable (and extraordinarily well-liked) Agent Hilda about this. She said that a one hour show would cost £40k and a half hour show would cost £22.5k. And, being the MD of a multi-national telly company producing shows for every a wide variety of channels from BBC1 to MTV and HGTV, and having seen over a 2000 programmes go on UK terrestrial TV, she'd probably know what she's on about,

Crankers is right about getting the content right (although I still think there's stuff in this show that is right), but if you want people to watch stuff on telly it's got to be neatly put together, and the people who do the putting together aren't cheap.

 

[NotthatJasonKenny]

The YouTube idea isn't so daft, us oldies may not get it but my 13yr old daughter talks about some you tubers like they are tv stars and yes, some are filmed on iPhones and yes, some have gone on to appear in 'real' tv shows.

The world changes you know...

 

[EltonFrog]

[QUOTE 2027168, member: 259"]It's sponsored by Chain Reaction Cycles. I wonder how much they are putting into it?[/quote]

I don't know the amount of cash, but I read somewhere that they paid for 90% of the programme.

 

[Crankarm]

Sorry but you really don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Making good television isn't easy, it requires skills learnt over many years, skills which you and "cyclists" don't have. And an iPhone? Purlease.

There is no need to be such an unpleasant arrogant ar$e.

All I can say is if the current makers of this so called cycling show have skills that you allude to honed over many years which no one else could possibly possess then they must be pretty crap at their job as the programme is dire. All it needs is a few amateurs to show them how it should be done.

 

[EltonFrog]

The YouTube idea isn't so daft, us oldies may not get it but my 13yr old daughter talks about some you tubers like they are tv stars and yes, some are filmed on iPhones and yes, some have gone on to appear in 'real' tv shows.

The world changes you know...

It is a daft idea, it's dafter than tyres made of Toblerone. Its a daft idea because no one older than 13 watches FaceTubeTwits, people will not watch it, it won't make any money. If it was a good idea someone would have done by now.

 

[NotthatJasonKenny]

If it was a good idea someone would have done by now.

That's a statement losers make as an excuse why they can't be arsed doing something.

Just think if the innovations we would be without if everyone thought like that?

Telephones? If we needed them someone would have made them by now!

Things happen at the time they are possible or at a time society is ready for them.

Today's 13yr olds will be the cyclists of tomorrow.

I don't watch YouTube the way my daughter does but it is making tv stars and that shouldn't be ignored.

 

[NotthatJasonKenny]

very dull.

Which I suppose shows how hard it is to please everyone all of the time!

Oh by the way, you forgot to add IMO!

 

[Peowpeowpeowlasers]

There is no need to be such an unpleasant arrogant ar$e.

All I can say is if the current makers of this so called cycling show have skills that you allude to honed over many years which no one else could possibly possess then they must be pretty crap at their job as the programme is dire. All it needs is a few amateurs to show them how it should be done.

No, there's every need when people rather flippantly presume that making television is as easy as filming with an iPhone and uploading the results to YouTube. It just doesn't work like that and its insulting to those who've spent years honing their skills to suggest that it ever could. Maybe your job is easy, I don't know, but ours isn't.

As I've said before, if you want good television you have to pay for it.

By the way, there's nothing arrogant about stating a fact, and that fact is you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

 

[Norm]

By the way, there's nothing arrogant about stating a fact, and that fact is you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

Whilst I accept that there are plenty of the finer details of the job which you would not be able to pick up outside the industry, I don't think that precludes people from doing a low-budget version on YouTube - which I watch plenty, even though I'm nearly 30 years out of my teens.

Making tv is certainly much more difficult than can be achieved with a camera phone and shown on YouTube, but there is space for both and a good idea, and a bad idea, will be evident in either format.

 

[Crankarm]

No, there's every need when people rather flippantly presume that making television is as easy as filming with an iPhone and uploading the results to YouTube. It just doesn't work like that and its insulting to those who've spent years honing their skills to suggest that it ever could. Maybe your job is easy, I don't know, but ours isn't.

As I've said before, if you want good television you have to pay for it.

By the way, there's nothing arrogant about stating a fact, and that fact is you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

I know a couple of people who work in TV and they are both self centred blinkered arrogant sh1ts like you appear to be. Sorry but I have to say this as you come across as a very unpleasant person. I bet you don't like successful low budget TV whether filmed on an iphone or what ever, as it shows your ilk for being expensive rip off merchants. Movies I can understand as needing a big budget but a simple cycling programme, no.

 

[albion]

Some people appreciate it Crankarm.

I'd have thought that you were now old enough to know that tastes are different.
And which cycling magazine show has ever been better?