Red Arrows: Inside the Bubble
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WH,
The programme was pitched at a mid evening audience, folk who want to see how their tax is being spent.
In the main, it achieved that and although you can argue and nip around the ankles about production values (as I did), if the lady in my post office is anything to go by, she told me she loved it. If the aim of the BBC is to educate, inform and entertain in equal measure, the box was well and truly ticked - I quite liked the fact that debriefs are all done in the third person or anonymously - I didn't know that.
The special effects were restrained and although some of the dialogue and exchanges were a little bit hammy, so what? The editorial objective again, was to give the public a broad, high level insight into how some public employees earn their public salaries, not the detail. I don't think it was aimed at an in-house market - isn't that what SSVC is/was for?
Let's just be glad that we have a great team we can be proud of - let's not confuse that with an assesment of how the BBC does its job - let's not lose sight of what's important. The AOC seemed a decent bloke to me - and excuse my fascination with the intangible, but based on one of two moments in the hour, I think I identified an aspiring Red 1.
The programme was pitched at a mid evening audience, folk who want to see how their tax is being spent.
In the main, it achieved that and although you can argue and nip around the ankles about production values (as I did), if the lady in my post office is anything to go by, she told me she loved it. If the aim of the BBC is to educate, inform and entertain in equal measure, the box was well and truly ticked - I quite liked the fact that debriefs are all done in the third person or anonymously - I didn't know that.
The special effects were restrained and although some of the dialogue and exchanges were a little bit hammy, so what? The editorial objective again, was to give the public a broad, high level insight into how some public employees earn their public salaries, not the detail. I don't think it was aimed at an in-house market - isn't that what SSVC is/was for?
Let's just be glad that we have a great team we can be proud of - let's not confuse that with an assesment of how the BBC does its job - let's not lose sight of what's important. The AOC seemed a decent bloke to me - and excuse my fascination with the intangible, but based on one of two moments in the hour, I think I identified an aspiring Red 1.
...they make it look easy and as a result the public have no idea of how difficult their job is.
If people thought it really was easy, no one would bother to watch.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
she told me she loved it
I think that's the fundamental problem with programmes of this nature. The production motivation is to ensure that the viewer enjoys the programme. But perceived enjoyment is now created at the expense of information. The programme makers are terrified of doing anything that isn't guaranteed to capture the interest of people with the attention span of a goldfish and the intelligence of a dog. It's an insult to the viewing public to portray all viewers as being stupid.
I agree that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we actually got a documentary on RAFAT onto the TV - that in itself is an achievement. But it is disappointing that yet another opportunity has been wasted. The Beeb had the most fascinating, exciting and photogenic subject at their disposal and the results were predictably dull.
Clockwork, no I'm not a journalist although I don't know what my occupation has to do with any of this?
Melmothtw I take your point but I honestly don't think that's true. You only have to watch the audience at an air show to see what happens. The broader public haven't got a clue. It's quite comical how the Team Manager now invites the spectators to wave as the formation goes by - and they actually do. Think that speaks volumes for how clueless most spectators are. I doubt if they'll be any more informed after last night
I think that's the fundamental problem with programmes of this nature. The production motivation is to ensure that the viewer enjoys the programme. But perceived enjoyment is now created at the expense of information. The programme makers are terrified of doing anything that isn't guaranteed to capture the interest of people with the attention span of a goldfish and the intelligence of a dog. It's an insult to the viewing public to portray all viewers as being stupid.
I agree that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we actually got a documentary on RAFAT onto the TV - that in itself is an achievement. But it is disappointing that yet another opportunity has been wasted. The Beeb had the most fascinating, exciting and photogenic subject at their disposal and the results were predictably dull.
Clockwork, no I'm not a journalist although I don't know what my occupation has to do with any of this?
Melmothtw I take your point but I honestly don't think that's true. You only have to watch the audience at an air show to see what happens. The broader public haven't got a clue. It's quite comical how the Team Manager now invites the spectators to wave as the formation goes by - and they actually do. Think that speaks volumes for how clueless most spectators are. I doubt if they'll be any more informed after last night
WH904, in essence your beef seems to be that the BBC makes programmes people enjoy viewing, and the Red Arrows perform displays that people enjoy viewing also.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They would not undergo PDA assessment unless Red1 and the chain of command were confident they were ready. If they ever do fail PDA then I presume it is rescheduled until they are up to the required safe standard. As well as causing red faces, that will involve cancelling early public displays and finding somewhere where the weather is dependable to continue training as the Cyprus authorities limit the number of flying days they can have at Akrotiri. The consequent expense would be eye watering.
So achieving PDA really is a major hurdle and stresser for all involved, team and CoC, but particularly for the new guys. That is what this film set out to show, and it succeeded admirably in my view.
Well done the Reds! And well done the BBC (for once)!
So achieving PDA really is a major hurdle and stresser for all involved, team and CoC, but particularly for the new guys. That is what this film set out to show, and it succeeded admirably in my view.
Well done the Reds! And well done the BBC (for once)!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WH,
I think the fact that an aged lady enjoyed and loved it.. isn't really a problem to get worked up about! The BBC had to encapsulate 6 months into 60 minutes. She has a chemistry degree from Cambridge and worked a lifetime for BP and DuPont btw, hardly canine or goldfish levels of acumen or intelligence. I concede, there was no CGI (Christ, we didn't need it!), there was no cocky cockers induced kebab house craic and there was no insight into wacky Biggles-esque personality. But you have to place the programmes's objectives into a wider arc, I can imagine what sort of thinking went into financial constraints and the pre production and commissioning discussions.
When this hour was signed off, it would have been in the aftermath of two deaths and a very public mauling. The objectives from the RAF would have (I am sure) been very specific, they would have been to allow an insight into business as normal and yes, we got some engineering and safety focus that maybe we wouldn't have got 25 or 40 years ago. We didn't need to see the fine detail, things are slowly getting back to normal, wounds are being licked and folk are recovering slowly. It was almost an hour of holding tv - and for once, none the worse for it. We didn't want to lose sight of the fact that two very fine fliers had died, that a toll had been extracted on their and other's lives.
It wasn't a celebratory hour, it wasn't trumpet blowing glorification - we are recovering from Afghan and RAFAT now has to fight for its place. This was neutral telly that struck a nice fine line between two sides of a debate. It was marker in the sand stuff that would have placed the bean counters into a state of emotional limbo - there was nothing to draw a conclusion about except the fact this was serious business and that ladies in post offices all over the country love the Reds. This isn't about appealing to a few who needed more than a casual insight to fuel their geeky or wonky insight, this was about something far bigger and far more important. This is business.
I think the fact that an aged lady enjoyed and loved it.. isn't really a problem to get worked up about! The BBC had to encapsulate 6 months into 60 minutes. She has a chemistry degree from Cambridge and worked a lifetime for BP and DuPont btw, hardly canine or goldfish levels of acumen or intelligence. I concede, there was no CGI (Christ, we didn't need it!), there was no cocky cockers induced kebab house craic and there was no insight into wacky Biggles-esque personality. But you have to place the programmes's objectives into a wider arc, I can imagine what sort of thinking went into financial constraints and the pre production and commissioning discussions.
When this hour was signed off, it would have been in the aftermath of two deaths and a very public mauling. The objectives from the RAF would have (I am sure) been very specific, they would have been to allow an insight into business as normal and yes, we got some engineering and safety focus that maybe we wouldn't have got 25 or 40 years ago. We didn't need to see the fine detail, things are slowly getting back to normal, wounds are being licked and folk are recovering slowly. It was almost an hour of holding tv - and for once, none the worse for it. We didn't want to lose sight of the fact that two very fine fliers had died, that a toll had been extracted on their and other's lives.
It wasn't a celebratory hour, it wasn't trumpet blowing glorification - we are recovering from Afghan and RAFAT now has to fight for its place. This was neutral telly that struck a nice fine line between two sides of a debate. It was marker in the sand stuff that would have placed the bean counters into a state of emotional limbo - there was nothing to draw a conclusion about except the fact this was serious business and that ladies in post offices all over the country love the Reds. This isn't about appealing to a few who needed more than a casual insight to fuel their geeky or wonky insight, this was about something far bigger and far more important. This is business.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WH904, in essence your beef seems to be that the BBC makes programmes people enjoy viewing, and the Red Arrows perform displays that people enjoy viewing also.
I'd agree with that assertion apart from the absence of one word - some. It would be wildly naive to assume that everyone enjoys the garbage that the Beeb currently churns out. The vast majority patently don't, hence the growing objection to the license fee. Even some of the Beeb's former stars are freely commenting on the lamentable state of the corporation's production processes that stifle anything good and worthwhile.
I'd agree with that assertion apart from the absence of one word - some. It would be wildly naive to assume that everyone enjoys the garbage that the Beeb currently churns out. The vast majority patently don't, hence the growing objection to the license fee. Even some of the Beeb's former stars are freely commenting on the lamentable state of the corporation's production processes that stifle anything good and worthwhile.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Inside the Bubble
It was a shame when demonstrating the rolling techniques etc that they didn't have a camera facing fwd, as used in the take off scenes.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting to see how people look on this issue very differently to others. I don't doubt for a minute that the programme was enjoyable and entertaining for the main audience. But as I mentioned before, the Beeb is supposed to be providing more than that.
The very nature of the BBC's remit means that a documentary such as this should have set out to explain to the viewer what the RAFAT are all about, what they actually do and, fundamentally, how they manage to put nine Hawks into the air and fly them in perfect formation. They failed in almost every respect. It is symptomatic of the BBC's current state that the production team opted to obsess about two fatalities (as if the team haven't had any others), a ridiculous "jeopardy" issue over the PDA, and the usual "touchy, feely" interviews that are easy to create (one points a camera and a microphone), that add nothing to the programme. It fills the available space but does it inform anyone? No.
It's laziness pure and simple, combined with the BBC's stifling terror of producing anything that doesn't tick all the proverbial boxes in terms of excitement, popularity and attention-getting. It is puerile. One could expect it from Sky or Channel 5, but we're talking about the BBC here. It's a sorry state of affairs!
The very nature of the BBC's remit means that a documentary such as this should have set out to explain to the viewer what the RAFAT are all about, what they actually do and, fundamentally, how they manage to put nine Hawks into the air and fly them in perfect formation. They failed in almost every respect. It is symptomatic of the BBC's current state that the production team opted to obsess about two fatalities (as if the team haven't had any others), a ridiculous "jeopardy" issue over the PDA, and the usual "touchy, feely" interviews that are easy to create (one points a camera and a microphone), that add nothing to the programme. It fills the available space but does it inform anyone? No.
It's laziness pure and simple, combined with the BBC's stifling terror of producing anything that doesn't tick all the proverbial boxes in terms of excitement, popularity and attention-getting. It is puerile. One could expect it from Sky or Channel 5, but we're talking about the BBC here. It's a sorry state of affairs!
Abe Lincoln said it better than I could; “You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time.”
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I don't doubt for a minute that the programme was enjoyable and entertaining for the main audience".
In that case it achieved its aim, laudably. It wasn't intended to be a training video or an instructional aid. It painted for its chosen audience a realistic, entertaining and positive picture of RAFAT training up to PDA.
I didn't notice an obsession with the two fatalities either. They were mentioned briefly and in context. Don't forget that there are still members of the team who were there when they happened and they have pulled themselves back up to reach the standard that they are now at.
In that case it achieved its aim, laudably. It wasn't intended to be a training video or an instructional aid. It painted for its chosen audience a realistic, entertaining and positive picture of RAFAT training up to PDA.
I didn't notice an obsession with the two fatalities either. They were mentioned briefly and in context. Don't forget that there are still members of the team who were there when they happened and they have pulled themselves back up to reach the standard that they are now at.
Re any strange actions in the film, don't blame the Reds - sometimes the TV producers ask for stuff to be done differently to make it more "viewer friendly". Recall making a 999 documentary in the sim to recreate a SAR-flight. A couple of us were asked to "move a few switches and knobs" to make it look "more interesting" (The cheek of it 
) Of course, we heartily complied meaning the resulting clips looked like our kit needed a three-armed paper hangar to manage! Kept the BBC crew happy.
) Of course, we heartily complied meaning the resulting clips looked like our kit needed a three-armed paper hangar to manage! Kept the BBC crew happy.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sandy I certainly don't blame the Reds for any of it - I feel rather sorry for them that their co-operation resulted in such a dull programme.
Genstabler I refer you to my previous comments. Bearing in mind the remit of the BBC, it patently did not achieve its aim. Well, I guess it did achieve its aim, but the whole problem is that the aim is wrong!
Genstabler I refer you to my previous comments. Bearing in mind the remit of the BBC, it patently did not achieve its aim. Well, I guess it did achieve its aim, but the whole problem is that the aim is wrong!
Enjoyed the show, but one question....
They get given (and well deserved) their nice new shiny red / blue suits...and then proceed to throw each other in the sea. Does all the sea water have an adverse effect on the material?
Can they simply be washed?
They get given (and well deserved) their nice new shiny red / blue suits...and then proceed to throw each other in the sea. Does all the sea water have an adverse effect on the material?
Can they simply be washed?