A340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4104 posts, RR: 52 Posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2516 times:
Something that has really been bugging me lately, and I thought i'd ask if anyone else felt the same.
For a long time John Nettles narrated 'Airport'. His voice was just right and he did a fantastic job, in my opinion. However, recently Liza Tarbuck has taken his place. She narrates it as though the audience is 6 years old, explaining everything, even the most simle of things.
It has really spoilt my enjoyment of the programme. Yes, it's still a good to watch but I feel it's lost something. Does anyone else agree?
Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 21 Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2448 times:
John Nettles had a distinctive voice, he had a 'narrators voice'. Lisa Tarbuck ain't bad, but still not the same. What's more disappointing is the content of the programme itself, the BBC seems to have a fascination with the animal reception centre, and not with what's going on in the airfield and terminals.
JumpJet From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 241 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
Most UK terrestrial TV has indeed been dumbed down over the last few years, simply to try to increase the ratings. It's been something of an insult as the producers seem to believe that viewers want to slump down in front of the TV and to sit in a complete daze, mouths open and brains switched off.
I used to find "Airport" unmissable, but to be truthful I can now take it or leave it as it seems to be becoming very repetitive. If you think about it, the show "Airline" went the same way, there are only so many times you can watch an EasyJet passenger throw a tantrum as he's missed his flight because he arrived 5 seconds late at check-in. There must be other material available, but I suspect they believe it's of minority interest so they don't bother covering it. Have you noticed that you hardly ever see an actual aircraft in either of these shows, other than a linked library shot of a take off or landing? Shame...
I've worked a little bit on TV in the past and absolutely everything is geared 100% towards the ratings. The amount of manipulation that goes on to achieve what they belive to be a more watchable show beggars belief. If your average Joe Public can watch a show and not have to think about it, then they've achieved their aim....
Speedbirdcrew From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2005 times:
Remember there is more of a demand from the viewing public to see human interest stories than for example an aircraft doing a go around.
I personally quite like the more human aspect as that's what interests me more, if I wanna see lots of aircraft I'll go to work, but its always good to see the human side behind the stuff I never see usually (what happens in the terminal.) And people do like animals, hence Stuart looking after animals being shown often. I personally find Airport to be very good for what it is, A prime time programme aiming for a mass audience, if it was aiming specifically at the aviation enthusiast it would be severely lacking but its not, its a light hearted programme showing stuff most people never see in what is a very interesting place. And as such its pretty good!
Barcode From Switzerland, joined Dec 2001, 678 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1999 times:
I've stopped watching it as I'm bored of Stuart (who is incredibly irritating) and endless passengers who are either (i) late or (ii) have excess baggage. Throw a tantrum. Situation is resolved ad infinitum.
I'd like to see some emphasis on the pilots - perhaps their training, or the FA's.
The animal reception centre stuff wouldn't be so bad, except it takes up far too much of the programme.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12948 posts, RR: 79 Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
Dumbed down? Was it ever an in depth look at LHR?
Filmed us in 1998, departing a BA001, some of the blokes refused to appear on camera, being fed up with people asking "you work at LHR, do you know that Jeremy?" (How many airlines was he sacked from before working at Aeroflot? I think we should be told).
It was never used, because there were no 'characters' (the producer told me that was what they were after), heaven forbid they'd show people just working, not some fat camp idiot mugging the camera while all around did his job for him.
But interesting that when I was chatting to the producer, I asked if he'd had any trouble with what I called 'the BA Thought Police'.
He reckoned BA were easy to work with, the one airline that were controlling, difficult and almost paranoid about what was filmed were Virgin!
But we got something out of the whole episode, most dispatchers, of both genders were great, helpful, switched on, but there was one woman who had some kind of beef with Concorde Engineers from the hangar coming over the terminals to depart their aircraft (a unique arrangement needed for a unique aircraft).
On the day of filming, she had an even worse attitude than normal, then got in an argument with one of our blokes, who was near retirement and frankly old school in many ways, in the end he lost his rag and told her to 'fuck off back to the kitchen'.
The Dispatcher ended up in a furious row with the LAE in our 'bunker' on stand V14.
So when it went further, up to management, well we had to point out that the Dispatcher lost her rag while a BBC film crew were nearby, as had been briefed to all involved over T4.
Actually they had no inkling anything had gone on, but after this, the Dispatcher was much more co-operative.
A340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4104 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1727 times:
Quoting Speedbirdcrew (Reply 10): Remember there is more of a demand from the viewing public to see human interest stories than for example an aircraft doing a go around.
I wasn't saying anything about this, just that the programme has generally been dummed down. I don't need it explained to me, nor does (most) of the British public that they're putting their bags on a trolley!
What's up with that Police Woman, she's a bit odd
Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
Planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4106 posts, RR: 12 Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1701 times:
Actually, i managed to meet the Animal Reception Person (the almost bald one), at the family day a couple of weeks ago, and he is a top bloke. The animal reception is still part of the airport's operations, so why shouldn't it be included?
Jonty From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 226 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1679 times:
"Quoting Arsenal@LHR (Reply 1):
the BBC seems to have a fascination with the animal reception centre, and not with what's going on in the airfield and terminals.
Actually, there wasn't a thing on it today, I almost died with surprise silly !"
"GDB (How many airlines was he sacked from before working at Aeroflot? I think we should be told)."
I would like to know that too.
I like good old Bergerac but I'm sure we'll get used to Liza!
I do wish there were more about planes and operations but so do all of us lot, but we are a bit more obsessed with the actual planes than most, and BBC1 is for the majority so obviously its gonna be what the majority like - staff getiing attitude and then just being clam which annoys people more - gotta love it!