AboutArchivesBest OfTwitterRSS

By John Hoare. Read about the site, visit the archives,
read the best stuff, follow me on Twitter, or subscribe.



Posted 2nd November 2011

Tagged with
, , , ,


So, you want a more inappropriately placed end voiceover than the one on GOLD the other day? How about this one, taken from tonight on Challenge+1?

Well done Challenge. You have LITERALLY managed to disrespect the dead.

It’s fairly simple. If you’re using pre-recorded voiceovers, make sure you preview everything to check your timings are right. If you can’t be arsed to do that, at least place them 15 seconds or so before the end, so you’re unlikely to crash the programme.

Don’t make it look like you don’t give a stuff about the channel, or the viewers. If you can keep the dead out of your incompetence as well, so much the better.

(EDIT: Listening again, only just noticed – the voiceover repeats halfway through! Ouch…)

Tagged with: , , , ,


Andrew Bowden on 2 November 2011 @ 10pm

Check things before broadcast? Pah. Would cost far too much. And who is going to notice…

Oh… right…

Seb on 3 November 2011 @ 2pm

Bloody hell.

I actually remember that on-screen tribute from first broadcast, and from watching TCM on Challenge lately I wondered if I’d see it again. I didn’t catch it, but I think I might have shouted loudly at the TV if I had.

The fact that they were talking about “TNA EXPLOSION” just made it even worse, somehow…

Dave on 4 November 2011 @ 10am


TNA Explosion, so good they named it twice.

Jamie on 29 December 2013 @ 5pm

Looking back at this 2 years later, I think it’s a technology problem. The announcement plays twice – the second time in a perfectly acceptable place (if we must have such crap cluttering the airwaves). The first time: ouch. To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the second go was the right one. I know it wasn’t, but I’m feeling generous.

John Hoare on 19 January 2014 @ 12pm

Actually, yeah, I agree – and thought similar when I rewatched it recently. Difficult to tell, but it looks more complicated than a straightforward offset error in the schedule, at least.