Question about British TV

I watch a lot of TV from Europe and Asia and other countries outside the US. Because our TV shows suck butthole. But what I have noticed is that British TV shows sometimes has a guy or a girl doing sign language off to the right of the screen. I find this distracting and baffling. Why do you guys have that? I find it strange and I find myself laughing at the performance of the signer.

So the deaf can also enjoy it...

Is this a serious question?

I don't actually know, we have subtitles which although not always correct provide the same distraction to a deaf viewer as a signer does.

Strange thing is though these signers only ever appear during the graveyard shift of TV, never see them through the day or evening

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Yes I was going to say the same, but we have subtitles for that and the signers are only on during the night so it makes no sense to me why they only appear late at night

a reply to: galaga

To tell deaf people when the canned laughter is happening (or to confuse Americans).

Seriously, not everyone can get teletext.

a reply to: galaga

This has been a familiar sight to us Brits for a while now. The programs which most often involve a sign interpreter and a border around the shot, tend to be news items appearing on the BBC News channel, but other networks sometimes televise regular programs with a signer on the side.

Now, in this day and age, it is probable that there are entire schedules available to view with a sign interpreter on the side as well, rather than just being part of the normal schedule. This, coupled with the fact that sub-titles tend to be available to anyone with a partially modern set top box or television set, mean that some are confused as to why the signers might appear randomly on a film or television program.

I think it is an inclusiveness effort on the part of broadcasters, and since it is so familiar to me, I have to say that I really ceased to be bothered by it when I was a little fellow. There is a columnist for one of the right wing rags in this country, who calls the interpreters "sign language gnomes" and finds their presence frustrating. However, it has to be said, that the fellow seems to be one of those who has a distinct lack of familiarity with any problem which could not be described as a "first world problem", and therefore, has no need of anyone's sympathy.

a reply to: Discotech

Not all shows have subtitles.

If you see a little [s] in the synopsis of the show that means it's subtitled.



I have always wondered why they expect the deaf to stay up until 3 in the morning to enjoy a bit of tele though.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I always wondered that. I think they have the idea that deaf people are nocturnal or something. Like they don't watch TV in the daytime.

No-one watches 3am Casino TV, why subject the deaf to it?

They need an option to switch that little dude on or off at will.

Do these signers only appear on live tv (cable/broadcast?) because I like to watch some British tv on Netflix, and I have ever noticed them. Also, is it me, or do many of you guy's shows lack background/ambient music? Like many of the shows are just dialogue only and whatever sounds from the environment, and I dont usually notice a score of any kind. But maybe I just dont watch enough British TV??

a reply to: AmericanRealist

It very much depends on the type of show involved, with regards to scoring.

For example, Sherlock does have incidental music, accentuating the dramatic elements, and often times reflecting on the comedic elements as well. Endeavour, a crime drama, is a show which relies heavily on classical music as a backdrop to its visuals, as was Inspector Morse, the show which Endeavour was created off the back of, telling the story of the young Endeavour Morse, learning the ropes of being a police detective. The character being a former student at Oxford university, and having an appreciation for the arts and classical, baroque, and operatic music particularly, is a running theme throughout both shows, and the incidental music either comprises of actual pieces written by the greats, or well constructed backing, which gels with those fantastic old pieces of music.

In fact, one of the things that first lead me to enjoy Inspector Morse as a lad, was the scoring. The way the directors blended the music with the action on the screen was always so fantastically well done, that sometimes it would change the way I listened to a classical tune forever.

But there are other shows which rarely feature much music other than the title theme. I think an awful lot depends on the sort of show it is, and also who directed it. Some directors like to shoot using an almost documentary style, very stark, no fuss, like a package holiday. You get four walls and a bed, some breakfast, the rest is up to you, if you get my drift. I think directors who rely on the moment on screen, in order to communicate the emotion of the moment, rather than relying on scoring, have to be very attentive to detail, and the actors and actresses on screen have to work harder to ram those emotions home. Incidental music is used in film and television to accentuate the action on the screen, or the emotion being portrayed by a given scene. When those scenes are shot with no incidentals to carry the import of the scene, it means everyone has to work harder, from the camera man, to the actor or actress, in order for the scene to have the same impact it might have with some violins and cellos adding to the gravitas of the work.

It's kind of distracting, I end up watching them more than whatever it is they're signing to.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
Also, is it me, or do many of you guy's shows lack background/ambient music? Like many of the shows are just dialogue only and whatever sounds from the environment, and I dont usually notice a score of any kind.

On the contrary, there is FAR TOO MUCH background music. This is a long-standing grievance for many people. Anyone who tries to watch historical documentaries, for example, will have noticed it. Producers seem to operate on the theory that the spoken word cannot be allowed to operate on its own, and MUST have a distracting musical background while the presenter is speaking, to set the "atmosphere". I assume this stupid principle has been imported from the film world. Similarly in sports, like the Tour de France. As long as there is live action, we're allowed just to see what's going on and listen to the commentary. But while things are being explained in the prologue, CRASH BANG WALLOP, there has to be a loud musical background underneath the words. Only the news programmes really escape it.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
On the contrary, there is FAR TOO MUCH background music. This is a long-standing grievance for many people. Anyone who tries to watch historical documentaries, for example, will have noticed it. Producers seem to operate on the theory that the spoken word cannot be allowed to operate on its own, and MUST have a distracting musical background while the presenter is speaking, to set the "atmosphere". CRASH BANG WALLOP, there has to be a loud musical background underneath the words. Only the news programmes really escape it.

You could always watch the 'signed' version later

Here's a classic

a reply to: uktorah
When it gets too much, I set "allow subtitles" and switch to mute.

a reply to: galaga

I don't know, it's baffling (as well as being bloody annoying).

For a start, not all deaf people can understand BSL. It's a language like any other and you either understand it or you don't. Most, I would wager, don't.

Yet many can understand lip reading, for which no help is needed.

And you've got subtitles for pretty much everything on TV now.

It doesn't seem to be a problem for other countries too; for instance, you never see any protest marches by the French deaf community campaigning for the British 'little man'.

It's completely pointless...and yet, quaintly British.

A lot of Brits like to be seen to be doing something for the underdog.

originally posted by: SlowNail
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I always wondered that. I think they have the idea that deaf people are nocturnal or something. Like they don't watch TV in the daytime.

No-one watches 3am Casino TV, why subject the deaf to it?

They need an option to switch that little dude on or off at will.

It is so they can record their programs at night without having the signers on through the day distracting the prime time audiences.

Can you not record TV where you live? We have been doing it here for decades.

OP must be kidding. All the local TV services have sign readers usually shown in the last summary of the news, while the news is spoken a little more slowly. There is also the subtitles and text for the hard of hearing, (Deaf) for many of the programmes that can be switched on.
So, if it's distracting on the news, watch the earlier headlines.

a reply to: brancolinoxx

Yeah, of course we can record.

That explanation would make perfect sense if night and primetime schedules were identical, which they ain't. They're of a drastically different quality.

To confuse foreigners

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Here's a classic

Just pissed myself hahahaha