TV company on location at the KWVR

short unedited video of the intracasies of film production, not often all of the vintage coaches are out at same time.

 

Interesting - if it's meant to be at 'Charing Cross' , once the terminus of the SE Railway, later the SE&CR, I hope they don't do a wider shot showing the 'L&Y' markings!
Also Charing Cross's platforms are not so tightly curved as the K&WVR's are.

 

Where did "London" come from - this is a 21 century euphamism. Even when I was a lad in 50 / 60s all the signs said simply "Charring Cross". The curvature of the platforms might be one thing wrong but the lack of an overall roof is even more of a howler.

I dont understand why the film crew chose K&WR when the Bluebell could have provided genuine SECR stock and locos.

 

You are not seeing the end product, TV crews seldom use the full picture like we do, will generly be no panning, no long shots, close up narrow set views, cut from one shot to another, and if they wont full roof then this can be easly done with moder editing software what they will have available. what they are after is close up, its harder to fake something when it close as thats when you see the detail.

 

its called cinematic licence, where a character is, say, in Leeds, walks round a corner and and is then in Fleet Street, London

 

Anyway, to clarify, its a story of a boy going off to war in 1914

 

I have other words for it not suitable for a family forum.

I have lost count of the occasions when in a film, not located in england, the stock footage of the approaches to Waterloo appears complete with third rail. School report - could do better.

Also my pet hate film makers have not heard of the automatic brake, including the Bond film Skyfalll

 

have u ever tried to make a film

 

No I have not - I dont have the artistic expertise. That however is IMHO no reason why I cant expect technical accuracy from those who can. Many directors producers strive for accuracy by employing technical experts who advise those who do have the artistic tallent. Others seemingly cant be bothered - never let the truth get in the way of a good srory.

Have you made a film?

 

yes, quite a few

 

In order to get your degree of accuracy I presume you will pay the costs of getting the film crew (and support staff) to the location, meet the charges and hire fees required by the railway company and fall in with the schedules that suit the railway's normal operating procedures - and all out of your film budget. Having seen the requirements of a 10 second advertising sequence (for a 30 second advert !) at first hand I suspect that budgetary constraints are going to be more demanding that railway accuracy. Whether you - as a purist - like it or not to most of the public a train is a train is a train irrespective of company as long as the period looks authentic.

 

absolutely, and they COULD have just used a mock up in a studio, with outside shots of archive film showing unconnected railway scenes. They have to be complimented on using an outside location. The cost must be huge, equipment and labour filled the road and car park at side of the station, and it was bloody cold this last week.

 

I understand your comments re budgetary constraints and the amount ok kit and staff involved in outside filming. I can also appreciate that there will be marginal cost diferences between railway A which is close to your base location and B which might be more expensive but more accurate. It depends if the diference is 1% or 100% as even I understand a film is a comercial product. I do however wonder, having seen the numbers involved in an interview at Chelsea Flower Show, if the film and TVindustry is the final vestige of 70s overmanning?.

Concidering the costs of outside filming perhaps you could explain something which I find odd.The BBC apear to be strapped for cash, closure of BBC 3 TV for example. Why then do the News section incur the not inconsiderable cost of broadcasting "LIVE" during the 10.00 p.m. News outside a building which has no one inside but security staff and cleaners. It simply makes no logical sense, or is applying logic where I am missing the point

Dave.

 

I think jamessquared stated to hat a recent bit of filming paid for a boiler to be sent away for overhaul. Don't look a gift horse etc etc.

 

I suspect that you will find that this outside broadcast comes from a portable unit which is small unit to be carried in a Transit-sized van using electronics that link directly to the studio (meaning no editing required) and part of a 2 or 3 man team; even in the 1960s a lot of news filming was achieved by a small 4-man team with portable kit as my cousin successfully did for Scottish TV news in the 1960s until Mr Callaghan's infamous SET (Selective Employment Tax) increased the costs too far and the company folded.

For a cost comparison the film unit I mentioned in my earlier post was located in a church in rural Berkshire, required a pool of some 20 actors plus film crew plus film technicians and joiners making a total of some 40 persons who needed feeding during a filming session that began at 09:00 and finished at 15:00. Then add on the 90 minutes each way from London to the film location giving 07:30 - 16:30. Then add the editing process.

There is no comparison between "live news" and "location filming" - different environment; different techniques; different costs.

 

Very large subsidies are available for filming in Yorkshire through the Yorkshire Content Fund.

 

Depending on context, if the building concerned is the feature of a story (eg corporate or government department HQ) you can be sure that although most staff have gone home, the press office and senior managers will be there providing up-to-the-minute news to the journo on hand. You can't get the same level of detail, accuracy and timeliness from a recorded update or by closeting journos in an office somewhere.

Simon