Yet you decided to buy a LF a short while back knowing exactly what the BBC (and other UK broadcasters schedules) are like? Did you also buy a Digital Tv recorder?
I mainly went for a TVL because of motors TV, i thought it would be good, while some stuff is good, a lot is rubbish with pretty poor commentary. Not sure if it is worth £145 a year mind you
As for the PVR, no I did not buy a new PVR, I already have two a Hitachi SD and a digital stream Hd one.,
I mainly went for a TVL because of motors TV, i thought it would be good, while some stuff is good, a lot is rubbish with pretty poor commentary. Not sure if it is worth £145 a year mind you
As for the PVR, no I did not buy a new PVR, I already have two a Hitachi SD and a digital stream Hd one.,
Then you should have no problem cancelling your LF and going back to being LF free as you were before you decided to spend 145 quid on a niche motor sport TV channel without doing your homework.
Good job you kept those PVR's after you first cancelled your LF first time round eh?
I think the BBC is great and I don't understand all the negativity.
I watch BBC News, listen to BBC radio, I use the BBC News website as my main source of news, I watch lots of good TV on BBC1/BBC2, etc.
I like that it's not littered with adverts and has great quality shows and presenters. Is it more that people just want to save themselves a licence fee every year, so they invent loads of reasons they dislike the BBC?
I think the BBC is great and I don't understand all the negativity.
I watch BBC News, listen to BBC radio, I use the BBC News website as my main source of news, I watch lots of good TV on BBC1/BBC2, etc.
I like that it's not littered with adverts and has great quality shows and presenters. Is it more that people just want to save themselves a licence fee every year, so they invent loads of reasons they dislike the BBC?
Either way, I'm sure it's staying.
You see, I myself have not been negative about the BBC, but I have questioned as to whether changes could and should be made. Perhaps it is right that the Government are bringing possible changes to the fore in order to start a debate, but then you could argue that changes are not needed. However, with the way different services are springing up everyday and the way the broadcast world is changing at an unprecedented pace, is the lifelong protection and continuation of the BBC dependant on necessary change?
Last night I filled in the online consultation form. It was quite thorough although you do have to think about the questions and the context. On a couple where it asks what reforms would you like to see, I simply put "No reform in this area necessary". However where I thought the BBC could do better I told them. I also highlighted the excellence of the BBC and where it asked for evidence of a positive impact, I brought to the Governments attention the flawless election coverage and said to compare the BBC's coverage with the rather lacklustre ITV coverage and the rather self congratulatory Sky coverage. I also highlighted its educational value for schools and its ability to bring the nation together during major events.
It is right to criticise the BBC where YOU think it needs improvement because if it doesn't change based on criticism it will become arrogant and complacent. That was also the reason I gave for the final question. "Should the Charter system be maintained".
I want the BBC to be around for the rest of my life and beyond, but I want it to be able to be a prime aspect of the broadcasting world. Standing still isn't an option so the debate about its future is only part of ensuring its longevity.
I don't mean co-Productions, I'm fully aware that the Musketeers is co-produced with an American broadcaster, what i'm on about is programs like Breaking Bad, Under the Dome, The Big Bang Theory. I just find them utter rubbish. I tried a couple of episodes of breaking bad and I found it unwatchable
Breaking Bad is better than all the recent BBC dramas put together.
Breaking Bad is better than all the recent BBC dramas put together.
Breaking Bad is egotistic claptrap. I watched it and got the sense of the producers telling me "Gosh, look how clever we are" all through the show. If you like your TV to be pretentious fine, but I prefer the BBC's realness of its output.
Excellent for you. Let's have the comparable list of *new* items from today to watch on Netflix. Only from today mind. And not repeats.
And I note you're happy to pay a USA company £7-9? a month for whatever you're watching but you won't back a British organisation for what you watch on that. Any other British organisations you don't like or is the hatred just directed towards the BBC? Have you ever asked yourself why you hate the BBC so much?
If you want the best the BBC has to offer you need to watch UK Gold, not the BBC. Unless you like the lottery show, basically an hour of Dale Winton asking questions a 5 year old could answer waiting on 10 seconds worth of numbers being spat out of a glorified bingo machine. That's the sort of cheap rubbish on prime time on a Saturday night. Why would I watch that when I can watch 70 hours worth top American drama? That's just one show.
Netflix with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black is better than anything the BBC has done for years, probably ever. They spend the money correctly and have a catalogue of top shows from all around the world. So this 'Brits do it best' mantra you cling to used to be true but isn't anymore. We're not in the same league as them now.
Breaking Bad is egotistic claptrap. I watched it and got the sense of the producers telling me "Gosh, look how clever we are" all through the show. If you like your TV to be pretentious fine, but I prefer the BBC's realness of its output.
It's embarrassing to compare soap star acting and drab plots to TV masterpieces. It fools nobody but yourself.
It's embarrassing to compare soap star acting and drab plots to TV masterpieces. It fools nobody but yourself.
Not embarrassing at all. I have watched a lot of good American drama, but I have also watched a lot of excellent British drama too. In my view, and it is only a viewpoint, people who only like American and refuse to watch or engage in anything the Brits do are very closed minded. Its like they have an agenda to prove some weird, non-existent point about America being brilliant and the Brits are somehow inferior. That is quite disturbing because it is a type of obsession that needs addressing. I have an open mind. If its a good show I'll watch it and I don't care where in the world it comes from. The BBC make some bloody excellent drama - stuff you expect to see shown anywhere in the world. Yes. It makes cruddy stuff too. But that's life. It cant get it right all the time and no realist would expect it too.
Out of interest, WHY is American TV better and what BBC shows have you seen in order to come to that conclusion?
Not embarrassing at all. I have watched a lot of good American drama, but I have also watched a lot of excellent British drama too. In my view, and it is only a viewpoint, people who only like American and refuse to watch or engage in anything the Brits do are very closed minded. Its like they have an agenda to prove some weird, non-existent point about America being brilliant and the Brits are somehow inferior. That is quite disturbing because it is a type of obsession that needs addressing. I have an open mind. If its a good show I'll watch it and I don't care where in the world it comes from. The BBC make some bloody excellent drama - stuff you expect to see shown anywhere in the world. Yes. It makes cruddy stuff too. But that's life. It cant get it right all the time and no realist would expect it too.
Out of interest, WHY is American TV better and what BBC shows have you seen in order to come to that conclusion?
I agree wizzywick, some American drama is very good. I saw breaking bad for about 2 episodes and found it unwatchable and I just can't compare it with stuff like A Song for Jenny, Last Tango in Halifax, Happy Valley or even Broadchurch
Netflix with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black is better than anything the BBC has done for years, probably ever. They spend the money correctly and have a catalogue of top shows from all around the world. So this 'Brits do it best' mantra you cling to used to be true but isn't anymore. We're not in the same league as them now.
The story goes that when Netflix was casting about for a drama series, they actually did some research into what their audience liked. It turns out they liked Kevin Spacey and the liked political intrigue / conspiracy. So that's what they did: they gave their customers what they wanted.
What seems to happen in the UK is that someone, somewhere, looks at ratings of past shows, finds the top ones and says "right, another costume drama it is"
They then get a single, lone writer to choke up some dialog and get all the old "period" props out of the cupboard and shout "action!" Half the audience think "Oooooh, Jane Eyre haven't seen that since the last time, I'll watch" and half think <click> and all the media luvvies and critics hail another winner - as these sell well in the USA (where people probably think that;s how us brits actually live).
But it's a monoculture. ISTM a large proportion of british drama is about the past. A lot of documentaries are about times gone by and most "arts" programmes are about dead people. Our TV seems obsessed with looking backwards and has a problem with making contemporary shows - and a real problem with making futuristic or SF shows.
It just seems to me that while the americans have a hard-nosed, commercial, attitude: make popular programmes, get lots of viewers, make money, continue making the same until the ratings drop, then cancel it. The british "way" is for one person who's had success before to think up a show, sell it to a commissioning person within a channel, get someone to write it, hope they don't completely screw it up, produce 3 or sometimes 6 episodes and then stop. Meanwhile "the writer" moves on to other things, or gets bored, or doesn't want to "get in a rut" and can't be persuaded to come back - even if the show is a ratings winner.
If you want the best the BBC has to offer you need to watch UK Gold, not the BBC. Unless you like the lottery show, basically an hour of Dale Winton asking questions a 5 year old could answer waiting on 10 seconds worth of numbers being spat out of a glorified bingo machine. That's the sort of cheap rubbish on prime time on a Saturday night. Why would I watch that when I can watch 70 hours worth top American drama? That's just one show.
Netflix with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black is better than anything the BBC has done for years, probably ever. They spend the money correctly and have a catalogue of top shows from all around the world. So this 'Brits do it best' mantra you cling to used to be true but isn't anymore. We're not in the same league as them now.
I suspect there are many people who know you who are forever thinking that most of what emanates from your brain is either plain rubbish or wrong. Your confidence fools no one because very quickly everything unravels.
"Netflix with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black is better than anything the BBC has done for years, probably ever"
What utter tosh. This is not fact, just delusional and biased nonsense based on one person's view with a self inflated ego.
it's why the "iplayer loophole" - as they call it:D got a special mention during the Green-paper debate. Was it 1000 a day, or a week who are abandoning the BBC? actions speak louder than words - it seems to NETFLIX in some cases
People aren't "abandoning the BBC" - they've simply found a way of watching it without having to pay for it. Most of the 1000 a day who you think are leaving the BBC are simply watching BBC programmes on the iPlayer.
People aren't "abandoning the BBC" - they've simply found a way of watching it without having to pay for it. Most of the 1000 a day who you think are leaving the BBC are simply watching BBC programmes on the iPlayer.
Precisely, I think it's more scandalous that I am having to subsidise all these millions of viewers of BBC programmes who don't pay because of some loop hole. It clearly knocks a hole in the argument that no one wants watch the BBC because it's programmes are so terrible. Indeed, they watch them more than all the other channels by choice, whether they pay a licence fee or not. The BBC haters on here can argue what are good or bad programmes all they like, but this isn't evidence by any audience or AI figures at all, quite the opposite. The AI for BBC programmes is greater than that for Netflix, so I'd like an explanation for that too.
I suspect there are many people who know you who are forever thinking that most of what emanates from your brain is either plain rubbish or wrong. Your confidence fools no one because very quickly everything unravels.
"Netflix with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black is better than anything the BBC has done for years, probably ever"
What utter tosh. This is not fact, just delusional and biased nonsense based on one person's view with a self inflated ego.
Netflix with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black is better than anything the BBC has done for years, probably ever. They spend the money correctly and have a catalogue of top shows from all around the world. So this 'Brits do it best' mantra you cling to used to be true but isn't anymore. We're not in the same league as them now.
You know Netflix's "House of Cards" is a remake of BBC's "House of Cards" I take it?
I'm a great fan of American TV but I still watch the BBC channels, BBC radio and look at the BBC website as well as using the Iplayer
I enjoyed the recent Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel on BBC One and I'm looking forward to the upcoming series of Dr Who.
I hate the idea of moving BBC Three online which seems to be the stupidest idea of recent decades especially the shows it has shown over the years like Being Human,In The Flesh and Bad Education
I know that some people may not agree with my view however the BBC does have a place in modern TV.However it does need to be reviewed regularly by an independent panel
Although one thing that I never understood is why the BBC shows films as that is an area that is quite easily covered by ITV,Channel 4 and 5.If the BBC stopped buying the rights to films from studios then it would surely save itself a massive amount from its funding!
I love the BBC. But I will admit it has its faults, and I think it is only right it's reviewed every couple of years in order to keep it relevant for the audience, and also to not let it get complacent.
We want the BBC to be the very best, but I think it's only right that the overall viewing audience and the wider general public have their say, and not just letting the politicians and celebrities decide what type of future it should have. I fear that this charter review will not accurately reflect what the general public are saying.
I think the BBC overall does a great job, but i think there are areas of improvement. I would like to see a bit more variety in the BBC One schedule in particular. I can see the value in the One Show, but does it need to be on five times a week? It would be good if it was only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, with different shows airing in the other 7pm slots. Try a new quiz show, entertainment show or something younger skewing now that BBC Three will be going.
I would cut down Casualty and Holby City so they aren't on all year round. Keep them to six months a year, to allow more variety.
I would also cut EastEnders to three days a week, and keep Friday free for something else.
Now people might say the BBC can't afford to do that, and it's cheaper to keep those shows going for more episodes and you are probably right. However, that's why I wouldn't mind giving the BBC more money if it meant they took more risks and were more experimental with their scheduling.
That is what many people ARE doing, it's why the "iplayer loophole" - as they call it:D got a special mention during the Green-paper debate. Was it 1000 a day, or a week who are abandoning the BBC? actions speak louder than words
Anyone who believes that all the people who stop paying the LF are 'abandoning the BBC' (and all live TV) is living in cloud cuckoo land. The vast majority of them will just be taking advantage of a poorly policed loophole in order to watch live TV 'free' by pretending they never watch it.
That's the main reason why the LF income is falling and is why the loophole will be plugged.
Online 'live' (i.e. delayed only by the buffer) is live TV. So is watching ITV, Sky or Channel 4 live (online or otherwise) and the TVL should be paid, but it is poorly policed so many won't. Human nature.
I'm a great fan of American TV but I still watch the BBC channels, BBC radio and look at the BBC website as well as using the Iplayer
I enjoyed the recent Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel on BBC One and I'm looking forward to the upcoming series of Dr Who.
I hate the idea of moving BBC Three online which seems to be the stupidest idea of recent decades especially the shows it has shown over the years like Being Human,In The Flesh and Bad Education
I know that some people may not agree with my view however the BBC does have a place in modern TV.However it does need to be reviewed regularly by an independent panel
Although one thing that I never understood is why the BBC shows films as that is an area that is quite easily covered by ITV,Channel 4 and 5.If the BBC stopped buying the rights to films from studios then it would surely save itself a massive amount from its funding!
The BBC should show films. Many licence payers like them playing films and it is nice to watch films on television without adverts. Plus, the BBC seem to be the only broadcaster out of the five main channels to show films uncut.
What some don't realise (or choose to ignore!) is that whilst things like Breaking Bad may be very good (I say may as I have never seen it), the premium American cable stations that air them have virtually no other original content. A cursory look at the AMC schedule shows that it is filled with 20 year old films and ancient series stacked episode after episode throughout the day. It is the same with HBO. Tell the BBC to spend hundreds of millions on a single flagship drama series a year then we'll be able to properly compare the two in terms of quality. Its ironic that people say the BBC has too many repeats and blindly ignore the reality of other channels worldwide that air nothing new for days on end!
It is very easy to say that these American stations produce great programmes - they do. But it is ridiculous to compare a few dozen hours of original drama a year to the thousands of hours of broad genre programming the BBC produces. Indeed it is even easier to cherry pick a couple of good series bought in by Netflix et al ignoring the fact that the vast majority of their library is repeats of the best coming from places like the BBC and Ch4 in the first place!
Comments
I mainly went for a TVL because of motors TV, i thought it would be good, while some stuff is good, a lot is rubbish with pretty poor commentary. Not sure if it is worth £145 a year mind you
As for the PVR, no I did not buy a new PVR, I already have two a Hitachi SD and a digital stream Hd one.,
Then you should have no problem cancelling your LF and going back to being LF free as you were before you decided to spend 145 quid on a niche motor sport TV channel without doing your homework.
Good job you kept those PVR's after you first cancelled your LF first time round eh?
I watch BBC News, listen to BBC radio, I use the BBC News website as my main source of news, I watch lots of good TV on BBC1/BBC2, etc.
I like that it's not littered with adverts and has great quality shows and presenters. Is it more that people just want to save themselves a licence fee every year, so they invent loads of reasons they dislike the BBC?
Either way, I'm sure it's staying.
You see, I myself have not been negative about the BBC, but I have questioned as to whether changes could and should be made. Perhaps it is right that the Government are bringing possible changes to the fore in order to start a debate, but then you could argue that changes are not needed. However, with the way different services are springing up everyday and the way the broadcast world is changing at an unprecedented pace, is the lifelong protection and continuation of the BBC dependant on necessary change?
Last night I filled in the online consultation form. It was quite thorough although you do have to think about the questions and the context. On a couple where it asks what reforms would you like to see, I simply put "No reform in this area necessary". However where I thought the BBC could do better I told them. I also highlighted the excellence of the BBC and where it asked for evidence of a positive impact, I brought to the Governments attention the flawless election coverage and said to compare the BBC's coverage with the rather lacklustre ITV coverage and the rather self congratulatory Sky coverage. I also highlighted its educational value for schools and its ability to bring the nation together during major events.
It is right to criticise the BBC where YOU think it needs improvement because if it doesn't change based on criticism it will become arrogant and complacent. That was also the reason I gave for the final question. "Should the Charter system be maintained".
I want the BBC to be around for the rest of my life and beyond, but I want it to be able to be a prime aspect of the broadcasting world. Standing still isn't an option so the debate about its future is only part of ensuring its longevity.
Breaking Bad is better than all the recent BBC dramas put together.
Breaking Bad is egotistic claptrap. I watched it and got the sense of the producers telling me "Gosh, look how clever we are" all through the show. If you like your TV to be pretentious fine, but I prefer the BBC's realness of its output.
If you want the best the BBC has to offer you need to watch UK Gold, not the BBC. Unless you like the lottery show, basically an hour of Dale Winton asking questions a 5 year old could answer waiting on 10 seconds worth of numbers being spat out of a glorified bingo machine. That's the sort of cheap rubbish on prime time on a Saturday night. Why would I watch that when I can watch 70 hours worth top American drama? That's just one show.
Netflix with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black is better than anything the BBC has done for years, probably ever. They spend the money correctly and have a catalogue of top shows from all around the world. So this 'Brits do it best' mantra you cling to used to be true but isn't anymore. We're not in the same league as them now.
It's embarrassing to compare soap star acting and drab plots to TV masterpieces. It fools nobody but yourself.
Not embarrassing at all. I have watched a lot of good American drama, but I have also watched a lot of excellent British drama too. In my view, and it is only a viewpoint, people who only like American and refuse to watch or engage in anything the Brits do are very closed minded. Its like they have an agenda to prove some weird, non-existent point about America being brilliant and the Brits are somehow inferior. That is quite disturbing because it is a type of obsession that needs addressing. I have an open mind. If its a good show I'll watch it and I don't care where in the world it comes from. The BBC make some bloody excellent drama - stuff you expect to see shown anywhere in the world. Yes. It makes cruddy stuff too. But that's life. It cant get it right all the time and no realist would expect it too.
Out of interest, WHY is American TV better and what BBC shows have you seen in order to come to that conclusion?
I agree wizzywick, some American drama is very good. I saw breaking bad for about 2 episodes and found it unwatchable and I just can't compare it with stuff like A Song for Jenny, Last Tango in Halifax, Happy Valley or even Broadchurch
What seems to happen in the UK is that someone, somewhere, looks at ratings of past shows, finds the top ones and says "right, another costume drama it is"
They then get a single, lone writer to choke up some dialog and get all the old "period" props out of the cupboard and shout "action!" Half the audience think "Oooooh, Jane Eyre haven't seen that since the last time, I'll watch" and half think <click> and all the media luvvies and critics hail another winner - as these sell well in the USA (where people probably think that;s how us brits actually live).
But it's a monoculture. ISTM a large proportion of british drama is about the past. A lot of documentaries are about times gone by and most "arts" programmes are about dead people. Our TV seems obsessed with looking backwards and has a problem with making contemporary shows - and a real problem with making futuristic or SF shows.
It just seems to me that while the americans have a hard-nosed, commercial, attitude: make popular programmes, get lots of viewers, make money, continue making the same until the ratings drop, then cancel it. The british "way" is for one person who's had success before to think up a show, sell it to a commissioning person within a channel, get someone to write it, hope they don't completely screw it up, produce 3 or sometimes 6 episodes and then stop. Meanwhile "the writer" moves on to other things, or gets bored, or doesn't want to "get in a rut" and can't be persuaded to come back - even if the show is a ratings winner.
I suspect there are many people who know you who are forever thinking that most of what emanates from your brain is either plain rubbish or wrong. Your confidence fools no one because very quickly everything unravels.
"Netflix with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black is better than anything the BBC has done for years, probably ever"
What utter tosh. This is not fact, just delusional and biased nonsense based on one person's view with a self inflated ego.
Precisely, I think it's more scandalous that I am having to subsidise all these millions of viewers of BBC programmes who don't pay because of some loop hole. It clearly knocks a hole in the argument that no one wants watch the BBC because it's programmes are so terrible. Indeed, they watch them more than all the other channels by choice, whether they pay a licence fee or not. The BBC haters on here can argue what are good or bad programmes all they like, but this isn't evidence by any audience or AI figures at all, quite the opposite. The AI for BBC programmes is greater than that for Netflix, so I'd like an explanation for that too.
Well said.
You know Netflix's "House of Cards" is a remake of BBC's "House of Cards" I take it?
Heaven help us.
I enjoyed the recent Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel on BBC One and I'm looking forward to the upcoming series of Dr Who.
I hate the idea of moving BBC Three online which seems to be the stupidest idea of recent decades especially the shows it has shown over the years like Being Human,In The Flesh and Bad Education
I know that some people may not agree with my view however the BBC does have a place in modern TV.However it does need to be reviewed regularly by an independent panel
Although one thing that I never understood is why the BBC shows films as that is an area that is quite easily covered by ITV,Channel 4 and 5.If the BBC stopped buying the rights to films from studios then it would surely save itself a massive amount from its funding!
We want the BBC to be the very best, but I think it's only right that the overall viewing audience and the wider general public have their say, and not just letting the politicians and celebrities decide what type of future it should have. I fear that this charter review will not accurately reflect what the general public are saying.
I think the BBC overall does a great job, but i think there are areas of improvement. I would like to see a bit more variety in the BBC One schedule in particular. I can see the value in the One Show, but does it need to be on five times a week? It would be good if it was only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, with different shows airing in the other 7pm slots. Try a new quiz show, entertainment show or something younger skewing now that BBC Three will be going.
I would cut down Casualty and Holby City so they aren't on all year round. Keep them to six months a year, to allow more variety.
I would also cut EastEnders to three days a week, and keep Friday free for something else.
Now people might say the BBC can't afford to do that, and it's cheaper to keep those shows going for more episodes and you are probably right. However, that's why I wouldn't mind giving the BBC more money if it meant they took more risks and were more experimental with their scheduling.
Anyone who believes that all the people who stop paying the LF are 'abandoning the BBC' (and all live TV) is living in cloud cuckoo land. The vast majority of them will just be taking advantage of a poorly policed loophole in order to watch live TV 'free' by pretending they never watch it.
That's the main reason why the LF income is falling and is why the loophole will be plugged.
The BBC should show films. Many licence payers like them playing films and it is nice to watch films on television without adverts. Plus, the BBC seem to be the only broadcaster out of the five main channels to show films uncut.
It is very easy to say that these American stations produce great programmes - they do. But it is ridiculous to compare a few dozen hours of original drama a year to the thousands of hours of broad genre programming the BBC produces. Indeed it is even easier to cherry pick a couple of good series bought in by Netflix et al ignoring the fact that the vast majority of their library is repeats of the best coming from places like the BBC and Ch4 in the first place!