The important thing is not "period" or "contemporary" but relevance.
A period drama can be very relevant to todays issues, just as a contemporary drama can be completely irrelevant.
My feelings about BBC drama is that whether it's 'period' or 'contemporary' it's mostly irrelevant. And I would say that's the reason for the generally poor ratings, with a few exceptions of course!
In fact I feel that most BBC programming is irrelevant. Even when they cover an issue of today they do it in a way that misses all the relevancy.
To be fair no one can watch everything. How do you know that it takes as long to make a 22 part series in the States as an 8 part series here or is that just another convenient generalisation to somehow imply that as a result British is better. Generally a 22 week series takes the best part of a full year to make.
And a 13-part season of Doctor Who takes 9 months. Point somewhat proved, I think
And a 13-part season of Doctor Who takes 9 months. Point somewhat proved, I think
Yes, but Doctor Who has a lot more FX work than your average series.
The BBC also make it look reasonably like the Doctor is in the place he says he is, the Americans don't bother. or perhaps in reality, London looks like LA but with a poor CG rendering of Tower Bridge in the background of every shot...
And a 13-part season of Doctor Who takes 9 months. Point somewhat proved, I think
What point is that?
My point was that the length of time taken per episode means little so far as the actual quality of a drama is concerned. It is just one factor among many.
Personally I prefer US shows over UK shows. Some of the above comments have really hit the nail on the head regarding unjust generalisations and taking sides without sampling both countries outputs. I recently watched Broadchurch on ITV Encore (due its hype and upcoming US remake - pointless endeavour btw, judging from the trailer it appears to be a shot-to-shot remake of the original) and quite liked it. Last year I also watched The Fall, which was also decent.
The main problem for UK dramas in my opinion appears to be their lack of advertising, which wouldn't be a problem if there was a way of catching up - based on the views of this thread, I would now be rather interested in watching Happy Valley but don't want to spend £12.99 on a series I may not enjoy.
Another problem is the consistency. For a network US series, every autumn (unless there's a change in scheduling e.g. for a series final season) there's a new season guaranteed, yet with shows such as Sherlock and The Fall the wait time between the next installment is always longer, even more frustrating provided the small episode numbers.
Regarding the smaller viewing figures for US series on UK broadcasters compared to UK content, I understand that they are low, but then again people tend to discover series later on through word of mouth (look at Breaking Bad compared to it's UK broadcasts) and boxsets where people prefer to buy a series a binge watch over a few days.
Maybe they should stop making generic crime shows and produce some genuinely original drama.
The problem with crime drama is that there are only about a dozen or so basic plots. However, that doesn't matter too much for 2 reasons.
First, most shows in any genre don't have original plots, it's the way the story is presented and told that is the important thing. Look at the film Titanic as an example: we all know the story, but that didn't prevent it being a huge success.
Second, I get the feeling that a lot of people who watch crime shows are either cops themselves (or wannabe's) and like the feeling of validation and empowerment they get. Or they are people who like the reassurance that cop shows bring - that there are people out there "fighting all these horrid nasty criminals that we are always hearing about". Utter rubbish, since most real-life police work is paperwork or sitting around parked-up somewhere watching for motorists to pull-in. But they like to kid themselves.
A similar observation can be made for period / costume drama. A lot of their viewers have a difficulty dealing with the complexity and pressures of modern living. Therefore they feel drawn to the simpler portrayal of life of 50 or more years ago. So all these historical dramas give them somewhere to hide, emotionally. 'Corse, it's all a complete fantasy: modern life is much safer, fairer, happier, richer, more comfortable and a dam' sight healthier - but these programmes are merely a superficial idealisation: totally disconnected from the reality (no matter how "gritty" they pretend to be) of the past times they are set in.
My issue with UK series...they are too short. make them longer. US series are generally longer.
They have to be longer to compensate for all the time taken up by the vast amount of ad breaks.
The only US box set I own is the first one of Family Guy, bought before I realised it would be repeated ad infinitum. I've never watched Game of Thrones, but it's hilarious to read people's straight-faced analysis of it.
Ironically the best recent US series have been relatively short: True Detective with 8 episodes and Game of Thrones with 10 per season.
Cable television shows in the US generally have shorter runs than broadcast television. For the premium television networks like HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz, Encore - I can't think of a single season/series that aired more than 15 episodes. I'm not including the series like The Sopranos and Sex and the City where their sixth season was split between two parts over two years with 21 and 20 episodes respectively especially when the are talking about two different story lines.
Ironically the best recent US series have been relatively short: True Detective with 8 episodes and Game of Thrones with 10 per season.
HBO doesn't fit with general scheduling though and as such produces these smaller length series. If they stuck to the Fall/Spring seasons with scheduling they would produce more episodes. Bad example!
HBO doesn't fit with general scheduling though and as such produces these smaller length series. If they stuck to the Fall/Spring seasons with scheduling they would produce more episodes. Bad example!
It's not a bad example in the context of a debate about whether people should watch British dramas on a week-by-week basis or US dramas as box sets. As I understood it Cohen's point was that British people were ignoring good British shows because they preferred to sit and watch a box set of GoT, Breaking Bad etc, and of course you can watch a box set of those in a couple of days because they are relatively short seasons.
US shows are often written by large teams of writers, unlike UK shows. When you have a single writer or pair of writers, you're not going to get 20-25 episodes per season.
It's not a bad example in the context of a debate about whether people should watch British dramas on a week-by-week basis or US dramas as box sets. As I understood it Cohen's point was that British people were ignoring good British shows because they preferred to sit and watch a box set of GoT, Breaking Bad etc, and of course you can watch a box set of those in a couple of days because they are relatively short seasons.
Then if thats what people 'prefer' then he shouldn't be moaning about it, he, as the Director of Television at the BBC, should be adjusting the way people get access to British dramas and then they might sit and watch them as a box set.
Sorry, but he is moaning because people aren't watching the way he wants them to watch, its simple, make your shows available as box sets and people might watch them.
The BBC by the way, are the largest export broadcaster, producing the biggest amount of exported programming in the world. What does that tell you?
For one thing, it tells me how centralized UK TV is, with an amount of power concentrated in one media corporation that is simply unthinkable in America. By population, the US is five times bigger than the UK, yet the US doesn't have a single broadcaster anywhere close to the size of the BBC. In the UK, drama series are mostly commissioned by either the BBC or ITV, with a small number of commissions by Channel 4, Sky, and Channel 5. In America, drama series are commissioned by DOZENS of different channels, and not one of them commissions as many different projects as the BBC. Also, American channels don't really "export" anything, because only HBO does much producing in-house and handles its own foreign sales. American studios (which are separate from the broadcasting part of the TV business), and a few independent production companies, sell their wares to American broadcasters, and then have the job of selling their shows to international markets. There are six studios, and, as I said, a bunch of smaller independent production companies. So, in short, saying that the BBC sells more any other broadcaster in the world (and of course you implied more than any broadcaster in America) doesn't really mean much, other than that the BBC is enormous (which nobody denies, and in fact many critics of the BBC would say is a problem, to the extent that the BBC's own "empire building" has arguably had negative consequences both for its own public service remit and for the UK media landscape).
Then if thats what people 'prefer' then he shouldn't be moaning about it, he, as the Director of Television at the BBC, should be adjusting the way people get access to British dramas and then they might sit and watch them as a box set.
Sorry, but he is moaning because people aren't watching the way he wants them to watch, its simple, make your shows available as box sets and people might watch them.
Exactly. I think we all agree on that - people's viewing habits have undergone a major change due to the ready (and legal) availability of full seasons to stream or download, and the BBC needs to adapt if it wants to compete. On the other hand, there will always be a large number of viewers who don't want or can't afford to pay for Sky, Netflix or Amazon prime so the BBC has to provide programmes for them to watch live as well as for those of us who prefer to watch on demand.
Then if thats what people 'prefer' then he shouldn't be moaning about it, he, as the Director of Television at the BBC, should be adjusting the way people get access to British dramas and then they might sit and watch them as a box set.
Sorry, but he is moaning because people aren't watching the way he wants them to watch, its simple, make your shows available as box sets and people might watch them.
Exactly! Broadcasters still produce, market and distribute programmes like it's 1999. A lot of the time i don't even hear of a programme until it's long gone, probably because i watch little linear TV.
In this respect BBC need to look at what channel 4 do with their shows which are available as boxsets on 4oD, maybe not the latest ones but I believe they are eventually added, this makes it easy to check out critically acclaimed shows such as Spaced and Father Ted etc but also allows viewers the ability to catch up on previous series before a new one airs. BBC Iplayer should be doing something similar
In this respect BBC need to look at what channel 4 do with their shows which are available as boxsets on 4oD, maybe not the latest ones but I believe they are eventually added, this makes it easy to check out critically acclaimed shows such as Spaced and Father Ted etc but also allows viewers the ability to catch up on previous series before a new one airs. BBC Iplayer should be doing something similar
It's all down to right (again), and with the cost of releasing (to iPlayer or to DVD) something that might only have a very limited appeal. The BBC run iPlayer and don't (cannot) run it for commercial gain.
And for older material, it can take some considerable effort to track down and locate all of the rights holders. Even then not all can be located, and agreement might not be reached anyway.
For an example, it has been said that the BBC was prevented from running repeats of The Likely Lads because James Bolam refused to give his permission.
On the DVD release of Life on Mars, some of the 70's music could not be used to to tights issues, so other tracks had to be inserted into the audio mix.
Sometimes, rights issues can be a stumbling block at the very last minute, as was the case with the BBC's adaptation of Room at the Top - it was pulled from the schedules and left on the shelf for a year after a dispute over ownership of the screen rights.
2014 or 1999, rights laws exist and are observed worldwide. the BBC cannot tear up UK & international laws to suit.
Added to which, if the BBC were to put many of its old shows on iPlayer for free, there would likely be complaints about unfair competition from other content providers and broadcasters.
A similar thing happened with the ill-fated Project Kangaroo:
The last thing we needed in this country is America's violent porn trash on tap, but that is what sky, virgin, netflix etc have pushed on us. We have a different culture here. British drama is going to suffer for many years because of this.
But don't worry about the actors, HBO will buy all the talent and turn them into porn stars.
The last thing we needed in this country is America's violent porn trash on tap, but that is what sky, virgin, netflix etc have pushed on us. We have a different culture here. British drama is going to suffer for many years because of this.
But don't worry about the actors, HBO will buy all the talent and turn them into porn stars.
What a stupidly uninformed comment, read about Game of Thrones in the Daily Mail did you? I assume you've actually watched some episodes and will be able to provide some examples (I'll take any show, not just GoT) of this "violent porn trash".
Also, Britain has it's own culture? This week, including featured artists and remixers, there are fewer Brits in the top 10 than non-Brits, 1 British film in the top 10 at the box office (2 if you include X-Men: Days of Future Past, which is a British-American co-production). To put it bluntly "our own culture" is pushing it, we're just like American but with more frequent swearing...
The last thing we needed in this country is America's violent porn trash on tap, but that is what sky, virgin, netflix etc have pushed on us. We have a different culture here. British drama is going to suffer for many years because of this.
But don't worry about the actors, HBO will buy all the talent and turn them into porn stars.
Comments
They are disconnected media elite. Out of touch and clueless.
Get rid of them and see an immediate turnaround.
And why do a good number of BBC dramas get very good viewing figures?
Yes, but Doctor Who has a lot more FX work than your average series.
The BBC also make it look reasonably like the Doctor is in the place he says he is, the Americans don't bother. or perhaps in reality, London looks like LA but with a poor CG rendering of Tower Bridge in the background of every shot...
What point is that?
My point was that the length of time taken per episode means little so far as the actual quality of a drama is concerned. It is just one factor among many.
The main problem for UK dramas in my opinion appears to be their lack of advertising, which wouldn't be a problem if there was a way of catching up - based on the views of this thread, I would now be rather interested in watching Happy Valley but don't want to spend £12.99 on a series I may not enjoy.
Another problem is the consistency. For a network US series, every autumn (unless there's a change in scheduling e.g. for a series final season) there's a new season guaranteed, yet with shows such as Sherlock and The Fall the wait time between the next installment is always longer, even more frustrating provided the small episode numbers.
Regarding the smaller viewing figures for US series on UK broadcasters compared to UK content, I understand that they are low, but then again people tend to discover series later on through word of mouth (look at Breaking Bad compared to it's UK broadcasts) and boxsets where people prefer to buy a series a binge watch over a few days.
Ironically the best recent US series have been relatively short: True Detective with 8 episodes and Game of Thrones with 10 per season.
The problem with crime drama is that there are only about a dozen or so basic plots. However, that doesn't matter too much for 2 reasons.
First, most shows in any genre don't have original plots, it's the way the story is presented and told that is the important thing. Look at the film Titanic as an example: we all know the story, but that didn't prevent it being a huge success.
Second, I get the feeling that a lot of people who watch crime shows are either cops themselves (or wannabe's) and like the feeling of validation and empowerment they get. Or they are people who like the reassurance that cop shows bring - that there are people out there "fighting all these horrid
A similar observation can be made for period / costume drama. A lot of their viewers have a difficulty dealing with the complexity and pressures of modern living. Therefore they feel drawn to the simpler portrayal of life of 50 or more years ago. So all these historical dramas give them somewhere to hide, emotionally. 'Corse, it's all a complete fantasy: modern life is much safer, fairer, happier, richer, more comfortable and a dam' sight healthier - but these programmes are merely a superficial idealisation: totally disconnected from the reality (no matter how "gritty" they pretend to be) of the past times they are set in.
The only US box set I own is the first one of Family Guy, bought before I realised it would be repeated ad infinitum. I've never watched Game of Thrones, but it's hilarious to read people's straight-faced analysis of it.
Cable television shows in the US generally have shorter runs than broadcast television. For the premium television networks like HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz, Encore - I can't think of a single season/series that aired more than 15 episodes. I'm not including the series like The Sopranos and Sex and the City where their sixth season was split between two parts over two years with 21 and 20 episodes respectively especially when the are talking about two different story lines.
HBO doesn't fit with general scheduling though and as such produces these smaller length series. If they stuck to the Fall/Spring seasons with scheduling they would produce more episodes. Bad example!
It's not a bad example in the context of a debate about whether people should watch British dramas on a week-by-week basis or US dramas as box sets. As I understood it Cohen's point was that British people were ignoring good British shows because they preferred to sit and watch a box set of GoT, Breaking Bad etc, and of course you can watch a box set of those in a couple of days because they are relatively short seasons.
Then if thats what people 'prefer' then he shouldn't be moaning about it, he, as the Director of Television at the BBC, should be adjusting the way people get access to British dramas and then they might sit and watch them as a box set.
Sorry, but he is moaning because people aren't watching the way he wants them to watch, its simple, make your shows available as box sets and people might watch them.
For one thing, it tells me how centralized UK TV is, with an amount of power concentrated in one media corporation that is simply unthinkable in America. By population, the US is five times bigger than the UK, yet the US doesn't have a single broadcaster anywhere close to the size of the BBC. In the UK, drama series are mostly commissioned by either the BBC or ITV, with a small number of commissions by Channel 4, Sky, and Channel 5. In America, drama series are commissioned by DOZENS of different channels, and not one of them commissions as many different projects as the BBC. Also, American channels don't really "export" anything, because only HBO does much producing in-house and handles its own foreign sales. American studios (which are separate from the broadcasting part of the TV business), and a few independent production companies, sell their wares to American broadcasters, and then have the job of selling their shows to international markets. There are six studios, and, as I said, a bunch of smaller independent production companies. So, in short, saying that the BBC sells more any other broadcaster in the world (and of course you implied more than any broadcaster in America) doesn't really mean much, other than that the BBC is enormous (which nobody denies, and in fact many critics of the BBC would say is a problem, to the extent that the BBC's own "empire building" has arguably had negative consequences both for its own public service remit and for the UK media landscape).
Exactly. I think we all agree on that - people's viewing habits have undergone a major change due to the ready (and legal) availability of full seasons to stream or download, and the BBC needs to adapt if it wants to compete. On the other hand, there will always be a large number of viewers who don't want or can't afford to pay for Sky, Netflix or Amazon prime so the BBC has to provide programmes for them to watch live as well as for those of us who prefer to watch on demand.
Exactly! Broadcasters still produce, market and distribute programmes like it's 1999. A lot of the time i don't even hear of a programme until it's long gone, probably because i watch little linear TV.
And for older material, it can take some considerable effort to track down and locate all of the rights holders. Even then not all can be located, and agreement might not be reached anyway.
For an example, it has been said that the BBC was prevented from running repeats of The Likely Lads because James Bolam refused to give his permission.
On the DVD release of Life on Mars, some of the 70's music could not be used to to tights issues, so other tracks had to be inserted into the audio mix.
Sometimes, rights issues can be a stumbling block at the very last minute, as was the case with the BBC's adaptation of Room at the Top - it was pulled from the schedules and left on the shelf for a year after a dispute over ownership of the screen rights.
2014 or 1999, rights laws exist and are observed worldwide. the BBC cannot tear up UK & international laws to suit.
Added to which, if the BBC were to put many of its old shows on iPlayer for free, there would likely be complaints about unfair competition from other content providers and broadcasters.
A similar thing happened with the ill-fated Project Kangaroo:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/feb/04/project-kangaroo-blocked-by-competition-commission
But BBC Store is now on the horizon:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2014/bbc_store.html
But don't worry about the actors, HBO will buy all the talent and turn them into porn stars.
What a stupidly uninformed comment, read about Game of Thrones in the Daily Mail did you? I assume you've actually watched some episodes and will be able to provide some examples (I'll take any show, not just GoT) of this "violent porn trash".
Also, Britain has it's own culture? This week, including featured artists and remixers, there are fewer Brits in the top 10 than non-Brits, 1 British film in the top 10 at the box office (2 if you include X-Men: Days of Future Past, which is a British-American co-production). To put it bluntly "our own culture" is pushing it, we're just like American but with more frequent swearing...
Quite a lot of truth in that.
Really? Case to explain it to me then, because I must have missed it in amongst a load of silly "what about the children" nonsense...