Are those television 'soaps' or something....weekly series? I don't watch that sort of thing so not heard of them, but those figures sound pretty mad to me!
They run for 10-16 episodes a series, one series per year so it's big bucks over a shorter period of time.
It's in BBC's interests to keep the fee as low as possible and just do its best to meet its only goals: inform, educate and entertain. Meanwhile, you'd be better off as a cable subscriber to get the kind you like. In other words, you get what you pay for.
Excellent post. I love a good fact and a good figure.
whatever side of the Clarkson fence you sit on the real loser here is the BBC as WHATEVER they did there will have been a queue of other media outlets ready to criticise them and put more pressure on the incoming government to slash the licence fee.
Never a truer word. Rival media controllers would dearly love something to bring down the BBC for obvious and not-very-impartial reasons. Its is mildly amusing, but depressing as well, to see people like Littlejohn railing against a story that involved a man threatening and punching a smaller man without any reason and not getting away scot free. He must have lost his string-em-ups from the cut and paste collection.
Good - Clarkson's been interviewed and done the decent thing by at least telling the trolls to lay off the producer.
Whether they will or not is another matter (they didn't bother with the facts about who complained after all) but it hopefully might help lay this all to rest for a while now.
Good - Clarkson's been interviewed and done the decent thing by at least telling the trolls to lay off the producer.
Whether they will or not is another matter (they didn't bother with the facts about who complained after all) but it hopefully might help lay this all to rest for a while now.
This seems to be a requisite of wrongdoers these days. They are also apparently responsible for all the Twitter trolls and it's their job to call a halt to their behaviour. Strange times.
They also have a record of sacking presenters for far less serious than Clarksons episode so even if he was lucky enough to get a job with Sky, he wouldn't last five minutes.
But Rupert's a fan!...
TBF the Radio Times article I read said that the Sky source seemed to be more worried about the effect on their advertising revenue.
I'm not sure what I get now for my hundred and odd quid a year. Vanessa Feltz blathering on on Radio 2 for half an hour as I drive into work perhaps. Bargain.
I can't decide whether you were being facetious, or genuinely didn't realise the BBC don't have that kind of money or that BBC and HBO/AMC/Showtime have different structures and purposes.
Don't have the money my backside. If an episode of Eastenders really does cost 250k (shown 4 days a week) then they have more than enough money to create some higher quality TV. They seemed to have the money and power to protect Jimmy Savile as well, so i'm sure money wouldn't be a problem for this sorry arse company.
Are those television 'soaps' or something....weekly series? I don't watch that sort of thing so not heard of them, but those figures sound pretty mad to me!
No, weekly genre drama. The costs are due to three usual hungry beasts: location, production costs and salary. I think salary is the hungriest.
The financial difference also may have to do with the fact British TV productions and American TV productions are structured differently. British TV broadcasters tend to prefer to let producers and co. get on with their jobs to keep the costs low.
American TV distributors tend to collaborate as much as they can to get the best out of their investments. As in, HBO executives and other relevant parties contribute to the creative and decision-making process of making an episode, which can sometimes increase the costs.
Don't have the money my backside. If an episode of Eastenders really does cost 250k (shown 4 days a week) then they have more than enough money to create some higher quality TV.
What should they do with those three now-vacant slots if they adopted your suggestion to create a weekly slot of higher quality TV?
Remember, they won't have any money to spare as the money (allocated to four episodes per week) would be spent on higher quality TV.
I'm not sure what I get now for my hundred and odd quid a year. Vanessa Feltz blathering on on Radio 2 for half an hour as I drive into work perhaps. Bargain.
This seems to be a requisite of wrongdoers these days. They are also apparently responsible for all the Twitter trolls and it's their job to call a halt to their behaviour. Strange times.
Not really strange at all, since they were apparently doing it in his name and defence.
It's the very least he can do, frankly, for his own PR in this sh*tstorm as much as anything. Staying silent was just exacerbating the problem.
Good - Clarkson's been interviewed and done the decent thing by at least telling the trolls to lay off the producer.
Whether they will or not is another matter (they didn't bother with the facts about who complained after all) but it hopefully might help lay this all to rest for a while now.
Well done that man. I hope the idiots feel a bit silly now.
(I'm not sure that the BBC transcribing his name, as said by Clarkson, as 'Ois' really works. Shouldn't it be 'Osh'?)
Well done that man. I hope the idiots feel a bit silly now.
(I'm not sure that the BBC transcribing his name, as said by Clarkson, as 'Ois' really works. Shouldn't it be 'Osh'?)
I've just spoken to someone who worked on the programme (believe me or don't ) and he was/is indeed known as "Osh" by the production crew and pretty popular with them to boot.
A huge number of idiots have been waging a serious Twitter hate campaign against this producer, including issuing death threats, he's had to go into hiding, it's more than a little unpleasant, and they are specifically doing it in Clarkson's name.
Of course Clarkson's not personally or directly encouraged their actions, but any celebrity or public figure with half a brain would make very sure they publicly distanced themselves from something like that if it was supposedly being done in their name and still escalating. It's called damage limitation. Pretty basic strategy in the circumstances, I'd have thought.
A huge number of idiots have been waging a serious Twitter hate campaign against this producer, including issuing death threats, he's had to go into hiding, it's more than a little unpleasant, and they are specifically doing it in Clarkson's name.
Of course Clarkson's not personally or directly encouraged their actions, but any celebrity or public figure with half a brain would make very sure they publicly distanced themselves from something like that if it was supposedly being done in their name and still escalating. It's called damage limitation. Pretty basic strategy in the circumstances, I'd have thought.
You're right, but most members of the public with half a brain know he isn't really responsible for Twitter trolls doing what they do, and yet it is almost demanded that he has to come out and tell them to stop, because not to do so "exacerbates the situation", suggesting direct involvement and / or responsibility for them.
His sad little face will be staring out of a portion of cod and chips today Or would be if Political Correct madness hadn't stopped the practice of wrapping take away food in newsprint, damn you bearded EU boffins >:(
Comments
They run for 10-16 episodes a series, one series per year so it's big bucks over a shorter period of time.
Well if Popbitch reported it too then it must be right!
Never a truer word. Rival media controllers would dearly love something to bring down the BBC for obvious and not-very-impartial reasons. Its is mildly amusing, but depressing as well, to see people like Littlejohn railing against a story that involved a man threatening and punching a smaller man without any reason and not getting away scot free. He must have lost his string-em-ups from the cut and paste collection.
Whether they will or not is another matter (they didn't bother with the facts about who complained after all) but it hopefully might help lay this all to rest for a while now.
This seems to be a requisite of wrongdoers these days. They are also apparently responsible for all the Twitter trolls and it's their job to call a halt to their behaviour. Strange times.
TBF the Radio Times article I read said that the Sky source seemed to be more worried about the effect on their advertising revenue.
I'm not sure what I get now for my hundred and odd quid a year. Vanessa Feltz blathering on on Radio 2 for half an hour as I drive into work perhaps. Bargain.
Don't have the money my backside. If an episode of Eastenders really does cost 250k (shown 4 days a week) then they have more than enough money to create some higher quality TV. They seemed to have the money and power to protect Jimmy Savile as well, so i'm sure money wouldn't be a problem for this sorry arse company.
The financial difference also may have to do with the fact British TV productions and American TV productions are structured differently. British TV broadcasters tend to prefer to let producers and co. get on with their jobs to keep the costs low.
American TV distributors tend to collaborate as much as they can to get the best out of their investments. As in, HBO executives and other relevant parties contribute to the creative and decision-making process of making an episode, which can sometimes increase the costs.
Not at all, which is why I added 'YMMV'. I personally think that two sources are slightly more credible than one.
What should they do with those three now-vacant slots if they adopted your suggestion to create a weekly slot of higher quality TV?
Remember, they won't have any money to spare as the money (allocated to four episodes per week) would be spent on higher quality TV.
Lol. I did once have a car radio that was stuck immovably on something called London Jewish Radio. "And now for news from the synagogues!"
Not really strange at all, since they were apparently doing it in his name and defence.
It's the very least he can do, frankly, for his own PR in this sh*tstorm as much as anything. Staying silent was just exacerbating the problem.
Probably, I haven't figured out how to work it yet though.
As I said...
Damn that predictive text
Well done that man. I hope the idiots feel a bit silly now.
(I'm not sure that the BBC transcribing his name, as said by Clarkson, as 'Ois' really works. Shouldn't it be 'Osh'?)
Could they still call it Top Gear, or is that some trademark name or something?
Just hit the button marked 'scan' or 'search' and keep going until it finds something you like. You might enjoy the nostalgia stations. :cool:
Not sure what you did say, really, tbh.
A huge number of idiots have been waging a serious Twitter hate campaign against this producer, including issuing death threats, he's had to go into hiding, it's more than a little unpleasant, and they are specifically doing it in Clarkson's name.
Of course Clarkson's not personally or directly encouraged their actions, but any celebrity or public figure with half a brain would make very sure they publicly distanced themselves from something like that if it was supposedly being done in their name and still escalating. It's called damage limitation. Pretty basic strategy in the circumstances, I'd have thought.
You're right, but most members of the public with half a brain know he isn't really responsible for Twitter trolls doing what they do, and yet it is almost demanded that he has to come out and tell them to stop, because not to do so "exacerbates the situation", suggesting direct involvement and / or responsibility for them.