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!
That's exactly the selectivity which whose who always quote The Wire, Breaking Bad and House of Cards are guilty of. The broad appeal of the BBC is that it really does cover everything from News to drama to factual, from religion and ethics to comedy and series that on the face of it are minority interest initially become almost mainstream. Star Gazing Live tops the BBC2 chart every time it's on now. Which commercial channel would have dared put so many resources into a factual astronomy series at peak time? Equally, the widely acclaimed Wolf Hall was essentially a period drama with a different angle taken on a well known slice of history and beautifully filmed and produced. Again shown at peak time, but both proved popular with the audience and praised by critics. 5 expensive drama series a year for several million pounds an episode as per Netflix and HBO might give a drama highlight once every week for a few weeks, but you'd still have to endure Fox News, endless abysmal soap operas, dumbed down documentaries on hoarding and sensationalised current affairs. If people make comparisons, then they should make sensible ones.
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.
How can you tell what a channel is going to be like unless you watch that channel?
F3 is pretty good on it and there are some other races i like watching.
Good job you kept those PVR's after you first cancelled your LF first time round eh?
What else do you expect me to do with them? Not worth selling.
noise747
How can you tell what a channel is going to be like unless you watch that channel?
F3 is pretty good on it and there are some other races i like watching.
You were saying before it wasnt worth it. Cancelling your LF would be an option would it not?
What else do you expect me to do with them? Not worth selling.
Bin them. If Uk tv isnt worth it what is it that you are recording so much of you need two PVRs (Digital or video)
I thought Whittingdale sounded quite conciliatory on the Marr show this morning going out of his way to praise the BBC and in particular Strictly saying there was nothing wrong in producing those sort of programmes.
You were saying before it wasnt worth it. Cancelling your LF would be an option would it not?
i am going to cancel it again once I get back to work, I will watch less of it then than I do now..
Bin them. If Uk tv isnt worth it what is it that you are recording so much of you need two PVRs (Digital or video)
I got the HD one as I wanted HD and my TV do not have a HD tuner and also my old one was playing up. I have humans recorded, not watched any of them yet, 3 episodes of Relic hunter and the f3 and that is it.
I thought Whittingdale sounded quite conciliatory on the Marr show this morning going out of his way to praise the BBC and in particular Strictly saying there was nothing wrong in producing those sort of programmes.
Yes, what he said sounded genuine and is, in reality true - broadcasting has changed ten fold since 2006 and it is right the review of the BBC is carried out to reflect the BBC's position in this rapidly changing broadcasting world.
He dropped a hint that in a decade or so we could have a system of BBBC tv for everyone that will covered by the LF or replacement, plus extra services provided for those who want it paid for by subscription - but ONLY when the equipment is fully available.
He did call London a "country" though, although it was clear it was a slip of the tongue.
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.
Realness? What the hell does that mean? Next you'll be saying Eastenders is better than Neighbours because it's "gritty".
I agree it's overrated, but egotistic claptrap with smarmy producers? That's Doctor Who on a bad day.
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
Hard to think of a show that left me with a good impression after just one episode.
It's a slow burner. One of the few programmes that if viewers invest their time on they'd be rewarded.
I thought Whittingdale sounded quite conciliatory on the Marr show this morning going out of his way to praise the BBC and in particular Strictly saying there was nothing wrong in producing those sort of programmes.
I agree, I got the same impression. I think there's an awful lot of political back peddling going on. I think they should remember Sir John Knot's interview with Robin Day when Day reminded Knot that he was a 'here today, gone tomorrow politician' which indeed he was, suggesting that these people only have a few years in the political spotlight and it is what they did that people remember. Dr Beeching's legacy is well remembered to this day and not in a good way!
Realness? What the hell does that mean? Next you'll be saying Eastenders is better than Neighbours because it's "gritty".
I would think that's a no brainer unless you're PaulRobinsonFan. It's hard to see what's wrong with the main channels producing and showing original British content rather than showing US imports. It's the channels that rely on US imports that are going to have the most trouble competing with Netflix anyway.
I agree, I got the same impression. I think there's an awful lot of political back peddling going on. I think they should remember Sir John Knot's interview with Robin Day when Day reminded Knot that he was a 'here today, gone tomorrow politician' which indeed he was, suggesting that these people only have a few years in the political spotlight and it is what they did that people remember. Dr Beeching's legacy is well remembered to this day and not in a good way!
He was careful not to slag off the Sun for revealing the Nazi Royals pictures - although he did loosely urge the Royals to complain and admitted he fully understood why The Royals were upset.
His interview did give me the impression he had had a meeting with Cameron and had been told to reel in the anti-BBC rhetoric a little, or at least give the press far less ammunition.
That's exactly the selectivity which whose who always quote The Wire, Breaking Bad and House of Cards are guilty of. The broad appeal of the BBC is that it really does cover everything from News to drama to factual, from religion and ethics to comedy and series that on the face of it are minority interest initially become almost mainstream. Star Gazing Live tops the BBC2 chart every time it's on now. Which commercial channel would have dared put so many resources into a factual astronomy series at peak time? Equally, the widely acclaimed Wolf Hall was essentially a period drama with a different angle taken on a well known slice of history and beautifully filmed and produced. Again shown at peak time, but both proved popular with the audience and praised by critics. 5 expensive drama series a year for several million pounds an episode as per Netflix and HBO might give a drama highlight once every week for a few weeks, but you'd still have to endure Fox News, endless abysmal soap operas, dumbed down documentaries on hoarding and sensationalised current affairs. If people make comparisons, then they should make sensible ones.
Unsure why anyone would select The Wire, considering the BBC bought the rights for the series in 2009.
In fact it did rather well, topping the ratings on its first showing, 600,000 viewers, beating all other terrestrial channels, even BBC1. Fox only got 38,000 when it premiered in 2005.
I see Odyssey is bringing in over 1.5m on Sunday nights. I think a few well chosen imports can certainly spice up the listings - so long as they don't lose them for their returning seasons.
I thought Whittingdale sounded quite conciliatory on the Marr show this morning going out of his way to praise the BBC and in particular Strictly saying there was nothing wrong in producing those sort of programmes.
Yet in a direct question he wouldn't back The Generation Game as being "distinctively" public service.
He seems to have a very personal definition of what's distinctive for BBC or not. That's hypocritical because he said he wouldn't get involved in saying what programmes are OK.
It's also a problem for the BBC because they actually plan to bring back the Generation Game.
I thought Whittingdale sounded quite conciliatory on the Marr show this morning going out of his way to praise the BBC and in particular Strictly saying there was nothing wrong in producing those sort of programmes.
He praised Strictly but he didn't say he didn't want to get rid of it.
Well Odyssey was a bad choice of an American TV show for the BBC to buy as its already been cancelled in the U.S.
Agree, not a good choice. I think if they concentrate on proven material, like The Wire they would be better off, prices would certainly be much more affordable, with the occasional gamble, the trouble is they get outbid so easily if a series starts to become a hit.
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.
But nobody (or at least nobody with any credibility) is comparing a single American cable channel to the BBC. Despite being in a country with only one-fifth the population of the US, the BBC is far, far bigger than any single American TV network or cable channel. There is simply no media organization in America comparable to it. America doesn't have any TV channels that try to be "all things to all people," and in fact if any one company naturally evolved in the US TV marketplace to enjoy the sort of dominance that the BBC enjoys in the UK TV landscape, the US federal government would use anti-trust laws to intervene and break up the organization, on the grounds that it poses a danger to a competitive TV environment. American TV is decentralized, with hundreds of TV channels each focused on a fairly narrow range of programming. Since AMC has been mentioned above, I will note that right now I watch exactly two hours of AMC a week (an episode of Halt And Catch Fire, and an episode of Hell On Wheels). Now do I really need AMC to give me more than that, considering that right now, on a weekly basis, I watch programmes commissioned by (by my count this minute) TWELVE different US TV channels? (And this is in the dead of summer. Between September and May, the "twelve" would be more like "twenty.")
I am not American, but I think it is fair to say that viewers of American TV think of TV in terms of individual programmes, not loyalty to one, or even a few, broadcasters. If Americans grew up in a country with a dominant presence in their television world, perhaps they would look at things differently. I am not going to tell Britons how THEY should think or feel about their system. Your system has to suit you, not me or anybody else outside the UK. Purely selfishly, I hope the BBC continues on. The sheer scale and wealth of the American TV industry makes it impossible (in my view) to beat or even remotely match, but the BBC occasionally shines by making things, often cheaply, that no profit-oriented channel (American or British) would make. For example, no private sphere UK channel would have made Wolf Hall. If HBO had adapted the Hilary Mantel books (on their own), their Wolf Hall might have been great, but it would have at very least been a lot different than the BBC's Wolf Hall (not as low-key and quiet, and there really should be room in the TV drama universe for low-key and quiet). In fact, the Wolf Hall TV project was first announced as a BBC/HBO co-production, but HBO eventually dropped out, and I wonder if that is because they disagreed with the approach the BBC wanted to take with the material.
Well Odyssey was a bad choice of an American TV show for the BBC to buy as its already been cancelled in the U.S.
Was it cancelled before or after the BBC bought the rights?
With American TV the only way to avoid buying a series that gets cancelled is to wait 5-10 years until after it's finished it's run completely (or been cancelled), and there is no way to tell what will get cancelled as sometimes really high quality stuff gets the can after half a season, whilst utter tripe will keep going for a decade.
For example, no private sphere UK channel would have made Wolf Hall. If HBO had adapted the Hilary Mantel books (on their own), their Wolf Hall might have been great, but it would have at very least been a lot different than the BBC's Wolf Hall (not as low-key and quiet, and there really should be room in the TV drama universe for low-key and quiet). In fact, the Wolf Hall TV project was first announced as a BBC/HBO co-production, but HBO eventually dropped out, and I wonder if that is because they disagreed with the approach the BBC wanted to take with the material.
Interesting point that HBO pulled put, the style of it, eg no studio lights is very un-HBO like so I can believe they pulled out for stylist reasons.
Was it cancelled before or after the BBC bought the rights?
With American TV the only way to avoid buying a series that gets cancelled is to wait 5-10 years until after it's finished it's run completely (or been cancelled), and there is no way to tell what will get cancelled as sometimes really high quality stuff gets the can after half a season, whilst utter tripe will keep going for a decade.
The BBC bought the rights in Jan 2015, the show got cancelled mid season in June 2015, it just didn't take off.
Maybe they should have held back, but then I don't know what other channels they were bidding against, or maybe it was Anna Friel they took an interest in.
Interesting point that HBO pulled put, the style of it, eg no studio lights is very un-HBO like so I can believe they pulled out for stylist reasons.
I can't imagine any profit-making TV channel making Wolf Hall the way the BBC made it. That is not to say a different approach would have been worse, but the BBC's choice of style was one only the BBC could have made. That is the kind of thing that makes the BBC special. Not "better" than other producers of TV drama, but unique. My quarrel with the BBC is that they should be making more Wolf Halls and less Atlantises and Interceptors. Again, the problem of trying to be all things to all people.
The BBC clearly havent done themselves any favours with their preference for a liberal agenda,however
I think they are a brilliant organisation,simply because they make sure other British channels behave themselves.We dont have the USA system of commercial television,where shows are abruptly cancelled a handful of episodes in.
The BBC bought the rights before the show debuted in the US. The cancellation is quite recent.
Cheers, it sounds like they took a punt on it.
It's the sort of gamble you sometimes have to make in TV (or film animation, literature), if you get in early you can often get the rights far cheaper than if you leave it.
So if it does well it's a winner for you, if it doesn't do well it's not such a major loss.
Yet in a direct question he wouldn't back The Generation Game as being "distinctively" public service.
He seems to have a very personal definition of what's distinctive for BBC or not. That's hypocritical because he said he wouldn't get involved in saying what programmes are OK.
It's also a problem for the BBC because they actually plan to bring back the Generation Game.
Is the Generation Game still heading for a comeback? I thought Miranda had pulled out. He did say that the BBC can make popular programmes though.
Comments
That's exactly the selectivity which whose who always quote The Wire, Breaking Bad and House of Cards are guilty of. The broad appeal of the BBC is that it really does cover everything from News to drama to factual, from religion and ethics to comedy and series that on the face of it are minority interest initially become almost mainstream. Star Gazing Live tops the BBC2 chart every time it's on now. Which commercial channel would have dared put so many resources into a factual astronomy series at peak time? Equally, the widely acclaimed Wolf Hall was essentially a period drama with a different angle taken on a well known slice of history and beautifully filmed and produced. Again shown at peak time, but both proved popular with the audience and praised by critics. 5 expensive drama series a year for several million pounds an episode as per Netflix and HBO might give a drama highlight once every week for a few weeks, but you'd still have to endure Fox News, endless abysmal soap operas, dumbed down documentaries on hoarding and sensationalised current affairs. If people make comparisons, then they should make sensible ones.
How can you tell what a channel is going to be like unless you watch that channel?
F3 is pretty good on it and there are some other races i like watching.
What else do you expect me to do with them? Not worth selling.
You were saying before it wasnt worth it. Cancelling your LF would be an option would it not?
Bin them. If Uk tv isnt worth it what is it that you are recording so much of you need two PVRs (Digital or video)
i am going to cancel it again once I get back to work, I will watch less of it then than I do now..
I got the HD one as I wanted HD and my TV do not have a HD tuner and also my old one was playing up. I have humans recorded, not watched any of them yet, 3 episodes of Relic hunter and the f3 and that is it.
Yes, what he said sounded genuine and is, in reality true - broadcasting has changed ten fold since 2006 and it is right the review of the BBC is carried out to reflect the BBC's position in this rapidly changing broadcasting world.
He dropped a hint that in a decade or so we could have a system of BBBC tv for everyone that will covered by the LF or replacement, plus extra services provided for those who want it paid for by subscription - but ONLY when the equipment is fully available.
He did call London a "country" though, although it was clear it was a slip of the tongue.
I agree it's overrated, but egotistic claptrap with smarmy producers? That's Doctor Who on a bad day.
Hard to think of a show that left me with a good impression after just one episode.
It's a slow burner. One of the few programmes that if viewers invest their time on they'd be rewarded.
I agree, I got the same impression. I think there's an awful lot of political back peddling going on. I think they should remember Sir John Knot's interview with Robin Day when Day reminded Knot that he was a 'here today, gone tomorrow politician' which indeed he was, suggesting that these people only have a few years in the political spotlight and it is what they did that people remember. Dr Beeching's legacy is well remembered to this day and not in a good way!
He was careful not to slag off the Sun for revealing the Nazi Royals pictures - although he did loosely urge the Royals to complain and admitted he fully understood why The Royals were upset.
His interview did give me the impression he had had a meeting with Cameron and had been told to reel in the anti-BBC rhetoric a little, or at least give the press far less ammunition.
In fact it did rather well, topping the ratings on its first showing, 600,000 viewers, beating all other terrestrial channels, even BBC1. Fox only got 38,000 when it premiered in 2005.
I see Odyssey is bringing in over 1.5m on Sunday nights. I think a few well chosen imports can certainly spice up the listings - so long as they don't lose them for their returning seasons.
Yet in a direct question he wouldn't back The Generation Game as being "distinctively" public service.
He seems to have a very personal definition of what's distinctive for BBC or not. That's hypocritical because he said he wouldn't get involved in saying what programmes are OK.
It's also a problem for the BBC because they actually plan to bring back the Generation Game.
Only in your opinion lol, you do come out with some rubbish, are you a mate of noise747:D
Agree, not a good choice. I think if they concentrate on proven material, like The Wire they would be better off, prices would certainly be much more affordable, with the occasional gamble, the trouble is they get outbid so easily if a series starts to become a hit.
But nobody (or at least nobody with any credibility) is comparing a single American cable channel to the BBC. Despite being in a country with only one-fifth the population of the US, the BBC is far, far bigger than any single American TV network or cable channel. There is simply no media organization in America comparable to it. America doesn't have any TV channels that try to be "all things to all people," and in fact if any one company naturally evolved in the US TV marketplace to enjoy the sort of dominance that the BBC enjoys in the UK TV landscape, the US federal government would use anti-trust laws to intervene and break up the organization, on the grounds that it poses a danger to a competitive TV environment. American TV is decentralized, with hundreds of TV channels each focused on a fairly narrow range of programming. Since AMC has been mentioned above, I will note that right now I watch exactly two hours of AMC a week (an episode of Halt And Catch Fire, and an episode of Hell On Wheels). Now do I really need AMC to give me more than that, considering that right now, on a weekly basis, I watch programmes commissioned by (by my count this minute) TWELVE different US TV channels? (And this is in the dead of summer. Between September and May, the "twelve" would be more like "twenty.")
I am not American, but I think it is fair to say that viewers of American TV think of TV in terms of individual programmes, not loyalty to one, or even a few, broadcasters. If Americans grew up in a country with a dominant presence in their television world, perhaps they would look at things differently. I am not going to tell Britons how THEY should think or feel about their system. Your system has to suit you, not me or anybody else outside the UK. Purely selfishly, I hope the BBC continues on. The sheer scale and wealth of the American TV industry makes it impossible (in my view) to beat or even remotely match, but the BBC occasionally shines by making things, often cheaply, that no profit-oriented channel (American or British) would make. For example, no private sphere UK channel would have made Wolf Hall. If HBO had adapted the Hilary Mantel books (on their own), their Wolf Hall might have been great, but it would have at very least been a lot different than the BBC's Wolf Hall (not as low-key and quiet, and there really should be room in the TV drama universe for low-key and quiet). In fact, the Wolf Hall TV project was first announced as a BBC/HBO co-production, but HBO eventually dropped out, and I wonder if that is because they disagreed with the approach the BBC wanted to take with the material.
Was it cancelled before or after the BBC bought the rights?
With American TV the only way to avoid buying a series that gets cancelled is to wait 5-10 years until after it's finished it's run completely (or been cancelled), and there is no way to tell what will get cancelled as sometimes really high quality stuff gets the can after half a season, whilst utter tripe will keep going for a decade.
Interesting point that HBO pulled put, the style of it, eg no studio lights is very un-HBO like so I can believe they pulled out for stylist reasons.
The BBC bought the rights before the show debuted in the US. The cancellation is quite recent.
The BBC bought the rights in Jan 2015, the show got cancelled mid season in June 2015, it just didn't take off.
Maybe they should have held back, but then I don't know what other channels they were bidding against, or maybe it was Anna Friel they took an interest in.
I can't imagine any profit-making TV channel making Wolf Hall the way the BBC made it. That is not to say a different approach would have been worse, but the BBC's choice of style was one only the BBC could have made. That is the kind of thing that makes the BBC special. Not "better" than other producers of TV drama, but unique. My quarrel with the BBC is that they should be making more Wolf Halls and less Atlantises and Interceptors. Again, the problem of trying to be all things to all people.
I think they are a brilliant organisation,simply because they make sure other British channels behave themselves.We dont have the USA system of commercial television,where shows are abruptly cancelled a handful of episodes in.
Cheers, it sounds like they took a punt on it.
It's the sort of gamble you sometimes have to make in TV (or film animation, literature), if you get in early you can often get the rights far cheaper than if you leave it.
So if it does well it's a winner for you, if it doesn't do well it's not such a major loss.
Is the Generation Game still heading for a comeback? I thought Miranda had pulled out. He did say that the BBC can make popular programmes though.