Actually, every programme in the entire BBC3 schedule over the next 72 hours has an "R" next to it, with one exception - the film Armaggedon (which is of course an example of original British programming at its finest). And it seems a little bit cheeky, if not out and out wrong, to fail to put an "R" next to Armageddon, given it is at least the tenth time this particular film has been on the BBC.
Whatever will be the poor destitute youth of our nation do without new programmes on BBC3?
what on earth are you gibbering on about now Hendero?
what on earth are you gibbering on about now Hendero?
Are you having trouble reading cogent English sentences? You might want to consider spending some time in one of those libraries you seem to feel are no more worthy than a television in terms of educating the nation.
I did not use the word "iconic", I said "major character".
Didn't mean to imply that you had - whoever did the writeup for the programme used "iconic", hence the observation about where the comedy writing talent has gone.
Are you having trouble reading cogent English sentences? You might want to consider spending some time in one of those libraries you seem to feel are no more worthy than a television in terms of educating the nation.
i understood the English just fine. what was less clear was what point you were trying to make.
films are never shown as being repeats in tv listings, so i wasn't sure why you were trying to suggest that BBC 3 were being 'cheeky'.
but i really thought you were gibbering when you said :
"Whatever will be the poor destitute youth of our nation do without new programmes on BBC3?"
i mean really - what remotely sensible point were you trying to make there?
Didn't mean to imply that you had - whoever did the writeup for the programme used "iconic", hence the observation about where the comedy writing talent has gone.
Ah, OK. sorry about that. I suppose for some, she has become a bit of a soap icon (just as any longer-serving soap character involved with plenty of high-profile storylines might. Even Albert Tatlock was a bit of an iconic character in his day
far be it for me to weigh in on another debate about Stacey Slater, but im going to anyways
SOAP: EastEnders
On: BBC 3
Date: Tuesday 28th December 2010 (starting in 7 days)
Time: 20:00 to 21:00 (1 hour long)
Farewell Stacey.
Narrated by Natalie Cassidy and featuring exclusive contributions from Lacey Turner, Charlie Brooks, Neil McDermott and many more, a look back at the departing character of Stacey Slater and her iconic EastEnders moments. From the love of her life Bradley to her affair with Max, from Archie's murder to the epic EastEnders live episode, Stacey is the character who has done it all.
in terms of EastEnders history, yes Stacey Slater is iconic, and some of her "moments" are part of UK TV history generally, as well as obviously in EastEnders history.
however the phrase is "iconic moments in EE history" its not that Stacey Slater is an icon in British history.
its also good to see the misuse of the word "epic" has spread to BBC 3, god the youth of today are destorying that word.
i understood the English just fine. what was less clear was what point you were trying to make.
films are never shown as being repeats in tv listings, so i wasn't sure why you were trying to suggest that BBC 3 were being 'cheeky'.
but i really thought you were gibbering when you said :
"Whatever will be the poor destitute youth of our nation do without new programmes on BBC3?"
i mean really - what remotely sensible point were you trying to make there?
Iain
I was making the point that the entire upcoming BBC3 schedule was made up of previously aired material, including Armageddon. Much of the BBC3 schedule at other times of the year is made up of repeats, which is germane to the title of this thread, ie could (and should) the four main BBC channels be merged into two or three, save money, increase the quality, and reduce the number of repeats.
The second point is we are forever being lectured on these forums about how essential BBC3 programming is to the youth of the country, how the Young Fishmonger of the Year supposedly inspired them to go out and look for jobs (when if you read some of the comments from young people who actually watched it, they see it more as a laughable idea for a TV show), so I was just wondering how on earth the kiddies would cope with a wall of non-stop repeats over Christmas, which can be a sad and lonely time for many.
Would you like to see more money from the LF invested into BBC Three, the most watched channel for its target audience, so that it can be filled with new programming every day? Im sure you would be up in arms if a 'yoof' channel was getting new programming every day at the cost of other channels, yet here you are complaining because it doesn't. Typical Slo Mo stance to take so you can go either way depend on the thread.
If you are not a viewer why are you concerned with repeats? I would have thought you would be praising the BBC for having the most watched channel of it's ilk without even having to fill it even new programming. BARGIN eh?
.
Quite,and why not repeat a programme if it is popular? Let's look at the figures,
12th August 2008 Audience of 999k and Appreciation Index of 77
16th August 2008 Audience of 540k and AI of 83
7th November 2008 Audience of 1.82 million and AI of 80
11th July 2009 Audience of 2.11 million and AI of 78% with a 23% share
24th March 2010 audience of 787k and AI of 82
27th March 2010 audience of 755k and AI of 84
And of the "list" posted don't forget that one was the HD first HD showing and one was a time shift for Scotland.
So what Slow Motion is proscribing, disallows thousands if not millions of viewers something that they want to watch (from the audience figures) and appreciate (from the AI). How does that square with other BBC objectives? Or are we expected to have just what Slow Motion wants and not what meets the wider audience?
So what Slow Motion is proscribing, disallows thousands if not millions of viewers something that they want to watch (from the audience figures) and appreciate (from the AI). How does that square with other BBC objectives? Or are we expected to have just what Slow Motion wants and not what meets the wider audience?
No, what's I'm proscribing is that BBC Three stick to their own claims
All about us
Since 2003 BBC Three has dedicated itself to one brilliantly simple idea - creating the most thought provoking and entertaining programmes possible. We find the best of new British talent, give them room to play, invent and experiment, and then mix in the most important element - You.
We're shamelessly and directly influenced by you. There, we've said it. Your habits shape us, your sense of humour tickles us and we want you involved in what we do. Because of you we've grown beyond regular TV into a channel that can be where you want it, all the time. A channel that's constantly trying new things, taking risks and exploring new places, because just like you we're Never Afraid To Try New Stuff.
The remit of BBC Three is to bring younger audiences to high-quality public service broadcasting through a mixed-genre schedule of innovative UK content featuring new UK talent. The channel should use the full range of digital platforms to deliver its content and to build an interactive relationship with its audience.
No mention of all these repeats of BBC 1 programmes like eastenders, top gear and dr, who or all those american Simpsons-esqe cartoon shows or repeats of Hollywood movies.
yes some posters want those for the ratings, as the ratings is what concerns them, but it's not in the remit.
So I could still see that remit exist as part of a merged channel with BBC as suggested by the OP.
Where would BBC Three be in the ratings without repeats of eastenders, top gear and dr, who and those american Simpsons-esqe cartoon shows or Hollywood movies?
Ah, OK. sorry about that. I suppose for some, she has become a bit of a soap icon (just as any longer-serving soap character involved with plenty of high-profile storylines might. Even Albert Tatlock was a bit of an iconic character in his day
No worries, and no doubt you're right about Ms. Slater's elevated status with some EE fans. I'll have to take your word for it on Albert Tatlock.
No mention of all these repeats of BBC 1 programmes like eastenders, top gear and dr, who or all those american Simpsons-esqe cartoon shows or repeats of Hollywood movies.
So becasue they didn't say there would be repeats (which is obvious that there would be) you assume that BBC three would be nothing but brand new shows day in day out..how convenient. again where do they say that they will not show films??
I suppose it would be fruitless provide links to many many programmes that exactly meet that remit, links that have been provided many times before by other posters, as you will either wilfully ignore them or look at the title and who presents it and form your conclusion based solely on that.
yes some posters want those for the ratings, as the ratings is what concerns them, but it's not in the remit.
Nonsense, you cant have it both ways, the remit is being met and the channel is the most popular of its ilk.
So I could still see that remit exist as part of a merged channel with BBC as suggested by the OP.
And you would be amongst the first to complain if many of the shows that meet the BBC Three remit were shown on BBC One.
Where would BBC Three be in the ratings without repeats of eastenders, top gear and dr, who and those american Simpsons-esqe cartoon shows or Hollywood movies?
probably nowhere!
Where would all digital channels be without repeats.
Why are you so concerned with a channel that is way out of your age range? So what if there are repeats?
Again, do you want more money put into programming on BBC three so that repeats are fewer?
i don't think BBC3 ever claimed they would be doing that.
Iain
BBC three isn't on 24/7 it's on 12/7.
And they can't even fill that with their own content.
Certainly in the remit there is no mention of all this american content and all those repeats from BBC One like Eastenders, Top Gear and Dr Who.
In fact there is a miniscule amount of new and original content on BBC Three, as even you accept judging by your above comment.
That being acknowledged by all parties, there's very good reason to merge BBC Three with another channel as it can't even nearly begin to fill it's own part-time hours right now.
Instead of all the expense of filler TV on a £130,000,000 channel with the odd piece of new content, merge with another channel for less repeats overall and more original content overall. The savings would also bring a dividend to programme budgets.
you were expecting new, original content all the hours that BBC broadcasts?
i don't think BBC3 ever claimed they would be doing that.
And they can't even fill that with their own content.
Certainly in the remit there is no mention of all this american content and all those repeats from BBC One like Eastenders, Top Gear and Dr Who.
In fact there is a miniscule amount of new and original content on BBC Three, as even you accept judging by your above comment.
That being acknowledged by all parties, there's very good reason to merge BBC Three with another channel as it can't even nearly begin to fill it's own part-time hours right now.
Instead of all the expense of filler TV on a £130,000,000 channel with the odd piece of new content, merge with another channel for less repeats overall and more original content overall. The savings would also bring a dividend to programme budgets.
IIRC there was mention in their remit about the limit on the amount of imports they could broadcast.
it also remains true that BBC3, compared to pretty much any other digital only channel you care to mention, produces more homegrown, original content.
assuming the new original content is still made, can you talk us through the savings that would be made?
I am guessing the main savings would be things like
repeat fees
possible savings in transmission costs
not having to pay a channel controller, and other staff
cost of running a channel, eg seperate voice over, branding etc
I was making the point that the entire upcoming BBC3 schedule was made up of previously aired material, including Armageddon. Much of the BBC3 schedule at other times of the year is made up of repeats, which is germane to the title of this thread, ie could (and should) the four main BBC channels be merged into two or three, save money, increase the quality, and reduce the number of repeats.
if the same programmes are being made, but shown on different channels, can you talk a bit more about how this would increase quality, and (significantly) decrease costs?
The second point is we are forever being lectured on these forums about how essential BBC3 programming is to the youth of the country, how the Young Fishmonger of the Year supposedly inspired them to go out and look for jobs (when if you read some of the comments from young people who actually watched it, they see it more as a laughable idea for a TV show), so I was just wondering how on earth the kiddies would cope with a wall of non-stop repeats over Christmas, which can be a sad and lonely time for many.
i don't believe anyone has ever lectured on these forums about how BBC3 programming is essential.
what people have said is that certain programmes, for example the recent series on various professions, are not as worthless as some people like to suggest.
quite why you interpret that as people saying they are essential, i have no idea.
and i'm still not sure about the "Whatever will be the poor destitute youth of our nation do without new programmes on BBC3?" line.
unless it was intended to be baseless melodrama of course.
I am guessing the main savings would be things like
repeat fees
possible savings in transmission costs
not having to pay a channel controller, and other staff
cost of running a channel, eg seperate voice over, branding etc
out of the total budget of £130m?
offset that against the benefits of having greater choice at any given time, and greater opportunity to catch stuff over time, and i'm not sure there'd be much of a net gain.
I am not sure why this discussion has to get so personal. We are discussing whether two channels are necessary or not, that is all.
The way I see it, the rather abstract claim of targeting a "youth market" fails to explain to me precisely what BBC Three is supposed to be. It is far too a broad canvas which includes university students, people with ASBOs, upper-middle class young people who party hard and drink too much, working class people who party hard and drink too much, people who are ambitious and want a career, unemployed people, people who love football and people who love handbags. So the use of young people as a singular category is problematic, and I still think it is a being misused as a convenient location to dump some cheap television. The only saving grace is its use as a haven for newcomers to entertainment who can sink or swim there, but ultimately I find the channel totally unnecessary.
BBC Four is another one. There was a time when it was showing some useful and educative material, but the output is slowly becoming less interesting. Again, there is nothing here that could not be used on BBC 2 (indeed often BBC 2 feature BBC Four programming), although that possibly could mean the BBC's second channel having to pull back on its panel gameshows - perish the thought.
assuming the new original content is still made, can you talk us through the savings that would be made?
Merger with another channel would free up channel space which could be a real cost saving or a valuable source of income for the BBC from leasing it out. (Please don't just retort they aren't allowed to do that, I'm sure the rules could be changed!)
Also, repeats still cost money, it has been said previously on the forum that sometimes they cost almost as much as new content. Less repeats means less unecessary expense, making savings for the BBC to use for new programming.
Less American imports like repeats of Hollywood movies and Family guy, American Dad, Heroes, Defying Gravity, etc. would free up more monies for home-grown programmes.
fewer execs running their 'own' channel means less big salaries and less big expenses claims..
Less American imports like repeats of Hollywood movies and Family guy, American Dad, Heroes, Defying Gravity, etc. would free up more monies for home-grown programmes.
that is a myth if ever I heard one.
Importing a show, is nearly always cheaper than making one yourself.
Its also easier to get a hit that way, as you know what your going to get, and quite possibly have some US ratings and demographics to go with it.
Of course this is not an excuse for BBC 3 being loaded with US imports like E4 (and it isnt) its just navie to say you can stop spending on something like Family Guy, and you can instantly come up with a UK show on the same budget, and will be a hit.
Comments
what on earth are you gibbering on about now Hendero?
Iain
Are you having trouble reading cogent English sentences? You might want to consider spending some time in one of those libraries you seem to feel are no more worthy than a television in terms of educating the nation.
Didn't mean to imply that you had - whoever did the writeup for the programme used "iconic", hence the observation about where the comedy writing talent has gone.
Just like you "shoot and hide" posting atctics
i understood the English just fine. what was less clear was what point you were trying to make.
films are never shown as being repeats in tv listings, so i wasn't sure why you were trying to suggest that BBC 3 were being 'cheeky'.
but i really thought you were gibbering when you said :
"Whatever will be the poor destitute youth of our nation do without new programmes on BBC3?"
i mean really - what remotely sensible point were you trying to make there?
Iain
in terms of EastEnders history, yes Stacey Slater is iconic, and some of her "moments" are part of UK TV history generally, as well as obviously in EastEnders history.
however the phrase is "iconic moments in EE history" its not that Stacey Slater is an icon in British history.
its also good to see the misuse of the word "epic" has spread to BBC 3, god the youth of today are destorying that word.
Ah, BBC Three in tune with the youth market then
Is "destorying" street-talk as well then?
And not once, with the possible exception of HD, have they shown it properly.
I was making the point that the entire upcoming BBC3 schedule was made up of previously aired material, including Armageddon. Much of the BBC3 schedule at other times of the year is made up of repeats, which is germane to the title of this thread, ie could (and should) the four main BBC channels be merged into two or three, save money, increase the quality, and reduce the number of repeats.
The second point is we are forever being lectured on these forums about how essential BBC3 programming is to the youth of the country, how the Young Fishmonger of the Year supposedly inspired them to go out and look for jobs (when if you read some of the comments from young people who actually watched it, they see it more as a laughable idea for a TV show), so I was just wondering how on earth the kiddies would cope with a wall of non-stop repeats over Christmas, which can be a sad and lonely time for many.
Quite,and why not repeat a programme if it is popular? Let's look at the figures,
12th August 2008 Audience of 999k and Appreciation Index of 77
16th August 2008 Audience of 540k and AI of 83
7th November 2008 Audience of 1.82 million and AI of 80
11th July 2009 Audience of 2.11 million and AI of 78% with a 23% share
24th March 2010 audience of 787k and AI of 82
27th March 2010 audience of 755k and AI of 84
And of the "list" posted don't forget that one was the HD first HD showing and one was a time shift for Scotland.
So what Slow Motion is proscribing, disallows thousands if not millions of viewers something that they want to watch (from the audience figures) and appreciate (from the AI). How does that square with other BBC objectives? Or are we expected to have just what Slow Motion wants and not what meets the wider audience?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/pages/whatis
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/statements2008/television/bbcthree.shtml
No mention of all these repeats of BBC 1 programmes like eastenders, top gear and dr, who or all those american Simpsons-esqe cartoon shows or repeats of Hollywood movies.
yes some posters want those for the ratings, as the ratings is what concerns them, but it's not in the remit.
So I could still see that remit exist as part of a merged channel with BBC as suggested by the OP.
Where would BBC Three be in the ratings without repeats of eastenders, top gear and dr, who and those american Simpsons-esqe cartoon shows or Hollywood movies?
probably nowhere!
i don't think BBC3 ever claimed they would be doing that.
Iain
No worries, and no doubt you're right about Ms. Slater's elevated status with some EE fans. I'll have to take your word for it on Albert Tatlock.
So becasue they didn't say there would be repeats (which is obvious that there would be) you assume that BBC three would be nothing but brand new shows day in day out..how convenient. again where do they say that they will not show films??
I suppose it would be fruitless provide links to many many programmes that exactly meet that remit, links that have been provided many times before by other posters, as you will either wilfully ignore them or look at the title and who presents it and form your conclusion based solely on that.
Nonsense, you cant have it both ways, the remit is being met and the channel is the most popular of its ilk.
And you would be amongst the first to complain if many of the shows that meet the BBC Three remit were shown on BBC One.
Where would all digital channels be without repeats.
Why are you so concerned with a channel that is way out of your age range? So what if there are repeats?
Again, do you want more money put into programming on BBC three so that repeats are fewer?
And they can't even fill that with their own content.
Certainly in the remit there is no mention of all this american content and all those repeats from BBC One like Eastenders, Top Gear and Dr Who.
In fact there is a miniscule amount of new and original content on BBC Three, as even you accept judging by your above comment.
That being acknowledged by all parties, there's very good reason to merge BBC Three with another channel as it can't even nearly begin to fill it's own part-time hours right now.
Instead of all the expense of filler TV on a £130,000,000 channel with the odd piece of new content, merge with another channel for less repeats overall and more original content overall. The savings would also bring a dividend to programme budgets.
sorry - let me rephrase that....
you were expecting new, original content all the hours that BBC broadcasts?
i don't think BBC3 ever claimed they would be doing that.
IIRC there was mention in their remit about the limit on the amount of imports they could broadcast.
it also remains true that BBC3, compared to pretty much any other digital only channel you care to mention, produces more homegrown, original content.
assuming the new original content is still made, can you talk us through the savings that would be made?
Iain
repeat fees
possible savings in transmission costs
not having to pay a channel controller, and other staff
cost of running a channel, eg seperate voice over, branding etc
if the same programmes are being made, but shown on different channels, can you talk a bit more about how this would increase quality, and (significantly) decrease costs?
i don't believe anyone has ever lectured on these forums about how BBC3 programming is essential.
what people have said is that certain programmes, for example the recent series on various professions, are not as worthless as some people like to suggest.
quite why you interpret that as people saying they are essential, i have no idea.
and i'm still not sure about the "Whatever will be the poor destitute youth of our nation do without new programmes on BBC3?" line.
unless it was intended to be baseless melodrama of course.
Iain
out of the total budget of £130m?
offset that against the benefits of having greater choice at any given time, and greater opportunity to catch stuff over time, and i'm not sure there'd be much of a net gain.
Iain
The way I see it, the rather abstract claim of targeting a "youth market" fails to explain to me precisely what BBC Three is supposed to be. It is far too a broad canvas which includes university students, people with ASBOs, upper-middle class young people who party hard and drink too much, working class people who party hard and drink too much, people who are ambitious and want a career, unemployed people, people who love football and people who love handbags. So the use of young people as a singular category is problematic, and I still think it is a being misused as a convenient location to dump some cheap television. The only saving grace is its use as a haven for newcomers to entertainment who can sink or swim there, but ultimately I find the channel totally unnecessary.
BBC Four is another one. There was a time when it was showing some useful and educative material, but the output is slowly becoming less interesting. Again, there is nothing here that could not be used on BBC 2 (indeed often BBC 2 feature BBC Four programming), although that possibly could mean the BBC's second channel having to pull back on its panel gameshows - perish the thought.
Also, repeats still cost money, it has been said previously on the forum that sometimes they cost almost as much as new content. Less repeats means less unecessary expense, making savings for the BBC to use for new programming.
Less American imports like repeats of Hollywood movies and Family guy, American Dad, Heroes, Defying Gravity, etc. would free up more monies for home-grown programmes.
fewer execs running their 'own' channel means less big salaries and less big expenses claims..
Hope that helps you understand more.
Importing a show, is nearly always cheaper than making one yourself.
Its also easier to get a hit that way, as you know what your going to get, and quite possibly have some US ratings and demographics to go with it.
Of course this is not an excuse for BBC 3 being loaded with US imports like E4 (and it isnt) its just navie to say you can stop spending on something like Family Guy, and you can instantly come up with a UK show on the same budget, and will be a hit.