Absolutely. It changed the television landscape. An undeniable truth, whether it was for better or for worse.

I've no sympathy for them at all - especially as in recent times virtually all industries have seen the number of employment opportunities fall.

If the product is good enough and they've got the talent, they will make it. If they don't, it's no use whining about shows which both channel controllers and ultimately the viewers think are better than what you are offering.

Actors don't own television - and never have, and although reality television has grown in the last 10 years, I wouldn't say it's at the expense of drama - it's more the traditional gameshow which had fallen out of favour but are now making a bit of noise again.

Drama, especially in the US, has had a very strong decade actually - probably better than the decade before it. Sitcoms did fall out of favours, but to blame that on reality shows is passing the buck when in reality (no pun intended) it was more down to their own lack of originality and viewers fed up of inferior Friends clones - but all these things are cyclical and comedies feature prominently in the US upfronts for next year.

I'd say that's true. I sound like such an old man when it comes to the subject of digital television. I even refer to ITV1 as "the other side" and I'm 19 I'm one of those annoying people who puts on BBC1 on default In a way it's good that so many new channels now exist, but it means budgets have to be spread over a number of channels.. and there are so many channels now, most of them show repeats or cheap tat - there's probably about 10% quality on digital TV, but to find it, you have to wade through 90% of dross so the good shows on digital are really hard to find, unless there is huge 'word of mouth' e.g. I think the Inbetweeners did well for E4 through word of mouth, helping it achieve over a million viewers for new episodes. I know that loads of people at my college were talking about the series.

In the days of having five channels, I bet it was easier to advertise and spot the best shows due to there being much less content and a bigger budget.

As a lot of people pointed out actual shares were not much different last night - DW on 30%, The Prisoner struggling as usual

I wonder how many people here actually watch their fave shows religiously - even in hot weather. We all have V+/Sky+ or a DVD/Video recorder or indeed iPlayer/Itv Player/4od nowadays.

Having said that BGT will have a series low tonight by at least 1 million, I would be surprised if anything else gets more than 4 million viewers.

For all I agree with dedicated sports and news channels, the rest of the digital revolution has hurt commercial television, none more so than the founder, ITV. It means ITV can no longer experiment and is stymied by all the competition and is terrified to innovate in case they get landed with a load of expensive dramas that flop in the ratings. I am sure a lot of ITV Productions staff would sooner work on a drama on the lines of Cold Feet than whatever reality show their bosses have commissioned, but this is the reality( pun intended) of the world they live in.
Sad to say but it could look like the BBC will be the only source of innovative drama for the rest of the century.

I agree, which is why it's vitally important that the BBC uses it's money wisely and doesn't give the Murdoch empire any ammunition to try and bring it down. On the main, it is used well but I think it could be more efficient. But the BBC is going to become more and more important and the commercial sector is bled dry.

and after that?

Glee has been renewed for a 3rd season ALREADY according to EW.

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/...ason-3-pickup/

Interesting - but with the Superbowl episode probably shouldn't be too surprising. I really can't see it maintain it's hype and ratings that long though - although ratings in the US may be up, I think many people feel this "back nine" isn't a patch on the first part of the season.

I agree, we could end up with a situation where commercial television shows rubbish for the bottom end of the viewing market- something as a fan of the traditional ITV and Channel 4 I regret- and the BBC shows all the more intelligent shows. However, would not the massive expansion of digital commercial broadcasting and the struggle for audience share see some channels going under? Setanta has been one big casualty, but there will be others.

Good. I'm looking forward to Murray v Gasquet tomorrow.

Quite agree with you Russell about 302. Whilst I do appreciate the capacity restrictions that exist on the platform, for me it boils down to a very simple question. Freeview viewers pay the very same LF as everyone else, why should we miss out on BBC programmes and services that are available elsewhere?

Indeed, I raised this subject in my response to the BBC strategy review. For me the level of service offered on Freeview should match what is being offered on pay platforms.

Cooling down you say? Still a barmy 18C here.

Since it came back, some episodes have been excellent, some have been alright. I think because of the hype, people may have been dissapointed, but in all honesty, they're at the same creative level as the first 13.

I'd like to see Virgin1 go to the wall. It may have secured a few quality imports but it's home-grown output is so sleazy it makes Bravo look like BBC4.

If it doesn't give the Murdoch empire any ammunition, surely they're not giving the viewer the best?

I wish the Murdoch empire tumbled. Oh how I wish...

ive not really seen Glee, I keep catching the end of it when I tune into The Cleveland Show, it always ends with a song & dance number, does not seem very original to me

Unlikely. It was one of the fastest growing channels on TV last year, experiencing an 18% rise year-on-year.

Some of the content could be described as sleazy but overall it is improving with commissions like Duncan Bannatyne's Seaside Rescue.

I agree, it's been very inconsistent. Too focused on 'guest stars' - the best episodes are when it's purely about the characters, rather than 'how many scenes can we squeeze Kristin Chenoweth into'.

Third season pick-up isn't a big shock though due to, as you noted, it getting the Super Bowl lead-in next year. They obviously expect big things.

Funny that for you it's that way around, whereas for most it's a case of catching the beginning of The Cleveland Show having watched Glee.

I don't think Cleveland would have done half as well over here without the Glee lead-in, so E4 played a blinder there.

In some cases I agree, in others I don't. They're pretty good so far, but could improve in some areas IMO.


It will one day, I'm sure. Probably with someone richer than him buying the empire.

I wont argue that its good scheduling, but I have enjoyed the Cleveland Show, its less wacky than Family Guy has become, its humour is more down to earth.

In Australia, TEN axed it a few weeks ago and replaced it with Glee repeats. It really wasn't doing much numbers wise.

as long as E4 keep airing it, I dont care what TEN does with it.

The only thing I ask of TEN, is that it improves Neighbours.

It needs something.

I've lost count of the number of times it has been beaten by The Simpsons repeat before it recently. It's happened loads.

When I first started tracking aussie ratings, that was unheard of.

it is pretty shocking how far TEN have let Neighbours fall in the ratings.

Ten have a government quota of Australian drama to fill, if they axed Neighbours they'd have to replace it with a similar show, with no guarantee the new show wouldn't bomb completely (see Headland, Out of the Blue etc etc).