• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
BBC Loses Great British Bakeoff
<<
<
46 of 89
>>
>
ohglobbits
22-09-2016
Breaking News: New tent to be located at Greenwich. Millenium dome only tent big enough to house Paul Hollywood's ginormous ego
ohglobbits
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by carl.waring:
“No they really don't. If GBBO is such a "commercial" programme, why did no other commercial broadcaster want it when it was first hawked around? If SCD is such a "commercial" programme, why did ITV not do the format before the BBC?

Here's another good question. At what point did (in this case) GBBO become "commercial"? What's the criteria? What is the viewer cut-off figure at which a programme becomes "commercial"?”

Just because it was built up from zero by a the Beeb doesn't make it non-commercial. Channel 4 has innovated and launched original formats like Googlebox and Come Dine With Me.

And to answer your second question, when it became worth 25 million. The point is that the BBC are very good at developing lucrative formats which is all well and good until the talent or the indie gets greedy. Then the BBC gets shows stolen. This is natural.
Straker
22-09-2016
Expect to see his name in the credits as "Exec Producer" when it comes back in 2017/2018 together with another fat pay-cheque, this time for doing bugger all except selling-out to C4.
skp20040
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by ohglobbits:
“Just because it was built up from zero by a the Beeb doesn't make it non-commercial. Channel 4 has innovated and launched original formats like Googlebox and Come Dine With Me.

And to answer your second question, when it became worth 25 million. The point is that the BBC are very good at developing lucrative formats which is all well and good until the talent or the indie gets greedy. Then the BBC gets shows stolen. This is natural.”

the thing is the price someone will pay does not make the product actually worth that, as we see with property and anything if someone has the money and wants something badly enough they will pay over the top to get it .
An Thropologist
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by skp20040:
“the thing is the price someone will pay does not make the product actually worth that, as we see with property and anything if someone has the money and wants something badly enough they will pay over the top to get it .”

Indeed I posted something on another thread today about Burberry selling ladies socks for £150 per pair. How can socks be worth that? But presumably people will pay it.
calico_pie
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by skp20040:
“Richard McKerrow has said in interviews that they touted it to other broadcasters for five years and were repeatedly turned down until BBC2 took it on and gave them a grant so they could afford to make it.

Re the presenters, Mary is older , she is happy where she is and probably does not need the money 4 would offer and has decided to stay loyal to the BBC where she has other projects, Mel and Sue may not need the money so much these days and can afford to stay loyal so have done so ( though I think they may have done anyway ). Paul I think he is a different kettle of fish, he is probably the one who is not guaranteed a TV future on a plate as such so he probably thought this is a chance to make some money for the future and who can blame him for that. I respect those who have said no but as I say maybe they can afford to whilst at the same time understanding that whilst you should never bite the hand that feeds you you also have to think about your own future and out of all of them that is probably a bigger issue for Paul.”

I'd go along with that. I respect the others' decision not to go, but think it's the criticism of Paul is a bit harsh. It's not his fault this has happened, and if he love's doing the show that's a perfectly valid reason to carry on. The money is just gravy.
calico_pie
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Expect to see his name in the credits as "Exec Producer" when it comes back in 2017/2018 together with another fat pay-cheque, this time for doing bugger all except selling-out to C4.”

So, hypothetically....

If you worked for a company, and that company was bought out by a bigger, brasher company....

Something that you had nothing to do with...

And you happened to get a nice pay rise out of it...

Are you telling us you'd quite that job on some sort of principle?
A.D.P
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“So, hypothetically....

If you worked for a company, and that company was bought out by a bigger, brasher company....

Something that you had nothing to do with...

And you happened to get a nice pay rise out of it...

Are you telling us you'd quite that job on some sort of principle?”

Love Productions have not been bought by a bigger company.
C4 purchased a shows rights.
To " quit" a job is very very hypocritical, and comparing oganges and apples.


However any " good" employer would " consult" the key interested talent, to ensure the views are taken into account. A bad employer would go ahead without consulting staff and risk the key talent leaving on principle.

Mel, Sue, Mary, " quit" or choose not to renew the contracts, as thry were treated terribly.

Money hasn't everything, family, health, integrity, involvement, being valued are all part of it, and when you realise your company is unethical, it's time to leave, as if it's business dealings leave out key talent, then sooner or later they will cone after you the same way, when you no longer are valued, and they think they can get a better deal employing someone cheaper.
ohglobbits
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“I'd go along with that. I respect the others' decision not to go, but think it's the criticism of Paul is a bit harsh. It's not his fault this has happened, and if he love's doing the show that's a perfectly valid reason to carry on. The money is just gravy.”

He could have expressed loyalty to the BBC and his collleagues. He didn't and that has to have something to do with a big cheque.

By saying on twitter that Mary Berry "has made the right decision for her" implies that the notions of principles and loyalty are alien to him.
Straker
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“So, hypothetically....

If you worked for a company, and that company was bought out by a bigger, brasher company....

Something that you had nothing to do with...

And you happened to get a nice pay rise out of it...

Are you telling us you'd quite that job on some sort of principle?”

That's not even close to a valid comparison to what's gone on and you'd struggle to find one that can bear even a vague relation to a situation like this as it would pertain to "normal" people and their everyday jobs.

I've seen it trotted out a few times before, maybe by you (I can't recall) and it just looks more and more silly each time.
Janet43
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“"We" !!!???

The point is he willingness "you" have to see it fail without having a clue just how different it will be.



Hmmm. I think somebody accused you of being Ash. Whilst I think there are enough differences for me not to believe that's the case one thing you do share with him is a thinly-veiled attitude towards posters whose opinion differs from your own and this inherent need to 'rightly put people right' because you believe you are right and therefore nobody else should have the right to express an opinion that differs from that.

Summed up brilliantly in that single sentence post.

Nobody can say what the future version will be for (and stop me if I'm being too obvious here) it hasn't aired yet.”

Got nothing to do with having a different opinion to me. You said you'd never seen it. Perhaps I should comment on Mr Robot, South Park, Suits or the myriad of other programmes I've never seen. By you criteria, they'd be just as valid as you commenting on Bake Off
A.D.P
22-09-2016
More pressure on 4

Former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale says the £75million purchase of the show has led to fresh questions about whether such deals are “appropriate"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/183474...ion-questions/
Janet43
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“So, hypothetically....

If you worked for a company, and that company was bought out by a bigger, brasher company....

Something that you had nothing to do with...

And you happened to get a nice pay rise out of it...

Are you telling us you'd quite that job on some sort of principle?”

I have in the past. I was better off both financially and ethically after a short time. Sometimes short-term gain is long-term loss.
sat-ire
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“Got nothing to do with having a different opinion to me. You said you'd never seen it. Perhaps I should comment on Mr Robot, South Park, Suits or the myriad of other programmes I've never seen. By you criteria, they'd be just as valid as you commenting on Bake Off”

I was commentating on the fact that you and your ilk do not know what the programme will be like in the future and the fact that you are willing it to fail. I hate to break it to you but that is an actual, unassailable, fact.

Or to put it even simpler, you and your ilk have never seen the future version so the same criteria obviously must apply to you,.

So, if you have the arrogance to suggest I have no right to comment on something I haven't seen (and for the avoidance of doubt I actually didn't comment on the past or present incarnation of the show in either the post you quoted nor in any past, or indeed future, ones) then neither do you.

As I said, though, your post says quite a lot about your attitude to others on this board who do not share your views
Ash_M1
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“I thought that this applied to programme production (allowing BBC Studios to compete commercially for other broadcast work, and to bid for BBC work but on the same terms as the independents). The BBC would still retain its IP rights on its own shows, with the only danger area for the BBC being where an independent production company comes up with the original concept.”

Yes. You are indeed right.
planets
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“You're still missing the point, which is that the US show is a lousy comparison.

The US show was a solo show in a foreign market, that didn't already have a large, loyal following.

Bake Off on C4 on the other hand is a UK show, that already has a large and loyal following. Not to mention it almost certainly won't even be a "solo show" if they replace the others.”

I'm not missing any point at all. Mark said "I want Bake Off to continue to be a success on Channel 4 and I think having Paul Hollywood on board will contribute greatly to that." HE THINKS. No actual evidence to back up his thoughts. My thoughts are Paul Hollywood won't contribute greatly to the success. If he doesn't have to have any evidence to back his thoughts up why should i have to follow some weird mandate of point adherence that you randomly make up?

The fan base that he had, of mainly middle aged women, lessened after he shagged his co-host on the American version. His remaining fan base will lessen even more due to the perception of his staying with the programme moving to channel 4 following the support of Mel & Sue and Mary leaving. It doesn't matter to me whether he goes or stays i predicted he would go with the money 9 days ago and i was right.
DVDfever
22-09-2016
Mary Berry set to sign multi-million pound deal with Channel 4!!!

Watch this space!
Janet43
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“I was commentating on the fact that you and your ilk do not know what the programme will be like in the future and the fact that you are willing it to fail. I hate to break it to you but that is an actual, unassailable, fact.

Or to put it even simpler, you and your ilk have never seen the future version so the same criteria obviously must apply to you,.

So, if you have the arrogance to suggest I have no right to comment on something I haven't seen in the past (and for the avoidance of doubt I actually didn't comment on the past or present incarnation of the show in either the post you quoted nor in any past, or indeed future, ones) it says quite a lot about your attitude to others on this board who do not share your views ”

But I and others do watch it, and it will not be the same. It cannot be the same. Three of the presenters/judges will not be in it, therefore some people will not watch it because of those who replace them, or because they don't like adverts, or for a variety of other reasons. Unlikely it will pick up new viewers, so ratings will fall - Channel 4 doesn't get more than about 4 million viewers for even its best programmes. So compared with the BBC version it will have failed by not reaching the 10 million it gets now and will not be the highly successful programme it is now..

Now say any of that isn't so.

I will watch the first regular programme even though I think Love Productions have behaved disgracefully, and if I don't find it comfortable I'll stop and it will have failed for me.
sat-ire
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“But I and others do watch it, and it will not be the same. It cannot b the same. Three of the presenters/judges will not be in it, therefore some people will not watch it because of those who replace them, or because they don't like adverts, or for a variety of other reasons. Unlikely it will pick up new viewers, so ratings will fall - Channel 4 doesn't get more than about 4 million viewers for even its best programmes. So compared with the BBC version it will have failed by not reaching the 10 million it gets now.

Now say any of that isn't so.”

It's the attitude willing it to fail that I was commenting on, plus the insistence that it will be not as good. (and that was very clear in my post).

Again, that is simply impossible to say.

Of course, if you are arrogant enough to say I cannot make comment on the sole basis that I've never watched then it is precisely the same point back to you about the future version.

Finally, the owners of the show are obviously aware of Channel 4's reach. Obviously, for them, audience might not be their sole criteria and there may be a number of other things at play.
Ash_M1
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Mary Berry set to sign multi-million pound deal with Channel 4!!!

Watch this space!”

Mary is staying at the Beeb, rightly so.
Janet43
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“It's the attitude willing it to fail that I was commenting on, plus the insistence that it will be not as good.

Again, that is simply impossible to say.

Of course, if you are arrogant enough to say I cannot make comment on the sole basis that I've never watched then it is precisely the same point back to you about the future version.

Finally, the owners of the show are obviously aware of Channel 4's reach. Obviously, for them, audience might not be their sole criteria and there may be a number of other things at play.”

The difference being is that those of us who currently watch DO know what it's like and how comfortable we are with it and the presenters, and WILL be able to judge it against the new version when it starts.

Where as I cannot compare any programme I have never watched with any new version and cannot even guess on the future success/failure of them and am not arrogant enough to even try.
calico_pie
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by planets:
“I'm not missing any point at all. Mark said "I want Bake Off to continue to be a success on Channel 4 and I think having Paul Hollywood on board will contribute greatly to that." HE THINKS. No actual evidence to back up his thoughts. My thoughts are Paul Hollywood won't contribute greatly to the success. If he doesn't have to have any evidence to back his thoughts up why should i have to follow some weird mandate of point adherence that you randomly make up?

The fan base that he had, of mainly middle aged women, lessened after he shagged his co-host on the American version. His remaining fan base will lessen even more due to the perception of his staying with the programme moving to channel 4 following the support of Mel & Sue and Mary leaving. It doesn't matter to me whether he goes or stays i predicted he would go with the money 9 days ago and i was right.”

You're moving the goalposts though.

If you want to argue that Bake Off won't be as successful on C4 because 3 out of 4 of the main presenters / judges have left, I'd agree completely.

But up until now you have been arguing that it won't be as successful because Paul's show in the US didn't do very well.

The point myself and others have been making is that that is a lousy comparison, for the reasons given.

Put it this way - if the US show had been a massive success, I'd still argue that Bake Off won't be as successful on C4 because 3 out of 4 of the main presenters / judges have left.

Whereas maybe you would argue that Bake Off on C4 is likely to be just as successful on C4 without Mel, Sue and Mary?
human nature
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Mary Berry set to sign multi-million pound deal with Channel 4!!!

Watch this space!”

Are you having a laugh? Are you genuinely still of the opinion that all four of the presenters are going to move across to Channel 4 and that this whole thing about them staying with the BBC has been a carefully planned publicity stunt?

What will it take for you to realise what's really going on?
sat-ire
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“The difference being is that those of us who currently watch DO know what it's like and how comfortable we are with it and the presenters, and WILL be able to judge it against the new version when it starts.

Where as I cannot compare any programme I have never watched with any new version and cannot even guess on the future success/failure of them and am not arrogant enough to even try.”

Arrogance lol!!!

As far as spectacularly missing the point goes, yours is a wonderful example. You see I haven't said what I think the new version will be like, nor compared it - favourably or otherwise - to any other version. I wouldn't dream of doing so.

I have even reminded you what that original post was about - I didn't think that was necessary because it was obvious. Despite the reminder you've still responded with the above

It is also an example of exactly what I was talking about - lash out at somebody who dares disagree with you or suggests that the new version of the programme might not be the total fail you are so very desperate for it to be. Again, this is precisely the point I made in the post you quoted and arrogantly said I'd no right to make.

To repeat, I have at no point said what I think the future version will be like. Because you haven't seen it, neither can you.

All you can say for sure is that it will be "different".

Condemning it as worse before you've even seen it precisely ties in with the original point I was making
calico_pie
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by A.D.P:
“Love Productions have not been bought by a bigger company.
C4 purchased a shows rights.
To " quit" a job is very very hypocritical, and comparing oganges and apples.

However any " good" employer would " consult" the key interested talent, to ensure the views are taken into account. A bad employer would go ahead without consulting staff and risk the key talent leaving on principle.

Mel, Sue, Mary, " quit" or choose not to renew the contracts, as thry were treated terribly.

Money hasn't everything, family, health, integrity, involvement, being valued are all part of it, and when you realise your company is unethical, it's time to leave, as if it's business dealings leave out key talent, then sooner or later they will cone after you the same way, when you no longer are valued, and they think they can get a better deal employing someone cheaper.”

The principle is almost identical though, no matter how many pedantic you want to be about it.

I know money isn't everything, but the point is that the whole thing was out of Paul's control. And as I've said I admire the others for taking the stance they have.

I just don't think Paul necessarily deserves such harsh criticism - none of them should be obligated to walk away on a point of principle held by much of the show's audience.
<<
<
46 of 89
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map