• 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
<<
<
58 of 89
>>
>
Ash_M1
29-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“After all your criticism of Channel 4, I can only assume that your inversion of my question had the same rhetorical intent.”

You are on the wrong side of the argument. Channel 4 and Love are wrong, the Beeb are in the right.
ftv
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“You are on the wrong side of the argument. Channel 4 and Love are wrong, the Beeb are in the right.”

Quite a few independent producers have criticised LP so it's not just the BBC that's unhappy.
bwfcol
30-09-2016
Wrong thread
Paul_DNAP
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by bwfcol:
“Wrong thread”

This is the most sensible post on this matter in the last five pages. Finally, we have a poster who is not afraid to admit he could be wrong.
Glawster2002
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“Quite a few independent producers have criticised LP so it's not just the BBC that's unhappy.”

They don't want to be tarred with the same brush.

In this week's Private Eye they note that when Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror went to Netflix after two series on C4 Jay Hunt said...

Quote:
“Black Mirror couldn't be a more Channel 4 show. We grew it from a dangerous idea to a brand that resonated globally. Of course it is disappointing that the first broadcast window in the UK is then sold to the highest bidder, ignoring the risk a publicly owned channel like 4 took backing it.”

Pot, kettle, and black, anyone?
Janet43
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“After all your criticism of Channel 4, I can only assume that your inversion of my question had the same rhetorical intent.”

No.

Just about everyone involved in independent TV production and the regulation of TV say this was wrong. They have vast experience of these things and greater knowledge than any viewer on the remit of the BBC and of Channel 4. The Government, who owns channel 4 is investigating the whole affair via a select committee.

But you think they are all wrong.

I'm not arguing with you - just want to know what qualifies you to hold that opinion and tell everyone who shares the opinion of those involved very forcibly (and sometime quite rudely) that they don't know what they're talking about, when those who are actually qualified, experienced and involved have the opposite view to you and why should anyone take any notice of you.?
Straker
30-09-2016
Well, well....Look who might be looking to exit stage left:

Quote:
“ Looks like even Jay Hunt – the woman who set up the GBBO Channel 4 deal – might be bailing on it. There are rumours she's off to Amazon.”

http://popbitch.com/home/2000/01/01/latest-issue/

Leaving before she's pushed?
Charnham
30-09-2016
lol at Jay Hunt leaving C4, if she was leaving court she would have a coat over her head, and a lawyer reading her statement. As for other production companys condeming this, they know they are onto a sweet thing the way the market is currently set up, they dont want to risk loosing the chance to get public money.
Ash_M1
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Well, well....Look who might be looking to exit stage left:



http://popbitch.com/home/2000/01/01/latest-issue/

Leaving before she's pushed?”

No way! I don't believe it. If you can't stand the heat and all that. Unbelievable. Rather than jump ship, she needs to be held to account for the unnecessary spend of millions on a tent.

I hope the Beeb never have her back in any capacity.
eggchen
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“No.

Just about everyone involved in independent TV production and the regulation of TV say this was wrong. They have vast experience of these things and greater knowledge than any viewer on the remit of the BBC and of Channel 4. The Government, who owns channel 4 is investigating the whole affair via a select committee.

But you think they are all wrong.

I'm not arguing with you - just want to know what qualifies you to hold that opinion and tell everyone who shares the opinion of those involved very forcibly (and sometime quite rudely) that they don't know what they're talking about, when those who are actually qualified, experienced and involved have the opposite view to you and why should anyone take any notice of you.?”

Because you missed the point of the question.

I am just amused to see that everybody nods solemnly in agreement with the BBC's valuation of Bake Off, and would have been quite happy for it to be paid with the licence fee.

I put it to the poster then, what if I were to suggest that even £15m a year was too much to pay for what is essentially a cheap-to-produce baking show? Why is the BBC's valuation of Bake Off the only one that was valid?
snafu65
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Charnham:
“lol at Jay Hunt leaving C4, if she was leaving court she would have a coat over her head, and a lawyer reading her statement. As for other production companys condeming this, they know they are onto a sweet thing the way the market is currently set up, they dont want to risk loosing the chance to get public money.”

Exactly, that's my take on it. They're just looking after their own interests and probably have an eye on the money that was earmarked for Bake Off going to commissions with their companies. Their mock horror at LP was one of the funniest side stories of the whole fiasco.
Ash_M1
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Because you missed the point of the question.

I am just amused to see that everybody nods solemnly in agreement with the BBC's valuation of Bake Off, and would have been quite happy for it to be paid with the licence fee.

I put it to the poster then, what if I were to suggest that even £15m a year was too much to pay for what is essentially a cheap-to-produce baking show? Why is the BBC's valuation of Bake Off the only one that was valid?”

You are looking for an argument that doesn't exist.

1. Bake Off was doing the business on Beeb 1. There was no need for it to move to an ad infested channel at a higher fee.

2.Public money was used to fund the show (fine) when no-one else was interested. Suddenly public money is no longer good enough for the private operator. That attitude stinks and you are casually supporting it for some bizarre reason (probably because you are anti-Beeb ) ?

You really need to get in touch with current thinking. The private sector operating like vultures/asset strippers is not acceptable in any way, shape or form. A private sector operating in it's own interests at the expense of us the people is also not acceptable.

Love are morally and ethically bankrupt. They should get no further work from the Beeb as a result of their recent behaviour. They are not fit for purpose.
Ash_M1
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by snafu65:
“Exactly, that's my take on it. They're just looking after their own interests and probably have an eye on the money that was earmarked for Bake Off going to commissions with their companies. Their mock horror at LP was one of the funniest side stories of the whole fiasco.”

Explains precisely why you are out of touch and very much on the wrong side. If a private operator accepts public money, that private operator should adopt the public service ethos. People and service first. They should also not sell out when the going gets good.
Tassium
30-09-2016
It's a seriously messed up view to consider that people who "work in the industry" have good clarity as to their own industry.

Almost no one ever sees their "Industry" very well, they are too close to it.
Ash_M1
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“It's a seriously messed up view to consider that people who "work in the industry" have good clarity as to their own industry.

Almost no one ever sees their "Industry" very well, they are too close to it.”

Follow me here: a private operator pitches an idea to broadcasters. All broadcasters reject idea as it is perceived to be 'to niche'. Beeb commissions idea, works on it and builds an audience. Private operator then sells idea to another broadcaster making a shed load of money in the process on the back of public investment. Private operator has benefited from years of public money. How can anyone say that this behaviour is acceptable?

I would like to see the BBC start to operate like a bank when it comes to these private operators. The BBC loans these private operators licence fee payers money. If said private operator chooses to sell to another broadcaster (because it is greedy), either said operator pays back all the money loaned to it by the Beeb or a certain percentage of it. Licence fee payers should benefit from the greed of the private operators not just the private operators.
lundavra
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Well, well....Look who might be looking to exit stage left:

http://popbitch.com/home/2000/01/01/latest-issue/

Leaving before she's pushed?”

Probably suits both parties. She goes to Amazon and gets the proverbial 'shed load of money' and Channel 4 get rid of an embarrassment. I bet there are some in Channel 4 who wish they could turn the clock back and get out of the Bake Off deal.
eggchen
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“You are looking for an argument that doesn't exist.

1. Bake Off was doing the business on Beeb 1. There was no need for it to move to an ad infested channel at a higher fee.

2.Public money was used to fund the show (fine) when no-one else was interested. Suddenly public money is no longer good enough for the private operator. That attitude stinks and you are casually supporting it for some bizarre reason (probably because you are anti-Beeb ) ?

You really need to get in touch with current thinking. The private sector operating like vultures/asset strippers is not acceptable in any way, shape or form. A private sector operating in it's own interests at the expense of us the people is also not acceptable.

Love are morally and ethically bankrupt. They should get no further work from the Beeb as a result of their recent behaviour. They are not fit for purpose.”

I'm afraid I find your views just too dogmatic and odd to even understand. There is no debate, just the same spiel in every post sadly.
Nilrem
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“It's a seriously messed up view to consider that people who "work in the industry" have good clarity as to their own industry.

Almost no one ever sees their "Industry" very well, they are too close to it.”

I suspect that some of those in the industry are seeing LP as having shot themselves in the foot in regards to future commissions.
LP may well be able to get more work with the BBC in the future, but the terms may not be as favourable and the BBC may not be as willing to spend it's own money in promoting the show, or keep it going as long if it's not a reasonable success in the initial contract period.

If nothing else LP have ensured that the BBC is going to use it's "hold" clause, and because of the way it acted without consulting it's presenters it's lost three of them, and that is likely to hurt it's start on C4 as it will be starting without the known chemistry of the presentation team and potentially without the people that watched it partly for the presenters..

In most industries if you are seen to have screwed over a client (or supplier), even if it was within the limits of the contract you tend to find that future clients (and suppliers) may well try to impose additional terms to their contract to give them additional leverage.

This is especially so when you are trying to deal with a new product that isn't proven, such as for example a new TV production.

In short LP may have got a big fat cheque now by their actions, but it could well hurt them with regards to other productions in the future (but the balance sheet this quarter/financial year looks great which is often all a lot of companies care about)..
Straker
30-09-2016
Hollywood wades in to comment. No, not THAT Hollywood....

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/great-b...tish-bake-off/

Quote:
“"Nobody likes you," she added of Paul.”

eggchen
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Hollywood wades in to comment. No, not THAT Hollywood....

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/great-b...tish-bake-off/”

Reporting chat show banter as credible critique again I see.
Straker
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Reporting chat show banter as credible critique again I see. ”

Try and contribute something of substance for a change instead of your constant, never-ending carping at others accompanied as usual by a wholly disingenuous smilie designed to disguise the snide tone of your post(s). It doesn't btw, disguise them......
Straker
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“The other point is that I think it is a sign of desperation to try and use Davina McCall's musings on a lighthearted chatshow as some kind of ammo. Do you take her that seriously? ”

Quote:
“Why on earth would anybody think that Davina McCall, making light conversation about the show on another light entertainment chat show, is making any kind of serious suggestion about its future?”

Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Yeah of course, but Mr Straker's approach was to suggest that by doing so, she is somehow making further damaging comments.”

Quote:
“To my mind, she was making lighthearted chit chat on a chat show for the purposes of light entertainment, so any musings she makes in that vein aren't going to be considered as being serious comments anyway”


McCall is one of C4's highest profile presenters and it's clear carries some clout when it concerns programmes she is involved with or might be considering. If the management of C4 thinks she could bring an audience to Bake Off then who's to say they wouldn't retool it to suit her? That's why it's worth highlighting her comments, but then you knew that already, preferring instead to use it as an excuse to disrupt the thread further with what's become your patented dismissive way of posting to others....
Janet43
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“I'm afraid I find your views just too dogmatic and odd to even understand. There is no debate, just the same spiel in every post sadly.”

Many of us could (and do) say exactly the same about you.

As I've said before, you think you're always right and have to have the last word.
eggchen
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Try and contribute something of substance for a change instead of your constant, never-ending carping at others accompanied as usual by a wholly disingenuous smilie designed to disguise the snide tone of your post(s). It doesn't btw, disguise them......”

The smile isn't me being disingenuous, rather laughing in amusement.
eggchen
30-09-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“McCall is one of C4's highest profile presenters and it's clear carries some clout when it concerns programmes she is involved with or might be considering. If the management of C4 thinks she could bring an audience to Bake Off then who's to say they wouldn't retool it to suit her? That's why it's worth highlighting her comments, but then you knew that already, preferring instead to use it as an excuse to disrupt the thread further with what's become your patented dismissive way of posting to others....”

They'll say anything topical on chat shows, and usually keep the tone light and humorous. But then you knew that already.
<<
<
58 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