• 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
<<
<
66 of 89
>>
>
Steve9214
06-10-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Symptomatic of how the BBC views the audience, though - easily the best shows of that bunch were completely overlooked for fear that they might be too intelligent for the audience, in favour of the less excellent lowest common denominator options.

Goodnight Sweetheart will do well on ITV, that's for sure.”

As a sitcom Goodnight Sweetheart would be VERY expensive,
It tended to use quite a few exterior shots which were all WW2 period.

Set construction and dressing costs would be eye popping IMHO.

With a new series set in the '60's you would have the same problems.
IIRC the revival show only had Gary walking the Streets in the Modern side of the time barrier.
Antbox
06-10-2016
Originally Posted by Steve9214:
“As a sitcom Goodnight Sweetheart would be VERY expensive,”

No problem, ITV can afford it. As could the BBC, if they could have been bothered. What a shame that - once again - they focus on the obvious, the predictable, the unchallenging, rather than supporting the production of a well-loved creative worth with genuine breadth and depth.
DVDfever
06-10-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“No problem, ITV can afford it. As could the BBC, if they could have been bothered. What a shame that - once again - they focus on the obvious, the predictable, the unchallenging, rather than supporting the production of a well-loved creative worth with genuine breadth and depth.”

Indeed. And while there's a prison set that a lot of dramas use, the set for the new Porridge looked less realistic than Prisoner Cell Block H!
Straker
08-10-2016
Times article originally but it's behind their paywall so we'll have to make-do with TDM summarising more self-justification from The Hunt:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-doubters.html

Couple of choice quotes from the deluded grudge-bearer:

Quote:
“But Ms Hunt said: 'I think we have to say this on the record - we have literally not approached anybody. We've got time on her(?) side here and I think it's important for the audience that we get this right.'”

You can't superglue the eggshell back together. You paid for it - You broke it!

Quote:
“She added: 'Relations were very strained between Love and the BBC and, as a result of that, a lot of people, several non-free-to-air platforms, had also expressed interest in it.”

Painting herself as some kind of saviour again. If Netflix, ITV, Amazon or Sky had really wanted it they would've bought it so the idea C4 scooped the deep-pocketed outlets with £25m per year is nonsense. None of them really wanted it because they had the good sense to see that it's the foursome that are at the heart of GBBO, not some perfunctory format and a tent.
ftv
08-10-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Times article originally but it's behind their paywall so we'll have to make-do with TDM summarising more self-justification from The Hunt:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-doubters.html

Couple of choice quotes from the deluded grudge-bearer:



You can't superglue the eggshell back together. You paid for it - You broke it!



Painting herself as some kind of saviour again. If Netflix, ITV, Amazon or Sky had really wanted it they would've bought it so the idea C4 scooped the deep-pocketed outlets with £25m per year is nonsense. None of them really wanted it because they had the good sense to see that it's the foursome that are at the heart of GBBO, not some perfunctory format and a tent.”

ITV have already said they didn't bid because LP could not guarantee the foursome and ITV took the view that without them it wasn't a viable proposition as Ms Hunt will discover.
mossy2103
09-10-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“ITV have already said they didn't bid because LP could not guarantee the foursome and ITV took the view that without them it wasn't a viable proposition as Ms Hunt will discover.”

La Hunt being disingenuous no doubt.
cpu121
09-10-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“So The Voice and Bake Off are exactly the same in terms of who wanted it when, who signed the contract when and whether it was poached?

For that to be true, no broadcaster wanted The Voice so the BBC took it on to see if they could make a success of it and achieved a maximum number of viewers for the first series of just over three million. They made it into a success with the number of viewers rising to over 13 million, and a couple of weeks into the final series of the contract with the BBC, ITV had agreed a bigger fee and signed the contract for it.

Didn't happen.”

That is of no relevance - no special rights accrue because you "nuture" a programme. If the BBC wanted, they could have offered to buy the rights to the GBBO at any point. But they didn't, so the only owner of GBBO was Love Productions. Also where's the evidence to show it was the BBC and not Love Productions that made it a success? (I seem to recall GBBO really began to take off when a footage of a squirrel went viral on social media).

Also I can't see why you're making a fuss about the timing of the contract. Negotiations had been going on for over a year unsuccessfully, what should they have done once they ran into the broadcast of the current series?

IIRC the original news announcements said only that a new contract had not been agreed and Love Productions would be looking for a new partner, the news about Channel 4 came in a later announcement. It's unlikely such news could be kept secret for long (too many people involved). Furthermore the BBC clearly used their press release to publicly apply pressure to Love Productions: "GBBO is a quintessentially BBC programme. We hope Love Productions change their mind so that Bake Off can stay ad free on BBC One."

I suspect that if the announcement had been delayed until after this series had finished, some people would simply be angry about them hiding the news instead.

At the end of the day, this is a storm in a teacup.
ftv
09-10-2016
Originally Posted by cpu121:
“That is of no relevance - no special rights accrue because you "nuture" a programme. If the BBC wanted, they could have offered to buy the rights to the GBBO at any point. But they didn't, so the only owner of GBBO was Love Productions. Also where's the evidence to show it was the BBC and not Love Productions that made it a success? (I seem to recall GBBO really began to take off when a footage of a squirrel went viral on social media).

Also I can't see why you're making a fuss about the timing of the contract. Negotiations had been going on for over a year unsuccessfully, what should they have done once they ran into the broadcast of the current series?

IIRC the original news announcements said only that a new contract had not been agreed and Love Productions would be looking for a new partner, the news about Channel 4 came in a later announcement. It's unlikely such news could be kept secret for long (too many people involved). Furthermore the BBC clearly used their press release to publicly apply pressure to Love Productions: "GBBO is a quintessentially BBC programme. We hope Love Productions change their mind so that Bake Off can stay ad free on BBC One."

I suspect that if the announcement had been delayed until after this series had finished, some people would simply be angry about them hiding the news instead.

At the end of the day, this is a storm in a teacup.”

A somewhat naïve post if I may say so
Straker
11-10-2016
More contradiction from this dumb hunt:

Quote:
“When asked whether it would have looked terrible if none of the talent had made the journey to Channel 4, Ms Hunt replied: “Yes.””

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-...says-channel-4

Quote:
“ “I think in the end format is incredibly important, and this is a highly successful format. The case that was put to the board was that in the event that [Love Production’s] relations with the BBC broke down and that it came to market, there might be an opportunity for Channel 4. And that was with no talent attached.””

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a7353586.html
mossy2103
11-10-2016
Astonishing. She makes it up as she goes along.
Paul_DNAP
11-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Astonishing. She makes it up as she goes along.”

Well, she is "creative director", so she has to show some creativity somewhere I guess...
Aftershow
11-10-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“The difference with Bake Off is that the Beeb still wanted it but it was poached by 4 whilst still on air on Beeb 1.”

They didn't want it as much as C4. They don't have a divine right to get everything that they want.
Aftershow
11-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Astonishing. She makes it up as she goes along.”

She's a clown.

There was an entertaining short piece in the last Private Eye (probably already done on this thread tbh), comparing her attitude to this to C4's attitude when Netflix took Black Mirror from them.
mossy2103
11-10-2016
Originally Posted by Aftershow:
“They didn't want it as much as C4. They don't have a divine right to get everything that they want.”

Not quite - they felt that they could not justify the £25 million per year that LP were demanding, and that their offer was a fair one.
frost
11-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Not quite - they felt that they could not justify the £25 million per year that LP were demanding, and that their offer was a fair one.”

The BBC low balled them and lost out, I have no sympathy for them.

I dont expect it will work on C4 so it's a loss all round. well except for Love Productions I guess, at least in the short term for them.
mossy2103
11-10-2016
Originally Posted by frost:
“The BBC low balled them an dlost out.”

Over the 65-odd pages on this thread, that has been covered many, many times. So much so that I will not repeat the arguments again. Suffice to say that there are many who would dispute that claim.
Charnham
11-10-2016
im what way did the BBC low ball them, they offered twice the amount they had paid previously AND as we now know, none of the key talent had signed contracts, the BBC was risking doing exactly what C4 did.

Of course its alot less likely the talent would have jumped ship had it stayed at the BBC, but its still fair to point out that the BBCs big was on another series of the format alone, not the entire show.
Aftershow
12-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Not quite - they felt that they could not justify the £25 million per year that LP were demanding, and that their offer was a fair one.”

Well yes, they couldn't justify it, but C4 could - which simply means that C4 wanted it more.

That doesn't reflect badly on the BBC; they took a decision for better or worse. But in a free market, the programme is worth what someone will pay for it. I fully expect that C4 will find that what they paid for it to be a mistake, but that's their mistake to make.
mossy2103
12-10-2016
Originally Posted by Aftershow:
“Well yes, they couldn't justify it, but C4 could - which simply means that C4 wanted it more.”

It could also indicate one of two other things:

C4 set their own justification bar much lower

C4 had more cash to spare and were less concerned about value

Quote:
“That doesn't reflect badly on the BBC; they took a decision for better or worse. But in a free market, the programme is worth what someone will pay for it.”

Oh I agree in that respect.
mossy2103
14-10-2016
Looks like Channel 4's presenter options have narrowed even more:

Quote:
“Bake Off's Nadiya Hussain signs deal to stay on BBC

The BBC has struck a deal with Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain to make films for The One Show and develop new projects, seemingly ending speculation that she would rejoin the programme when it moves to Channel 4.

<snipped>

The BBC refused to say whether the deal was exclusive, but in a statement Nadyia described the corporation as her “home”.
”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...wood-channel-4
skp20040
14-10-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“ITV have already said they didn't bid because LP could not guarantee the foursome and ITV took the view that without them it wasn't a viable proposition as Ms Hunt will discover.”

ITV was actually prepared to offer more than Love wanted from the BBC in pre talks earlier in the year but that was on condition it came as a package with all four . ITV make some duff decisions but they were certainly clued up over this one and what makes it so popular.
skp20040
14-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Looks like Channel 4's presenter options have narrowed even more:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...wood-channel-4”

I worried when I saw this headline, but it is ok it isn't him

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7356811.html

David Cameron reveals what his first job will be after life in politics
frost
14-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Suffice to say that there are many who would dispute that claim.”

Which one? That they low balled them or that they lost out? If it's the latter, we'll see in the long run I guess.

If it's the former, then they certainly did low ball them, they offered the production company a lot less than they were willing to accept on the general basis that it should stay "home" on the BBC and shouldnt cost as much as LP wanted. The fact that LP rejected that offer and then another channel went and paid a much higher price shows the BBC offered a too low one as someone else thought LP's valuation was fair enough and actually paid an amount that was around that fee. It would be a different thing if no one else had purchased it yet due to it being priced too high, at least then you could argue that the BBC valuation was nearer the mark.

But it's the rule of supply and demand, someone was willing to pay around the money LP wanted, so the valuation LP had was a correct one as they got it (or close enough to it).

You can site 60 odd pages of people going back and forth, doesnt change what happened.
Ash_M1
14-10-2016
Originally Posted by frost:
“Which one? That they low balled them or that they lost out? If it's the latter, we'll see in the long run I guess.

If it's the former, then they certainly did low ball them, they offered the production company a lot less than they were willing to accept on the general basis that it should stay "home" on the BBC and shouldnt cost as much as LP wanted. The fact that LP rejected that offer and then another channel went and paid a much higher price shows the BBC offered a too low one as someone else thought LP's valuation was fair enough and actually paid an amount that was around that fee. It would be a different thing if no one else had purchased it yet due to it being priced too high, at least then you could argue that the BBC valuation was nearer the mark.

But it's the rule of supply and demand, someone was willing to pay around the money LP wanted, so the valuation LP had was a correct one as they got it (or close enough to it).

You can site 60 odd pages of people going back and forth, doesnt change what happened.”

It still doesn't make what happened morally or ethically right though does it. Greed should never be rewarded. I certainly won't be following Bake Off to 4 on principle.
carl.waring
14-10-2016
Originally Posted by frost:
“If it's the former, then they certainly did low ball them...”

In your opinion. Many disagree. They offered an increase of 200%. How that can be described as "low balling" I have no idea.
<<
<
66 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