BBC to axe 1000 jobs. Wheels are comming off....
Discussion
After having read through this thread, I think I'm going to have to side with Eric Mc.
I agree the BBC is blatantly left leaning, which is quite annoying, but you can generally avoid all that sort of stuff if you aren't really interested in their talk/discussion/panel type shows.
The standard of television that they produce is greater by far than any of the other broadcasters. Things such as their coverage of national/royal events and documentaries are second to none.
Top Gear was a prime example of how the BBC can produce 'ordinary' TV far, far better than anyone else. The production values were out of this world, and I fully expect new new Clarkson/Hammond/May programme to be a complete lash up in comparison.
The licence fee is currently £145.50, and I suppose the big question is would I, of my own free will, pay £12.13 a month to subscribe to the BBC if it became optional? I think I would.
I agree the BBC is blatantly left leaning, which is quite annoying, but you can generally avoid all that sort of stuff if you aren't really interested in their talk/discussion/panel type shows.
The standard of television that they produce is greater by far than any of the other broadcasters. Things such as their coverage of national/royal events and documentaries are second to none.
Top Gear was a prime example of how the BBC can produce 'ordinary' TV far, far better than anyone else. The production values were out of this world, and I fully expect new new Clarkson/Hammond/May programme to be a complete lash up in comparison.
The licence fee is currently £145.50, and I suppose the big question is would I, of my own free will, pay £12.13 a month to subscribe to the BBC if it became optional? I think I would.
NinjaPower said:
Top Gear was a prime example of how the BBC can produce 'ordinary' TV far, far better than anyone else. The production values were out of this world, and I fully expect new new Clarkson/Hammond/May programme to be a complete lash up in comparison.
Out of interest, why? If they went to, say, Netflix, the budgets, equipment and ability to attract seriously good production capability (not to forget that their exec producer followed them) would all be in place?
Sharted said:
Einion Yrth said:
Sharted said:
Why is it that those supporting the BBC present themselves as articulate and thoughtful but those who oppose are the opposite?
HTHIt was just an observation, I don't feel strongly about the BBC so have no biased view on that basis.
Vaud said:
NinjaPower said:
Top Gear was a prime example of how the BBC can produce 'ordinary' TV far, far better than anyone else. The production values were out of this world, and I fully expect new new Clarkson/Hammond/May programme to be a complete lash up in comparison.
Out of interest, why? If they went to, say, Netflix, the budgets, equipment and ability to attract seriously good production capability (not to forget that their exec producer followed them) would all be in place?I think perhaps the BBC have a culture of trying to attain the best production they can without worrying too much about the budget, as many on here are keen to point out, whereas for Netflix, the whole thing will be strictly a commercial enterprise and I suspect budgets will be imposed and corners cut wherever possible in order to generate maximum profit.
The BBC have never really had to worry about making a profit so they don't have to worry too much that Top Gear cost around £1 million per episode to make.
NinjaPower said:
Well that's a good point, and I will be interested to see what happens with Netflix.
I think perhaps the BBC have a culture of trying to attain the best production they can without worrying too much about the budget, as many on here are keen to point out, whereas for Netflix, the whole thing will be strictly a commercial enterprise and I suspect budgets will be imposed and corners cut wherever possible in order to generate maximum profit.
The BBC have never really had to worry about making a profit so they don't have to worry too much that Top Gear cost around £1 million per episode to make.
You are kidding, right? Netflix, who produced House of Cards at $100M. They are out to disrupt and (yes) monetize - but they are not afraid of big investment...I think perhaps the BBC have a culture of trying to attain the best production they can without worrying too much about the budget, as many on here are keen to point out, whereas for Netflix, the whole thing will be strictly a commercial enterprise and I suspect budgets will be imposed and corners cut wherever possible in order to generate maximum profit.
The BBC have never really had to worry about making a profit so they don't have to worry too much that Top Gear cost around £1 million per episode to make.
NinjaPower said:
The BBC have never really had to worry about making a profit so they don't have to worry too much that Top Gear cost around £1 million per episode to make.
House of Cards and Orange is the New Black are $4m an episode. Both were highly rated although season 3 of OITNB is poor.Netflix made $71M (£42M) profit in the last quarter. That's quarter, not year. Why can people not see the BBC and its funding model is utterly f
ked? I must be a rare beast in that I am happy with the licence fee and feel the BBC largely does a good job. The uninterupted programs are a relief from commercial TV, the radio is great and some of the BBC4 stuff is what only it can do well.
I can tolerate the lefties, BBC1, Radio1 etc by ignoring them and focussing on the bits I like. Bargain for me.
I can tolerate the lefties, BBC1, Radio1 etc by ignoring them and focussing on the bits I like. Bargain for me.
technodup said:
ouse of Cards and Orange is the New Black are $4m an episode. Both were highly rated although season 3 of OITNB is poor.
Netflix made $71M (£42M) profit in the last quarter. That's quarter, not year. Why can people not see the BBC and its funding model is utterly fked?
One problem for starters is hidden in the name (somewhere)Netflix made $71M (£42M) profit in the last quarter. That's quarter, not year. Why can people not see the BBC and its funding model is utterly f
ked? There may be others....
Happy for them to be producing shows worthy of viewing though!
Cheese Mechanic said:
TTwiggy said:
I don't have kids in school, have never called the police, fire brigade or an ambulance. I live in a development with its own refuse collection I have also never been to hospital. I pay for all these things though.
Absurd analogy .The BBC is not an essential service, its a media company, like dozens of others. Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Thursday 2nd July 15:37
technodup said:
NinjaPower said:
The BBC have never really had to worry about making a profit so they don't have to worry too much that Top Gear cost around £1 million per episode to make.
House of Cards and Orange is the New Black are $4m an episode. Both were highly rated although season 3 of OITNB is poor.Netflix made $71M (£42M) profit in the last quarter. That's quarter, not year. Why can people not see the BBC and its funding model is utterly f
ked? The U.S. TV production system and re revenue streams which underpin them are completely different.
The bulk of the additional U.S. Production costs go in extraordinarily high cast costs and writing /show runner fees and studio profit.
Writers and cast get paid much much much much less in the UK. Production companies make much less too.
I like some of the BBC. Having worked in TV for a while there is plenty I don't like about how it is run and how much they spend and waste.
Way too many unsackable people moved sideways or, worse, up into roles paying a lot of money with no ultimate responsibility for success or failure and no way of measuring success or failure.
Do they need 3,000 cooking shows and 40,000 webpages with recipes on it?
Do they need to pay the likes of Jonathan Ross or Chris Evans or Jeremy Clarkson millions? No. They should be out discovering the next generation of those people and the. Let the commercial channel over pay them.
Amusing to hear the cuts will cut management layers down to 'just 7'. Laughable really.
Part of the problem is that for so long they have had billions per year to spend with no risk of it dwindling or disappearing due to bad decisions - so there is no fallout from sending so many people to Gladtonbury or similar.
I don't know what the solution may be - but I doubt they can continue to demand £4b a year and not put an end to the gravy train for many of their staff.
Way too many unsackable people moved sideways or, worse, up into roles paying a lot of money with no ultimate responsibility for success or failure and no way of measuring success or failure.
Do they need 3,000 cooking shows and 40,000 webpages with recipes on it?
Do they need to pay the likes of Jonathan Ross or Chris Evans or Jeremy Clarkson millions? No. They should be out discovering the next generation of those people and the. Let the commercial channel over pay them.
Amusing to hear the cuts will cut management layers down to 'just 7'. Laughable really.
Part of the problem is that for so long they have had billions per year to spend with no risk of it dwindling or disappearing due to bad decisions - so there is no fallout from sending so many people to Gladtonbury or similar.
I don't know what the solution may be - but I doubt they can continue to demand £4b a year and not put an end to the gravy train for many of their staff.
Vaud said:
NinjaPower said:
Top Gear was a prime example of how the BBC can produce 'ordinary' TV far, far better than anyone else. The production values were out of this world, and I fully expect new new Clarkson/Hammond/May programme to be a complete lash up in comparison.
Out of interest, why? If they went to, say, Netflix, the budgets, equipment and ability to attract seriously good production capability (not to forget that their exec producer followed them) would all be in place?NinjaPower said:
The standard of television that they produce is greater by far than any of the other broadcasters. Things such as their coverage of national/royal events and documentaries are second to none.
They made a complete hash of the Diamond Jubilee, and most people would agree that ITV's coverage of the royal wedding was better than the BBC's.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff