BBC can't afford F1, spend £86.7million on Eastenders set
Discussion
There is some, mostly pay-per-view, availability round the world but there’s nothing to suggest this is a Top Gear style cash cow.
Regular 10 million viewership hasn’t existed for quite some time.
Given that £5billion is raised a year from the licence, it seems like small fry!If you’re going to be such a pedant you might as well get your own figures correct. It’s £3.8billion annually, as of 17/18.
The meaning was/is pretty obvious, it is over 575,000 times the cost of an annual colour tv licence.
Lets put it in to better perspective, consider its rival, Coronation Street. It gets equivalent or higher viewer numbers, same set used from 1982 to 2013, replacement set cost (past tense, it’s done) less than half.
It’s not entirely clear if the 2013 set’s £10m price tag includes the recent extension, or if that was another £10m on top, but going worst case £20m vs £86.7m
Regular 10 million viewership hasn’t existed for quite some time.
geeks said:
emicen said:
I saw that article on the bbc this morning. Initially I misread it, I was already going “how f
king much?!” at £27m then realised that was just the overrun, not the total!
The total, £86.7m as of the latest revised budget, is over 575,000 timesthean annual TV licence.
EFAking much?!” at £27m then realised that was just the overrun, not the total!The total, £86.7m as of the latest revised budget, is over 575,000 times
Given that £5billion is raised a year from the licence, it seems like small fry!
The meaning was/is pretty obvious, it is over 575,000 times the cost of an annual colour tv licence.
Lets put it in to better perspective, consider its rival, Coronation Street. It gets equivalent or higher viewer numbers, same set used from 1982 to 2013, replacement set cost (past tense, it’s done) less than half.
It’s not entirely clear if the 2013 set’s £10m price tag includes the recent extension, or if that was another £10m on top, but going worst case £20m vs £86.7m
Occasionally catch a few seconds of EastEnders when flicking channels, and 99.9% of the time its basically this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljv1fO4qrIw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljv1fO4qrIw
emicen said:
There is some, mostly pay-per-view, availability round the world but there’s nothing to suggest this is a Top Gear style cash cow.
Regular 10 million viewership hasn’t existed for quite some time.
Given that £5billion is raised a year from the licence, it seems like small fry!If you’re going to be such a pedant you might as well get your own figures correct. It’s £3.8billion annually, as of 17/18.
The meaning was/is pretty obvious, it is over 575,000 times the cost of an annual colour tv licence.
Lets put it in to better perspective, consider its rival, Coronation Street. It gets equivalent or higher viewer numbers, same set used from 1982 to 2013, replacement set cost (past tense, it’s done) less than half.
It’s not entirely clear if the 2013 set’s £10m price tag includes the recent extension, or if that was another £10m on top, but going worst case £20m vs £86.7m
Sorry, my mistake you are correct £3.8billion of the BBC's £5 billion revenue came from the TV licence. It's still small fry.Regular 10 million viewership hasn’t existed for quite some time.
geeks said:
emicen said:
I saw that article on the bbc this morning. Initially I misread it, I was already going “how fking much?!” at £27m then realised that was just the overrun, not the total!
The total, £86.7m as of the latest revised budget, is over 575,000 timesthean annual TV licence.
EFAking much?!” at £27m then realised that was just the overrun, not the total!The total, £86.7m as of the latest revised budget, is over 575,000 times
Given that £5billion is raised a year from the licence, it seems like small fry!
The meaning was/is pretty obvious, it is over 575,000 times the cost of an annual colour tv licence.
Lets put it in to better perspective, consider its rival, Coronation Street. It gets equivalent or higher viewer numbers, same set used from 1982 to 2013, replacement set cost (past tense, it’s done) less than half.
It’s not entirely clear if the 2013 set’s £10m price tag includes the recent extension, or if that was another £10m on top, but going worst case £20m vs £86.7m
As for the Coronation Street set being cheaper, well, it's grim up north!
I have no idea one scale etc, are we certain that the two can be compared? (given one is built on an industrial estate in Manchester, the other is in London)
Ultimately the two shows pull in enormous viewing figures, the costs can be justified whether we think they are high or not!
Mark-C said:
I'm another that doesn't get the noise over this.
But then I don't get most of the "outrage" that gets reported upon!
In fact the thing that outrages me most is how much time is spent reporting on outrage because of a few people on twitter
The 45% cost over run and 5 years late is satisfactory is it.But then I don't get most of the "outrage" that gets reported upon!
In fact the thing that outrages me most is how much time is spent reporting on outrage because of a few people on twitter
There were problems with the new site that delayed and increased the cost such as unknown asbestos and problems clearing underground obstructions (was a brown field site). Also they are expanding the site to allow for new sets to be built (on top of the re-creation of Albert Sq) and new buildings for editing and whatnot.
To film in HD, it had to be changed as the old sets are ropey in places and definitely show their life expired age.
If it lasts another 30odd years then it will be money well spent despite the overrun. As it returns a profit surely a one off large investment to guarantee (as much as you can guarantee a profit) that profit is sensible?
To film in HD, it had to be changed as the old sets are ropey in places and definitely show their life expired age.
If it lasts another 30odd years then it will be money well spent despite the overrun. As it returns a profit surely a one off large investment to guarantee (as much as you can guarantee a profit) that profit is sensible?
eldar said:
Mark-C said:
I'm another that doesn't get the noise over this.
But then I don't get most of the "outrage" that gets reported upon!
In fact the thing that outrages me most is how much time is spent reporting on outrage because of a few people on twitter
The 45% cost over run and 5 years late is satisfactory is it.But then I don't get most of the "outrage" that gets reported upon!
In fact the thing that outrages me most is how much time is spent reporting on outrage because of a few people on twitter
daddy cool said:
Occasionally catch a few seconds of EastEnders when flicking channels, and 99.9% of the time its basically this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljv1fO4qrIw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljv1fO4qrIw
soad said:
daddy cool said:
Occasionally catch a few seconds of EastEnders when flicking channels, and 99.9% of the time its basically this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljv1fO4qrIw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljv1fO4qrIw
(I'm ok with the plan to replace the set. People like the show, it needs a 21st century set, let's build one. Screw ups on doing the job in a national institution...who would have imagined. I mean, nobody could guess...par for the course, crack on.)
Oakey said:
Maybe they'll gentrify the square, all the existing residents will be priced out and we'll have a new cast of hispter tts?
Out of interest, is gentrification ever acknowledged in this show? In the real world there'd be man buns everywhere. ts?I only ever watched the first episode in 1986 or whatever.
bloomen said:
Out of interest, is gentrification ever acknowledged in this show? In the real world there'd be man buns everywhere.
I only ever watched the first episode in 1986 or whatever.
No. Nor is the price of houses in London. According to eastenders you can still afford a 5 bed town house in that part of London with 2 part time jobs in the corner shop and laundrette. I only ever watched the first episode in 1986 or whatever.
bloomen said:
Out of interest, is gentrification ever acknowledged in this show? In the real world there'd be man buns everywhere.
I only ever watched the first episode in 1986 or whatever.
Don’t forget Mr Wilmot-Brown in the 80s. Very on trend. I only ever watched the first episode in 1986 or whatever.
If they clip man buns into all the blokes they would then have to trowel makeup, duck face lips and rubber knockers on as well. And then paint everyone a shade of brown and add subtitles.
BoRED S2upid said:
bloomen said:
Out of interest, is gentrification ever acknowledged in this show? In the real world there'd be man buns everywhere.
I only ever watched the first episode in 1986 or whatever.
No. Nor is the price of houses in London. According to eastenders you can still afford a 5 bed town house in that part of London with 2 part time jobs in the corner shop and laundrette. I only ever watched the first episode in 1986 or whatever.
king everyone over and Wilmot Brown was going to redevelop the Square but it kind of just fizzled out. Apparently a lot of the cost has been in carefully replicating every detail of the existing set; painting the bricks, adding the moss, recreating the cracks.
For a set that was supposedly so shagged out that they couldn't show it in closeup anyway.
FFS it's a daily soap. No one is going to care about continuity as long as it's mostly the same.
Even allowing for other costs and facilities the amount of spending is stupid. But hey, Other People's Money is the easiest to spend.
For a set that was supposedly so shagged out that they couldn't show it in closeup anyway.
FFS it's a daily soap. No one is going to care about continuity as long as it's mostly the same.
Even allowing for other costs and facilities the amount of spending is stupid. But hey, Other People's Money is the easiest to spend.
Silly money of course, but before we get into the usual BBC bashing, it earns the UK +/- 200,000,000 a year from overseas sales. That's profit over spending. Also employs 21.000 people (who pay UK tax), and more than 4 times that who contribute (and pay UK tax). Something not usually mentioned.
Dan_1981 said:
emicen said:
I saw that article on the bbc this morning. Initially I misread it, I was already going “how fking much?!” at £27m then realised that was just the overrun, not the total!
The total, £86.7m as of the latest revised budget, is over 575,000 times the annual TV licence.
But it's a set that was originally designed to last two years - so we've had almost 20 years of 'free' out of the last one. king much?!” at £27m then realised that was just the overrun, not the total!The total, £86.7m as of the latest revised budget, is over 575,000 times the annual TV licence.
87m - Eastenders audience has peaked at well over 10m a number of times over the last 20 years. Who knows how much they've sold it for over the years.
As per a couple of other posts - I really can't see how we can get our knickers in a twist over this one?
My house cost about £400k and it's fully functional and has been standing for 60 years.
£86m for a set depicting a London street is ludicrous.
Edited by 98elise on Sunday 16th December 15:29
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff