4 ms·

THIS! In the last few years the BBC have produced nothing but period dramas and drivel all of it aimed at the american market. Why make quality british programm

THIS! In the last few years the BBC have produced nothing but period dramas and drivel all of it aimed at the american market. Why make quality british programming for the British market any more when you can make a 'UK series' (6 eps) and make pure profit in the US market.

megablast 13y ago
So the BBC is no longer producing content for BBC 1 and 2 in the UK? Don't be ridiculous.
- apricot13 13y ago
  I never said I didn't like it, I said it was drivel. I'm quite partial to the odd well produced period drama. What I'm trying to say is that recently they tend produce content with a mind to how the US will receive this new content. Dr who, top gear and downton abbey for instance. All of these are popular in the US and while that isn't a bad thing (more money to the BBC to hopefully make more content) what I disagree with is that all they produce is more of the SAME content. They've lost innovation and only make content in a few genres with recurring themes. >> Please don't project your own opinions onto the rest of the UK. how is my stating a personal opinion 'projecting my opinion onto the rest of the UK'? Isn't the point of a discussion to discuss your personal opinion or must I refrain from commenting because I happen to think strictly come dancing is a pile of poo and you think claudia 'needs a haircut' winkleman is brilliant? :D
  - IanCal 13y ago
    Have you heard of BBC4?
    - udp 13y ago
      Literally the only channel I ever watch on television. It's pretty sad that the interesting documentaries have to be relegated to a separate channel so as not to confuse anyone watching BBC 1 or 2 (and BBC 1 and 2 get the HD versions, damn it.)
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Downton Abbey is not BBC, but is ITV. > what I disagree with is that all they produce is more of the SAME content A motoring show, a children's sf show, and a period drama (not produced by the BBC but bought in for BBC to sell abroad) are "the SAME content"?
  - arethuza 13y ago
    I really don't think Top Gear is produced with a view to the US market.
  - tomelders 13y ago
    Forgive me reposting (with some ammends) what I posted above, but I think it's relevant... The BBC runs the worlds largest news broadcasting organisation. It has 3,500 staff, has 44 foreign news bureaux, has correspondents in almost every country, produces 120hrs of radio and television output each day, is the largest news room in europe and runs on £350 million a year. The BBC Natural history Unit produces 100 hours of television and 50 hours of radio every year, and is the largest wildlife production house in the world. It's work is watched by audiences around the globe and has won Emmys, BAFTAs and Prix Italias. It's sports coverage (when it can get the rights) is second to none. The most long lasting and iconic comedies and dramas in British culture were created by and housed at the BBC. The BBC runs for £4.8 Billion a year. Compare that with sky that runs at £5.9 Billion a year. Everything on the BBC is free to licence payers. To get the complete sky Package would cost you £66 per month AND you have to watch adverts AND they still have Pay Per View for anything worth watching AND they produce next to nothing original. The vast majority of it;s content is bought in from the states. Neither ITV, Chanel 4 or 5 offer anything near the quality and quantity that the BBC offer (Although Chanel 4 news is my second choice). And every other digital channel is basically endless reruns of BBC programming (Switch on Dave, $5 says it's a Top Gear rerun).
- apricot13 13y ago
  see me clarifying above :) they produce new content with a mind to the US audience which is my main bugbear with the BBC. They are still producing content.
- ownagefool 13y ago
  No but large swaths of the UK probably don't watch BBC1 or BBC2 on a regular basis as they have a sky or cable and I agree with them, they shouldn't need to fund the BBC if they don't use the content. Reports suggest we'd make 6-7 billion on a sell off. Sell it and put the money towards buying back openreach because an infrastructure is what .gov should do, not content. =p
  - vixen99 13y ago
    Yes, non-UK residents should note that if you, in the UK, only ever want to watch Japanese wrestling on a paid TV channel, you still need to shell out on a BBC annual licence (145 pounds/$220) or face a nasty penalty. This generates income for the BBC of > 3bn sterling.
    - frou_dh 13y ago
      I'm told it's easy enough to either ignore them or get them off your back.
bengillies 13y ago
Just because you aren't a fan of various BBC programmes, doesn't mean that other people aren't either. Many people in the UK really enjoy all the period drama stuff that they show. That the US market also enjoys it is an added bonus. Please don't project your own opinions onto the rest of the UK.
- pedromorgan 13y ago
  I don't, they cost a shit load of money to make, and unlike commercial companies have a guaranteed budget for the TV licence..
  - mmcnickle 13y ago
    A series of Downton Abbey costs approx £12MM and reaches 13MM people in the UK alone[1]. The 2hr pilot episode of LOST cost $12MM[2]. Each episode of Game of Thrones has a budget of $6MM[3]. So no, they don't cost a lot of money to make, relatively speaking. Edit: sources. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8717969/Trench-war-comes-to-Downton-Abbey.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8717969/Trench... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1496199/The-man-who-discovered-Lost-and-found-himself-out-of-a-job.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1... [3] http://www.contactmusic.com/news/game-of-thrones-costs-6-million-per-episode_1333082 http://www.contactmusic.com/news/game-of-thrones-costs-6-mil...
    - garethadams 13y ago
      (although Downton Abbey is an ITV programme)
      - mmcnickle 13y ago
        So it is, my mistake. I got it from a bad source[1]. I think the point still stands though; period dramas are relatively inexpensive to make. [1] http://www.imdb.com/list/0hV86zyDCdo/ http://www.imdb.com/list/0hV86zyDCdo/
cmdkeen 13y ago
Sherlock alone is enough to disprove that hyperbolic statement. They aren't perfect by any means but have managed to produce some gems. They often don't fully appreciate that they are gems when making them mind you.
venomsnake 13y ago
Any institution that has given us the ending of Blackadder Goes Forth (the best 90 seconds of television ever filmed), Top Gear, Red Dwarf, Blake's 7 and The New Statesman and Sherlock just cannot do much wrong in my opinion.
rythie 13y ago
Reminds me a bit of this, what have the BBC ever done for us? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJGRNrbmNc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJGRNrbmNc
Herald_MJ 13y ago
Nonsense. Some counter-examples: * Sherlock * Top Gear * Luther * Life On Mars * Doctor Who * The Thick Of It * In The Flesh * Being Human * Africa I could go on...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

megablast 13y ago

So the BBC is no longer producing content for BBC 1 and 2 in the UK? Don't be ridiculous.

apricot13 13y ago
I never said I didn't like it, I said it was drivel. I'm quite partial to the odd well produced period drama. What I'm trying to say is that recently they tend produce content with a mind to how the US will receive this new content. Dr who, top gear and downton abbey for instance. All of these are popular in the US and while that isn't a bad thing (more money to the BBC to hopefully make more content) what I disagree with is that all they produce is more of the SAME content. They've lost innovation and only make content in a few genres with recurring themes. >> Please don't project your own opinions onto the rest of the UK. how is my stating a personal opinion 'projecting my opinion onto the rest of the UK'? Isn't the point of a discussion to discuss your personal opinion or must I refrain from commenting because I happen to think strictly come dancing is a pile of poo and you think claudia 'needs a haircut' winkleman is brilliant? :D
- IanCal 13y ago
  Have you heard of BBC4?
  - udp 13y ago
    Literally the only channel I ever watch on television. It's pretty sad that the interesting documentaries have to be relegated to a separate channel so as not to confuse anyone watching BBC 1 or 2 (and BBC 1 and 2 get the HD versions, damn it.)
- DanBC 13y ago
  Downton Abbey is not BBC, but is ITV. > what I disagree with is that all they produce is more of the SAME content A motoring show, a children's sf show, and a period drama (not produced by the BBC but bought in for BBC to sell abroad) are "the SAME content"?
- arethuza 13y ago
  I really don't think Top Gear is produced with a view to the US market.
- tomelders 13y ago
  Forgive me reposting (with some ammends) what I posted above, but I think it's relevant... The BBC runs the worlds largest news broadcasting organisation. It has 3,500 staff, has 44 foreign news bureaux, has correspondents in almost every country, produces 120hrs of radio and television output each day, is the largest news room in europe and runs on £350 million a year. The BBC Natural history Unit produces 100 hours of television and 50 hours of radio every year, and is the largest wildlife production house in the world. It's work is watched by audiences around the globe and has won Emmys, BAFTAs and Prix Italias. It's sports coverage (when it can get the rights) is second to none. The most long lasting and iconic comedies and dramas in British culture were created by and housed at the BBC. The BBC runs for £4.8 Billion a year. Compare that with sky that runs at £5.9 Billion a year. Everything on the BBC is free to licence payers. To get the complete sky Package would cost you £66 per month AND you have to watch adverts AND they still have Pay Per View for anything worth watching AND they produce next to nothing original. The vast majority of it;s content is bought in from the states. Neither ITV, Chanel 4 or 5 offer anything near the quality and quantity that the BBC offer (Although Chanel 4 news is my second choice). And every other digital channel is basically endless reruns of BBC programming (Switch on Dave, $5 says it's a Top Gear rerun).
apricot13 13y ago
see me clarifying above :) they produce new content with a mind to the US audience which is my main bugbear with the BBC. They are still producing content.
ownagefool 13y ago
No but large swaths of the UK probably don't watch BBC1 or BBC2 on a regular basis as they have a sky or cable and I agree with them, they shouldn't need to fund the BBC if they don't use the content. Reports suggest we'd make 6-7 billion on a sell off. Sell it and put the money towards buying back openreach because an infrastructure is what .gov should do, not content. =p
- vixen99 13y ago
  Yes, non-UK residents should note that if you, in the UK, only ever want to watch Japanese wrestling on a paid TV channel, you still need to shell out on a BBC annual licence (145 pounds/$220) or face a nasty penalty. This generates income for the BBC of > 3bn sterling.
  - frou_dh 13y ago
    I'm told it's easy enough to either ignore them or get them off your back.

bengillies 13y ago

Just because you aren't a fan of various BBC programmes, doesn't mean that other people aren't either. Many people in the UK really enjoy all the period drama stuff that they show. That the US market also enjoys it is an added bonus. Please don't project your own opinions onto the rest of the UK.

pedromorgan 13y ago
I don't, they cost a shit load of money to make, and unlike commercial companies have a guaranteed budget for the TV licence..
- mmcnickle 13y ago
  A series of Downton Abbey costs approx £12MM and reaches 13MM people in the UK alone[1]. The 2hr pilot episode of LOST cost $12MM[2]. Each episode of Game of Thrones has a budget of $6MM[3]. So no, they don't cost a lot of money to make, relatively speaking. Edit: sources. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8717969/Trench-war-comes-to-Downton-Abbey.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8717969/Trench... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1496199/The-man-who-discovered-Lost-and-found-himself-out-of-a-job.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1... [3] http://www.contactmusic.com/news/game-of-thrones-costs-6-million-per-episode_1333082 http://www.contactmusic.com/news/game-of-thrones-costs-6-mil...
  - garethadams 13y ago
    (although Downton Abbey is an ITV programme)
    - mmcnickle 13y ago
      So it is, my mistake. I got it from a bad source[1]. I think the point still stands though; period dramas are relatively inexpensive to make. [1] http://www.imdb.com/list/0hV86zyDCdo/ http://www.imdb.com/list/0hV86zyDCdo/

cmdkeen 13y ago

Sherlock alone is enough to disprove that hyperbolic statement. They aren't perfect by any means but have managed to produce some gems. They often don't fully appreciate that they are gems when making them mind you.

venomsnake 13y ago

Any institution that has given us the ending of Blackadder Goes Forth (the best 90 seconds of television ever filmed), Top Gear, Red Dwarf, Blake's 7 and The New Statesman and Sherlock just cannot do much wrong in my opinion.

rythie 13y ago

Reminds me a bit of this, what have the BBC ever done for us? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJGRNrbmNc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJGRNrbmNc

Herald_MJ 13y ago

Nonsense. Some counter-examples: * Sherlock * Top Gear * Luther * Life On Mars * Doctor Who * The Thick Of It * In The Flesh * Being Human * Africa I could go on...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]