|
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
It's not essential but I do think it's important. The BBC has been a strong developer of British writers, directors, comedians and actors. It's presence has a positive effect on all the other channels who need to keep to a certain standard in order not to be absolutely trounced by the Beeb. It also allows other channels not to take advertising revenue for themselves, if the BBC went to an ad-supported network ITV and Channel 4 would find it very difficult indeed.
Go to France and look at the quality of their TV. It's awful. This is a country with a good artistic culture and yet their TV is so devoid of any creativity it's shameful. It's very bad. We would probably follow to extremely cheap to produce TV Studio shows and American importants.
Monty Python?
Yes, Minister?
In the Thick of It?
Planet Earth?
So many of the BBC's nature, science and history series?
The list goes on and how many of those shows would be commissioned when advertising money is king? Planet Earth is simply not possible, it's ratings were never, ever, going to be good enough to recoup the vast investment had. Especially in a country whose population isn't large enough to make enough money from anything considered to be a niche market. We couldn't make a British HBO work for example...
So it's not essential but I think it's very important.
|
Damien
Thats a much better answer than a "Thats rubbish"
Thank you
It would be nice to see Carl's proof for his statement however.
__________________
So you all voted for Labour and now you are shocked they resort to stabbing the pensioners and disabled in the back. Shame on you.
The UK is now the regime of Kim Jong Starmer the UK's dictator
|