Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I think you need to extract your head from your metropolitan bottom, dear boy.  |
Like I said I don't see the problem with moving shows across and around the country. I don't mind things moving to Salford and the BBC being all over the country. I just want them to keep something, especially some of the big events, at Television Centre.
Quote:
|
Parliament is hardly comparable, Westminster Hall is almost 1,000 years old which does set TVC's magnificent half-century in a bit of context. Though in point of fact, Westminster Hall is no longer used for the principal business of Parliament and many MPs and committee meetings don't even use the 'newer' (19th century) parts of the Palace of Westminster, making use of the new building over the road, Portcullis House. So even our most venerable institutions, those with properly old buildings, aren't averse to moving on to something newer and more fit for purpose when appropriate.
|
In television terms Television centre is pretty historic. It may be only 50 years but television isn't much older and Television centre has amassed quite a lot of history in that time. Parliament isn't adverse to moving to something newer and I am not advocating the BBC don't do the same, but as Parliament keeps it's historic building for some functions I think the BBC should do the same. The BBC becomes broader and less centralised but it keeps it's historic building for some functions.
Quote:
|
TVC is a very specific building in terms of its design purpose. It was made to facilitate TV production as it was understood when TV production was a new art form. Things have changed in ways that those pioneers could not have imagined. It may not be the nostalgic option, but abandoning TVC is certainly the correct option for a publicly funded body with an obligation to make best use of its resources.
|
You can modernise the inside. There doesn't appear to be much barrier to filming there as we've had new programs broadcasting from there recently. HD and everything. Really the famous outside and the location is what should remain.
Quote:
|
London to Manchester is not far at all, neither by train or by air and, eventually, HS2 will close the gap still further. The only real gap is in the minds of the metropolitan numpties who think riding a tube train to its terminus is a grand adventure.
|
It's not that far no but it is a bit too far for early morning programs. Guests either have to come in from video link, go up the night before or drive from early in the morning. Before guests would need a taxi or tube train they now need that to get to Euston, 2 hours to get to Manchester, and then off to Salford.
We do have Broadcasting House still thankfully.
Quote:
|
You know, this reminds me of when I lived dahn sahth, and watched BBC London run a news report moaning at how two London clubs' fans had to travel UP NORTH, USING THE M1 *AND* THE M6 to Old Trafford for an FA Cup semi final early one Saturday morning. All this was done with a completely straight face and not a trace of irony nor any acknowledgement that northern teams' fans have been getting up early for trips to the grotty London suburb that hosts our national stadium for decades without complaint.
|
Sky have changed a lot of this but games that aren't televised do take into account these issues most of the time. I.E A game in London involving Newcastle would be a 3pm unless it was on TV. The problem is when a televised game, say 12.45pm, involves two teams far from each other. Every football fan moans about this.