- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi, lovely to see someone from our own esteemed broadcasting company here!
I don’t don’t have any of that sort of information to hand here, but I’m sure people like Sadgeezer, Aleck, DalekTek and Valdron will be able to pull something out for you
I am working on a entertainment show that traces stars before they were
famous. We would love to include some clips of stars before they were
famous appearing in sci fi/fantasy/horror films. If anyone could help me with this research please do email me on:quote:
Originally posted by Cat:
Hi, lovely to see someone from our own esteemed broadcasting company here!I don’t don’t have any of that sort of information to hand here, but I’m sure people like Sadgeezer, Aleck, DalekTek and Valdron will be able to pull something out for you
The BBC esteemed….oh please.
Don’t complain, ADM, it could be the ABC. I HATE that channel. Thank god we lost the arial and can’t get the channel anymore!
Besides, what’s wrong with the BBC?quote:
Originally posted by the chameleon:
Don’t complain, ADM, it could be the ABC. I HATE that channel. Thank god we lost the arial and can’t get the channel anymore!
Besides, what’s wrong with the BBC?
The BBC are guilty of unimaginative programming, I’m not banging Sky’s drum, but without them the UK would never have got to see the likes of Buffy and other top Sci-Fi shows as well as anything else the US offers.
They only push the boat out for top movies at Xmas and then it’s only one or two that had been shown on Sky a year before.
For years they used to produce rubbish to suit one age group and think that the constant tirade of cooking, gardening and boring drama’s make good programming, no one could argue with them and they spent the publics money on anything their old fogie directors thought necessary and no one could do anything about it.
Even now they shunt the best the US has to offer to their secondary channel and are two seasons behind Sky.
They refuse to pay for top sporting events claiming it’s a waste of tax-payers money, they even consider our main sport (football) to be wasteful and that’s just the highlights!!!
They still arrogantly believe that they are the top dog in UK broadcasting, when it’s obvious they are a fading dinosaur with no idea.
They waste more money on digital channels in which no one has any interest in and then have the nerve to up the licence fee, these channels are re-runs of what the main channel shows and 24 hour news, they have absolutely no idea, the eveings programming is so predictable it’s laughable.
Sky will invest in new shows that are not just on it’s sister Fox network and frankly I am glad to pay for Sky’s service than the BBC’s, but becuase of the BBC you have to pay the BBC to watch Sky!!!, the BBC never invests in new American shows, they wait until the price goes down and then bid for rights…yet the money they get does allow them to bid for new shows, but they never do.
This ‘What actors/actresses did before they were famous’ has been done by them time and again and as usual they are trying to cut costs by coming here and asking someone else to do the donkey work for them, so they waste more money on god awful programming.
Everyone knows that the target audience is the 16-35 age group, yet the BBC’s is more like 35-80, and they continue to bore younger viewers to death.
I never watch the BBC (except for two comedy programmes) as it hasn’t changed since I was born, one day the government will wake up and realise that the BBC has ripped off it’s viewers for an eternity and scrap it’s licence fee, and when they do the BBC will die the death it so richly deserves.
ADMThe BBC has brought us Dr Who, Red Dwarf and the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide, all of which have their own forums here.
quote:
Everyone knows that the target audience is the 16-35 age group
Target audience for whom? Oh, you must mean for the advertisers–I guess that’s the group they can get money out of most easily.
While I’m not in the UK, there are similar issues with public television in all countries. They program for a much wider audience range than commercial TV (usually their charter demands it). And imagine the outcry if a network funded by tax monies started buying programming for top dollar from abroad instead of encouraging domestic production.
It just doesn’t work that way.So you got both; watch Sky now–when you’re
36 you can switch to the BBC.
elmey
[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: elmey ]
[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: elmey ]
quote:
Originally posted by elmey:
Target audience for whom? Oh, you must mean for the advertisers–I guess that’s the group they can get money out of most easily.
Not at all, the only time advertising changes is during the day to appeal to housewives and the afternoons for the kids, in the evenings the advertising has no preference.
While I’m not in the UK, there are similar issues with public television in all countries. They program for a much wider audience range than commercial TV (usually their charter demands it). And imagine the outcry if a network funded by tax monies started buying programming for top dollar from abroad instead of encouraging domestic production.
It just doesn’t work that way.Yes I imagine there are issues in other countries, but that does not mean that the BBC are less guilty of what I’ve said against them.
Like I said, the BBC, as the only broadcaster with sufficient funds ten years ago could have created a satellite network, but were not prepared to offer more than the rubbish they provided, it was obvious they were thinking they had it easy so why change it?
As for not paying top dollar for American shows, well that’s rubbish, as if they had invested early on the price of these shows would have been cheap in comparison today.
Sky has been successful because they did invest and have reaped the awards, and even though they have to pay a large sum of money to secure the top US shows they are in position to do so due to them changing the face of UK broadcasting by bringing the best the US has to offer to this country.
The BBC was influenced by the ridiculous old fogies who did not want to see US T.V because of their predigist views.
And although their charter may have to offer a broad range of T.V, it is still not offering variety and quality and this just has not changed.
So we’ve already had the outcry against foreign T.V over U.K productions, but Sky does not suffer from this even though it’s subscribers pay £35.00 per month to watch. True that you’ve got to accomodate for the older viewers, but their main channel should be made for the 18-35’s who tend to watch more T.V during the weekday evenings and the older viewers watching on the second channel.
And this country has no imagination when it comes to programming, all the dramas are about hospitals or cops, or the dreary lives of people in Manchester, Liverpool or London. The truth is, is that this country is awful at making a good action series or sci-fi, that’s why we are grateful to America for those shows.So you got both; watch Sky now–when you’re
36 you can switch to the BBC.Well, I’m 32 now and I can’t see my opinion change at 36, I’ve lived through 20 years of pure crap from the BBC and I’m justified in saying it hasn’t changed, many of my generation looked on hoping for something more interesting to come along, and then our prayers were answered with Sky.
I find nothing even remotely interesting on the BBC aside from two comedy shows and like many others are angry that we have to pay for a service we don’t like, we should get the choice to not pay for it and not watch it, but instead the BBC uses the claim that a colour T.V licence pays for it’s radio and permission to use the T.V in the first place, I’m sorry but they do make enough money to have created their own satellite service to offer a better choice, but they still get it wrong while more people sign up to sky to get a better product,
ADM[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: elmey ]
[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: elmey ]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.