Some people talk to their plants. In Melbourne, they email the trees. This became possible thanks to a decision to map every tree in the city and give it a unique ID number....
About 3,000 emails have been sent to individual trees in the last two years. This didn't start out as an exercise in sentiment, but a hard-headed attempt by Melbourne city council to manage an urban forest in decline - as a result of drought, by 2009 40% of the 77,000 trees in Australia's "garden city" were struggling or dying.
"Many of these trees were in a severe state of decline and we were staring down the barrel of losing up to 50% of our beautiful tree population. That would have fundamentally changed the way that Melbourne looked, the way it performed environmentally, the way people felt about it socially and even economically as well," says councillor Arron Wood, who leads on the environment.
"So what we did is we actually mapped all the trees in the city… In doing so we had to assign each of them an individual tree ID and it was a logical step then to allow our residents to actually interact on a digital platform. And they could email whether a tree was dropping limbs or if it was in a severe state of decline and we could easily locate that tree and come out and intervene."
Sounds like the important messages ("water me") are getting drowned in the chaff. No doubt they could have hired a few more gardeners to actually maintain them for the amount of money it cost to set up and run this system
Another key electoral challenge facing Farron and the LibDems is Holyrood 2016. Theoretically a revived LibDem party should do well in centre left Scotland, particularly as they are now free of the shackles of the coalition.
It was interesting to note in yesterday's YouGov poll on party distrust ratings among their GE2015 supporters that the LibDems came out worst. In Scotland the LibDems have a major trust issue - Carmichael.
The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71% Should not resign: 14% Don’t know: 15%
If the LibDems are indeed listening to the voters, on this issue they are choosing to ignore them. If the LibDems are serious about ever recovering in Scotland, they need to start walking the talk or they'll likely face virtual extinction in Holyrood 2016 and be lucky if they win a couple of list seats.
Outside of Orkney Carmichael's position will be a non-issue (and as he is not the MSP there it may not even be that big of an issue there) and the LDs may even benefit from some unionist tactical voting in the Highlands on the constituency vote if the SNP press for indyref2 in their manifesto and campaign
Realistically even Farron has said the best the LDs are aiming for is 20-25 seats in 2020 and those will be mainly in the Southwest, Southeast and London suburbs and gained through the return of voters from Labour and the Greens in Tory-LD marginals, so this result will encourage them a little
The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.
Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.
I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)
That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax
Only saying...
All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.
If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Your cake is a non-sequitur but wherever it finds the cash, the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its executives, lighting engineers and television cameras. That's how markets work.
Lighting engineers and cameras? It hardly has any. Most production has been outsourced, and they're forever scrabbling about trying to find studio space and equipment having foolishly disposed of TVC.
There's never a lack of Executives mind you - thousands of 'em. The market rate should be reduced, there's hardly a shortage of pen pushers at Broadcasting House.
I spent 20mins last week looking at the total output of BBC1 and BBC2 using the onscreen menu.
There was one programme on BBC1 that I'd watch maybe, and three on BBC2 maybe. One-ish if really bored on BBC3 and five on BBC4.
I happily watch More4, ITVs various incarnations, C4, Travel, Spike, Tru and Pick for everything else and Sky for news. I have no need for the BBC at all and the docs I do catch on there are all timeshifted.
I presume that channels which beam the same show multiple times a week is to accommodate people like me who timeshift. And in certain primetime slots - there are more than two things I'd like to record/see.
So they're broadcast again on different days/diff times so I can catch them. That's different to *repeats* which are old shows getting another go.
Most of BBC4 is full of both - recentish [last three yrs] repeats multiple broadcasts and new stuff multiple broadcasts - and it's only on air for a few hours a day.
"As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules."
Absolutely 100% not true....e.g. BBC3 only operates from 7pm until ~1am, and I think it is showing like 70% repeats.
The idea that all shows need to be on free to air channels is and / or that you need to repeat a show multiple times throughout the week e.g. BBC did it with Top Gear, The Apprentice etc also totally outdated now
Already trialed by the BBC is doing iPlayer only shows or shows which they show first on iPlayer.
I can't recall the last time I watched a live programme on BBC1 or BBC2. It was probably Poldark or Jamaica Inn. Most of it is a load of shite.
My wife likes E4 and More4. I (on the very rare occasion I watch live TV) peruse ITV2, Dave, BBC4 and Yesterday more than anything else.
More often than not, I'm not too inspired there either, so head to Amazon Prime where we can watch all sorts of stuff for £80 a year.
I don't feel strongly about the BBC one way or the other and watch very little TV anyway. But last night I did catch Newsnight and was annoyed that so much time was spent talking about the BBC. Incidentally Purnell did his case no favours at all by how he presented it. He came across as quasi-hysterical.
The BBC is doubtless of consuming interest to its own staff. Much less so to the rest of us. I watch news programmes to learn about the world not about the organisation presenting them.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
The BBC survives on sentimentality. We all remember how wonderful it used to be, how it was part of our lives. It's a bit like refusing to take an arthritic, incontinent dog to the vets for the final time...
To see just how wrong the licence fee now is, imagine there was no licence fee - but an MP was proposing legislation to put it in place:
"You want me to do WHAT? Pay £147 a year to a channel a barely watch? Why? Next you'll be saying although I drive a BMW, I should also pay £100 a year to Ford, "to ensure there is a continuation of consumer choice...." And if I don't, it's off to chokey? Bollocks to that."
He's certainly not afraid to get stuck in to his brief! Like he did with Education, it looks like Michael Gove will be setting the direction and strategy early in the Parliament and letting it play out. There's certainly a lot to do in Justice, his comments on prisoner education in particular are very encouraging.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
Yes. It's absolutely pathetic.
Well, can't blame Freeman or Cumberbatch on doing movies, but Moffat is trying to juggle two many shows.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
GoT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sherlock
Some people talk to their plants. In Melbourne, they email the trees. This became possible thanks to a decision to map every tree in the city and give it a unique ID number....
About 3,000 emails have been sent to individual trees in the last two years. This didn't start out as an exercise in sentiment, but a hard-headed attempt by Melbourne city council to manage an urban forest in decline - as a result of drought, by 2009 40% of the 77,000 trees in Australia's "garden city" were struggling or dying.
"Many of these trees were in a severe state of decline and we were staring down the barrel of losing up to 50% of our beautiful tree population. That would have fundamentally changed the way that Melbourne looked, the way it performed environmentally, the way people felt about it socially and even economically as well," says councillor Arron Wood, who leads on the environment.
"So what we did is we actually mapped all the trees in the city… In doing so we had to assign each of them an individual tree ID and it was a logical step then to allow our residents to actually interact on a digital platform. And they could email whether a tree was dropping limbs or if it was in a severe state of decline and we could easily locate that tree and come out and intervene."
Sounds like the important messages ("water me") are getting drowned in the chaff. No doubt they could have hired a few more gardeners to actually maintain them for the amount of money it cost to set up and run this system
Surely it is little different to asset numbers on lampposts, which are fairly common over here?It makes it easy to report faults and to log maintenance.
Was not taken at all with the last series of Sherlock. Nepotastic, and it just became Mr and Mrs Holmes and their quirky friend Sherlock, who conveniently forgets things when it serves the plot.
If you'd seen my reply to @Philip_Thompson, you'd know I just mentioned Sherlock off the top of my head, it was an example of programming that I, and people I know liked - thus the 'e.g' part of my post. It isn't the only content produced by the BBC I enjoy watching. So I don't know where that 'absolutely pathetic' comment comes from - whether it's regarding only 3 episodes produced, or something else....
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
Yes. It's absolutely pathetic.
Well, can't blame Freeman or Cumberbatch on doing movies, but Moffat is trying to juggle two many shows.
That's the standard excuse, and there is something in it, but other networks don't struggle to secure major actors to commit to an annual 10-season show. All of which are good.
It should be possible for the BBC to write 6 good Sherlock episodes, and film them, each year. The BBC seem slow and a bit lazy on this to be honest.
I don't feel strongly about the BBC one way or the other and watch very little TV anyway. But last night I did catch Newsnight and was annoyed that so much time was spent talking about the BBC. Incidentally Purnell did his case no favours at all by how he presented it. He came across as quasi-hysterical.
The BBC is doubtless of consuming interest to its own staff. Much less so to the rest of us. I watch news programmes to learn about the world not about the organisation presenting them.
Mail are suggesting that it wasn't just Cohen involved in the lobbying letter, they are now also pointing fingers at Purnell.
Was not taken at all with the last series of Sherlock. Nepotastic, and it just became Mr and Mrs Holmes and their quirky friend Sherlock, who conveniently forgets things when it serves the plot.
If you'd seen my reply to @Philip_Thompson, you'd know I just mentioned Sherlock off the top of my head, it was an example of programming that I, and people I know liked - thus the 'e.g' part of my post. It isn't the only content produced by the BBC I enjoy watching. So I don't know where that 'absolutely pathetic' comment comes from - whether it's regarding only 3 episodes produced, or something else....
I really like Sherlock too, but the rate of the episodes is very low. Which is fine, it makes each one special, but you can't compare it to shows which have provided much more.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
Yes. It's absolutely pathetic.
Well, can't blame Freeman or Cumberbatch on doing movies, but Moffat is trying to juggle two many shows.
That's the standard excuse, and there is something in it, but other networks don't struggle to secure major actors to commit to an annual 10-season show. All of which are good.
It should be possible for the BBC to write 6 good Sherlock episodes, and film them, each year. The BBC seem slow and a bit lazy on this to be honest.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
Yes. It's absolutely pathetic.
Well, can't blame Freeman or Cumberbatch on doing movies, but Moffat is trying to juggle two many shows.
Freeman hasn't just done movies he has been doing tv as well e.g Fargo on FX.
Again this is another problem for the BBC. Demand is for box sets, for 10-20 episodes per season, with a new season at least once a year. It used to be argued this would dilute quality, but HBO have shown this to be the opposite.
We are consuming more content, so we need more new content and the likes of HBO, FX, AMC are producing it in droves and to incredibly high quality in visuals, story, music, fx, etc...all the stuff that used to be exclusive to big budget movies.
That is the way the world is going. The BBC with very short seasons again risk missing out.
Was not taken at all with the last series of Sherlock. Nepotastic, and it just became Mr and Mrs Holmes and their quirky friend Sherlock, who conveniently forgets things when it serves the plot.
It's overrated just like Dr Who.
Best recent BBC drama series - Wolfhall and Poldark.
The BBC do some things very well - but too much time wasted on self promotion and patting themselves on the back. Also when they try to change trusted formula - like tv sports coverage it invariably goes wrong because of management meddling. BBC radio sports coverage is far better than commercial stations.
If you'd seen my reply to @Philip_Thompson, you'd know I just mentioned Sherlock off the top of my head, it was an example of programming that I, and people I know liked - thus the 'e.g' part of my post. It isn't the only content produced by the BBC I enjoy watching. So I don't know where that 'absolutely pathetic' comment comes from - whether it's regarding only 3 episodes produced, or something else....
I really like Sherlock too, but the rate of the episodes is very low. Which is fine, it makes each one special, but you can't compare it to shows which have provided much more.
At the time I wasn't directly comparing it Game of Thrones, though - it was something brought up in response to my post.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
Yes. It's absolutely pathetic.
Well, can't blame Freeman or Cumberbatch on doing movies, but Moffat is trying to juggle two many shows.
Freeman hasn't just done movies he has been doing tv as well e.g Fargo on FX.
Again this is another problem for the BBC. Demand is for box sets, for 10-20 episodes per season, with a new season at least once a year. It used to be argued this would dilute quality, but HBO have shown this to be the opposite.
We are consuming more content, so we need more new content and the likes of HBO, FX, AMC are producing it in droves. That is the way the world is going. The BBC with very short seasons again risk missing out.
The money is moving out of cinema and into box-set telly. The stars are following the money.
If you'd seen my reply to @Philip_Thompson, you'd know I just mentioned Sherlock off the top of my head, it was an example of programming that I, and people I know liked - thus the 'e.g' part of my post. It isn't the only content produced by the BBC I enjoy watching. So I don't know where that 'absolutely pathetic' comment comes from - whether it's regarding only 3 episodes produced, or something else....
It's the fact the BBC churn out such a tiny number of episodes, so very infrequently, of a show that's extremely popular.
I know all the pressures and excuses, but I find that a bit pathetic.
Incidentally, whilst Sherlock is good fun, even some of the plotlines can be a bit contorted sometimes, which suggests less than perfect writing despite all that time to get it right.
I remember one episode where a tube train disappeared with a bomb and there was nowhere it could seemingly go, leading to an interesting mystery.
Later in the show, the tube controller operater suddenly 'remembered' a secret tunnel where it could be. Low and behold, it was there!
No, I am not. I am merely disagreeing with you. Most freeview channels do not show original material. I support the BBC moving to a subscription base. It would probably end up saving me a good deal of money.
SO: you have rather changed your tune. In the past we've had discussion where I've pointed out that the BBC licence fee model is unsustainable in the long term, and you've got rather upset about it.
Even the BBC are saying that now.
As for subscription model: it'll be hard (impossible?) to do without everyone having to get new decoder boxes, just a few years after the digital switchover forced millions to get new boxes. It'll be very unpopular, and many would not bother if Freeview continued without needing conditional access.
It's a shame the BBC and the government didn't bite the bullet and ensure that the boxes were futureproof back then. But there were a myriad of reasons they did not.
I think you would struggle to find any PB thread on which I have defended the current BBC licensing model. I have been entirely consistent in saying it should not be compulsory. If you do not want access to BBC programmes you should not have to pay for them and you should not have access to them.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't struggle, but I don't have time atm.
ISTR it ended up with you suggesting signals should somehow be blocked from peoples' homes.
You would struggle because I have never supported the current licence fee arrangement. If people do not want to watch or listen to BBC programmes they should not have to pay the licence fee. The corollary of that, of course, is that they should not have access to the programming.
It'd be fascinating to know how say other broadcasters spend their money re productivity. The BBC get several billion a year plus whatever BBC Worldwide makes.
The output of dramas seems incredibly low with a handful or less of shows per season compared to the 20+ of many hit dramas in the US/often shot in Canada.
Was not taken at all with the last series of Sherlock. Nepotastic, and it just became Mr and Mrs Holmes and their quirky friend Sherlock, who conveniently forgets things when it serves the plot.
It's overrated just like Dr Who.
Best recent BBC drama series - Wolfhall and Poldark.
The BBC do some things very well - but too much time wasted on self promotion and patting themselves on the back. Also when they try to change trusted formula - like tv sports coverage it invariably goes wrong because of management meddling. BBC radio sports coverage is far better than commercial stations.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
Yes. It's absolutely pathetic.
Well, can't blame Freeman or Cumberbatch on doing movies, but Moffat is trying to juggle two many shows.
That's the standard excuse, and there is something in it, but other networks don't struggle to secure major actors to commit to an annual 10-season show. All of which are good.
It should be possible for the BBC to write 6 good Sherlock episodes, and film them, each year. The BBC seem slow and a bit lazy on this to be honest.
Trying to give the BBC an attainable goal. They are (90 minute?) episodes, rather than an hour, so broadly the same as a U.S. 10 x hour-long episode miniseries.
It should also be integrateable with the schedules of Cumberbatch and Freeman, if planned properly.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
Yes. It's absolutely pathetic.
Well, can't blame Freeman or Cumberbatch on doing movies, but Moffat is trying to juggle two many shows.
Freeman hasn't just done movies he has been doing tv as well e.g Fargo on FX.
Again this is another problem for the BBC. Demand is for box sets, for 10-20 episodes per season, with a new season at least once a year. It used to be argued this would dilute quality, but HBO have shown this to be the opposite.
We are consuming more content, so we need more new content and the likes of HBO, FX, AMC are producing it in droves. That is the way the world is going. The BBC with very short seasons again risk missing out.
The money is moving out of cinema and into box-set telly. The stars are following the money.
Not just actors, directors e.g. the whole lot. Boardwalk Empire involved Martin Scorsese, Mark Wahlberg and Tim Van Patten. The first episode was directed by Scorsese and cost $18 million. Subsequent episodes reportedly cost $5 million a pop.
Was not taken at all with the last series of Sherlock. Nepotastic, and it just became Mr and Mrs Holmes and their quirky friend Sherlock, who conveniently forgets things when it serves the plot.
Compare and contrast Sherlock Holmes TV series
BBC Sherlock - 3 seasons, 9 episodes - made with a licence fee on threat of imprisonment. CBS Elementary - 3 seasons, 72 episodes - made commercially.
It'd be fascinating to know how say other broadcasters spend their money re productivity. The BBC get several billion a year plus whatever BBC Worldwide makes.
The output of dramas seems incredibly low with a handful or less of shows per season compared to the 20+ of many hit dramas in the US/often shot in Canada.
Was not taken at all with the last series of Sherlock. Nepotastic, and it just became Mr and Mrs Holmes and their quirky friend Sherlock, who conveniently forgets things when it serves the plot.
It's overrated just like Dr Who.
Best recent BBC drama series - Wolfhall and Poldark.
The BBC do some things very well - but too much time wasted on self promotion and patting themselves on the back. Also when they try to change trusted formula - like tv sports coverage it invariably goes wrong because of management meddling. BBC radio sports coverage is far better than commercial stations.
To be fair they churn out plenty of episodes of their other top show - Top Gear..
Why would the LDs be interested in 'campaigning'? What for?? The comments in the article about the LDs are absurd. Just what is the point of the LDs? They have had one main selling point, one clarion call - PR, ie coalitions. The nation has voted against it and when actually given an opportunity to be a part of govt with some influence for their opinions - they proved themselves not interested in it. So why vote for them? Their whole existence and interest is in the avoidance of choices. The only likely result in voting LD is to give a leg up to Labour who themselves are likely to be beholden to the SNP. So why not if you are so inclined simply vote Labour in the first place?
MP's win surveillance powers challenge - Oh, dear, more policies coming off the rails.
David Davis and Tom Watson have successfully challenged the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, basically 2 MP's defeating Government policy through the courts rather than the voting lobby.
If this is the start of the new administration, it is definitely going to be fun watching what is going to happen next.
Possibly, IDS being challenged by a massive petition to deliver the information of the number of people who have died and/or committed suicide due to the delays and incompetence of his Universal Credit system.
The Standard made the point last night that the BBC does a great deal for Britain's 'brand' and influence in the world and I think that is fair.
One example: Obama/Attenborough. I'm sure there are countless US people who can recount stories of being stunned and inspired by some completely out of left field show from the Beeb.
I remember Trey Parker talking about Monty Python's influence , for example.
He's certainly not afraid to get stuck in to his brief! Like he did with Education, it looks like Michael Gove will be setting the direction and strategy early in the Parliament and letting it play out. There's certainly a lot to do in Justice, his comments on prisoner education in particular are very encouraging.
Gove is prepared to ruffle alot of feathers, but is not vindictive for the sake of it as Grayling often appears to come across.
The Standard made the point last night that the BBC does a great deal for Britain's 'brand' and influence in the world and I think that is fair.
One example: Obama/Attenborough. I'm sure there are countless US people who can recount stories of being stunned and inspired by some completely out of left field show from the Beeb.
I remember Trey Parker talking about Monty Python's influence , for example.
All examples from the long gone past when virtually all British TV was BBC. I don't think Monty Python had much competition from Sky did it?
Britain's number one talked about global drama export is probably Game of Thrones now which is Sky. Even David Attenborough makes shows for Sky now! Last Christmas David Attenborough's Conquest of the Sky was a documentary for Sky, not the BBC.
It'd be fascinating to know how say other broadcasters spend their money re productivity. The BBC get several billion a year plus whatever BBC Worldwide makes.
The output of dramas seems incredibly low with a handful or less of shows per season compared to the 20+ of many hit dramas in the US/often shot in Canada.
Was not taken at all with the last series of Sherlock. Nepotastic, and it just became Mr and Mrs Holmes and their quirky friend Sherlock, who conveniently forgets things when it serves the plot.
It's overrated just like Dr Who.
Best recent BBC drama series - Wolfhall and Poldark.
The BBC do some things very well - but too much time wasted on self promotion and patting themselves on the back. Also when they try to change trusted formula - like tv sports coverage it invariably goes wrong because of management meddling. BBC radio sports coverage is far better than commercial stations.
To be fair they churn out plenty of episodes of their other top show - Top Gear..
Most seasons of Top Gear were only 6-7 episodes...it is just there are 22 seasons of the show that gives you the impression of a lot more activity than there really was. In recent years the numbers of episodes produced per year has been reduced.
One issue about the BBC that is a major concern to newspapers and regional media folk is the amount of money and scope of the BBC's online material. How could that be legitimately limited?
Is it a simple cash limit spend such as £10m per year? Or is it a % limit based on the overall revenue?
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
thats also 3 episodes every about 3 years or so...
Yes. It's absolutely pathetic.
Well, can't blame Freeman or Cumberbatch on doing movies, but Moffat is trying to juggle two many shows.
Freeman hasn't just done movies he has been doing tv as well e.g Fargo on FX.
Again this is another problem for the BBC. Demand is for box sets, for 10-20 episodes per season, with a new season at least once a year. It used to be argued this would dilute quality, but HBO have shown this to be the opposite.
We are consuming more content, so we need more new content and the likes of HBO, FX, AMC are producing it in droves. That is the way the world is going. The BBC with very short seasons again risk missing out.
The money is moving out of cinema and into box-set telly. The stars are following the money.
Not just actors, directors e.g. the whole lot. Boardwalk Empire involved Martin Scorsese, Mark Wahlberg and Tim Van Patten. The first episode was directed by Scorsese and cost $18 million. Subsequent episodes reportedly cost $5 million a pop.
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Why would the LDs be interested in 'campaigning'? What for?? The comments in the article about the LDs are absurd. Just what is the point of the LDs? They have had one main selling point, one clarion call - PR, ie coalitions. The nation has voted against it and when actually given an opportunity to be a part of govt with some influence for their opinions - they proved themselves not interested in it. So why vote for them? Their whole existence and interest is in the avoidance of choices. The only likely result in voting LD is to give a leg up to Labour who themselves are likely to be beholden to the SNP. So why not if you are so inclined simply vote Labour in the first place?
The Standard made the point last night that the BBC does a great deal for Britain's 'brand' and influence in the world and I think that is fair.
One example: Obama/Attenborough. I'm sure there are countless US people who can recount stories of being stunned and inspired by some completely out of left field show from the Beeb.
I remember Trey Parker talking about Monty Python's influence , for example.
All examples from the long gone past when virtually all British TV was BBC. I don't think Monty Python had much competition from Sky did it?
Britain's number one talked about global drama export is probably Game of Thrones now which is Sky. Even David Attenborough makes shows for Sky now! Last Christmas David Attenborough's Conquest of the Sky was a documentary for Sky, not the BBC.
Isn't GoT an American TV series...or at least that's what Google says....
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Rubbish. US channels consistently produce 22 episode series of quality just as good as Sherlock year in year out. And Sherlock is not 3 episodes a year. It is 3 episodes every 2 years. Or in the case of season 4 every 3 years.
The idea that BBC drama production is something enviable is about 2 decades out of date.
OK - otter then. Still not the greatest actor in the world. Nowhere close. I find him pretty uwatchable, frankly. And all Sherlock Holmes related stuff is a terrible bore.
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
I think a good analogy to this debate of amount of content produced etc is with the music industry. Back in the day, a popular band would produce an album often with a load of filler every 3 years on a cycle of 1 year off, 1 year writing / recording, 1 year touring.
Again the advent of streaming services with as much as you can eat business model means that you will see artists constantly touring and producing new content. There are only a very very select number of artist who can continue to just sit back and take 1-2 years off in the cycle.
Even massive bands like Metallica, although haven't produced much new content, are touring every year now, where as before you might get them in the UK every 3 years. I think they have done Europe every year for the past 5 years.
Plenty of middle level bands are now doing 150-200 shows a year worldwide every single year. Again people want more new content and more new experiences.
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Rubbish. US channels consistently produce 24 episode series of quality just as good as Sherlock year in year out. And Sherlock is not 3 episodes a year. It is 3 episodes every 2 years. Or in the case of season 4 every 3 years.
The idea that BBC drama production is something enviable is about 2 decades out of date.
Three being the key word, Richard. It's the flexibility to do three in a series - as opposed to 24 - that allows us to see programmes such as Sherlock. They would not be made otherwise as they do not fit with the longer series format of subscription based or commercial TV.
I don't envy BBC production, I am thankful for it. It provides me with a great deal of pleasure each year. I also enjoy the longer US series. It's great to have the choice.
OK - otter then. Still not the greatest actor in the world. Nowhere close. I find him pretty uwatchable, frankly. And all Sherlock Holmes related stuff is a terrible bore.
He was *this* close to winning an Oscar this year.
My biggest complaint with the BBC concerns BBC London. I live in Woking, so I'm right on the edge of the BBC London area. The news programmes are almost exclusively about Greater London - it takes a lot to get them to come outside of the GLA boundaries, even though they are responsible for covering news in places like Woking. And the 18:30 programme regularly provides a free advertisement for London's theatres.
But what really annoys me is the London section of the Sunday Politics. This is exclusively about Greater London. Not once have I ever seen them discuss an issue that relates to something outside of the GLA. Now maybe the decision to flatten a perfectly good council estate in Woking to be replaced by higher density housing (of lower quality) isn't important. But councils like Woking can do what they like safe in the knowledge that the BBC don't care.
The Standard made the point last night that the BBC does a great deal for Britain's 'brand' and influence in the world and I think that is fair.
One example: Obama/Attenborough. I'm sure there are countless US people who can recount stories of being stunned and inspired by some completely out of left field show from the Beeb.
I remember Trey Parker talking about Monty Python's influence , for example.
All examples from the long gone past when virtually all British TV was BBC. I don't think Monty Python had much competition from Sky did it?
Britain's number one talked about global drama export is probably Game of Thrones now which is Sky. Even David Attenborough makes shows for Sky now! Last Christmas David Attenborough's Conquest of the Sky was a documentary for Sky, not the BBC.
Isn't GoT an American TV series...or at least that's what Google says....
Fair enough its HBO but filmed in Northern Ireland. Global co-operation on producing quality. Without needing to imprison any grannies.
Then Downton Abbey would be the UK's number one drama export I expect.
The Standard made the point last night that the BBC does a great deal for Britain's 'brand' and influence in the world and I think that is fair.
One example: Obama/Attenborough. I'm sure there are countless US people who can recount stories of being stunned and inspired by some completely out of left field show from the Beeb.
I remember Trey Parker talking about Monty Python's influence , for example.
All examples from the long gone past when virtually all British TV was BBC. I don't think Monty Python had much competition from Sky did it?
Britain's number one talked about global drama export is probably Game of Thrones now which is Sky. Even David Attenborough makes shows for Sky now! Last Christmas David Attenborough's Conquest of the Sky was a documentary for Sky, not the BBC.
Isn't GoT an American TV series...or at least that's what Google says....
Yes, it's produced by HBO, albeit, most of the filming takes place in Northern Ireland, and its heavily dependent on British actors.
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Again, I am sorry you don't understand. Producing six one hour shows in a series is not the same as producing three longer, standalone 90 minute TV films. In terms of content, plot and character development etc it's a completely different proposition.
The thing about the BBC controversy is that it's very much a Westminster specialty for political nerds. Most people don't feel that strongly - they mostly like the BBC and think it's a useful part of Britain's image to have it, though not to the exclusion of others, and only the very obstreperous really put reluctance to pay the licence fee to the point of going to jail. Left-wingers think it's biased to the right, right-wingers think it's biased to the left, but Joe Bloggs doesn't really care.
Like fox-hunting (pro or con), it's the sort of thing that governments get mired in at their peril, because they risk people saying they're preoccupied with unimportant stuff while vital issue X is neglected.
To be more positive,. I think Gove has made a really good start in his new job, scrapping some rubbish Grayling decisions and signalling that he wants to tackle the scandal of recidivism and lack of serious training in prisons properly. If he actually makes progress in this, he'll be doing us all a real service.
One sneaky way that BBC radio pushes its channels is by controlling the travel advisories. When this is activated in my car, it switches to each travel advisory in the locality. Sounds fine but the start of the actual travel info is usually topped and tailed by the relevant BBC radio station occupying the space in an attempt to attract me over to their broadcast.
I thought the re-energising of the touring market was that the % of money to be made simply making albums was reducing and touring has become the cash cow for bands - especially for those [like Metallica] who are performing archive content.
I think a good analogy to this debate of amount of content produced etc is with the music industry. Back in the day, a popular band would produce an album often with a load of filler every 3 years on a cycle of 1 year off, 1 year writing / recording, 1 year touring.
Again the advent of streaming services with as much as you can eat business model means that you will see artists constantly touring and producing new content. There are only a very very select number of artist who can continue to just sit back and take 1-2 years off in the cycle.
Even massive bands like Metallica, although haven't produced much new content, are touring every year now, where as before you might get them in the UK every 3 years. I think they have done Europe every year for the past 5 years.
Plenty of middle level bands are now doing 150-200 shows a year worldwide every single year. Again people want more new content and more new experiences.
I think a good analogy to this debate of amount of content produced etc is with the music industry. Back in the day, a popular band would produce an album often with a load of filler every 3 years on a cycle of 1 year off, 1 year writing / recording, 1 year touring.
Again the advent of streaming services with as much as you can eat business model means that you will see artists constantly touring and producing new content. There are only a very very select number of artist who can continue to just sit back and take 1-2 years off in the cycle.
Even massive bands like Metallica, although haven't produced much new content, are touring every year now, where as before you might get them in the UK every 3 years. I think they have done Europe every year for the past 5 years.
Plenty of middle level bands are now doing 150-200 shows a year worldwide every single year. Again people want more new content and more new experiences.
The rise in touring is as much to do with the shift in revenue as anything else. Streaming and downloading (illegal and legal) have reduced the cost of music and increased the availability. Bands now must tour to make money. The music they release is more of an advert for the band than a reliable revenue stream.
This idea that Sherlock is some unique triumph is bizarre. It's well made entertainment, 3 episodes every two years. US TV networks churn out multiple shows at 10 or 20 episodes a year of comparable, or often better quality. Where's our equivalent of The Wire, Breaking Bad, The West Wing etc? There's not been anything remotely of that class.
Was not taken at all with the last series of Sherlock. Nepotastic, and it just became Mr and Mrs Holmes and their quirky friend Sherlock, who conveniently forgets things when it serves the plot.
I tend to agree with you about Sherlock. (I think you mean Mr and Mrs Watson BTW) its run a bit out of steam - or perhaps taken the wrong fork in the road. It was a good idea, a brilliant conceit well put together, and it effectively discovered a star actor in Cumberbach who was ideal as Holmes. Plus with good production values and a good Watson it looked set fair. So far so good, this is after all what the BBC should be doing. However its creators allowed themselves to become self indulgent. And as you say nepotisctic. Perhaps it was always like this and the little spark of originality hid it from view. The usual favoured band of luvvies turn up in the cast, the plots become over stylised and Freeman's mannerisms increasingly get in the way. As so often with the BBC they do not want to charm us, they descend into daring us to enjoy their sly prejudices.
I think a good analogy to this debate of amount of content produced etc is with the music industry. Back in the day, a popular band would produce an album often with a load of filler every 3 years on a cycle of 1 year off, 1 year writing / recording, 1 year touring.
Again the advent of streaming services with as much as you can eat business model means that you will see artists constantly touring and producing new content. There are only a very very select number of artist who can continue to just sit back and take 1-2 years off in the cycle.
Even massive bands like Metallica, although haven't produced much new content, are touring every year now, where as before you might get them in the UK every 3 years. I think they have done Europe every year for the past 5 years.
Plenty of middle level bands are now doing 150-200 shows a year worldwide every single year. Again people want more new content and more new experiences.
The rise in touring is as much to do with the shift in revenue as anything else. Streaming and downloading (illegal and legal) have reduced the cost of music and increased the availability. Bands now must tour to make money. The music they release is more of an advert for the band than a reliable revenue stream.
Correct....and the same is true in tv. Gone are the days when your moving picture box gave you 3-4 channels and perhaps you had one of those video tape recording boxes.
Now choice is unlimited, and it is not limited by country or region, or time that you wish to watch, or location you wish to watch it, etc.
Now unlike music you can't just go touring, but you have to instead produce more content, and the bar is being set at very high standards by the likes of HBO, AMC and FX. Again, we aren't talking about a world where those are US shows for US customers and perhaps the BBC or ITV or C4 might buy one of the best ones. They are instantly accessible to the whole word.
3 x 90 minute episodes could last somebody just 3 days of commuting. It may be a great show, you may watch it more than once, but think in a whole year where you commute every day, you have consumed that for less than a week.
Yes NickPalmer it is only a Westminster obsession. We can all ignore the several millions that have been prosecuted over the years ending up with criminal records and the hundreds of "very obstreperous" folk who have been jailed. Frankly not a very caring view from you. But treating it as a minor matter, is akin to saying "let them eat cake".
This idea that Sherlock is some unique triumph is bizarre. It's well made entertainment, 3 episodes every two years. US TV networks churn out multiple shows at 10 or 20 episodes a year of comparable, or often better quality. Where's our equivalent of The Wire, Breaking Bad, The West Wing etc? There's not been anything remotely of that class.
Very few of the top class US TV series we see are produced by the US networks. It's mostly HBO or other subscription based TV services. And they are able to do it because of the size of the US market. Channels like HBO and Netflix each generate billions of dollars each year in subscription revenue and have a much narrower remit than the networks. They can afford to invest in the programming they do produce in a way that free to air channels cannot.
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Again, I am sorry you don't understand. Producing six one hour shows in a series is not the same as producing three longer, standalone 90 minute TV films. In terms of content, plot and character development etc it's a completely different proposition.
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Again, I am sorry you don't understand. Producing six one hour shows in a series is not the same as producing three longer, standalone 90 minute TV films. In terms of content, plot and character development etc it's a completely different proposition.
This idea that Sherlock is some unique triumph is bizarre. It's well made entertainment, 3 episodes every two years. US TV networks churn out multiple shows at 10 or 20 episodes a year of comparable, or often better quality. Where's our equivalent of The Wire, Breaking Bad, The West Wing etc? There's not been anything remotely of that class.
The UK still produces excellent TV drama, but it tends to be far fewer episodes. And not all of it is BBC - the 1st series of Broadchurch was compelling. The Fades was really good and deserved a second series. I really, really likes Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel (I know the jury is split on this one) Being Human was brilliant in patches Utopia was just perfect. Peaky Blinders is good. Downton Abbey is a global phenomenon (I don't like it personally, but it is quality) Shall I mention Dr Who? I usually do ;-)
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Except it doesn't, it produces them every 2-3 years.
You're quite right that sort of laxity in output is something that only the BBC can do and that commercial channels would struggle to justify.
You've provided zero evidence that fewer episodes results in greater quality per episode compared to commercial channels, other than asserting that it must be so because it's the BBC.
This idea that Sherlock is some unique triumph is bizarre. It's well made entertainment, 3 episodes every two years. US TV networks churn out multiple shows at 10 or 20 episodes a year of comparable, or often better quality. Where's our equivalent of The Wire, Breaking Bad, The West Wing etc? There's not been anything remotely of that class.
Very few of the top class US TV series we see are produced by the US networks. It's mostly HBO or other subscription based TV services. And they are able to do it because of the size of the US market. Channels like HBO and Netflix each generate billions of dollars each year in revenue.
Yes and no....Yes the US market is big, but HBO and Netflix are global...Sky Atlantic is basically HBO and increasingly shows are simucast, rather than this nonsense of showing it in the US one week and x weeks later showing it in the UK. Murdoch might be lots of things, but he aint an idiot.
The massive media players aren't thinking well this is for the US market, they are thinking globally, as they know their content will travel around the globe in seconds if they don't.
Netflix plans to be in 200 countries within 18 months.
95% of the comments under Times articles about the BBC are negative. One can argue that these people all love Uncle Rupert and hate the BBC genetically as a result. But I think you're projecting your opinion quite a bit here.
As another poster here noted on FPTs - 49% of those polled would prefer an advertising or subs model than pay the TVLF. 48% wanted the TVLF.
That's not most people. I don't hate the BBC - I do object very strongly to being forced to pay for it and it's liberal bias as a supposedly neutral broadcaster.
The thing about the BBC controversy is that it's very much a Westminster specialty for political nerds. Most people don't feel that strongly - they mostly like the BBC and think it's a useful part of Britain's image to have it, though not to the exclusion of others, and only the very obstreperous really put reluctance to pay the licence fee to the point of going to jail. Left-wingers think it's biased to the right, right-wingers think it's biased to the left, but Joe Bloggs doesn't really care.
Like fox-hunting (pro or con), it's the sort of thing that governments get mired in at their peril, because they risk people saying they're preoccupied with unimportant stuff while vital issue X is neglected.
To be more positive,. I think Gove has made a really good start in his new job, scrapping some rubbish Grayling decisions and signalling that he wants to tackle the scandal of recidivism and lack of serious training in prisons properly. If he actually makes progress in this, he'll be doing us all a real service.
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Except it doesn't, it produces them every 2-3 years.
You're quite right that sort of laxity in output is something that only the BBC can do and that commercial channels would struggle to justify.
You've provided zero evidence that fewer episodes results in greater quality per episode compared to commercial channels, other than asserting that it must be so because it's the BBC.
My point is that they would not have been made at all.
This idea that Sherlock is some unique triumph is bizarre. It's well made entertainment, 3 episodes every two years. US TV networks churn out multiple shows at 10 or 20 episodes a year of comparable, or often better quality. Where's our equivalent of The Wire, Breaking Bad, The West Wing etc? There's not been anything remotely of that class.
Very few of the top class US TV series we see are produced by the US networks. It's mostly HBO or other subscription based TV services. And they are able to do it because of the size of the US market. Channels like HBO and Netflix each generate billions of dollars each year in subscription revenue and have a much narrower remit than the networks. They can afford to invest in the programming they do produce in a way that free to air channels cannot.
Netflix really is the game-changer. The number of high quality drama series commissioned by Netflix in recent years is remarkable:
Orange is the new black, Lillyhammer, House of Cards, Bloodline and Daredevil to name just a few.
This idea that Sherlock is some unique triumph is bizarre. It's well made entertainment, 3 episodes every two years. US TV networks churn out multiple shows at 10 or 20 episodes a year of comparable, or often better quality. Where's our equivalent of The Wire, Breaking Bad, The West Wing etc? There's not been anything remotely of that class.
Very few of the top class US TV series we see are produced by the US networks. It's mostly HBO or other subscription based TV services. And they are able to do it because of the size of the US market. Channels like HBO and Netflix each generate billions of dollars each year in subscription revenue and have a much narrower remit than the networks. They can afford to invest in the programming they do produce in a way that free to air channels cannot.
Netflix really is the game-changer. The number of high quality drama series commissioned by Netflix in recent years is remarkable:
Orange is the new black, Lillyhammer, House of Cards, Bloodline and Daredevil to name just a few.
Their plan is 320 hours of their own original content this year (not to say all the content they buy the rights for) and expanding every year after that. It will be available in 200 countries within 18 months.
And it isn't just Netflix, it is Amazon Instant, it is Hulu, it is BT, it is Sky, the competition and scope will just continue to increase. And all these platform want and need content.
This idea that Sherlock is some unique triumph is bizarre. It's well made entertainment, 3 episodes every two years. US TV networks churn out multiple shows at 10 or 20 episodes a year of comparable, or often better quality. Where's our equivalent of The Wire, Breaking Bad, The West Wing etc? There's not been anything remotely of that class.
Very few of the top class US TV series we see are produced by the US networks. It's mostly HBO or other subscription based TV services. And they are able to do it because of the size of the US market. Channels like HBO and Netflix each generate billions of dollars each year in subscription revenue and have a much narrower remit than the networks. They can afford to invest in the programming they do produce in a way that free to air channels cannot.
Netflix really is the game-changer. The number of high quality drama series commissioned by Netflix in recent years is remarkable:
Orange is the new black, Lillyhammer, House of Cards, Bloodline and Daredevil to name just a few.
Their plan is 320 hours of their own original content this year (not to say all the content they buy the rights for) and expanding every year after that. It will be available in 200 countries within 18 months.
And it isn't just Netflix, it is Amazon Instant, it is BT, it is Sky, the competition and scope will just continue to increase. And all these platform want and need content.
This is what the BBC really needs to compete with. Could it match this if it went subscription based?
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Again, I am sorry you don't understand. Producing six one hour shows in a series is not the same as producing three longer, standalone 90 minute TV films. In terms of content, plot and character development etc it's a completely different proposition.
I think it could be commercially viable but if 4.5 hours of drama every three years isn't viable then its not the end of the world.
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Except it doesn't, it produces them every 2-3 years.
You're quite right that sort of laxity in output is something that only the BBC can do and that commercial channels would struggle to justify.
You've provided zero evidence that fewer episodes results in greater quality per episode compared to commercial channels, other than asserting that it must be so because it's the BBC.
My point is that they would not have been made at all.
Really? Are you saying none of the commercial stations ever make 90 minute episodes? Boardwalk Empire normal pattern was first and final episodes of the seasons were 90 mins.
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Except it doesn't, it produces them every 2-3 years.
You're quite right that sort of laxity in output is something that only the BBC can do and that commercial channels would struggle to justify.
You've provided zero evidence that fewer episodes results in greater quality per episode compared to commercial channels, other than asserting that it must be so because it's the BBC.
My point is that they would not have been made at all.
I very much doubt that, though it's impossible to prove a counter factual. If a writer had the idea, there was demand and it was popular, someone would have commissioned and produced it, if no one else was. It happens all the time.
Quite probable that a commercial BBC would do a better job of it.
The thing about the BBC controversy is that it's very much a Westminster specialty for political nerds. Most people don't feel that strongly - they mostly like the BBC and think it's a useful part of Britain's image to have it, though not to the exclusion of others, and only the very obstreperous really put reluctance to pay the licence fee to the point of going to jail. Left-wingers think it's biased to the right, right-wingers think it's biased to the left, but Joe Bloggs doesn't really care.
I agree with that. It is striking that whenever a report comes out connected with the broadcasters we are presented with the issue as headline news - as if nothing more important is happening in the world. On such occasions these people are unable to leave their own bubble and are totally lacking in self awareness - they are effectively talking to themselves.
A large % of US shows are made in Canada nowadays as prod cost are cheaper. The % of British actors is very noticeable too. Some Canadian grown shows are great too.
They're simply using their heads and using their resources wisely/pulling in Brit actors who appear on-screen as Brits to ensure a broad commercial appeal.
This idea that Sherlock is some unique triumph is bizarre. It's well made entertainment, 3 episodes every two years. US TV networks churn out multiple shows at 10 or 20 episodes a year of comparable, or often better quality. Where's our equivalent of The Wire, Breaking Bad, The West Wing etc? There's not been anything remotely of that class.
Very few of the top class US TV series we see are produced by the US networks. It's mostly HBO or other subscription based TV services. And they are able to do it because of the size of the US market. Channels like HBO and Netflix each generate billions of dollars each year in revenue.
Yes and no....Yes the US market is big, but HBO and Netflix are global...Sky Atlantic is basically HBO and increasingly shows are simucast, rather than this nonsense of showing it in the US one week and x weeks later showing it in the UK. Murdoch might be lots of things, but he aint an idiot.
The massive media players aren't thinking well this is for the US market, they are thinking globally, as they know their content will travel around the globe in seconds if they don't.
Netflix plans to be in 200 countries within 18 months.
Three 90 minute Sherlock TV films a year does is not a bad an effort. It's something that the BBC can do which subscription-based or commercial channels would struggle to justify.
Except it doesn't, it produces them every 2-3 years.
You're quite right that sort of laxity in output is something that only the BBC can do and that commercial channels would struggle to justify.
You've provided zero evidence that fewer episodes results in greater quality per episode compared to commercial channels, other than asserting that it must be so because it's the BBC.
My point is that they would not have been made at all.
Really? Are you saying none of the commercial stations ever make 90 minute episodes? Boardwalk Empire normal pattern was first and final episodes of the seasons were 90 mins.
Indeed - and they are episodes, culminations of what has gone before or scene setters for what is to come. And brilliantly done they are too. Boardwalk Empire was fantastic. What they were not, though, is what Sherlock is - essentially standalone films that can be watched in isolation.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/17/michael-gove-pentonville-sale-new-for-old-prison-policy
The BBC is doubtless of consuming interest to its own staff. Much less so to the rest of us. I watch news programmes to learn about the world not about the organisation presenting them.
To see just how wrong the licence fee now is, imagine there was no licence fee - but an MP was proposing legislation to put it in place:
"You want me to do WHAT? Pay £147 a year to a channel a barely watch? Why? Next you'll be saying although I drive a BMW, I should also pay £100 a year to Ford, "to ensure there is a continuation of consumer choice...." And if I don't, it's off to chokey? Bollocks to that."
Like he did with Education, it looks like Michael Gove will be setting the direction and strategy early in the Parliament and letting it play out. There's certainly a lot to do in Justice, his comments on prisoner education in particular are very encouraging.
I've no problem paying for what I watch - my issue with the BBC is being charged £145 for NOT watching it and paying again.
It's like shopping in Tesco and getting a bill from Sainsburys as well at the checkout.
Was not taken at all with the last series of Sherlock. Nepotastic, and it just became Mr and Mrs Holmes and their quirky friend Sherlock, who conveniently forgets things when it serves the plot.
@Casino_Royale
If you'd seen my reply to @Philip_Thompson, you'd know I just mentioned Sherlock off the top of my head, it was an example of programming that I, and people I know liked - thus the 'e.g' part of my post. It isn't the only content produced by the BBC I enjoy watching. So I don't know where that 'absolutely pathetic' comment comes from - whether it's regarding only 3 episodes produced, or something else....
It should be possible for the BBC to write 6 good Sherlock episodes, and film them, each year. The BBC seem slow and a bit lazy on this to be honest.
I liked Study In Pink which IIRC was the first one - the rest of S1 was pretty average, S2 I stopped bothering with even on Netflix.
Why not ten or thirteen or 23 like many Emmy winning shows made in the USA?
Again this is another problem for the BBC. Demand is for box sets, for 10-20 episodes per season, with a new season at least once a year. It used to be argued this would dilute quality, but HBO have shown this to be the opposite.
We are consuming more content, so we need more new content and the likes of HBO, FX, AMC are producing it in droves and to incredibly high quality in visuals, story, music, fx, etc...all the stuff that used to be exclusive to big budget movies.
That is the way the world is going. The BBC with very short seasons again risk missing out.
Best recent BBC drama series - Wolfhall and Poldark.
The BBC do some things very well - but too much time wasted on self promotion and patting themselves on the back. Also when they try to change trusted formula - like tv sports coverage it invariably goes wrong because of management meddling. BBC radio sports coverage is far better than commercial stations.
I know all the pressures and excuses, but I find that a bit pathetic.
Incidentally, whilst Sherlock is good fun, even some of the plotlines can be a bit contorted sometimes, which suggests less than perfect writing despite all that time to get it right.
I remember one episode where a tube train disappeared with a bomb and there was nowhere it could seemingly go, leading to an interesting mystery.
Later in the show, the tube controller operater suddenly 'remembered' a secret tunnel where it could be. Low and behold, it was there!
The output of dramas seems incredibly low with a handful or less of shows per season compared to the 20+ of many hit dramas in the US/often shot in Canada.
It should also be integrateable with the schedules of Cumberbatch and Freeman, if planned properly.
Mark Wahlberg and Tim Van Patten. The first episode was directed by Scorsese and cost $18 million. Subsequent episodes reportedly cost $5 million a pop.
BBC Sherlock - 3 seasons, 9 episodes - made with a licence fee on threat of imprisonment.
CBS Elementary - 3 seasons, 72 episodes - made commercially.
Great success for the licence fee that!
The comments in the article about the LDs are absurd. Just what is the point of the LDs?
They have had one main selling point, one clarion call - PR, ie coalitions. The nation has voted against it and when actually given an opportunity to be a part of govt with some influence for their opinions - they proved themselves not interested in it. So why vote for them? Their whole existence and interest is in the avoidance of choices.
The only likely result in voting LD is to give a leg up to Labour who themselves are likely to be beholden to the SNP. So why not if you are so inclined simply vote Labour in the first place?
David Davis and Tom Watson have successfully challenged the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, basically 2 MP's defeating Government policy through the courts rather than the voting lobby.
If this is the start of the new administration, it is definitely going to be fun watching what is going to happen next.
Possibly, IDS being challenged by a massive petition to deliver the information of the number of people who have died and/or committed suicide due to the delays and incompetence of his Universal Credit system.
https://goo.gl/Mm9QN0
One example: Obama/Attenborough. I'm sure there are countless US people who can recount stories of being stunned and inspired by some completely out of left field show from the Beeb.
I remember Trey Parker talking about Monty Python's influence , for example.
An ideal appointment, I agree.
Britain's number one talked about global drama export is probably Game of Thrones now which is Sky. Even David Attenborough makes shows for Sky now! Last Christmas David Attenborough's Conquest of the Sky was a documentary for Sky, not the BBC.
1. The BBC shall not buy in any programmes that are owned by and made outside the UK.
Conservative Friends of Jeremy Corbyn
Repeat after me, Sherlock is the finest TV show ever, Benedict Cumberbatch is the greatest actor in the world.
You have a point. Or Downton, which is ITV. Sherlock was pretty big, I think...??
Is it a simple cash limit spend such as £10m per year? Or is it a % limit based on the overall revenue?
That may be enough to help them stage some sort of recovery there.
I can't think of a major successful commercial alternative which only bothers to complete 9 episodes in five years.
Only forms coalitions with those he approves of? Or not at all? It's an absurd position for a Party that espouses PR.
Sad truth is Cumberbatch and Freeman are in demand actors. Moffat also produces the world's longest running scifi show concurrently.
Indeed – even so, three episodes, once every 2 years and a Christmas special if you are lucky is still a bit of a bugger.
http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/frontpage/2015/69_en.htm
So nine Sherlock TV films that would not otherwise have been made.
The idea that BBC drama production is something enviable is about 2 decades out of date.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bwgan/otters-who-look-like-benedict-cumberbatch-lpl
I really must find out who sent it to me - everyone in my FBook circle is either a Lefty or only posts pix of kittens.
Netflix made House of Cards and others which were first rate drama with many more shows per season.
Again the advent of streaming services with as much as you can eat business model means that you will see artists constantly touring and producing new content. There are only a very very select number of artist who can continue to just sit back and take 1-2 years off in the cycle.
Even massive bands like Metallica, although haven't produced much new content, are touring every year now, where as before you might get them in the UK every 3 years. I think they have done Europe every year for the past 5 years.
Plenty of middle level bands are now doing 150-200 shows a year worldwide every single year. Again people want more new content and more new experiences.
I don't envy BBC production, I am thankful for it. It provides me with a great deal of pleasure each year. I also enjoy the longer US series. It's great to have the choice.
But what really annoys me is the London section of the Sunday Politics. This is exclusively about Greater London. Not once have I ever seen them discuss an issue that relates to something outside of the GLA. Now maybe the decision to flatten a perfectly good council estate in Woking to be replaced by higher density housing (of lower quality) isn't important. But councils like Woking can do what they like safe in the knowledge that the BBC don't care.
Billy Bob Thornton was equally smashing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKs8DzjPDMU
Then Downton Abbey would be the UK's number one drama export I expect.
Like fox-hunting (pro or con), it's the sort of thing that governments get mired in at their peril, because they risk people saying they're preoccupied with unimportant stuff while vital issue X is neglected.
To be more positive,. I think Gove has made a really good start in his new job, scrapping some rubbish Grayling decisions and signalling that he wants to tackle the scandal of recidivism and lack of serious training in prisons properly. If he actually makes progress in this, he'll be doing us all a real service.
The album market collapsed in the 80s. This is a good docu for those interested in such stuff http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qhn70
Streaming and downloading (illegal and legal) have reduced the cost of music and increased the availability. Bands now must tour to make money. The music they release is more of an advert for the band than a reliable revenue stream.
It was a good idea, a brilliant conceit well put together, and it effectively discovered a star actor in Cumberbach who was ideal as Holmes. Plus with good production values and a good Watson it looked set fair.
So far so good, this is after all what the BBC should be doing. However its creators allowed themselves to become self indulgent. And as you say nepotisctic. Perhaps it was always like this and the little spark of originality hid it from view.
The usual favoured band of luvvies turn up in the cast, the plots become over stylised and Freeman's mannerisms increasingly get in the way. As so often with the BBC they do not want to charm us, they descend into daring us to enjoy their sly prejudices.
Now choice is unlimited, and it is not limited by country or region, or time that you wish to watch, or location you wish to watch it, etc.
Now unlike music you can't just go touring, but you have to instead produce more content, and the bar is being set at very high standards by the likes of HBO, AMC and FX. Again, we aren't talking about a world where those are US shows for US customers and perhaps the BBC or ITV or C4 might buy one of the best ones. They are instantly accessible to the whole word.
3 x 90 minute episodes could last somebody just 3 days of commuting. It may be a great show, you may watch it more than once, but think in a whole year where you commute every day, you have consumed that for less than a week.
I assume it makes you feel clever. I simply disagree with you.
Cmdr: They say the Sukhoi (Fighter) brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter.
Background: Who’s opened a corridor for them to fly over here?
Background: The fighter jet brought down this one, and our people brought down the fighter.
Background: They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane.
http://mobile.news.com.au/national/full-transcript-russian-backed-rebels-ransack-the-wreckage-of-mh17-in-shocking-17-minute-video/story-e6frfkp9-1227444629703
The Fades was really good and deserved a second series.
I really, really likes Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel (I know the jury is split on this one)
Being Human was brilliant in patches
Utopia was just perfect.
Peaky Blinders is good.
Downton Abbey is a global phenomenon (I don't like it personally, but it is quality)
Shall I mention Dr Who? I usually do ;-)
You're quite right that sort of laxity in output is something that only the BBC can do and that commercial channels would struggle to justify.
You've provided zero evidence that fewer episodes results in greater quality per episode compared to commercial channels, other than asserting that it must be so because it's the BBC.
The massive media players aren't thinking well this is for the US market, they are thinking globally, as they know their content will travel around the globe in seconds if they don't.
Netflix plans to be in 200 countries within 18 months.
As another poster here noted on FPTs - 49% of those polled would prefer an advertising or subs model than pay the TVLF. 48% wanted the TVLF.
That's not most people. I don't hate the BBC - I do object very strongly to being forced to pay for it and it's liberal bias as a supposedly neutral broadcaster.
Orange is the new black, Lillyhammer, House of Cards, Bloodline and Daredevil to name just a few.
And it isn't just Netflix, it is Amazon Instant, it is Hulu, it is BT, it is Sky, the competition and scope will just continue to increase. And all these platform want and need content.
Quite probable that a commercial BBC would do a better job of it.
I don't think I've ever watched anything as good as Season 4 of Breaking Bad.
They're simply using their heads and using their resources wisely/pulling in Brit actors who appear on-screen as Brits to ensure a broad commercial appeal.