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?
It needs to find a place in that world. My argument is that all these platforms need high quality content, if the likes of Sherlock is so good, in the all you can eat world of these streaming services it doesn't provide enough revenue to produce so few episodes. And it isn't just Sherlock, most series on BBC are very very short, which is completely against the way the market has gone.
It is like a band saying well we only do 1 album and 1 tour every 3 years, when all the competition is doing 1 album every 2 years and touring every year. Yes U2 can probably get away with that, but Universal and all the rest of their artists wouldn't survive if they all carried on like that.
I see I've missed a morning of discussing TV shows. It's at this point I realise how different I am from most people since I have seen almost none of the shows discussed. I thoroughly enjoyed Sherlock and I've now been induced to watch quite a lot of The Good Wife (the early episodes of which are huge fun). As for the rest of them, they are names only.
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.
Yes - well - the Oscars aren't always reliable, are they? Driving Miss Daisy as best film of whatever year it was?
Britain's number one talked about global drama export is probably Game of Thrones now which is Sky.
You have a point. Or Downton, which is ITV. Sherlock was pretty big, I think...??
Yes ITV have done very well with Downton Abbey. The idea that only the BBC can do British belongs in a totally different era.
I'm not even sure about the past - I think the original Forsyth Saga may even have been ITV - more recently Mr Selfridge was way better than Paradise. the Beeb used to do good versions of the Classics but far less often now. Sherlock does nowt for me - except those old Basil Rathbone ones
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.
The problem for the BBC with 'Sherlock' is that its stars are tied up with Hollywood movies, so I imagine they struggle to get them together. Possibly its writers have less interest. However 3 per 3 years is still poor. It probably obsesses too much about production values which affect costs. I see from blurbs that they are actually somehow taking them back to Victorian times - complete with the expense creating all that to their nth degree of verisimilitude. Still I suppose they might get some value out of the sets from the quite pointless 'Strange and Norrell' rubbish.
I liked that movie - but it's a filler. Wasn't Steel Magnolias another Oscar winner. Dear me.
TBH, I don't take much notice of Oscars - there's so much politicking and fashion involved.
Has Stephen Spielberg won one yet? So many great actor get one for average films as a mea culpa for being ignored for better performances decades before.
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.
Yes - well - the Oscars aren't always reliable, are they? Driving Miss Daisy as best film of whatever year it was?
Criticisms of Sherlock will lead to numerous threads on AV this coming Sunday and Monday.
Repeat after me, Sherlock is the finest TV show ever, Benedict Cumberbatch is the greatest actor in the world.
If Sherlock's so great then maybe if the BBC was commercialised it would result in more episodes not less?
I can't think of a major successful commercial alternative which only bothers to complete 9 episodes in five years.
Quality not quantity dear boy.
Sad truth is Cumberbatch and Freeman are in demand actors. Moffat also produces the world's longest running scifi show concurrently.
Kinda reinforces the point that the Beeb makes it look like we have a tiny talent pool, as their handful of favoured luvvies are indulged. "Of course we will wait until 2017 for you to do us a Sherlock...." American producers would be brutally hard-nosed.
I see I've missed a morning of discussing TV shows. It's at this point I realise how different I am from most people since I have seen almost none of the shows discussed. I thoroughly enjoyed Sherlock and I've now been induced to watch quite a lot of The Good Wife (the early episodes of which are huge fun). As for the rest of them, they are names only.
You're not the only one. I've watched none of them and have heard of hardly any.
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.
13 episodes seems a decent minimum number for anything not explicitly deemed a miniseries, IMO - That's 1/4 fo the year if aired weekly, or 1/2 if every other week, so with only 2-4 series of that length an entire slot in the schedule is filled up for every week of the year, and enough time for some really indepth stories and characterisation, without getting many if any filler episodes like you get with 22+.
Procedural shows which rely less on characterisation and so on seem suited to 22+
American TV is several orders of magnitude greater than British TV, it's not even funny. Canada seems to produce some good shows too.
Re the BBC, I think the issue is that some people really really hate it for a variety of reasons - perceived or actual bias, the principle of paying for it etc etc - and they overreact to every little thing, whereas most others at the least do not detest it, and many think fondly of it, with a smaller group passionately in support of it, and the overreaction just irritates the groups who do not hate the BBC, and undermines the genuinely good points in criticism of hte BBC.
Some, certainly not all, critics of the BBC respond to everything with something along the lines of 'They overspent on paperclips;therefore we should disband the entire organisation, obviously!' and that makes the more sensible critics look sillier by association.
Criticisms of Sherlock will lead to numerous threads on AV this coming Sunday and Monday.
Repeat after me, Sherlock is the finest TV show ever, Benedict Cumberbatch is the greatest actor in the world.
If Sherlock's so great then maybe if the BBC was commercialised it would result in more episodes not less?
I can't think of a major successful commercial alternative which only bothers to complete 9 episodes in five years.
Quality not quantity dear boy.
Sad truth is Cumberbatch and Freeman are in demand actors. Moffat also produces the world's longest running scifi show concurrently.
Kinda reinforces the point that the Beeb makes it look like we have a tiny talent pool, as their handful of favoured luvvies are indulged. "Of course we will wait until 2017 for you to do us a Sherlock...." American producers would be brutally hard-nosed.
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.
I live a bit further west and had much the same problem, although now I get Hampshire on BBC instead of London, I think it changed when it went digital. The BBC doesn't seem to understand that there are a lot of commuters who need London travel information but might want local news. For some reason it seems impossible for the BBC to package the information together in the mornings..
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.
LibDems have been slaughtered in all elections since 2010 in one of their heartland areas - this is all which is left:
Scottish seats in the House of Commons - 1 / 59
Scottish seats in the European Parliament - 0 / 6
Scottish Parliament - 5 / 129
Local government in Scotland - 65 / 1,223
They have two constituency MSPs and three list. The constituencies are O&S - Willie Rennie is one of my list MSPs got around 6% of list vote in 2011 - with the Green surge he'll need to up his game to retain his seat.
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.
Same for writers. Time was if you produced a decent hit book, you could sit back and drink Yarra Valley shiraz for a year or two, and then vaguely think about the next one.
Not any more. Unless you are a ginormously famous author who has earned squillions, your publishers will expect another book within a year, 18 months max. No shirking.
Is it not a fact that increasingly popular author "brands" are also been signed up on deals to create more content than ever and are employing teams of writers to realise this work load (based upon their creative ideas) e.g James Patterson.
I presume again the likes of Audible + smart phones allow people to hover up books at incredible rate. I know I can get through books in a couple of days if I want, as I can listen to them when on the move, in the car, at the gym etc.
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.
snip
snip
snip
snip
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.
13 episodes seems a decent minimum number for anything not explicitly deemed a miniseries, IMO - That's 1/4 fo the year if aired weekly, or 1/2 if every other week, so with only 2-4 series of that length an entire slot in the schedule is filled up for every week of the year, and enough time for some really indepth stories and characterisation, without getting many if any filler episodes like you get with 22+.
Procedural shows which rely less on characterisation and so on seem suited to 22+
American TV is several orders of magnitude greater than British TV, it's not even funny. Canada seems to produce some good shows too.
Re the BBC, I think the issue is that some people really really hate it for a variety of reasons - perceived or actual bias, the principle of paying for it etc etc - and they overreact to every little thing, whereas most others at the least do not detest it, and many think fondly of it, with a smaller group passionately in support of it, and the overreaction just irritates the groups who do not hate the BBC, and undermines the genuinely good points in criticism of hte BBC.
Some, certainly not all, critics of the BBC respond to everything with something along the lines of 'They overspent on paperclips;therefore we should disband the entire organisation, obviously!' and that makes the more sensible critics look sillier by association.
Criticisms of Sherlock will lead to numerous threads on AV this coming Sunday and Monday.
Repeat after me, Sherlock is the finest TV show ever, Benedict Cumberbatch is the greatest actor in the world.
If Sherlock's so great then maybe if the BBC was commercialised it would result in more episodes not less?
I can't think of a major successful commercial alternative which only bothers to complete 9 episodes in five years.
Quality not quantity dear boy.
Sad truth is Cumberbatch and Freeman are in demand actors. Moffat also produces the world's longest running scifi show concurrently.
Kinda reinforces the point that the Beeb makes it look like we have a tiny talent pool, as their handful of favoured luvvies are indulged. "Of course we will wait until 2017 for you to do us a Sherlock...." American producers would be brutally hard-nosed.
Totally agree. This lack of competitiveness in all areas is why this country is f****d until we wake up.
Look at phenomenally successful 90's comedy 'Cold Feet' - wound up after half a dozen or so series because 'they felt it wasn't going anywhere'. Compare to Friends - if they had a shite season they just carried on and made the next one better.
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.
Same for writers. Time was if you produced a decent hit book, you could sit back and drink Yarra Valley shiraz for a year or two, and then vaguely think about the next one.
Not any more. Unless you are a ginormously famous author who has earned squillions, your publishers will expect another book within a year, 18 months max. No shirking.
Is it not a fact that increasingly popular author "brands" are also been signed up on deals to create more content than ever and are employing teams of writers to realise this work load (based upon their creative ideas) e.g James Patterson.
It strikes me that even when writers are dead we get people writing under their name, ie Ludlum. I also notice similarities with book covers if a particular book becomes successful. Of course some popular characters continue to be written, either with consent or out of copyright. Sherlock Holmes of course being a case in point.
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.
snip
snip
snip
snip
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.
Procedural shows which rely less on characterisation and so on seem suited to 22+
American TV is several orders of magnitude greater than British TV, it's not even funny. Canada seems to produce some good shows too.
Re the BBC, I think the issue is that some people really really hate it for a variety of reasons - perceived or actual bias, the principle of paying for it etc etc - and they overreact to every little thing, whereas most others at the least do not detest it, and many think fondly of it, with a smaller group passionately in support of it, and the overreaction just irritates the groups who do not hate the BBC, and undermines the genuinely good points in criticism of hte BBC.
Some, certainly not all, critics of the BBC respond to everything with something along the lines of 'They overspent on paperclips;therefore we should disband the entire organisation, obviously!' and that makes the more sensible critics look sillier by association.
Not yet, but I'm about to be on leave, or as I call it, TV catch up time (I do also go outside occasionally)
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.
LibDems have been slaughtered in all elections since 2010 in one of their heartland areas - this is all which is left:
Scottish seats in the House of Commons - 1 / 59
Scottish seats in the European Parliament - 0 / 6
Scottish Parliament - 5 / 129
Local government in Scotland - 65 / 1,223
They have two constituency MSPs and three list. The constituencies are O&S - Willie Rennie is one of my list MSPs got around 6% of list vote in 2011 - with the Green surge he'll need to up his game to retain his seat.
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.
Same for writers. Time was if you produced a decent hit book, you could sit back and drink Yarra Valley shiraz for a year or two, and then vaguely think about the next one.
Not any more. Unless you are a ginormously famous author who has earned squillions, your publishers will expect another book within a year, 18 months max. No shirking.
Since you're around, I do hope you saw the Guardian piece yesterday on ethical food sourcing:
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.
Same for writers. Time was if you produced a decent hit book, you could sit back and drink Yarra Valley shiraz for a year or two, and then vaguely think about the next one.
Not any more. Unless you are a ginormously famous author who has earned squillions, your publishers will expect another book within a year, 18 months max. No shirking.
Does that mean 'The Ice Twins' has earned you a few more months' grace period for the date for your next effort I wonder?
The range of views shows the government is absolutely right to have introduced the Green Paper and to have asked some very hard questions. The BBC should periodically be made to justify itself and an alternative to the licence fee is necessary. The current system is neither justifiable nor sustainable.
My guess is that the BBC will change, but nowhere near as much as some of its detractors hope for. They are going to be disappointed.
Is it not a fact that increasingly popular author "brands" are also been signed up on deals to create more content than ever and are employing teams of writers to realise this work load (based upon their creative ideas) e.g James Patterson.
I presume again the likes of Audible + smart phones allow people to hover up books at incredible rate. I know I can get through books in a couple of days if I want, as I can listen to them when on the move, in the car, at the gym etc.
Reminds me of reading the many books of Franklin W Dixon as a child.
Was surprised to discover decades later that he was as fictional as his characters.
Criticisms of Sherlock will lead to numerous threads on AV this coming Sunday and Monday.
Repeat after me, Sherlock is the finest TV show ever, Benedict Cumberbatch is the greatest actor in the world.
If Sherlock's so great then maybe if the BBC was commercialised it would result in more episodes not less?
I can't think of a major successful commercial alternative which only bothers to complete 9 episodes in five years.
Quality not quantity dear boy.
Sad truth is Cumberbatch and Freeman are in demand actors. Moffat also produces the world's longest running scifi show concurrently.
Kinda reinforces the point that the Beeb makes it look like we have a tiny talent pool, as their handful of favoured luvvies are indulged. "Of course we will wait until 2017 for you to do us a Sherlock...." American producers would be brutally hard-nosed.
Fargo case in point....
But does not 'Fargo' employ Martin Freeman? He cannot be in 2 places at the same time.
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.
LibDems have been slaughtered in all elections since 2010 in one of their heartland areas - this is all which is left:
Scottish seats in the House of Commons - 1 / 59
Scottish seats in the European Parliament - 0 / 6
Scottish Parliament - 5 / 129
Local government in Scotland - 65 / 1,223
They have two constituency MSPs and three list. The constituencies are O&S - Willie Rennie is one of my list MSPs got around 6% of list vote in 2011 - with the Green surge he'll need to up his game to retain his seat.
If Jo Swinson stood again, and the boundary changes do not go through, I think she'd have a very good chance of a gain. I don't know how well regarded Mike Crockart was in Edinburgh also - but the numbers look like he'd have a good change of retaking the seat as well, if he wanted.
Very pleased Tim Farron was elected - the correct choice in my view (and unlike OGH I just broke my duck in always voting for the loser.....)
Criticisms of Sherlock will lead to numerous threads on AV this coming Sunday and Monday.
Repeat after me, Sherlock is the finest TV show ever, Benedict Cumberbatch is the greatest actor in the world.
If Sherlock's so great then maybe if the BBC was commercialised it would result in more episodes not less?
I can't think of a major successful commercial alternative which only bothers to complete 9 episodes in five years.
Quality not quantity dear boy.
Sad truth is Cumberbatch and Freeman are in demand actors. Moffat also produces the world's longest running scifi show concurrently.
Kinda reinforces the point that the Beeb makes it look like we have a tiny talent pool, as their handful of favoured luvvies are indulged. "Of course we will wait until 2017 for you to do us a Sherlock...." American producers would be brutally hard-nosed.
Fargo case in point....
But does not 'Fargo' employ Martin Freeman? He cannot be in 2 places at the same time.
That wasn't the point...the point was Fargo had an all-star cast and the talent started to say well I am not sure I can do this month and i am busy that month...and the producers were brutal and said fine, we will get new talent, we aren't going to wait 2 years to make another season.
It is also really common for hit shows to employ a team of directors who direct different episodes and the same with the writing staff. I am not saying this is necessarily the ideal way of doing it, but that is what the competition is doing and still managing to pump out really really quality stuff.
One big mistake (IMO) the US shows do make is if they have a successful writing and directorial TEAM and they ask for big increases in money, they dump them and it is very difficult to replace that whole team with equal quality that has that real feel for the show.
That their leader Mr Farron refused to participate in their first stab at HMG for 80yrs speaks volumes. Only forms coalitions with those he approves of? Or not at all? It's an absurd position for a Party that espouses PR.
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 latest line of Tory spin is dead boring. All the Lib Dem MPs were part of the Coalition, some as ministers, others as backbenchers. And as backbenchers they were far more loyal to the Government than the Tory MPs were, who in fact were an unreliable rabble.
If you PB Tories think that all the Lib Dem MPs ought to have been ministers, I would agree with you. The quality of the Coalition Government would have been much higher. You should have mentioned it at the time though. Mr Cameron might have taken some notice of you.
The objective of the Liberal Democrats is to bring about a Liberal society, Mr Path. They can do this outside the Westminster government or from the inside. Tm Farron recognises that it is far easier to do this from the inside, which is why he is talking about the Lib Dem successes in government (most of which the Tories are now claiming the credit for, despite opposing them within government) - and also talking about getting back into government again, in order to do more.
But I suspect that the politics (presentation) of any future coalition would be very different. Nick Clegg got most of the policies right - he was just out-manoeuvred on the politics.
Pah! All this Beeb talk - v. dull. @NickPalmer: agree re Gove - it would be good to get some sensible prison policy decisions.
Do you think that working with the Lib Dems in government had a good effect on Gove? He was a disaster in education, of course, but now shows some promise on prison and rehabilitation.
The BBC needs to dump the populist pap and show some proper politics and current affairs programmes in prime time. Not at 10:30 and later when I've gone to bed. With 6 channels broadcasting in the evening, there is plenty of scope.
Also, if the BBC claims to offer something for everyone, where is the hard core?
OK - one question for you all. Where the hell do you find the time to watch all this TV?
By the time I've done my job, tried to be a mother, wife, done some gardening, walked the dog, tried to ensure house not a complete tip, seen friends, etc etc there is no more than about - at best - a few minutes to watch any TV at all. So how do you all do it?
OK - one question for you all. Where the hell do you find the time to watch all this TV?
By the time I've done my job, tried to be a mother, wife, done some gardening, walked the dog, tried to ensure house not a complete tip, seen friends, etc etc there is no more than about - at best - a few minutes to watch any TV at all. So how do you all do it?
OK - one question for you all. Where the hell do you find the time to watch all this TV?
By the time I've done my job, tried to be a mother, wife, done some gardening, walked the dog, tried to ensure house not a complete tip, seen friends, etc etc there is no more than about - at best - a few minutes to watch any TV at all. So how do you all do it?
Personally...when travelling and in the gym...oh and I don't sleep very much...again though it is the box sets thing, if I get a flight to the US, I can watch a whole season of something really easily.
That their leader Mr Farron refused to participate in their first stab at HMG for 80yrs speaks volumes. Only forms coalitions with those he approves of? Or not at all? It's an absurd position for a Party that espouses PR.
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 latest line of Tory spin is dead boring. All the Lib Dem MPs were part of the Coalition, some as ministers, others as backbenchers. And as backbenchers they were far more loyal to the Government than the Tory MPs were, who in fact were an unreliable rabble.
If you PB Tories think that all the Lib Dem MPs ought to have been ministers, I would agree with you. The quality of the Coalition Government would have been much higher. You should have mentioned it at the time though. Mr Cameron might have taken some notice of you.
The objective of the Liberal Democrats is to bring about a Liberal society, Mr Path. They can do this outside the Westminster government or from the inside. Tm Farron recognises that it is far easier to do this from the inside, which is why he is talking about the Lib Dem successes in government (most of which the Tories are now claiming the credit for, despite opposing them within government) - and also talking about getting back into government again, in order to do more.
But I suspect that the politics (presentation) of any future coalition would be very different. Nick Clegg got most of the policies right - he was just out-manoeuvred on the politics.
Your loyalty to your party can't be questioned, I'll give you that.
Pah! All this Beeb talk - v. dull. @NickPalmer: agree re Gove - it would be good to get some sensible prison policy decisions.
Do you think that working with the Lib Dems in government had a good effect on Gove? He was a disaster in education, of course, but now shows some promise on prison and rehabilitation.
How was he a disaster? His reforms seem to be working now and Labour candidates don't seem committed to reversing them.
Criticisms of Sherlock will lead to numerous threads on AV this coming Sunday and Monday.
Repeat after me, Sherlock is the finest TV show ever, Benedict Cumberbatch is the greatest actor in the world.
If Sherlock's so great then maybe if the BBC was commercialised it would result in more episodes not less?
I can't think of a major successful commercial alternative which only bothers to complete 9 episodes in five years.
Quality not quantity dear boy.
Sad truth is Cumberbatch and Freeman are in demand actors. Moffat also produces the world's longest running scifi show concurrently.
Kinda reinforces the point that the Beeb makes it look like we have a tiny talent pool, as their handful of favoured luvvies are indulged. "Of course we will wait until 2017 for you to do us a Sherlock...." American producers would be brutally hard-nosed.
American producers would have a much higher budget for a whole team of writers, and probably at least two directors and film units. On the basis of this morning's thread, I'd hesitate before calling for the licence fee to be trebled.
OK - one question for you all. Where the hell do you find the time to watch all this TV?
By the time I've done my job, tried to be a mother, wife, done some gardening, walked the dog, tried to ensure house not a complete tip, seen friends, etc etc there is no more than about - at best - a few minutes to watch any TV at all. So how do you all do it?
As someone who travels on a train for around 12 hours a week and has an iPad, you can watch a lot of tv.
That said, watching Californication on the train, gets you told off by the conductor Revenue Protection Officers, for watching filth on a train.
I pay quite close attention the writing and directing teams of US shows and they're pretty large on big/high episode series. And tend to move en bloc to new shows as they've got a squad that works.
I find the productivity gap between the BBC and other broadcasters incomprehensible. I guess its the *unique way they're funded*
Criticisms of Sherlock will lead to numerous threads on AV this coming Sunday and Monday.
Repeat after me, Sherlock is the finest TV show ever, Benedict Cumberbatch is the greatest actor in the world.
If Sherlock's so great then maybe if the BBC was commercialised it would result in more episodes not less?
I can't think of a major successful commercial alternative which only bothers to complete 9 episodes in five years.
Quality not quantity dear boy.
Sad truth is Cumberbatch and Freeman are in demand actors. Moffat also produces the world's longest running scifi show concurrently.
Kinda reinforces the point that the Beeb makes it look like we have a tiny talent pool, as their handful of favoured luvvies are indulged. "Of course we will wait until 2017 for you to do us a Sherlock...." American producers would be brutally hard-nosed.
Fargo case in point....
But does not 'Fargo' employ Martin Freeman? He cannot be in 2 places at the same time.
That wasn't the point...the point was Fargo had an all-star cast and the talent started to say well I am not sure I can do this month and i am busy that month...and the producers were brutal and said fine, we will get new talent, we aren't going to wait 2 years to make another season.
It is also really common for hit shows to employ a team of directors who direct different episodes and the same with the writing staff. I am not saying this is necessarily the ideal way of doing it, but that is what the competition is doing and still managing to pump out really really quality stuff.
One big mistake (IMO) the US shows do make is if they have a successful writing and directorial TEAM and they ask for big increases in money, they dump them and it is very difficult to replace that whole team with equal quality that has that real feel for the show.
OK - one question for you all. Where the hell do you find the time to watch all this TV?
By the time I've done my job, tried to be a mother, wife, done some gardening, walked the dog, tried to ensure house not a complete tip, seen friends, etc etc there is no more than about - at best - a few minutes to watch any TV at all. So how do you all do it?
Who's said they have much time to watch TV?
I don't, and have said so on this thread. I've merely listed my experiences *on the rare occassion* that I do.
Typically, that's 9pm on a Sunday. Or perhaps channel hopping late on the odd Friday night if I'm tired and not going out. Then we normally resort to a boxset episode or two.
Usually, If I have free time, I post on here or head put for a meal with my wife. The latter obviously takes precedence ;-)
The range of views shows the government is absolutely right to have introduced the Green Paper and to have asked some very hard questions. The BBC should periodically be made to justify itself and an alternative to the licence fee is necessary. The current system is neither justifiable nor sustainable.
My guess is that the BBC will change, but nowhere near as much as some of its detractors hope for. They are going to be disappointed.
Agreed. There are a number of views out there, and a lot of them are very stridently held views. It probably doesn't help that the BBC are big fans of talking about themselves.
Personally, given that we are where we are, the commonsensical view would be to make gradual changes. The announced change regarding the free licences is a good start, freezing the licence in money terms also redcuces the budget annually by inflation.
Let the regulator take a bigger interest in overlap of commercial activity, especially online and local radio. Plan for the future BBC to be producing quality rather than quantity or chasing ratings, provide a platform for innovation that's not dumbing down and provide space for new producers to try things out rather than more repeats. Concentrate on drama, comedy documentary and children's programmes instead of talent shows, soap opera and copycat formats.
It's also important that the mentality is addressed, why does it take 500 people to produce Glastonbury for example - and for sporting events, most people are interested in the players, not who is watching or what they are wearing!!
Are there any long-form political intvs on the BBC nowadays?
Since Andrew Neil's StraightTalk was axed - I can't think of a single one. We used to have a great tradition of these way back from the Sunday shows ITV's Weekend World with Brian Walden to On The Record with John Humphreys.
The BBC needs to dump the populist pap and show some proper politics and current affairs programmes in prime time. Not at 10:30 and later when I've gone to bed. With 6 channels broadcasting in the evening, there is plenty of scope.
Also, if the BBC claims to offer something for everyone, where is the hard core?
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.
LibDems have been slaughtered in all elections since 2010 in one of their heartland areas - this is all which is left:
Scottish seats in the House of Commons - 1 / 59
Scottish seats in the European Parliament - 0 / 6
Scottish Parliament - 5 / 129
Local government in Scotland - 65 / 1,223
They have two constituency MSPs and three list. The constituencies are O&S - Willie Rennie is one of my list MSPs got around 6% of list vote in 2011 - with the Green surge he'll need to up his game to retain his seat.
Indeed. Unfortunately what the Scottish LibDems do have is a party infrastructure to support a much larger party, it's this self-interested group who have rallied round Carmichael. Even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters think he should go. I think the LibDems are being very short sighted here - Carmichael stands down - if he stands he'd lose - if they were to parachute in somebody like Jo Swinson - I think she would have a reasonable chance.
Anyway Farron is deciding to ignore the Scottish electorate and stick with the tainted party machine and push water up hill - good luck to him !!
Look at the list of Oscar winners since 2001 - and tell me the cinema isn't in decline:
A Beautiful Mind Chicago Lord of the Rings Million Dollar Baby Crash The Departed No Country for Old Men Slumdog Millionaire Hurt Locker Kings Speech The Artist Argo 12 Years a Slave Birdman.
And for the 70's:
The French Connection The Godfather The Sting Godfather Part 2 One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest Rocky Annie Hall Deer Hunter Kramer v Kramer
OK - one question for you all. Where the hell do you find the time to watch all this TV?
By the time I've done my job, tried to be a mother, wife, done some gardening, walked the dog, tried to ensure house not a complete tip, seen friends, etc etc there is no more than about - at best - a few minutes to watch any TV at all. So how do you all do it?
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?
Isn't the point that the BBC should not be there to compete? Its purpose in a commercial age is to produce a variety of good but not necessarily commercial programmes. Horizon is at one end and the Forsyte Saga at the other with say Open All Hours in between. Just because other channels produce situation comedy is no reason for the BBC not to do the same. But does it have to copy in a crass way the USA style with Not Going Out? Let ITV do that.
Look at the list of Oscar winners since 2001 - and tell me the cinema isn't in decline:
A Beautiful Mind Chicago Lord of the Rings Million Dollar Baby Crash The Departed No Country for Old Men Slumdog Millionaire Hurt Locker Kings Speech The Artist Argo 12 Years a Slave Birdman.
And for the 70's:
The French Connection The Godfather The Sting Godfather Part 2 One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest Rocky Annie Hall Deer Hunter Kramer v Kramer
Comments
It is like a band saying well we only do 1 album and 1 tour every 3 years, when all the competition is doing 1 album every 2 years and touring every year. Yes U2 can probably get away with that, but Universal and all the rest of their artists wouldn't survive if they all carried on like that.
@NickPalmer: agree re Gove - it would be good to get some sensible prison policy decisions.
However 3 per 3 years is still poor. It probably obsesses too much about production values which affect costs. I see from blurbs that they are actually somehow taking them back to Victorian times - complete with the expense creating all that to their nth degree of verisimilitude. Still I suppose they might get some value out of the sets from the quite pointless 'Strange and Norrell' rubbish.
TBH, I don't take much notice of Oscars - there's so much politicking and fashion involved.
Has Stephen Spielberg won one yet? So many great actor get one for average films as a mea culpa for being ignored for better performances decades before.
Procedural shows which rely less on characterisation and so on seem suited to 22+
American TV is several orders of magnitude greater than British TV, it's not even funny. Canada seems to produce some good shows too.
Re the BBC, I think the issue is that some people really really hate it for a variety of reasons - perceived or actual bias, the principle of paying for it etc etc - and they overreact to every little thing, whereas most others at the least do not detest it, and many think fondly of it, with a smaller group passionately in support of it, and the overreaction just irritates the groups who do not hate the BBC, and undermines the genuinely good points in criticism of hte BBC.
Some, certainly not all, critics of the BBC respond to everything with something along the lines of 'They overspent on paperclips;therefore we should disband the entire organisation, obviously!' and that makes the more sensible critics look sillier by association.
Scottish seats in the House of Commons - 1 / 59
Scottish seats in the European Parliament - 0 / 6
Scottish Parliament - 5 / 129
Local government in Scotland - 65 / 1,223
They have two constituency MSPs and three list. The constituencies are O&S - Willie Rennie is one of my list MSPs got around 6% of list vote in 2011 - with the Green surge he'll need to up his game to retain his seat.
I presume again the likes of Audible + smart phones allow people to hover up books at incredible rate. I know I can get through books in a couple of days if I want, as I can listen to them when on the move, in the car, at the gym etc.
I'm just about to watch S1 E3. That's scheduled for 10 shows IIRC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4fRXGyIak
I think Morris Dancer was their historical consultant.
Look at phenomenally successful 90's comedy 'Cold Feet' - wound up after half a dozen or so series because 'they felt it wasn't going anywhere'. Compare to Friends - if they had a shite season they just carried on and made the next one better.
Of course some popular characters continue to be written, either with consent or out of copyright. Sherlock Holmes of course being a case in point.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/03/health-food-fads-quinoa-guilt-free-diet
I particularly liked the introduction to one section:
"I was innocently picking samphire..."
I felt that you would have been proud of this article.
The range of views shows the government is absolutely right to have introduced the Green Paper and to have asked some very hard questions. The BBC should periodically be made to justify itself and an alternative to the licence fee is necessary. The current system is neither justifiable nor sustainable.
My guess is that the BBC will change, but nowhere near as much as some of its detractors hope for. They are going to be disappointed.
Was surprised to discover decades later that he was as fictional as his characters.
Very pleased Tim Farron was elected - the correct choice in my view (and unlike OGH I just broke my duck in always voting for the loser.....)
It is also really common for hit shows to employ a team of directors who direct different episodes and the same with the writing staff. I am not saying this is necessarily the ideal way of doing it, but that is what the competition is doing and still managing to pump out really really quality stuff.
One big mistake (IMO) the US shows do make is if they have a successful writing and directorial TEAM and they ask for big increases in money, they dump them and it is very difficult to replace that whole team with equal quality that has that real feel for the show.
If you PB Tories think that all the Lib Dem MPs ought to have been ministers, I would agree with you. The quality of the Coalition Government would have been much higher. You should have mentioned it at the time though. Mr Cameron might have taken some notice of you.
The objective of the Liberal Democrats is to bring about a Liberal society, Mr Path. They can do this outside the Westminster government or from the inside. Tm Farron recognises that it is far easier to do this from the inside, which is why he is talking about the Lib Dem successes in government (most of which the Tories are now claiming the credit for, despite opposing them within government) - and also talking about getting back into government again, in order to do more.
But I suspect that the politics (presentation) of any future coalition would be very different. Nick Clegg got most of the policies right - he was just out-manoeuvred on the politics.
Makes up for a multitude of sins.
Also, if the BBC claims to offer something for everyone, where is the hard core?
By the time I've done my job, tried to be a mother, wife, done some gardening, walked the dog, tried to ensure house not a complete tip, seen friends, etc etc there is no more than about - at best - a few minutes to watch any TV at all. So how do you all do it?
*ducks behind sofa....*
Ridiculously loyal.
That said, watching Californication on the train, gets you told off by the conductor Revenue Protection Officers, for watching filth on a train.
I find the productivity gap between the BBC and other broadcasters incomprehensible. I guess its the *unique way they're funded*
I don't, and have said so on this thread. I've merely listed my experiences *on the rare occassion* that I do.
Typically, that's 9pm on a Sunday. Or perhaps channel hopping late on the odd Friday night if I'm tired and not going out. Then we normally resort to a boxset episode or two.
Usually, If I have free time, I post on here or head put for a meal with my wife. The latter obviously takes precedence ;-)
New Thread
Personally, given that we are where we are, the commonsensical view would be to make gradual changes. The announced change regarding the free licences is a good start, freezing the licence in money terms also redcuces the budget annually by inflation.
Let the regulator take a bigger interest in overlap of commercial activity, especially online and local radio. Plan for the future BBC to be producing quality rather than quantity or chasing ratings, provide a platform for innovation that's not dumbing down and provide space for new producers to try things out rather than more repeats. Concentrate on drama, comedy documentary and children's programmes instead of talent shows, soap opera and copycat formats.
It's also important that the mentality is addressed, why does it take 500 people to produce Glastonbury for example - and for sporting events, most people are interested in the players, not who is watching or what they are wearing!!
Since Andrew Neil's StraightTalk was axed - I can't think of a single one. We used to have a great tradition of these way back from the Sunday shows ITV's Weekend World with Brian Walden to On The Record with John Humphreys.
Anyway Farron is deciding to ignore the Scottish electorate and stick with the tainted party machine and push water up hill - good luck to him !!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13440353.Farron__most_decent_people_would_think_Carmichael_should_be_given_second_chance_after_Sturgeon_memo_row/
A Beautiful Mind
Chicago
Lord of the Rings
Million Dollar Baby
Crash
The Departed
No Country for Old Men
Slumdog Millionaire
Hurt Locker
Kings Speech
The Artist
Argo
12 Years a Slave
Birdman.
And for the 70's:
The French Connection
The Godfather
The Sting
Godfather Part 2
One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
Rocky
Annie Hall
Deer Hunter
Kramer v Kramer
If it wasn't on the radio during my commute - I had no idea.
TFC 7.8
TG 9.2
TS 8.4
TG2 9.1
OFOTCN 8.7
R 8.1
AH 8.1
DH 8.2
KvK 7.8
ABM 8.2
C 7.2
ROTK 8.9
MDB 8.1
Crash 7.9
The departed 8.5
NCFOM 8.1
S Millionaire 8.0
Hurt Locker 7.6
K Speech 8.1
The artist 8.0
Argo 7.8
12YaS 8.1
Birdman 7.9
70s mean 8.3; 2001-15 mean 8.0.
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top suggests that the 1990s had a glut of excellent movies.
Anyone seen tim with a bottle of antifreeze around?
Eng 43/1
Aus 1/3
Draw 7/2