The government seems to have become massively more confident on this in just the last few days. There must be some very promising data coming into no.10.
Supply, supply, supply. All of our investments are coming good. It's happening, we just have to ignore the zero COVID chumps and be brave with our opening up.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
Oh do fuck off what the bbc shows is mainly repeats of things made years ago
Maybe but I'd still like to see the hours of new material the main players produce each month.
Well name the new stuff the bbc has produced thats exclusive to the bbc and they havent just bought of a company whereas for example as I use amazon I have had over the last few years...the expanse 5 series another to go...vikings 6 series...black sails 3 series....preacher.....now on series 4.....amercian gods now on series 3....good omens....greenland...man in the high castle...I could name more but will stop there.
What have the bbc done? Downton abbey? More eastenders? The great british bakeoff?
Lol. Downton was ITV; Bake-off, although made popular on the BBC, was poached by C4.
To answer your question with a few suggestions:
Killing Eve Fleabag Normal People The Serpent Peaky Blinders His Dark Materials Dr Foster The Fall A Suitable Boy Cormoran Strike Line of Duty
Your list is a classic example of how the BBC hasn't adjusted to the modern landscape.
Killing Eve - 3 seasons of 8 episodes (over 3 years) Fleabag - 2 seasons of 6 episodes (over 4 years) Normal People - 12 episodes Peaky Blinders - 30 episodes over 5 seasons (over 7 years) His Dark Materials - 15 episodes over 2 seasons Dr Foster - 10 episodes over 2 seasons (over 3 years) Line of Duty - 29 episodes over 5 seasons (over 8 years).
Example of a Netflix big show
House of Cards - 73 episodes over 6 seasons (over 6 years).
A real BBC "classic" example...Sherlock....13 episodes over 8 years. They literally produced what a "normal" show would now expect minimum for a single season over the course of 8, yes 8, years.
While I take your point, that isn't modern. It's simply the American tradition. 13 or 26 shows a year. Often with a vast army of script writers. Most of those named above are written by a single person. They are someone's baby. That is the British tradition. Sometimes less is more. Edit: I see the point has been made.
Agreed, American tend to flog an idea to death. Look at how Mad Men dragged on for example.
Less can sometimes be more. But less can also sometimes just be less.
5 seasons is the industry standard for an upmarket drama series. Very few go longer than that while maintaining the quality. Mad Men, House, others, all decline after season 5. But getting to season 5 is a real achievement. A success
Notable exceptions are The Sopranos (kept improving to the final end of season 6), and, as menshed, Grey’s Anatomy, which is just a phenomenon
Just rewatcheed The Wire. Series 1 - 3 are just superb. 4 is very very good. 5 lost me: quite impausible.
My daughter persuaded me to subscribe to Netflix and I succumbed last week.
I started watching The Queen's Gambit and binged it all until 3am on Tuesday morning. I've now subscribed to chess.com and persuaded my 10 year old grandson to also subscribe. I have plans for him.
What is the future of cinema - will it survive Covid?
Without a doubt. They tried PPV releases of feature films during COVID and it was a disaster.
No, there really is a doubt. I know people in Hollywood. They are mightily afeared that the straight-to-streaming model is the future. It has already laid waste to tv scheduling.
Sure, blockbuster movies will survive as cinematic experiences in big cities. But that’s the problem: cinema could become like theatre. A relatively rare, big city experience. Small town cinemas will all shut.
Well the one big blockbuster covid release was essentially a flop: WonderWoman
And they've held back Black Widow and Bond, I guess for this reason.
I assume more money may go into big-budget "TV" programming rather than feature films?
That would be a shame. I've always been more a TV person than a film person, but I do like a big blockbuster at the cinema. Pretty sure my local cinema will go bellyup - it was almost always near empty when I went (after some 30 years of the town wanting a cinema), and they had slashed the prices by half in the 6 months before Covid, which did not seem like a good sign.
Labour MPs are being asked by the party’s high command not to focus on problems caused by Brexit when asking questions in parliament, dealing with the media, or posting on social media, according to sources in the parliamentary party.
What is the future of cinema - will it survive Covid?
Without a doubt. They tried PPV releases of feature films during COVID and it was a disaster.
No, there really is a doubt. I know people in Hollywood. They are mightily afeared that the straight-to-streaming model is the future. It has already laid waste to tv scheduling.
Sure, blockbuster movies will survive as cinematic experiences in big cities. But that’s the problem: cinema could become like theatre. A relatively rare, big city experience. Small town cinemas will all shut.
Well the one big blockbuster covid release was essentially a flop: WonderWoman
And they've held back Black Widow and Bond, I guess for this reason.
I assume more money may go into big-budget "TV" programming rather than feature films?
That would be a shame. I've always been more a TV person than a film person, but I do like a big blockbuster at the cinema. Pretty sure my local cinema will go bellyup - it was almost always near empty when I went (after some 30 years of the town wanting a cinema), and they had slashed the prices by half in the 6 months before Covid, which did not seem like a good sign.
The Vue cinema in Cramlington was something like £5 a person in normal times. Very reasonable. The Odeon down the road at the Metrocentre charges like £20 per person. A complete rip off.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
Oh do fuck off what the bbc shows is mainly repeats of things made years ago
Maybe but I'd still like to see the hours of new material the main players produce each month.
Well name the new stuff the bbc has produced thats exclusive to the bbc and they havent just bought of a company whereas for example as I use amazon I have had over the last few years...the expanse 5 series another to go...vikings 6 series...black sails 3 series....preacher.....now on series 4.....amercian gods now on series 3....good omens....greenland...man in the high castle...I could name more but will stop there.
What have the bbc done? Downton abbey? More eastenders? The great british bakeoff?
Lol. Downton was ITV; Bake-off, although made popular on the BBC, was poached by C4.
To answer your question with a few suggestions:
Killing Eve Fleabag Normal People The Serpent Peaky Blinders His Dark Materials Dr Foster The Fall A Suitable Boy Cormoran Strike Line of Duty
Your list is a classic example of how the BBC hasn't adjusted to the modern landscape.
Killing Eve - 3 seasons of 8 episodes (over 3 years) Fleabag - 2 seasons of 6 episodes (over 4 years) Normal People - 12 episodes Peaky Blinders - 30 episodes over 5 seasons (over 7 years) His Dark Materials - 15 episodes over 2 seasons Dr Foster - 10 episodes over 2 seasons (over 3 years) Line of Duty - 29 episodes over 5 seasons (over 8 years).
Example of a Netflix big show
House of Cards - 73 episodes over 6 seasons (over 6 years).
A real BBC "classic" example...Sherlock....13 episodes over 8 years. They literally produced what a "normal" show would now expect minimum for a single season over the course of 8, yes 8, years.
While I take your point, that isn't modern. It's simply the American tradition. 13 or 26 shows a year. Often with a vast army of script writers. Most of those named above are written by a single person. They are someone's baby. That is the British tradition. Sometimes less is more. Edit: I see the point has been made.
Agreed, American tend to flog an idea to death. Look at how Mad Men dragged on for example.
Less can sometimes be more. But less can also sometimes just be less.
5 seasons is the industry standard for an upmarket drama series. Very few go longer than that while maintaining the quality. Mad Men, House, others, all decline after season 5. But getting to season 5 is a real achievement. A success
Notable exceptions are The Sopranos (kept improving to the final end of season 6), and, as menshed, Grey’s Anatomy, which is just a phenomenon
Yup. We got 5 seasons of the greatest TV drama of all time: Breaking Bad.
I loved Breaking Bad from the off. Hated the ending tho. It should have concluded with the death of Hank. After that it was superfluity.
Come to think of it, most of my favourite TV drama series end disappointingly. Endings are really hard to do. The only series i love that have ALSO ended excellently are Spartacus and Hell on Wheels (a neglected minor masterpiece)
It needed resolution after Hank's death. His killers needed their dues. The very last episode was fantastic.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
Oh do fuck off what the bbc shows is mainly repeats of things made years ago
Maybe but I'd still like to see the hours of new material the main players produce each month.
Well name the new stuff the bbc has produced thats exclusive to the bbc and they havent just bought of a company whereas for example as I use amazon I have had over the last few years...the expanse 5 series another to go...vikings 6 series...black sails 3 series....preacher.....now on series 4.....amercian gods now on series 3....good omens....greenland...man in the high castle...I could name more but will stop there.
What have the bbc done? Downton abbey? More eastenders? The great british bakeoff?
Lol. Downton was ITV; Bake-off, although made popular on the BBC, was poached by C4.
To answer your question with a few suggestions:
Killing Eve Fleabag Normal People The Serpent Peaky Blinders His Dark Materials Dr Foster The Fall A Suitable Boy Cormoran Strike Line of Duty
Your list is a classic example of how the BBC hasn't adjusted to the modern landscape.
Killing Eve - 3 seasons of 8 episodes (over 3 years) Fleabag - 2 seasons of 6 episodes (over 4 years) Normal People - 12 episodes Peaky Blinders - 30 episodes over 5 seasons (over 7 years) His Dark Materials - 15 episodes over 2 seasons Dr Foster - 10 episodes over 2 seasons (over 3 years) Line of Duty - 29 episodes over 5 seasons (over 8 years).
Example of a Netflix big show
House of Cards - 73 episodes over 6 seasons (over 6 years).
A real BBC "classic" example...Sherlock....13 episodes over 8 years. They literally produced what a "normal" show would now expect minimum for a single season over the course of 8, yes 8, years.
While I take your point, that isn't modern. It's simply the American tradition. 13 or 26 shows a year. Often with a vast army of script writers. Most of those named above are written by a single person. They are someone's baby. That is the British tradition. Sometimes less is more. Edit: I see the point has been made.
And sometimes less is less.
It wouldn't be too bad if instead of 13/26 episodes per season it was 6 episodes per season but 2-4x as many quality seasons to make up the difference. But there's not many times as many quality series there's just a few potentially decent shows that have a couple of decent episodes every few years.
People literally name Sherlock again and again despite it being 1 proper season if you combine it all together.
I agree. Sometimes less is less. One of the problems with Sherlock was getting Cumberbatch and Freeman together at the same time. Neither is short of work often.
Which is part of the BBC's problem, they're obsessed over certain "celebrity" "talent". If actors can't commit to a series then cast someone else.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
Oh do fuck off what the bbc shows is mainly repeats of things made years ago
Maybe but I'd still like to see the hours of new material the main players produce each month.
Well name the new stuff the bbc has produced thats exclusive to the bbc and they havent just bought of a company whereas for example as I use amazon I have had over the last few years...the expanse 5 series another to go...vikings 6 series...black sails 3 series....preacher.....now on series 4.....amercian gods now on series 3....good omens....greenland...man in the high castle...I could name more but will stop there.
What have the bbc done? Downton abbey? More eastenders? The great british bakeoff?
Lol. Downton was ITV; Bake-off, although made popular on the BBC, was poached by C4.
To answer your question with a few suggestions:
Killing Eve Fleabag Normal People The Serpent Peaky Blinders His Dark Materials Dr Foster The Fall A Suitable Boy Cormoran Strike Line of Duty
Your list is a classic example of how the BBC hasn't adjusted to the modern landscape.
Killing Eve - 3 seasons of 8 episodes (over 3 years) Fleabag - 2 seasons of 6 episodes (over 4 years) Normal People - 12 episodes Peaky Blinders - 30 episodes over 5 seasons (over 7 years) His Dark Materials - 15 episodes over 2 seasons Dr Foster - 10 episodes over 2 seasons (over 3 years) Line of Duty - 29 episodes over 5 seasons (over 8 years).
Example of a Netflix big show
House of Cards - 73 episodes over 6 seasons (over 6 years).
A real BBC "classic" example...Sherlock....13 episodes over 8 years. They literally produced what a "normal" show would now expect minimum for a single season over the course of 8, yes 8, years.
While I take your point, that isn't modern. It's simply the American tradition. 13 or 26 shows a year. Often with a vast army of script writers. Most of those named above are written by a single person. They are someone's baby. That is the British tradition. Sometimes less is more. Edit: I see the point has been made.
And sometimes less is less.
It wouldn't be too bad if instead of 13/26 episodes per season it was 6 episodes per season but 2-4x as many quality seasons to make up the difference. But there's not many times as many quality series there's just a few potentially decent shows that have a couple of decent episodes every few years.
People literally name Sherlock again and again despite it being 1 proper season if you combine it all together.
I agree. Sometimes less is less. One of the problems with Sherlock was getting Cumberbatch and Freeman together at the same time. Neither is short of work often.
Which is part of the BBC's problem, they're obsessed over certain "celebrity" "talent". If actors can't commit to a series then cast someone else.
I think netflix and amazon both ask them to commit to x series rather that a contract for each series
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
Oh do fuck off what the bbc shows is mainly repeats of things made years ago
Maybe but I'd still like to see the hours of new material the main players produce each month.
Well name the new stuff the bbc has produced thats exclusive to the bbc and they havent just bought of a company whereas for example as I use amazon I have had over the last few years...the expanse 5 series another to go...vikings 6 series...black sails 3 series....preacher.....now on series 4.....amercian gods now on series 3....good omens....greenland...man in the high castle...I could name more but will stop there.
What have the bbc done? Downton abbey? More eastenders? The great british bakeoff?
Lol. Downton was ITV; Bake-off, although made popular on the BBC, was poached by C4.
To answer your question with a few suggestions:
Killing Eve Fleabag Normal People The Serpent Peaky Blinders His Dark Materials Dr Foster The Fall A Suitable Boy Cormoran Strike Line of Duty
Your list is a classic example of how the BBC hasn't adjusted to the modern landscape.
Killing Eve - 3 seasons of 8 episodes (over 3 years) Fleabag - 2 seasons of 6 episodes (over 4 years) Normal People - 12 episodes Peaky Blinders - 30 episodes over 5 seasons (over 7 years) His Dark Materials - 15 episodes over 2 seasons Dr Foster - 10 episodes over 2 seasons (over 3 years) Line of Duty - 29 episodes over 5 seasons (over 8 years).
Example of a Netflix big show
House of Cards - 73 episodes over 6 seasons (over 6 years).
A real BBC "classic" example...Sherlock....13 episodes over 8 years. They literally produced what a "normal" show would now expect minimum for a single season over the course of 8, yes 8, years.
While I take your point, that isn't modern. It's simply the American tradition. 13 or 26 shows a year. Often with a vast army of script writers. Most of those named above are written by a single person. They are someone's baby. That is the British tradition. Sometimes less is more. Edit: I see the point has been made.
Agreed, American tend to flog an idea to death. Look at how Mad Men dragged on for example.
Less can sometimes be more. But less can also sometimes just be less.
5 seasons is the industry standard for an upmarket drama series. Very few go longer than that while maintaining the quality. Mad Men, House, others, all decline after season 5. But getting to season 5 is a real achievement. A success
Notable exceptions are The Sopranos (kept improving to the final end of season 6), and, as menshed, Grey’s Anatomy, which is just a phenomenon
Yup. We got 5 seasons of the greatest TV drama of all time: Breaking Bad.
I loved Breaking Bad from the off. Hated the ending tho. It should have concluded with the death of Hank. After that it was superfluity.
Come to think of it, most of my favourite TV drama series end disappointingly. Endings are really hard to do. The only series i love that have ALSO ended excellently are Spartacus and Hell on Wheels (a neglected minor masterpiece)
I feel like Spartacus surely had the advantage that it could really only end one way? Probably made planning for it easier.
There is an element wherein people are just upset that the thing they like is ending, and I think even in most of the 'worst endings evarr' examples even when they are not great - as you say endings are hard - they are rarely as bad as people remember them as being (and you know what, the Star Wars Prequels aren't as bad as people remember either). Not that I haven't raved about the terrible endings of some of my favourite shows!
No spoilers but the best ending was the ending of the Sopranos.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
Oh do fuck off what the bbc shows is mainly repeats of things made years ago
Maybe but I'd still like to see the hours of new material the main players produce each month.
Well name the new stuff the bbc has produced thats exclusive to the bbc and they havent just bought of a company whereas for example as I use amazon I have had over the last few years...the expanse 5 series another to go...vikings 6 series...black sails 3 series....preacher.....now on series 4.....amercian gods now on series 3....good omens....greenland...man in the high castle...I could name more but will stop there.
What have the bbc done? Downton abbey? More eastenders? The great british bakeoff?
Lol. Downton was ITV; Bake-off, although made popular on the BBC, was poached by C4.
To answer your question with a few suggestions:
Killing Eve Fleabag Normal People The Serpent Peaky Blinders His Dark Materials Dr Foster The Fall A Suitable Boy Cormoran Strike Line of Duty
Your list is a classic example of how the BBC hasn't adjusted to the modern landscape.
Killing Eve - 3 seasons of 8 episodes (over 3 years) Fleabag - 2 seasons of 6 episodes (over 4 years) Normal People - 12 episodes Peaky Blinders - 30 episodes over 5 seasons (over 7 years) His Dark Materials - 15 episodes over 2 seasons Dr Foster - 10 episodes over 2 seasons (over 3 years) Line of Duty - 29 episodes over 5 seasons (over 8 years).
Example of a Netflix big show
House of Cards - 73 episodes over 6 seasons (over 6 years).
A real BBC "classic" example...Sherlock....13 episodes over 8 years. They literally produced what a "normal" show would now expect minimum for a single season over the course of 8, yes 8, years.
While I take your point, that isn't modern. It's simply the American tradition. 13 or 26 shows a year. Often with a vast army of script writers. Most of those named above are written by a single person. They are someone's baby. That is the British tradition. Sometimes less is more. Edit: I see the point has been made.
Agreed, American tend to flog an idea to death. Look at how Mad Men dragged on for example.
Less can sometimes be more. But less can also sometimes just be less.
5 seasons is the industry standard for an upmarket drama series. Very few go longer than that while maintaining the quality. Mad Men, House, others, all decline after season 5. But getting to season 5 is a real achievement. A success
Notable exceptions are The Sopranos (kept improving to the final end of season 6), and, as menshed, Grey’s Anatomy, which is just a phenomenon
Yup. We got 5 seasons of the greatest TV drama of all time: Breaking Bad.
I loved Breaking Bad from the off. Hated the ending tho. It should have concluded with the death of Hank. After that it was superfluity.
Come to think of it, most of my favourite TV drama series end disappointingly. Endings are really hard to do. The only series i love that have ALSO ended excellently are Spartacus and Hell on Wheels (a neglected minor masterpiece)
I feel like Spartacus surely had the advantage that it could really only end one way? Probably made planning for it easier.
There is an element wherein people are just upset that the thing they like is ending, and I think even in most of the 'worst endings evarr' examples even when they are not great - as you say endings are hard - they are rarely as bad as people remember them as being (and you know what, the Star Wars Prequels aren't as bad as people remember either). Not that I haven't raved about the terrible endings of some of my favourite shows!
Spot on. Endings are hard however successful you are, arguably they are harder if your show/film/book/play is loved, because people don’t want it to end AND they are so invested in certain characters/storylines they feel cheated if they don’t get what they personally want. Cf Game of Thrones. A disaster. Also the movie version of Lord of the Rings. FFS stop
This is where rom coms and period dramas have an advantage: they nearly always end with a wedding (and they all lived happily ever after). From Pride and Prejudice to Mills and Boon: this ending works. We leave the cinema/theatre/sofa/book with a warm, happy glow
For darker material it is much more difficult. You have to be ambiguous at best. That’s where Spartacus was brilliant. We all knew it was going to end badly, yet they brought it off with bravura and nobility and somehow made it bittersweet yet positive. Very hard
For me the model in this - and I’ve mentioned it before - remains the ending to the movie Walkabout by Nic Roeg. OK you see a young Jenny Agutter naked which is never a bad thing, yet it always moves me. Roeg nails the bittesweetness
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
Oh do fuck off what the bbc shows is mainly repeats of things made years ago
Maybe but I'd still like to see the hours of new material the main players produce each month.
Well name the new stuff the bbc has produced thats exclusive to the bbc and they havent just bought of a company whereas for example as I use amazon I have had over the last few years...the expanse 5 series another to go...vikings 6 series...black sails 3 series....preacher.....now on series 4.....amercian gods now on series 3....good omens....greenland...man in the high castle...I could name more but will stop there.
What have the bbc done? Downton abbey? More eastenders? The great british bakeoff?
Lol. Downton was ITV; Bake-off, although made popular on the BBC, was poached by C4.
To answer your question with a few suggestions:
Killing Eve Fleabag Normal People The Serpent Peaky Blinders His Dark Materials Dr Foster The Fall A Suitable Boy Cormoran Strike Line of Duty
Your list is a classic example of how the BBC hasn't adjusted to the modern landscape.
Killing Eve - 3 seasons of 8 episodes (over 3 years) Fleabag - 2 seasons of 6 episodes (over 4 years) Normal People - 12 episodes Peaky Blinders - 30 episodes over 5 seasons (over 7 years) His Dark Materials - 15 episodes over 2 seasons Dr Foster - 10 episodes over 2 seasons (over 3 years) Line of Duty - 29 episodes over 5 seasons (over 8 years).
Example of a Netflix big show
House of Cards - 73 episodes over 6 seasons (over 6 years).
A real BBC "classic" example...Sherlock....13 episodes over 8 years. They literally produced what a "normal" show would now expect minimum for a single season over the course of 8, yes 8, years.
While I take your point, that isn't modern. It's simply the American tradition. 13 or 26 shows a year. Often with a vast army of script writers. Most of those named above are written by a single person. They are someone's baby. That is the British tradition. Sometimes less is more. Edit: I see the point has been made.
And sometimes less is less.
It wouldn't be too bad if instead of 13/26 episodes per season it was 6 episodes per season but 2-4x as many quality seasons to make up the difference. But there's not many times as many quality series there's just a few potentially decent shows that have a couple of decent episodes every few years.
People literally name Sherlock again and again despite it being 1 proper season if you combine it all together.
I agree. Sometimes less is less. One of the problems with Sherlock was getting Cumberbatch and Freeman together at the same time. Neither is short of work often.
Which is part of the BBC's problem, they're obsessed over certain "celebrity" "talent". If actors can't commit to a series then cast someone else.
And of course think of all that excellent talent you might uncover....Idris Elba, Michael K. Williams, Jamie Hector to name just 3 from the Wire. Even Dominic West wasn't really a big deal before that show.
What is the future of cinema - will it survive Covid?
Without a doubt. They tried PPV releases of feature films during COVID and it was a disaster.
No, there really is a doubt. I know people in Hollywood. They are mightily afeared that the straight-to-streaming model is the future. It has already laid waste to tv scheduling.
Sure, blockbuster movies will survive as cinematic experiences in big cities. But that’s the problem: cinema could become like theatre. A relatively rare, big city experience. Small town cinemas will all shut.
Well the one big blockbuster covid release was essentially a flop: WonderWoman
And they've held back Black Widow and Bond, I guess for this reason.
I assume more money may go into big-budget "TV" programming rather than feature films?
There were articles online a few months ago about the lack of covid insurance cover for film productions being a key constraint - making it too risky to tie up capital in a production where you may not get your money back for years (if at all) and where infections could cause production timescales and costs to grow out of control.
This compares with the new virtual set technology on (say) The Mandalorian which speeds up production and cuts costs. If films become smaller scale or adopt that technology fast then they may become viable again.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Amazing if true. I mean, even if there are only partial crowds. I was assuming that music festivals would be an absolute non-starter, and it might take until the new football season for sports crowds to start coming back.
The government seems to have become massively more confident on this in just the last few days. There must be some very promising data coming into no.10.
Maybe. Then again, a lot of cautious noises have continued to be made, and many of the scientists also still seem to be advising glacially-paced unlocking. It's far too early to get in any way excited.
Perhaps the opportunity for trolling the EU was too much to pass up?
I see Boris given a date for the whole population being offered a dose as 31st July. Seems a bit pessimistic?
Matt Hancock has ‘stopped talking’ to Tony Blair amid accusations that the former Prime Minister pinched Government anti-Covid ideas to pass them off as his own, it was claimed last night.
The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair’s own suggestions.
A well-placed Government source told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock had now broken off contact with the 67-year-old ex-premier – who yesterday posted a picture of himself receiving his Covid jab on Twitter – over the breaches.
Congrats to Everton but that’s yet another bonkers result that would never happen were fans in the stadium. (See also Man Utd losing 6-1 to Tottenham at Old Trafford and several other weird results)
This season will be a brilliant control for sports psychologists exploring the phenomenon of home advantage.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
It's not the same at all though. In Manchester's example both clubs represent the city of Manchester, regardless of where in the city its supporters come from. There is a common geographical identity.
Nobody views Sunderland and Newcastle as one city. They are always considered separate places, and the clubs do not represent areas of one city, they represent two distinct regional identities. If you go to South Shields, where the Newcastle United/Sunderland ratio is around 50/50, you'll probably find that the support for "Greater Newcastle" is the same 50/50.
The County of "Tyne and Wear" was a failure for this reason. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past.
Matt Hancock has ‘stopped talking’ to Tony Blair amid accusations that the former Prime Minister pinched Government anti-Covid ideas to pass them off as his own, it was claimed last night.
The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair’s own suggestions.
A well-placed Government source told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock had now broken off contact with the 67-year-old ex-premier – who yesterday posted a picture of himself receiving his Covid jab on Twitter – over the breaches.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Whereas Liverpool is perfectly able to obstruct sensible governance regardless of football.
Matt Hancock has ‘stopped talking’ to Tony Blair amid accusations that the former Prime Minister pinched Government anti-Covid ideas to pass them off as his own, it was claimed last night.
The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair’s own suggestions.
A well-placed Government source told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock had now broken off contact with the 67-year-old ex-premier – who yesterday posted a picture of himself receiving his Covid jab on Twitter – over the breaches.
I don't think we'll ever know the truth of such things, but I must say when Blair was making his various announcements, useful though they were, it did seem improbable to me that no one beavering away in Whitehall had come up with them as policy ideas, though who would know if they had been accepted.
The Shield - 88 episodes, 7 seasons, 7 years Boardwalk Empire - 56 episodes, 5 seasons, 5 years Game of Thrones - 73 episodes, 8 seasons, 8 years Better Call Saul - 50 episodes, 5 seasons, 5 years Soparanos - 86 episodes, 6 seasons, 8 years.
How about slightly less "top end", something like...
The Good Wife - 156 episodes, 7 seasons, 7 years
And the BBC offer me 13 Sherlock episodes in 8 years.
And while it is true that quantity does not necessarily equal quality - *shifts nervously and glances at post count* - does anyone really believe that the quality offered by Sherlock is so much higher that it provides equivalent content and quality within its episode count? Certainly there is more filler in shows with 20 episodes a season, and even ones with 13 episodes can drag (the Marvel netflix shows spring to mind, and how Lost got better once it reduced its episode count per season), but there's just overall more quality provided more consistently, and 10-13 seems the norm for online stuff anyway.
That list of leading US shows stretches back to the late 90s.
There’s less truly great stuff out there than people think.
Naturally. We remember the good stuff and barely remember the legion of dreck that came out as well. I dare say with so many platforms now there is an excess of content, as there's only so many good writers and actors to go around.
But I don't see anything special about British television in the ratio of good content to bad it produces. Accordingly, as there is more american content in any case, there will be more really good ones by sheer weight of numbers. And when they do have a good one, you'll have more of it and more often to boot. I also think the British stuff accordingly gets way overhyped as they have to make really sure the limited stuff produced is a hit, at least momentarily.
I don't see why that would be so hard for British TV. I don't watch it anymore, but the revival of Doctor Who used to do something like 13-14 episodes per year and it was good (inasmuch as Doctor Who is capable of being at least).
Doctor Who as revived by Russell T Davies, who also wrote It's A Sin, to bring this thread full circle. Perhaps it is great writers that British television (not just the BBC) is short of.
Matt Hancock has ‘stopped talking’ to Tony Blair amid accusations that the former Prime Minister pinched Government anti-Covid ideas to pass them off as his own, it was claimed last night.
The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair’s own suggestions.
A well-placed Government source told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock had now broken off contact with the 67-year-old ex-premier – who yesterday posted a picture of himself receiving his Covid jab on Twitter – over the breaches.
I don't think we'll ever know the truth of such things, but I must say when Blair was making his various announcements, useful though they were, it did seem improbable to me that no one beavering away in Whitehall had come up with them as policy ideas, though who would know if they had been accepted.
More interestingly is regardless of if Hancock or Blair came up with them, Blair didn't think to slip them to Starmer. Could have been a proper Captain Foresight moment.
Matt Hancock has ‘stopped talking’ to Tony Blair amid accusations that the former Prime Minister pinched Government anti-Covid ideas to pass them off as his own, it was claimed last night.
The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair’s own suggestions.
A well-placed Government source told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock had now broken off contact with the 67-year-old ex-premier – who yesterday posted a picture of himself receiving his Covid jab on Twitter – over the breaches.
I don't think we'll ever know the truth of such things, but I must say when Blair was making his various announcements, useful though they were, it did seem improbable to me that no one beavering away in Whitehall had come up with them as policy ideas, though who would know if they had been accepted.
More of a question is regardless of if Hanock or Blair came up with them, Blair didn't think to slip them to Starmer.
The man who named his think tank the Tony Blair Institute being a bit focused on Tony Blair? Seems out of character.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
It's not the same at all though. In Manchester's example both clubs represent the city of Manchester, regardless of where in the city its supporters come from. There is a common geographical identity.
Nobody views Sunderland and Newcastle as one city. They are always considered separate places, and the clubs do not represent areas of one city, they represent two distinct regional identities. If you go to South Shields, where the Newcastle United/Sunderland ratio is around 50/50, you'll probably find that the support for "Greater Newcastle" is the same 50/50.
The County of "Tyne and Wear" was a failure for this reason. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past.
Sure, yet these two separate cities are so separate that they have the same phone code and the same tube network! I agree that they are perceived as you say but just because they are perceived that way doesn’t actually change the geographical reality. That’s all I’m saying. You are probably right that that a metro mayoralty that included Sunderland would be a non-starter.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Not sure about how Gateshead functions, but Sunderland is very much distinct from Newcastle.
And Man Utd and Man City are in different boroughs.
EDIT: Derby and Nottingham are as close to each other as Newcastle and Sunderland. I appreciate HS2 might turn the area into a mega city, but they are different places for the time being.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Whereas Liverpool is perfectly able to obstruct sensible governance regardless of football.
I don't think football is the only issue. The County Durham/Northumberland border of the Tyne was quite the "real" border, not an arbitrary line in the ground, and thus still has an appreciative effect on regional identity.
Congrats to Everton but that’s yet another bonkers result that would never happen were fans in the stadium. (See also Man Utd losing 6-1 to Tottenham at Old Trafford and several other weird results)
This season will be a brilliant control for sports psychologists exploring the phenomenon of home advantage.
Indeed. We've 26 points from 12 away games. Usually, that is title winning. And 14 from 12 at home. Which would be relegation stuff.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Whereas Liverpool is perfectly able to obstruct sensible governance regardless of football.
I don't think football is the only issue. The County Durham/Northumberland border of the Tyne was quite the "real" border, not an arbitrary line in the ground, and thus still has an appreciative effect on regional identity.
The accent changes too I am assured. Though I can't really tell.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
Oh do fuck off what the bbc shows is mainly repeats of things made years ago
Maybe but I'd still like to see the hours of new material the main players produce each month.
Well name the new stuff the bbc has produced thats exclusive to the bbc and they havent just bought of a company whereas for example as I use amazon I have had over the last few years...the expanse 5 series another to go...vikings 6 series...black sails 3 series....preacher.....now on series 4.....amercian gods now on series 3....good omens....greenland...man in the high castle...I could name more but will stop there.
What have the bbc done? Downton abbey? More eastenders? The great british bakeoff?
Lol. Downton was ITV; Bake-off, although made popular on the BBC, was poached by C4.
To answer your question with a few suggestions:
Killing Eve Fleabag Normal People The Serpent Peaky Blinders His Dark Materials Dr Foster The Fall A Suitable Boy Cormoran Strike Line of Duty
Your list is a classic example of how the BBC hasn't adjusted to the modern landscape.
Killing Eve - 3 seasons of 8 episodes (over 3 years) Fleabag - 2 seasons of 6 episodes (over 4 years) Normal People - 12 episodes Peaky Blinders - 30 episodes over 5 seasons (over 7 years) His Dark Materials - 15 episodes over 2 seasons Dr Foster - 10 episodes over 2 seasons (over 3 years) Line of Duty - 29 episodes over 5 seasons (over 8 years).
Example of a Netflix big show
House of Cards - 73 episodes over 6 seasons (over 6 years).
A real BBC "classic" example...Sherlock....13 episodes over 8 years. They literally produced what a "normal" show would now expect minimum for a single season over the course of 8, yes 8, years.
While I take your point, that isn't modern. It's simply the American tradition. 13 or 26 shows a year. Often with a vast army of script writers. Most of those named above are written by a single person. They are someone's baby. That is the British tradition. Sometimes less is more. Edit: I see the point has been made.
And sometimes less is less.
It wouldn't be too bad if instead of 13/26 episodes per season it was 6 episodes per season but 2-4x as many quality seasons to make up the difference. But there's not many times as many quality series there's just a few potentially decent shows that have a couple of decent episodes every few years.
People literally name Sherlock again and again despite it being 1 proper season if you combine it all together.
I agree. Sometimes less is less. One of the problems with Sherlock was getting Cumberbatch and Freeman together at the same time. Neither is short of work often.
Which is part of the BBC's problem, they're obsessed over certain "celebrity" "talent". If actors can't commit to a series then cast someone else.
And of course think of all that excellent talent you might uncover....Idris Elba, Michael K. Williams, Jamie Hector to name just 3 from the Wire. Even Dominic West wasn't really a big deal before that show.
That is not the BBC per se. It is another consequence of the Birt reforms. A production company pitching an idea to the BBC will want to pin a big name to it.
And finding new talent is one thing. Keeping hold of it is another. The BBC used to rely on prestige but that comes a poor second to cold, hard cash.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
It's not the same at all though. In Manchester's example both clubs represent the city of Manchester, regardless of where in the city its supporters come from. There is a common geographical identity.
Nobody views Sunderland and Newcastle as one city. They are always considered separate places, and the clubs do not represent areas of one city, they represent two distinct regional identities. If you go to South Shields, where the Newcastle United/Sunderland ratio is around 50/50, you'll probably find that the support for "Greater Newcastle" is the same 50/50.
The County of "Tyne and Wear" was a failure for this reason. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past.
Sure, yet these two separate cities are so separate that they have the same phone code and the same tube network! I agree that they are perceived as you say but just because they are perceived that way doesn’t actually change the geographical reality. That’s all I’m saying. You are probably right that that a metro mayoralty that included Sunderland would be a non-starter.
The Metro extension to Sunderland is a little bit of a red herring. It it loss making, unreliable, and to be honest was only built as a political endeavour to avoid claims that all investment was going to Newcastle, rather than on need. It should really never have been built. I mean, the West End of Newcastle-real still doesn't have a Metro line and badly needs it!
I agree with everything you say in abstract, but I think in reality Sunderland will never integrate with the rest of Tyneside. Hence why I think it would be better to reabsorb it back into County Durham and focus on the rest of Tyneside and the southern Northumberland towns.
It's quite difficult to square "two households meeting up outside by Easter" with "massive Euro crowd football stravaganza tournament and music festivals end May".
I like watching the BBC, but I would like it better if they didn’t have stars on big salaries like Gary Lineker, & solely used journalists who have come through the ranks/gave a chance to youngsters. There’s no need to pay Lineker millions of pounds tax payers money to present MOTD when Mark Chapman can do it just as well. The football is what people watch it to see.
So I guess I’d like it to be more like a state broadcaster and less of a competitor to commercial channels, which would be a retrograde step I suppose, but would keep it fresh
Matt Hancock has ‘stopped talking’ to Tony Blair amid accusations that the former Prime Minister pinched Government anti-Covid ideas to pass them off as his own, it was claimed last night.
The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair’s own suggestions.
A well-placed Government source told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock had now broken off contact with the 67-year-old ex-premier – who yesterday posted a picture of himself receiving his Covid jab on Twitter – over the breaches.
In any case I called this on these very pages a week or so ago. Would be fantastic. Fill the stadiums up with the vaccinated: nurses and other key workers.
In any case I called this on these very pages a week or so ago. Would be fantastic. Fill the stadiums up with the vaccinated: nurses and other key workers.
Yes I think this is very likely. We have the facilities for it. England Scotland and Wales. This would provide a good Covid secure environment. Let's do it!
Matt Hancock has ‘stopped talking’ to Tony Blair amid accusations that the former Prime Minister pinched Government anti-Covid ideas to pass them off as his own, it was claimed last night.
The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair’s own suggestions.
A well-placed Government source told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock had now broken off contact with the 67-year-old ex-premier – who yesterday posted a picture of himself receiving his Covid jab on Twitter – over the breaches.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Whereas Liverpool is perfectly able to obstruct sensible governance regardless of football.
I don't think football is the only issue. The County Durham/Northumberland border of the Tyne was quite the "real" border, not an arbitrary line in the ground, and thus still has an appreciative effect on regional identity.
The accent changes too I am assured. Though I can't really tell.
The clue is in the name. Mackem. For make and take, Geordies say myek and tyek and Sunderlanders say mack and tack
One thing seems to be slowly filtering through though. There is no Chinese company or billionaire without "close links to the CCP." That has only been apparent to some of us for, oh, 30 plus years.
I do worry slightly that we may be tripping over ourselves a little here. That we hit vaccination delivery capacity somewhere once production has ramped and that April-June still ought to be substantially focused on second vaccinations, with a slow down of first vaccinations in the post.
Maybe someone can reassure, I don't know the numbers possible, but just concerned that second vaccinations will be kicked further into the long grass to accommodate, and I'm not sure if I'd support that this time around.
Haven't watched the video... this wouldn't actually surprise me if a few struggling boarding schools (business model pretty much broken) have got bought out by the Chinese (one of their major customers), and adapted the curriculum to the CCP line.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Whereas Liverpool is perfectly able to obstruct sensible governance regardless of football.
I don't think football is the only issue. The County Durham/Northumberland border of the Tyne was quite the "real" border, not an arbitrary line in the ground, and thus still has an appreciative effect on regional identity.
The accent changes too I am assured. Though I can't really tell.
The clue is in the name. Mackem. For make and take, Geordies say myek and tyek and Sunderlanders say mack and tack
"Food" is the one I notice. It rhymes with good South of the river. (Well in the old County Durham).
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Whereas Liverpool is perfectly able to obstruct sensible governance regardless of football.
I don't think football is the only issue. The County Durham/Northumberland border of the Tyne was quite the "real" border, not an arbitrary line in the ground, and thus still has an appreciative effect on regional identity.
The accent changes too I am assured. Though I can't really tell.
The clue is in the name. Mackem. For make and take, Geordies say myek and tyek and Sunderlanders say mack and tack
"Food" is the one I notice. It rhymes with good South of the river.
Matt Hancock has ‘stopped talking’ to Tony Blair amid accusations that the former Prime Minister pinched Government anti-Covid ideas to pass them off as his own, it was claimed last night.
The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair’s own suggestions.
A well-placed Government source told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock had now broken off contact with the 67-year-old ex-premier – who yesterday posted a picture of himself receiving his Covid jab on Twitter – over the breaches.
In any case I called this on these very pages a week or so ago. Would be fantastic. Fill the stadiums up with the vaccinated: nurses and other key workers.
Yes I think this is very likely. We have the facilities for it. England Scotland and Wales. This would provide a good Covid secure environment. Let's do it!
Ooh! A joint UK bid, must admit I assumed it was just England. That’s even better as all three countries in Great Britain have qualified.
A quick Google tells me we need to find 12 stadiums. Let’s have a crack:
Wembley Old Trafford White Hart Lane 2.0 Parkhead Murrayfield Millennium Stadium Anfield Elland Road St James’ Park Hampden Park Villa Park City Ground (awaiting an overdue upgrade but gets the nod because Nottingham is a much better city than Leicester/Derby)
Could also throw in
Eastlands Stadium of Light Hillsborough Goodison...
Haven't watched the video... this wouldn't actually surprise me if a few struggling boarding schools (business model pretty much broken) have got bought out by the Chinese (one of their major customers), and adapted the curriculum to the CCP line.
What part of the curriculum would change? The half-hour in GCSE history that mentions Hong Kong?
Scottish MoS say Scotland will have supply to 100k every day by next month....get calculators out to work out England / Wales / NI / UK rate....
Scotland doing 100k a day gets us places quicker than 15th April/31st July.
Even accounting for the second jabs?
I think so. 100k/day in Scotland would be roughly 1.2m across the UK.
By the end of April we'll need about 9m second doses to match up with the January total.
Assuming the current rate until the end of this week that will get us to about 20m first doses already.
At 1.2m / day starting in March (and I suspect if the supply is available, there would be enough jabbers to do it, at least in England) we'd already have covered the entire adult population by the middle of April. In fact, you'd almost be there by the end of March before you even have to think about doing significant numbers of second doses, especially given there will be some refuseniks.
Still MoS, so probably nonsense.
PS - We are still building additional jabbing sites, believe it or not. March seems to be the date they are wanted for...
Haven't watched the video... this wouldn't actually surprise me if a few struggling boarding schools (business model pretty much broken) have got bought out by the Chinese (one of their major customers), and adapted the curriculum to the CCP line.
What part of the curriculum would change? The half-hour in GCSE history that mentions Hong Kong?
Haven't watched the video... this wouldn't actually surprise me if a few struggling boarding schools (business model pretty much broken) have got bought out by the Chinese (one of their major customers), and adapted the curriculum to the CCP line.
What part of the curriculum would change? The half-hour in GCSE history that mentions Hong Kong?
Private schools don't follow the national curriculum.
More than two thirds of people aged between 65 and 69 have had their first jabs.
That leaves maybe 1.2 m left to do. So in 3 days we'll be through them at current rates and into the 60-64's second half of next week. 3.76m of them (some of whom will have been done). Allowing for some second doses cranking up, that is everyone 60 and above done by the first week of March.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Whereas Liverpool is perfectly able to obstruct sensible governance regardless of football.
I don't think football is the only issue. The County Durham/Northumberland border of the Tyne was quite the "real" border, not an arbitrary line in the ground, and thus still has an appreciative effect on regional identity.
The accent changes too I am assured. Though I can't really tell.
The clue is in the name. Mackem. For make and take, Geordies say myek and tyek and Sunderlanders say mack and tack
"Food" is the one I notice. It rhymes with good South of the river.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Whereas Liverpool is perfectly able to obstruct sensible governance regardless of football.
I don't think football is the only issue. The County Durham/Northumberland border of the Tyne was quite the "real" border, not an arbitrary line in the ground, and thus still has an appreciative effect on regional identity.
The accent changes too I am assured. Though I can't really tell.
The clue is in the name. Mackem. For make and take, Geordies say myek and tyek and Sunderlanders say mack and tack
"Food" is the one I notice. It rhymes with good South of the river.
Surely it's just "bait"
Or scran? (IIRC. It's 25 years since I lived in Newcastle)
Haven't watched the video... this wouldn't actually surprise me if a few struggling boarding schools (business model pretty much broken) have got bought out by the Chinese (one of their major customers), and adapted the curriculum to the CCP line.
What part of the curriculum would change? The half-hour in GCSE history that mentions Hong Kong?
Private schools don't follow the national curriculum.
They probably do, at least insofar as public exams are concerned. (Which as a separate rant reminds us the national curriculum was basically what all schools were doing anyway, and the actual problem the government was trying to address was different syllabuses.)
In any case I called this on these very pages a week or so ago. Would be fantastic. Fill the stadiums up with the vaccinated: nurses and other key workers.
Yes I think this is very likely. We have the facilities for it. England Scotland and Wales. This would provide a good Covid secure environment. Let's do it!
Ooh! A joint UK bid, must admit I assumed it was just England. That’s even better as all three countries in Great Britain have qualified.
A quick Google tells me we need to find 12 stadiums. Let’s have a crack:
Wembley Old Trafford White Hart Lane 2.0 Parkhead Murrayfield Millennium Stadium Anfield Elland Road St James’ Park Hampden Park Villa Park City Ground (awaiting an overdue upgrade but gets the nod because Nottingham is a much better city than Leicester/Derby)
Could also throw in
Eastlands Stadium of Light Hillsborough Goodison...
You've missed Emirates Arsenal. And the Olympic Stadium. Plus Twickenham. I know that becomes a bit London centric. Goodison, despite having held a World Cup semi, is well past it.
Haven't watched the video... this wouldn't actually surprise me if a few struggling boarding schools (business model pretty much broken) have got bought out by the Chinese (one of their major customers), and adapted the curriculum to the CCP line.
What part of the curriculum would change? The half-hour in GCSE history that mentions Hong Kong?
Private schools don't follow the national curriculum.
They probably do, at least insofar as public exams are concerned. (Which as a separate rant reminds us the national curriculum was basically what all schools were doing anyway, and the actual problem the government was trying to address was different syllabuses.)
Never mind, I have no knowledge about the subject of the Farage video, speculation on my part. But based on my understanding of the Chinese education system, nothing would surprise me.
More than two thirds of people aged between 65 and 69 have had their first jabs.
Quite a few of us have heard nothing yet.
If you're over 65 you can book a jab on the NHS website.
Indeed , but that tends to involve travelling further afield. I am waiting to be called by my GP or Surgery.
No harm in looking, you never know. My mother got one only a few miles from her. It was no further away than the centre her GP was using. She was given a number of choices on the online booking and most were within 30 mins drive.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
Whereas Liverpool is perfectly able to obstruct sensible governance regardless of football.
I don't think football is the only issue. The County Durham/Northumberland border of the Tyne was quite the "real" border, not an arbitrary line in the ground, and thus still has an appreciative effect on regional identity.
The accent changes too I am assured. Though I can't really tell.
The clue is in the name. Mackem. For make and take, Geordies say myek and tyek and Sunderlanders say mack and tack
"Food" is the one I notice. It rhymes with good South of the river.
Surely it's just "bait"
OK. Book is "buck" in County Durham. With a very Northern short u sound. Similar to Yorkshire. As opposed to the historic Northumberland which leans more towards the Lancashire "booook".
More than two thirds of people aged between 65 and 69 have had their first jabs.
Quite a few of us have heard nothing yet.
If you're over 65 just book directly through the NHS website. The Gov't has specifically said that JCVI grp 6 is being done through GPs and Grp 5 (65 - 69) through mass vax sites.
More than two thirds of people aged between 65 and 69 have had their first jabs.
Quite a few of us have heard nothing yet.
If you're over 65 you can book a jab on the NHS website.
Indeed , but that tends to involve travelling further afield. I am waiting to be called by my GP or Surgery.
No harm in looking, you never know. My mother got one only a few miles from her. It was no further away than the centre her GP was using.
It all seems a bit hit and miss. I will be 67 in July and have been asthmatic since infancy - albeit only moderately so such that I was never advised to adhere to the Shielding rules. My sister lives near Cambridge - 65 miles from myself - and is just 60 without underlying conditions. She was given her first jab a week ago today.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
Oh do fuck off what the bbc shows is mainly repeats of things made years ago
Maybe but I'd still like to see the hours of new material the main players produce each month.
Well name the new stuff the bbc has produced thats exclusive to the bbc and they havent just bought of a company whereas for example as I use amazon I have had over the last few years...the expanse 5 series another to go...vikings 6 series...black sails 3 series....preacher.....now on series 4.....amercian gods now on series 3....good omens....greenland...man in the high castle...I could name more but will stop there.
What have the bbc done? Downton abbey? More eastenders? The great british bakeoff?
Lol. Downton was ITV; Bake-off, although made popular on the BBC, was poached by C4.
To answer your question with a few suggestions:
Killing Eve Fleabag Normal People The Serpent Peaky Blinders His Dark Materials Dr Foster The Fall A Suitable Boy Cormoran Strike Line of Duty
Your list is a classic example of how the BBC hasn't adjusted to the modern landscape.
Killing Eve - 3 seasons of 8 episodes (over 3 years) Fleabag - 2 seasons of 6 episodes (over 4 years) Normal People - 12 episodes Peaky Blinders - 30 episodes over 5 seasons (over 7 years) His Dark Materials - 15 episodes over 2 seasons Dr Foster - 10 episodes over 2 seasons (over 3 years) Line of Duty - 29 episodes over 5 seasons (over 8 years).
Example of a Netflix big show
House of Cards - 73 episodes over 6 seasons (over 6 years).
A real BBC "classic" example...Sherlock....13 episodes over 8 years. They literally produced what a "normal" show would now expect minimum for a single season over the course of 8, yes 8, years.
While I take your point, that isn't modern. It's simply the American tradition. 13 or 26 shows a year. Often with a vast army of script writers. Most of those named above are written by a single person. They are someone's baby. That is the British tradition. Sometimes less is more. Edit: I see the point has been made.
And sometimes less is less.
It wouldn't be too bad if instead of 13/26 episodes per season it was 6 episodes per season but 2-4x as many quality seasons to make up the difference. But there's not many times as many quality series there's just a few potentially decent shows that have a couple of decent episodes every few years.
People literally name Sherlock again and again despite it being 1 proper season if you combine it all together.
I agree. Sometimes less is less. One of the problems with Sherlock was getting Cumberbatch and Freeman together at the same time. Neither is short of work often.
Which is part of the BBC's problem, they're obsessed over certain "celebrity" "talent". If actors can't commit to a series then cast someone else.
And of course think of all that excellent talent you might uncover....Idris Elba, Michael K. Williams, Jamie Hector to name just 3 from the Wire. Even Dominic West wasn't really a big deal before that show.
In any case I called this on these very pages a week or so ago. Would be fantastic. Fill the stadiums up with the vaccinated: nurses and other key workers.
Yes I think this is very likely. We have the facilities for it. England Scotland and Wales. This would provide a good Covid secure environment. Let's do it!
Ooh! A joint UK bid, must admit I assumed it was just England. That’s even better as all three countries in Great Britain have qualified.
A quick Google tells me we need to find 12 stadiums. Let’s have a crack:
Wembley Old Trafford White Hart Lane 2.0 Parkhead Murrayfield Millennium Stadium Anfield Elland Road St James’ Park Hampden Park Villa Park City Ground (awaiting an overdue upgrade but gets the nod because Nottingham is a much better city than Leicester/Derby)
Could also throw in
Eastlands Stadium of Light Hillsborough Goodison...
You've missed Emirates Arsenal. And the Olympic Stadium. Plus Twickenham. I know that becomes a bit London centric. Goodison, despite having held a World Cup semi, is well past it.
Nu White Hart Lane is a vastly superior stadium to Nu Highbury, so I think Spurs gets the nod. Fair point about Goodison. You could say the same about the City Ground (it’s being redeveloped next year), but Nottingham is capital of the East Midlands and has great nightlife so squeezes in.
Twickenham is a good shout. The Olympic Stadium is rubbish - crap atmosphere and too close to White Hart Lane to be of much use.
What is the future of cinema - will it survive Covid?
Without a doubt. They tried PPV releases of feature films during COVID and it was a disaster.
No, there really is a doubt. I know people in Hollywood. They are mightily afeared that the straight-to-streaming model is the future. It has already laid waste to tv scheduling.
Sure, blockbuster movies will survive as cinematic experiences in big cities. But that’s the problem: cinema could become like theatre. A relatively rare, big city experience. Small town cinemas will all shut.
Well the one big blockbuster covid release was essentially a flop: WonderWoman
And they've held back Black Widow and Bond, I guess for this reason.
I assume more money may go into big-budget "TV" programming rather than feature films?
Haven't watched the video... this wouldn't actually surprise me if a few struggling boarding schools (business model pretty much broken) have got bought out by the Chinese (one of their major customers), and adapted the curriculum to the CCP line.
More than two thirds of people aged between 65 and 69 have had their first jabs.
Quite a few of us have heard nothing yet.
If you're over 65 you can book a jab on the NHS website.
Indeed , but that tends to involve travelling further afield. I am waiting to be called by my GP or Surgery.
No harm in looking, you never know. My mother got one only a few miles from her. It was no further away than the centre her GP was using.
It all seems a bit hit and miss. I will be 67 in July and have been asthmatic since infancy - albeit only moderately so such that I was never advised to adhere to the Shielding rules. My sister lives near Cambridge - 65 miles from myself - and is just 60 without underlying conditions. She was given her first jab a week ago today.
Its organized chaos to some extent and it is very dependent on how many older people in your area and how good your GP is. My fathers one, super organized, on it, done really quickly. My Uncle waited and waited and waited, rang GP, no help, then just booked online and jabbed within a couple of days.
You can see all the options open to you via the online system without having to agree to an appointment.
More than two thirds of people aged between 65 and 69 have had their first jabs.
Quite a few of us have heard nothing yet.
If you're over 65 you can book a jab on the NHS website.
Indeed , but that tends to involve travelling further afield. I am waiting to be called by my GP or Surgery.
No harm in looking, you never know. My mother got one only a few miles from her. It was no further away than the centre her GP was using.
It all seems a bit hit and miss. I will be 67 in July and have been asthmatic since infancy - albeit only moderately so such that I was never advised to adhere to the Shielding rules. My sister lives near Cambridge - 65 miles from myself - and is just 60 without underlying conditions. She was given her first jab a week ago today.
Well, stop whining about it and do something about it then.
I do worry slightly that we may be tripping over ourselves a little here. That we hit vaccination delivery capacity somewhere once production has ramped and that April-June still ought to be substantially focused on second vaccinations, with a slow down of first vaccinations in the post.
Maybe someone can reassure, I don't know the numbers possible, but just concerned that second vaccinations will be kicked further into the long grass to accommodate, and I'm not sure if I'd support that this time around.
It doesn't, here's a spreadsheet with first and second doses going at the current seven day rolling average. There are some forced 2nd vax days over that number, but I assume part of the drop in 7 day rolling numbers is due to holding back specific 2nd dose supply...
Hopefully it will get refused there is far too much football
You are a miserable get.
It won’t make any difference to the number of matches, it will simply mean that all the games will be hosted in the UK rather than just a few of them.
Or just maybe for most of my life things have revolved around football from things I want being cancelled because its gone into extra time to the first question being asked male to male being which team do you support/
More than two thirds of people aged between 65 and 69 have had their first jabs.
Quite a few of us have heard nothing yet.
If you're over 65 you can book a jab on the NHS website.
Indeed , but that tends to involve travelling further afield. I am waiting to be called by my GP or Surgery.
No harm in looking, you never know. My mother got one only a few miles from her. It was no further away than the centre her GP was using.
It all seems a bit hit and miss. I will be 67 in July and have been asthmatic since infancy - albeit only moderately so such that I was never advised to adhere to the Shielding rules. My sister lives near Cambridge - 65 miles from myself - and is just 60 without underlying conditions. She was given her first jab a week ago today.
Well, stop whining about it and do something about it then.
I am not whining at all , but am not inclined to chase the medics. Very relaxed and philosophical about the issue overall.
Hopefully it will get refused there is far too much football
You are a miserable get.
It won’t make any difference to the number of matches, it will simply mean that all the games will be hosted in the UK rather than just a few of them.
Or just maybe for most of my life things have revolved around football from things I want being cancelled because its gone into extra time to the first question being asked male to male being which team do you support/
I have never in my life had the first question I've been asked by man or woman be about which football team I support. It's barely come up even when I've discussed football with people.
I'd always assumed Frosty had been a continuous civil servant. I hadn't realized he'd used Brexit to worm his way back in from the private sector after quitting in 2013.
Hopefully it will get refused there is far too much football
You are a miserable get.
It won’t make any difference to the number of matches, it will simply mean that all the games will be hosted in the UK rather than just a few of them.
Or just maybe for most of my life things have revolved around football from things I want being cancelled because its gone into extra time to the first question being asked male to male being which team do you support/
I have never in my life had the first question I've been asked by man or woman be about which football team I support. It's barely come up even when I've discussed football with people.
Well when I used to visit pubs back in the 80 and early 90's it was one of the most common questions when meeting some new person
More than two thirds of people aged between 65 and 69 have had their first jabs.
Quite a few of us have heard nothing yet.
If you're over 65 you can book a jab on the NHS website.
Indeed , but that tends to involve travelling further afield. I am waiting to be called by my GP or Surgery.
No harm in looking, you never know. My mother got one only a few miles from her. It was no further away than the centre her GP was using.
It all seems a bit hit and miss. I will be 67 in July and have been asthmatic since infancy - albeit only moderately so such that I was never advised to adhere to the Shielding rules. My sister lives near Cambridge - 65 miles from myself - and is just 60 without underlying conditions. She was given her first jab a week ago today.
Well, stop whining about it and do something about it then.
I am not whining at all , but am not inclined to chase the medics. Very relaxed and philosophical about the issue overall.
Not sure it is really chasing the medics. If there are people who perhaps should have been booked sooner, at this point I think they want those people to call, as it helps them identify who has been missed.
Think of it as not wanting to bother the doctor even though you feel ill - it's better all round if you do bother them*
*not that administrative staff in my experience seem to share that feeling even when the doctors do.
Hopefully it will get refused there is far too much football
You are a miserable get.
It won’t make any difference to the number of matches, it will simply mean that all the games will be hosted in the UK rather than just a few of them.
Or just maybe for most of my life things have revolved around football from things I want being cancelled because its gone into extra time to the first question being asked male to male being which team do you support/
Again, the UK hosting the entirety of the tournament won’t make an ounce of difference to the number of matches. It will simply mean that they are all hosted in Britain.
In any case I called this on these very pages a week or so ago. Would be fantastic. Fill the stadiums up with the vaccinated: nurses and other key workers.
Yes I think this is very likely. We have the facilities for it. England Scotland and Wales. This would provide a good Covid secure environment. Let's do it!
Ooh! A joint UK bid, must admit I assumed it was just England. That’s even better as all three countries in Great Britain have qualified.
A quick Google tells me we need to find 12 stadiums. Let’s have a crack:
Wembley Old Trafford White Hart Lane 2.0 Parkhead Murrayfield Millennium Stadium Anfield Elland Road St James’ Park Hampden Park Villa Park City Ground (awaiting an overdue upgrade but gets the nod because Nottingham is a much better city than Leicester/Derby)
Could also throw in
Eastlands Stadium of Light Hillsborough Goodison...
You've missed Emirates Arsenal. And the Olympic Stadium. Plus Twickenham. I know that becomes a bit London centric. Goodison, despite having held a World Cup semi, is well past it.
Nu White Hart Lane is a vastly superior stadium to Nu Highbury, so I think Spurs gets the nod. Fair point about Goodison. You could say the same about the City Ground (it’s being redeveloped next year), but Nottingham is capital of the East Midlands and has great nightlife so squeezes in.
Twickenham is a good shout. The Olympic Stadium is rubbish - crap atmosphere and too close to White Hart Lane to be of much use.
Presumably 'atmosphere' is just what they won't want! In that sense the Olympic stadium might work for social distancing rules.
Hopefully it will get refused there is far too much football
You are a miserable get.
It won’t make any difference to the number of matches, it will simply mean that all the games will be hosted in the UK rather than just a few of them.
Or just maybe for most of my life things have revolved around football from things I want being cancelled because its gone into extra time to the first question being asked male to male being which team do you support/
I have never in my life had the first question I've been asked by man or woman be about which football team I support. It's barely come up even when I've discussed football with people.
Well when I used to visit pubs back in the 80 and early 90's it was one of the most common questions when meeting some new person
Matt Hancock has ‘stopped talking’ to Tony Blair amid accusations that the former Prime Minister pinched Government anti-Covid ideas to pass them off as his own, it was claimed last night.
The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair’s own suggestions.
A well-placed Government source told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock had now broken off contact with the 67-year-old ex-premier – who yesterday posted a picture of himself receiving his Covid jab on Twitter – over the breaches.
Hopefully it will get refused there is far too much football
You are a miserable get.
It won’t make any difference to the number of matches, it will simply mean that all the games will be hosted in the UK rather than just a few of them.
Or just maybe for most of my life things have revolved around football from things I want being cancelled because its gone into extra time to the first question being asked male to male being which team do you support/
I have never in my life had the first question I've been asked by man or woman be about which football team I support. It's barely come up even when I've discussed football with people.
Well when I used to visit pubs back in the 80 and early 90's it was one of the most common questions when meeting some new person
Not sure what that has to do with wanting a football tournament to be refused for taking place in this country as it doesn't impact your actual issue, which as you said is you don't like how much football there is.
Comments
I started watching The Queen's Gambit and binged it all until 3am on Tuesday morning. I've now subscribed to chess.com and persuaded my 10 year old grandson to also subscribe. I have plans for him.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/20/labour-mps-dismayed-at-orders-to-maintain-radio-silence-on-brexit
One was:
Imagine a wire grid, 20x20 cells, each cell with 1 cm sides.
What length of wire is used?
Not only did he solve it before me but he gave me the formula for an n sided grid.
He should be good at chess.
https://twitter.com/martina/status/1363257260298940419?s=21
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/20/bloodlands-location-of-bbc-drama-kept-secret-to-avoid-tourist-influx
Some people will consume that entire series during a particularly big poo.
I think £5 will need to become the norm.
MOTD tonight.
This is where rom coms and period dramas have an advantage: they nearly always end with a wedding (and they all lived happily ever after). From Pride and Prejudice to Mills and Boon: this ending works. We leave the cinema/theatre/sofa/book with a warm, happy glow
For darker material it is much more difficult. You have to be ambiguous at best. That’s where Spartacus was brilliant. We all knew it was going to end badly, yet they brought it off with bravura and nobility and somehow made it bittersweet yet positive. Very hard
For me the model in this - and I’ve mentioned it before - remains the ending to the movie Walkabout by Nic Roeg. OK you see a young Jenny Agutter naked which is never a bad thing, yet it always moves me. Roeg nails the bittesweetness
https://youtu.be/A9w41F_f9cs
This compares with the new virtual set technology on (say) The Mandalorian which speeds up production and cuts costs. If films become smaller scale or adopt that technology fast then they may become viable again.
The football situation in Newcastle isn’t much different from that in Manchester. In Greater Manchester, there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the west of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the east.
In Greater Newcastle there are two huge clubs that loathe each other, one drawing its support largely from the north of the city, the other drawing its support largely from the south.
Yet Greater Manchester functions extremely well as a single combined authority, and Greater Newcastle does not: indeed it allows parochial rivalries based largely on football to obstruct sensible governance.
I see Boris given a date for the whole population being offered a dose as 31st July. Seems a bit pessimistic?
The Health Secretary is said to be livid after two key proposals allegedly mentioned in private conversations – an initial priority one-jab vaccine policy and mass testing – later emerged as Mr Blair’s own suggestions.
A well-placed Government source told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock had now broken off contact with the 67-year-old ex-premier – who yesterday posted a picture of himself receiving his Covid jab on Twitter – over the breaches.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9282255/Coronavirus-vaccine-adult-Britain-July-31st-Boris-accelerate-inoculation-drive.html
This season will be a brilliant control for sports psychologists exploring the phenomenon of home advantage.
Nobody views Sunderland and Newcastle as one city. They are always considered separate places, and the clubs do not represent areas of one city, they represent two distinct regional identities. If you go to South Shields, where the Newcastle United/Sunderland ratio is around 50/50, you'll probably find that the support for "Greater Newcastle" is the same 50/50.
The County of "Tyne and Wear" was a failure for this reason. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past.
And Man Utd and Man City are in different boroughs.
EDIT: Derby and Nottingham are as close to each other as Newcastle and Sunderland. I appreciate HS2 might turn the area into a mega city, but they are different places for the time being.
I don't think football is the only issue. The County Durham/Northumberland border of the Tyne was quite the "real" border, not an arbitrary line in the ground, and thus still has an appreciative effect on regional identity.
And 14 from 12 at home. Which would be relegation stuff.
And finding new talent is one thing. Keeping hold of it is another. The BBC used to rely on prestige but that comes a poor second to cold, hard cash.
I agree with everything you say in abstract, but I think in reality Sunderland will never integrate with the rest of Tyneside. Hence why I think it would be better to reabsorb it back into County Durham and focus on the rest of Tyneside and the southern Northumberland towns.
Something doesn't quite appear to add up there. Try this pithier version - "less is more, unless it's less".
https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/1363247305764311054?s=21
So I guess I’d like it to be more like a state broadcaster and less of a competitor to commercial channels, which would be a retrograde step I suppose, but would keep it fresh
I can’t find the Times story?
In any case I called this on these very pages a week or so ago. Would be fantastic. Fill the stadiums up with the vaccinated: nurses and other key workers.
There is no Chinese company or billionaire without "close links to the CCP."
That has only been apparent to some of us for, oh, 30 plus years.
I do worry slightly that we may be tripping over ourselves a little here. That we hit vaccination delivery capacity somewhere once production has ramped and that April-June still ought to be substantially focused on second vaccinations, with a slow down of first vaccinations in the post.
Maybe someone can reassure, I don't know the numbers possible, but just concerned that second vaccinations will be kicked further into the long grass to accommodate, and I'm not sure if I'd support that this time around.
A quick Google tells me we need to find 12 stadiums. Let’s have a crack:
Wembley
Old Trafford
White Hart Lane 2.0
Parkhead
Murrayfield
Millennium Stadium
Anfield
Elland Road
St James’ Park
Hampden Park
Villa Park
City Ground (awaiting an overdue upgrade but gets the nod because Nottingham is a much better city than Leicester/Derby)
Could also throw in
Eastlands
Stadium of Light
Hillsborough
Goodison...
By the end of April we'll need about 9m second doses to match up with the January total.
Assuming the current rate until the end of this week that will get us to about 20m first doses already.
At 1.2m / day starting in March (and I suspect if the supply is available, there would be enough jabbers to do it, at least in England) we'd already have covered the entire adult population by the middle of April. In fact, you'd almost be there by the end of March before you even have to think about doing significant numbers of second doses, especially given there will be some refuseniks.
Still MoS, so probably nonsense.
PS - We are still building additional jabbing sites, believe it or not. March seems to be the date they are wanted for...
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/book-coronavirus-vaccination/
Goodison, despite having held a World Cup semi, is well past it.
It won’t make any difference to the number of matches, it will simply mean that all the games will be hosted in the UK rather than just a few of them.
Wes Chatham
"I am that guy"
Twickenham is a good shout. The Olympic Stadium is rubbish - crap atmosphere and too close to White Hart Lane to be of much use.
You can see all the options open to you via the online system without having to agree to an appointment.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bKjufyZQcj4bPTnlZDL4iXU83aMBMQWgcEt_WG20GkE/edit?usp=sharing
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/20/david-frost-rise-eu-uk-relations
I'd always assumed Frosty had been a continuous civil servant. I hadn't realized he'd used Brexit to worm his way back in from the private sector after quitting in 2013.
Think of it as not wanting to bother the doctor even though you feel ill - it's better all round if you do bother them*
*not that administrative staff in my experience seem to share that feeling even when the doctors do.
Which there certainly is a lot, but that's incidental to this proposal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF_uOgyBK1c