Having listened to Trevor Phillips and Sophie Raworth this morning on playback, and I have to say Trevor Phillips is outstanding and had a very sad personal story to tell about the time of Prince Philip's funeral, I am beginning to think that Boris may well yet remain in post for a while
Boris lost me over the Paterson debacle and partygate, but I think he will survive the Sue Gray report and the May elections will now be the moment of greatest danger for him, which by that time we should be in an endemic and hopefully calmer waters to replace him
I could be wrong, but I am far from convinced he will go quickly and today's newspapers really had nothing further to add or provided the silver bullet
Ms Gray's report will I suspect be general in its criticism. The culture of Downing Street will be blamed. Reference will be made to Reynolds's email invitation, so he is finished. Despite attending the parties Johnson will consider himself vindicated.
It is up to Conservative MPs to do the deed. I have written to Cairns demanding he writes to Brady.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
And, of course, in time the extra money does count in quality (above and beyond spectacle and special effects) because you can hire the best writers, directors, actors, producers. So you get absolute top notch TV. Just as a football team CAN spend its way to the UCL cup, if they buy enough great players, and hire the best coaches
I have also been following general elections since 92 - and I wasn't up for Portillo.
Salmond 2017 was great but I found it extremely depressing that SNP (or SNP Types if you prefer) managed to keep a majority of Westminster Scottish seats; if only by one.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
However much money they might make, it would be more than they’re making now.
Youtube views also come from some very wierd places. My wife knows all sorts of obscure British and American TV shows of past decades, from her previous job of teaching English as a foreign language.
Twitch paid peanuts for the back catalogue of Bob Ross show, the American landscape painter, it got massive viewership.
Pretty stupid to let it go so cheaply - I've not seen a single episode of his show but I am nonetheless well aware of who he was from countless references on american TV shows, so the nostalgia factor and potential to interest a new generation was bound to be worth a decent price.
Having listened to Trevor Phillips and Sophie Raworth this morning on playback, and I have to say Trevor Phillips is outstanding and had a very sad personal story to tell about the time of Prince Philip's funeral, I am beginning to think that Boris may well yet remain in post for a while
Boris lost me over the Paterson debacle and partygate, but I think he will survive the Sue Gray report and the May elections will now be the moment of greatest danger for him, which by that time we should be in an endemic and hopefully calmer waters to replace him
I could be wrong, but I am far from convinced he will go quickly and today's newspapers really had nothing further to add or provided the silver bullet
Ms Gray's report will I suspect be general in its criticism. The culture of Downing Street will be blamed. Reference will be made to Reynolds's email invitation, so he is finished. Despite attending the parties Johnson will consider himself vindicated.
It is up to Conservative MPs to do the deed. I have written to Cairns demanding he writes to Brady.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
The problem is that as the likes of the Indy and the Telegraph pointed out about the Around the World in 80 days, even their bigger budget shows now looks really cheap, compared to what is the norm on these big streaming services.
It is supposed to be a jaunt around the world, instead they shot a load of episodes on the same street in Romania.
The bar has been raised so much now. We now expect movie quality production from the big budget Netflix et al. shows.
Hume is of course one of the old Revolutionary Communist Party / Living Marxism veterans. Their journey from ultra far-Left to ultra-libertarian Right is well known. But the latest manifestation - apologist footmen to the court of Baron Boris - is a sight to behold.
I have also been following general elections since 92 - and I wasn't up for Portillo.
Salmond 2017 was great but I found it extremely depressing that SNP (or SNP Types if you prefer) managed to keep a majority of Westminster Scottish seats; if only by one.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
The problem is that as the likes of the Indy and the Telegraph pointed out about the Around the World in 80 days, even their bigger budget shows now looks really cheap, compared to what is the norm on these big streaming services.
Feels like mid range video game companies needing to focus on innovative gameplay or story, rather than attempt to match the Ubisofts and Activisions of the world in sheer spectacle.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
I'm certainly not suggesting that the crazy sums being spent result in good TV. I really wanted to illustrate the scale of the challenge that the BBC is facing. And not just from Amazon, but Disney, Apple, Netflix, and Sky are all spending huge amounts of money on TV and film production in the UK. The old days when the BBC only had to keep ahead of ITV are over.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
The problem is that as the likes of the Indy and the Telegraph pointed out about the Around the World in 80 days, even their bigger budget shows now looks really cheap, compared to what is the norm on these big streaming services.
Feels like mid range video game companies needing to focus on innovative gameplay or story, rather than attempt to match the Ubisofts and Activisions of the world in sheer spectacle.
That's a decent analogy. The shear scale of the production and VFX used on the big budget tv shows, and I don't just mean making big dragons or aliens, there is so much work on subtle things that you don't directly notice but when they aren't there you eye says something is off, it looks cheap. Before much of this was on applied to big budget movies, now it is incorporated into all these big tv shows on steaming services.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
The problem is that as the likes of the Indy and the Telegraph pointed out about the Around the World in 80 days, even their bigger budget shows now looks really cheap, compared to what is the norm on these big streaming services.
It is supposed to be a jaunt around the world, instead they shot a load of episodes on the same street in Romania.
The bar has been raised so much now. We now expect movie quality production from the big budget Netflix et al. shows.
I hate remakes! Michael Palin's version is the benchmark, in my opinion.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
And, of course, in time the extra money does count in quality (above and beyond spectacle and special effects) because you can hire the best writers, directors, actors, producers. So you get absolute top notch TV. Just as a football team CAN spend its way to the UCL cup, if they buy enough great players, and hire the best coaches
That's a good analogy, the BBC is like a team that once lead the first division, but now there's a Premier League and the best teams really aspire to getting into the knock-out states of the Champions League. That doesn't come cheap, and you can't do it with UK players alone.
I have said this before, but it is also absolutely ridiculous BBC still isn't 4K. Sodding no name YouTubers are in 4k these days and production values are super high as soon as these people get any sort of following.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
I'm certainly not suggesting that the crazy sums being spent result in good TV. I really wanted to illustrate the scale of the challenge that the BBC is facing. And not just from Amazon, but Disney, Apple, Netflix, and Sky are all spending huge amounts of money on TV and film production in the UK. The old days when the BBC only had to keep ahead of ITV are over.
Not to mention Paramount+ entering the battle with Yellowstone and 1883 (and 6666 to follow)
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
The problem is that as the likes of the Indy and the Telegraph pointed out about the Around the World in 80 days, even their bigger budget shows now looks really cheap, compared to what is the norm on these big streaming services.
It is supposed to be a jaunt around the world, instead they shot a load of episodes on the same street in Romania.
The bar has been raised so much now. We now expect movie quality production from the big budget Netflix et al. shows.
I hate remakes! Michael Palin's version is the benchmark, in my opinion.
I have also been following general elections since 92 - and I wasn't up for Portillo.
Salmond 2017 was great but I found it extremely depressing that SNP (or SNP Types if you prefer) managed to keep a majority of Westminster Scottish seats; if only by one.
THey did better than that, surely? 35 to 24 IIRC.
Just checked wiki - 35 is the SNP seat total.
What is 24 refering to?
EDIT - Your general point is correct though - they did do better than a simple majority. I think I was comparing it to the exit poll.
Hume is of course one of the old Revolutionary Communist Party / Living Marxism veterans. Their journey from ultra far-Left to ultra-libertarian Right is well known. But the latest manifestation - apologist footmen to the court of Baron Boris - is a sight to behold.
Anything to accelerate the coming of the Revolution.
I have also been following general elections since 92 - and I wasn't up for Portillo.
Salmond 2017 was great but I found it extremely depressing that SNP (or SNP Types if you prefer) managed to keep a majority of Westminster Scottish seats; if only by one.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
The problem is that as the likes of the Indy and the Telegraph pointed out about the Around the World in 80 days, even their bigger budget shows now looks really cheap, compared to what is the norm on these big streaming services.
It is supposed to be a jaunt around the world, instead they shot a load of episodes on the same street in Romania.
The bar has been raised so much now. We now expect movie quality production from the big budget Netflix et al. shows.
They have even raised the bar for cheap television too. Look at some of the recent comedy specials on Netflix, not from a content point of view, but from a production point of view.
Clearly a lot of attention to detail for a production which, Dave Chapelle apart, they’re generally only paying six figures for the finished programme.
I have said this before, but it is also absolutely ridiculous BBC still isn't 4K. Sodding no name YouTubers are in 4k these days and production values are super high as soon as these people get any sort of following.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
The problem is that as the likes of the Indy and the Telegraph pointed out about the Around the World in 80 days, even their bigger budget shows now looks really cheap, compared to what is the norm on these big streaming services.
It is supposed to be a jaunt around the world, instead they shot a load of episodes on the same street in Romania.
The bar has been raised so much now. We now expect movie quality production from the big budget Netflix et al. shows.
I hate remakes! Michael Palin's version is the benchmark, in my opinion.
Er, isn't it a remake??
It is the best version by far! By contrast, Steve Coogan's was rather meh!
Having listened to Trevor Phillips and Sophie Raworth this morning on playback, and I have to say Trevor Phillips is outstanding and had a very sad personal story to tell about the time of Prince Philip's funeral, I am beginning to think that Boris may well yet remain in post for a while
Boris lost me over the Paterson debacle and partygate, but I think he will survive the Sue Gray report and the May elections will now be the moment of greatest danger for him, which by that time we should be in an endemic and hopefully calmer waters to replace him
I could be wrong, but I am far from convinced he will go quickly and today's newspapers really had nothing further to add or provided the silver bullet
Ms Gray's report will I suspect be general in its criticism. The culture of Downing Street will be blamed. Reference will be made to Reynolds's email invitation, so he is finished. Despite attending the parties Johnson will consider himself vindicated.
It is up to Conservative MPs to do the deed. I have written to Cairns demanding he writes to Brady.
It's been very clear that the tactic has been to broaden the focus and so excuse the actions of the PM. Dowden was waffling on earlier about 'wider questions' and 'broad cultural issues' and how this was not about 'seeking to defend [what happened]' except that is definitely what it is about or else why bang on about it?
It bears repeating until we are all blue in the face, but a culture of X does not render one incapable of resisting that culture. Seeking to move focus from personal actions to some nebulous 'culture' is pretty shameless, especially when, as seems likely, other individuals will be held accountable and indeed possibly fired for their actions despite the same excuse about 'culture' being applicable.
It follows that overwrought expressons of sorrow and anger at a culture as if it made people do things, is no excuse whatsoever.
I have said this before, but it is also absolutely ridiculous BBC still isn't 4K. Sodding no name YouTubers are in 4k these days and production values are super high as soon as these people get any sort of following.
The problem for the BBC is that they have to be platform neutral, so they cannot go for 4K on Sky Q only.
Oh woopie they have a handful of shows in 4k on iPlayer on selected devices. That's not going 4k. When one of your "shows" is the The Queen's Christmas Broadcast you really are scraping the barrel of just how much you do in 4k. Also the Tourist was made in 4k, because its also for HBO max.
Now a days, no mark bloke doing car reviews on YouTube has every show in 4k.
They should be producing everything in 4k, so people watch it on iPlayer.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Apropos of nothing, with Djokovic out before the tournament begins does everyone slide up 1 space in the seedings, or do they just leave everyone as they are and re-shuffle the draw slightly to accommodate the lucky loser and run the tournament with no No.1 seed?
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
It's the cinematic equivalent of a rickets case in a big tank of formalin in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Excellent thread by TSE with compelling arguments.
The hatred towards Boris Johnson is now so visceral, and the blame for what has happened so personally focused on the man, that this has all the hallmarks of truth about it.
Having listened to Trevor Phillips and Sophie Raworth this morning on playback, and I have to say Trevor Phillips is outstanding and had a very sad personal story to tell about the time of Prince Philip's funeral, I am beginning to think that Boris may well yet remain in post for a while
Boris lost me over the Paterson debacle and partygate, but I think he will survive the Sue Gray report and the May elections will now be the moment of greatest danger for him, which by that time we should be in an endemic and hopefully calmer waters to replace him
I could be wrong, but I am far from convinced he will go quickly and today's newspapers really had nothing further to add or provided the silver bullet
Ms Gray's report will I suspect be general in its criticism. The culture of Downing Street will be blamed. Reference will be made to Reynolds's email invitation, so he is finished. Despite attending the parties Johnson will consider himself vindicated.
It is up to Conservative MPs to do the deed. I have written to Cairns demanding he writes to Brady.
It is not a question of if, but when
The longer the impasse the more chance he survives
As a non-Conservative I quite liked the idea of Johnson flying by the seat of his pants to the next election. But in a time of crisis do we need this fool anywhere near the levers of power? No we don't, so I'll take my chances with someone else. Anyone else.
I have said this before, but it is also absolutely ridiculous BBC still isn't 4K. Sodding no name YouTubers are in 4k these days and production values are super high as soon as these people get any sort of following.
Is 4K noticeable these days on a 40+ TV, compared to HD?
I have said this before, but it is also absolutely ridiculous BBC still isn't 4K. Sodding no name YouTubers are in 4k these days and production values are super high as soon as these people get any sort of following.
A £3k semi-pro DSLR camera now films in 8k. Most decent podcast studios have half a dozen 4k cameras, I’ve even seen it done with iPhones, which have no problem with 4k if the lighting is good.
I have said this before, but it is also absolutely ridiculous BBC still isn't 4K. Sodding no name YouTubers are in 4k these days and production values are super high as soon as these people get any sort of following.
Is 4K noticeable these days on a 40+ TV, compared to HD?
Probably not on a 40” TV, but definitely on a 65” TV.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
On the Buses would have limited value. ITV3 screen it regularly as it costs them little to do so and it has already been released on DVD. Same with the films.
I have said this before, but it is also absolutely ridiculous BBC still isn't 4K. Sodding no name YouTubers are in 4k these days and production values are super high as soon as these people get any sort of following.
Is 4K noticeable these days on a 40+ TV, compared to HD?
Yes. 4K + HDR is a big improvement, especially when you get to 50" and above, which is now becoming the standard size. And you should be producing for the future which is already here with 8k, QLED, very good HDR, etc.
Hume is of course one of the old Revolutionary Communist Party / Living Marxism veterans. Their journey from ultra far-Left to ultra-libertarian Right is well known. But the latest manifestation - apologist footmen to the court of Baron Boris - is a sight to behold.
Must be hoping to follow in the steps of Claire Fox: Lord Mick …
I have also been following general elections since 92 - and I wasn't up for Portillo.
Salmond 2017 was great but I found it extremely depressing that SNP (or SNP Types if you prefer) managed to keep a majority of Westminster Scottish seats; if only by one.
THey did better than that, surely? 35 to 24 IIRC.
Just checked wiki - 35 is the SNP seat total.
What is 24 refering to?
The non-SNP seat total?
Yes - my casio + google managed to work it out eventually
not sure where I've managed to pull the one seat thing from (possibly versus an exit poll or a bet I had on).
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
It's the cinematic equivalent of a rickets case in a big tank of formalin in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
It's the cinematic equivalent of a rickets case in a big tank of formalin in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
To quote from the article,
David Baddiel's "great-uncle being an atheist [did not get] him any free passes out of the Warsaw ghetto".
Think it's real - Tom Bower is Mr J's biographer (previously). Have not read that tome but Wiki says "The biography Boris Johnson: The Gambler was published by WH Allen on 15 October 2020 and has been noted for being sympathetic about the subject of the biography, in contrast with some of Bower's previous works".
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
He must have missed the bit where Ben Kingsley played Yitzhak Stern in Schindler's List.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
It's the cinematic equivalent of a rickets case in a big tank of formalin in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
Use for training new folk in the horrors of the past of their profession.
I think I'd choose 30 mins looking at that actually!
It's actually a fascinating museum (group of museums really) as well as being one of the great professional centres of medicine. Had a very pleasant conference there not too long before you know what.
I agree the seat is at risk, but to be fair to Boris I expect he'd take defeat with a cheery laugh, whatever he privately thought, and a couple more years running the country with a chance to leave with his reputation less damaged must have its appeal.
I'm encountering a few people who are not exactly Boris loyalists (they all think he lies) but who express similar comments to DavidL - they're tired of people who they don't admire (Labour politicians, journalists) piling on, feel vaguely it was a year ago and he's apologised, and would rather move on. If Sue Gray's report is not especially focused on him, I'd think that tendency will strengthen.
It's entertaining to see all the expectation management about it, anyway.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
On the Buses would have limited value. ITV3 screen it regularly as it costs them little to do so and it has already been released on DVD. Same with the films.
Mutiny on the Buses was shown on ITV3 this very morning.
A good example of BBC totally misguided thinking about the modern media landscape. BBC3 being recommissioned as a stand alone channel. You are spending an load of time and energy to bring back a over the air tv channel, that never had good viewership, was dying on its arse as a streaming channel, in a world where people don't watch over the air tv channels....aimed at a youth demographic who absolutely don't consume content this way nor appeared at all interested in BBC3.
If its about producing some more youth content or giving a break to up and coming ideas, stick on iPlayer, just like Netflix does. Good stuff gets spotted and word of mouth you get plenty of views e.g. Queen's gambit on Netflix.
Apropos of nothing, with Djokovic out before the tournament begins does everyone slide up 1 space in the seedings, or do they just leave everyone as they are and re-shuffle the draw slightly to accommodate the lucky loser and run the tournament with no No.1 seed?
The latter. There was a plan to move some of the seeds around the draw to rebalance it, but the deportation verdict came too late because they needed to finalise all the matches. It makes the draw a bit lop-sided, because Djokovic's place in the top half is now occupied directly by the lucky loser, but I doubt that will make too much difference in the grand scheme of things.
Arguably the principal beneficiary of the situation is seventh seed Matteo Berrettini, who would've been slated to play Djokovic (his conqueror in last year's Wimbledon final) in the quarter-finals, but has now had that banana skin removed from his path. Everyone now in contention for Djokovic's place in the quarter-finals will also be seeing this as a big opportunity for advancement, as that section is now very open.
- Cases down. R is collapsing to some of the lowest numbers we have seen - Admissions. R is stil 1 or so - flat - MV beds The steeper decline continues - Numbers in hospital are starting to decline - Death. Still rising slowly.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
On the Buses would have limited value. ITV3 screen it regularly as it costs them little to do so and it has already been released on DVD. Same with the films.
Mutiny on the Buses was shown on ITV3 this very morning.
and, before it, On the Buses.
It's a genuinely fascinating snapshot of a particular era. All those beiges!
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
It's the cinematic equivalent of a rickets case in a big tank of formalin in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
Use for training new folk in the horrors of the past of their profession.
I think I'd choose 30 mins looking at that actually!
It's actually a fascinating museum (group of museums really) as well as being one of the great professional centres of medicine. Had a very pleasant conference there not too long before you know what.
At the risk of sounding weird I quite like skeletons. They don't spook me at all. In general, I mean, obviously if they are the result of something grisly that's different.
I’m intrigued as to where cases end up in a couple of weeks. By date of reporting we are almost back to pre omicron. Has the huge numbers of cases and boosters done enough to shove cases down more than about 50k per day? One would certainly hope so. Data missing, afaics, how much delta remains?
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
He must have missed the bit where Ben Kingsley played Yitzhak Stern in Schindler's List.
Spielberg needs to get up to speed with his progressive casting.
Apropos of nothing, with Djokovic out before the tournament begins does everyone slide up 1 space in the seedings, or do they just leave everyone as they are and re-shuffle the draw slightly to accommodate the lucky loser and run the tournament with no No.1 seed?
The latter. There was a plan to move some of the seeds around the draw to rebalance it, but the deportation verdict came too late because they needed to finalise all the matches. It makes the draw a bit lop-sided, because Djokovic's place in the top half is now occupied directly by the lucky loser, but I doubt that will make too much difference in the grand scheme of things.
Arguably the principal beneficiary of the situation is seventh seed Matteo Berrettini, who would've been slated to play Djokovic (his conqueror in last year's Wimbledon final) in the quarter-finals, but has now had that banana skin removed from his path. Everyone now in contention for Djokovic's place in the quarter-finals will also be seeing this as a big opportunity for advancement, as that section is now very open.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
However much money they might make, it would be more than they’re making now.
Youtube views also come from some very wierd places. My wife knows all sorts of obscure British and American TV shows of past decades, from her previous job of teaching English as a foreign language.
Twitch paid peanuts for the back catalogue of Bob Ross show, the American landscape painter, it got massive viewership.
Pretty stupid to let it go so cheaply - I've not seen a single episode of his show but I am nonetheless well aware of who he was from countless references on american TV shows, so the nostalgia factor and potential to interest a new generation was bound to be worth a decent price.
BBC4 have some episodes - showed at 1900 or 1930 through the first pandemic.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
The problem is that as the likes of the Indy and the Telegraph pointed out about the Around the World in 80 days, even their bigger budget shows now looks really cheap, compared to what is the norm on these big streaming services.
It is supposed to be a jaunt around the world, instead they shot a load of episodes on the same street in Romania.
The bar has been raised so much now. We now expect movie quality production from the big budget Netflix et al. shows.
They have even raised the bar for cheap television too. Look at some of the recent comedy specials on Netflix, not from a content point of view, but from a production point of view.
Clearly a lot of attention to detail for a production which, Dave Chapelle apart, they’re generally only paying six figures for the finished programme.
Off Topic
I'm not sure why we have to compare the BBC with Netflix, Amazon, Disney etc. The BBC is a platform designed for UK consumption and has to include all areas of the UK in programming. It also has to cover News and Current affaires impartially and diversely. It also has to provide local news and religious programmes and many others I ahve forgotten. You tell me any of the others that have to do that.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
It's the cinematic equivalent of a rickets case in a big tank of formalin in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
Use for training new folk in the horrors of the past of their profession.
I think I'd choose 30 mins looking at that actually!
It's actually a fascinating museum (group of museums really) as well as being one of the great professional centres of medicine. Had a very pleasant conference there not too long before you know what.
At the risk of sounding weird I quite like skeletons. They don't spook me at all. In general, I mean, obviously if they are the result of something grisly that's different.
I first went there as a student as I was doing some reading up on parasites and wanted to see the specimens there. What I remember from that visit is the scrotum of a chap with elephantiasis. In a huge, almost oil drum sized, cylinder of formalin ... but don't rush, it might be off display now. The museum has been completely modernised.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
He must have missed the bit where Ben Kingsley played Yitzhak Stern in Schindler's List.
He explicitly mentions it in his book, describing it as a great performance (and noting Kingsleys performance in Gandhi is now regarded by many as problematic). And the book is all about how if X is not ok because it is racist, it should also not be ok when it applies to jews as well. So if it is a problem for non-minority actors to portray the experience of a minority, as many believe, that should apply in such a situation.
I think he's right about the double standard, but as I've noted before the whole 'actor must embody the character' trend has been taken way too far. Sometimes due to conflation with issues of lack of bredth of roles for some minorities (eg asian americans). So such an action of 'Only x to play x' is not the right response at all, but it is the logical position for a lot of people.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
The problem is that as the likes of the Indy and the Telegraph pointed out about the Around the World in 80 days, even their bigger budget shows now looks really cheap, compared to what is the norm on these big streaming services.
It is supposed to be a jaunt around the world, instead they shot a load of episodes on the same street in Romania.
The bar has been raised so much now. We now expect movie quality production from the big budget Netflix et al. shows.
They have even raised the bar for cheap television too. Look at some of the recent comedy specials on Netflix, not from a content point of view, but from a production point of view.
Clearly a lot of attention to detail for a production which, Dave Chapelle apart, they’re generally only paying six figures for the finished programme.
Off Topic
I'm not sure why we have to compare the BBC with Netflix, Amazon, Disney etc. The BBC is a platform designed for UK consumption and has to include all areas of the UK in programming. It also has to cover News and Current affaires impartially and diversely. It also has to provide local news and religious programmes and many others I ahve forgotten. You tell me any of the others that have to do that.
Because currently we have to pay for it to watch any live tv and the BBC themselves try to tell everybody they are as good as the competition all for a few quid a week. And ultimately they are in competition for our eyeballs.
And increasingly it is clear things like their news and sport coverage isn't actually very good. They have had a piss poor pandemic, constantly getting simple things wrong time and time again. We know this, because we can simply find out this information via other people on the internet, and in as stepped the likes of Dr Campbell who have built a very large viewership explaining this to the masses.
And the world with the internet is going to a model of specialised knowledge e.g. The Athletic is an infinity better product than BBC Sport website.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
On the Buses would have limited value. ITV3 screen it regularly as it costs them little to do so and it has already been released on DVD. Same with the films.
Mutiny on the Buses was shown on ITV3 this very morning.
and, before it, On the Buses.
It's a genuinely fascinating snapshot of a particular era. All those beiges!
Harry Enfield did quite an amusing parody of On The Buses a few years back, which suddenly comes back to mind.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
It may be worth reminding people that the first season of the upcoming Lord of the Rings series on Amazon will cost Amazon more money (£340 M + £182 M for rights) than the entire BBC spends on drama in a year (£289 M for 2021).
I almost hope it is terrible as having sunk so much into it that would be hilarious.
The streaming companies have so much money it is insane
Apple TV casually dropped $45 million on one sci fi series, Foundation
Amazon Prime spent $80 million on the first season of The Wheel of Time. It hasn't done very well, meh, fuck it, make something else
One season of The Crown costs Netflix about $120 million
The Marvel series Hawkeye costs $25 million for EACH EPISODE - same as Wandavision and Loki
How can the BBC hope to compete with this?
Production values aren't everything of course, plenty of excellently produced garbage out there, but just in terms of profile, slickness of operation and spectacle, it does seem like the areas the BBC and smaller operators can compete will be much reduced.
The problem is that as the likes of the Indy and the Telegraph pointed out about the Around the World in 80 days, even their bigger budget shows now looks really cheap, compared to what is the norm on these big streaming services.
It is supposed to be a jaunt around the world, instead they shot a load of episodes on the same street in Romania.
The bar has been raised so much now. We now expect movie quality production from the big budget Netflix et al. shows.
They have even raised the bar for cheap television too. Look at some of the recent comedy specials on Netflix, not from a content point of view, but from a production point of view.
Clearly a lot of attention to detail for a production which, Dave Chapelle apart, they’re generally only paying six figures for the finished programme.
Off Topic
I'm not sure why we have to compare the BBC with Netflix, Amazon, Disney etc. The BBC is a platform designed for UK consumption and has to include all areas of the UK in programming. It also has to cover News and Current affaires impartially and diversely. It also has to provide local news and religious programmes and many others I ahve forgotten. You tell me any of the others that have to do that.
Because currently we have to pay for it to watch any live tv and the BBC themselves try to tell everybody they are as good as the competition all for a few quid.
I pay over 25 quid a month for the pleasures of BBC because I'm in my first year.
I have also been following general elections since 92 - and I wasn't up for Portillo.
Salmond 2017 was great but I found it extremely depressing that SNP (or SNP Types if you prefer) managed to keep a majority of Westminster Scottish seats; if only by one.
THey did better than that, surely? 35 to 24 IIRC.
Just checked wiki - 35 is the SNP seat total.
What is 24 refering to?
The non-SNP seat total?
Yes - my casio + google managed to work it out eventually
not sure where I've managed to pull the one seat thing from (possibly versus an exit poll or a bet I had on).
Apologies
Look on the bright side, think how depressed you’d have been if you’d known the true figure.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
He must have missed the bit where Ben Kingsley played Yitzhak Stern in Schindler's List.
He explicitly mentions it in his book, describing it as a great performance (and noting Kingsleys performance in Gandhi is now regarded by many as problematic). And the book is all about how if X is not ok because it is racist, it should also not be ok when it applies to jews as well. So if it is a problem for non-minority actors to portray the experience of a minority, as many believe, that should apply in such a situation.
I think he's right about the double standard, but as I've noted before the whole 'actor must embody the character' trend has been taken way too far. Sometimes due to conflation with issues of lack of bredth of roles for some minorities (eg asian americans). So such an action of 'Only x to play x' is not the right response at all, but it is the logical position for a lot of people.
The logical end point of this line of thinking is that actors should only play themselves.
There are real issues to overcome in representation in the profession, and in particular how performance is recognized and praised. But only x can play y is, at best, a short-term bandage, not the long-term solution.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
It's the cinematic equivalent of a rickets case in a big tank of formalin in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
Use for training new folk in the horrors of the past of their profession.
I think I'd choose 30 mins looking at that actually!
It's actually a fascinating museum (group of museums really) as well as being one of the great professional centres of medicine. Had a very pleasant conference there not too long before you know what.
At the risk of sounding weird I quite like skeletons. They don't spook me at all. In general, I mean, obviously if they are the result of something grisly that's different.
An excuse to copy one of my favourite film scenes:
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
He must have missed the bit where Ben Kingsley played Yitzhak Stern in Schindler's List.
He explicitly mentions it in his book, describing it as a great performance (and noting Kingsleys performance in Gandhi is now regarded by many as problematic). And the book is all about how if X is not ok because it is racist, it should also not be ok when it applies to jews as well. So if it is a problem for non-minority actors to portray the experience of a minority, as many believe, that should apply in such a situation.
I think he's right about the double standard, but as I've noted before the whole 'actor must embody the character' trend has been taken way too far. Sometimes due to conflation with issues of lack of bredth of roles for some minorities (eg asian americans). So such an action of 'Only x to play x' is not the right response at all, but it is the logical position for a lot of people.
How do they deal with the Tiger Woods questions?
How many actors are one quarter Thai, one quarter Chinese, one quarter Caucasian, one eighth African American, one eighth Native American to be eligible to play Woods?
And if Woods had wanted to be an actor instead of a golfer, is he limited to roles with that near unique ethnicity?
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
He must have missed the bit where Ben Kingsley played Yitzhak Stern in Schindler's List.
He explicitly mentions it in his book, describing it as a great performance (and noting Kingsleys performance in Gandhi is now regarded by many as problematic). And the book is all about how if X is not ok because it is racist, it should also not be ok when it applies to jews as well. So if it is a problem for non-minority actors to portray the experience of a minority, as many believe, that should apply in such a situation.
I think he's right about the double standard, but as I've noted before the whole 'actor must embody the character' trend has been taken way too far. Sometimes due to conflation with issues of lack of bredth of roles for some minorities (eg asian americans). So such an action of 'Only x to play x' is not the right response at all, but it is the logical position for a lot of people.
The logical end point of this line of thinking is that actors should only play themselves.
There are real issues to overcome in representation in the profession, and in particular how performance is recognized and praised. But only x can play y is, at best, a short-term bandage, not the long-term solution.
Even more concise - it's dumb (noneoftheabove provides a good example)
To be facetious, would Charlize Theron today get away with Uglyfacing in Monster? What of all the homely actors who don't normally get prime roles?
If Dorries and Zahawi are Johnson's greatest supporters in the cabinet, he looks pretty precarious. I see today's rabble-rousing announcement on the BBC also comes from Nadine.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
He must have missed the bit where Ben Kingsley played Yitzhak Stern in Schindler's List.
He explicitly mentions it in his book, describing it as a great performance (and noting Kingsleys performance in Gandhi is now regarded by many as problematic). And the book is all about how if X is not ok because it is racist, it should also not be ok when it applies to jews as well. So if it is a problem for non-minority actors to portray the experience of a minority, as many believe, that should apply in such a situation.
I think he's right about the double standard, but as I've noted before the whole 'actor must embody the character' trend has been taken way too far. Sometimes due to conflation with issues of lack of bredth of roles for some minorities (eg asian americans). So such an action of 'Only x to play x' is not the right response at all, but it is the logical position for a lot of people.
Not sure there. Othello was supposed to be black and as far as I am aware was always played by a black person (except Olivier I think). If you take away the visual clues, (which can't really be ignored), then I would have thought most actors can play the part of most people. I'm thinking Matt Damon as Liberaci's boyfriend, Michael Douglas as Liberaci, Keeley Hawes and Rachel Stirling in Tipping the velvet, Danield Day Lewis in My left foot.
Apropos of nothing, with Djokovic out before the tournament begins does everyone slide up 1 space in the seedings, or do they just leave everyone as they are and re-shuffle the draw slightly to accommodate the lucky loser and run the tournament with no No.1 seed?
The latter. There was a plan to move some of the seeds around the draw to rebalance it, but the deportation verdict came too late because they needed to finalise all the matches. It makes the draw a bit lop-sided, because Djokovic's place in the top half is now occupied directly by the lucky loser, but I doubt that will make too much difference in the grand scheme of things.
Arguably the principal beneficiary of the situation is seventh seed Matteo Berrettini, who would've been slated to play Djokovic (his conqueror in last year's Wimbledon final) in the quarter-finals, but has now had that banana skin removed from his path. Everyone now in contention for Djokovic's place in the quarter-finals will also be seeing this as a big opportunity for advancement, as that section is now very open.
I've done Sinner at 60/1.
You've done very well there. I don't know how much of it is the Djokovic removal effect, but Sinner doesn't appear to be available at longer than about 20-1 now.
I'm assuming the Medvedev will walk it, but if he trips over his own shoelaces then you never know...
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
It's the cinematic equivalent of a rickets case in a big tank of formalin in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
Use for training new folk in the horrors of the past of their profession.
I think I'd choose 30 mins looking at that actually!
It's actually a fascinating museum (group of museums really) as well as being one of the great professional centres of medicine. Had a very pleasant conference there not too long before you know what.
At the risk of sounding weird I quite like skeletons. They don't spook me at all. In general, I mean, obviously if they are the result of something grisly that's different.
I first went there as a student as I was doing some reading up on parasites and wanted to see the specimens there. What I remember from that visit is the scrotum of a chap with elephantiasis. In a huge, almost oil drum sized, cylinder of formalin ... but don't rush, it might be off display now. The museum has been completely modernised.
Ah that IS the result of something grisly. I probably wouldn't tarry too long by that one, fascinating though it would have been. I like vanilla skeletons of people who've died peacefully and in good health. Well, not in good health, but you know what I mean. Where there hasn't been an atrocity or an awful medical problem or a terrible tragedy. But I guess for interest or education, as opposed to just general poignancy, it's exactly these types that you want to be discovering and looking at.
I'm not sure why we have to compare the BBC with Netflix, Amazon, Disney etc. The BBC is a platform designed for UK consumption and has to include all areas of the UK in programming. It also has to cover News and Current affaires impartially and diversely. It also has to provide local news and religious programmes and many others I ahve forgotten. You tell me any of the others that have to do that.
Whether you like it or not Netflix, Amazon, Disney and so on are the competition. This isn't the 1980s where the only US TV we might see is if the BBC or ITV buy some episodes of Dallas, Columbo, or The A-Team, anyone in the UK can watch American streaming services round the clock. The BBC and UK TV broadcasters in general are becoming a ever smaller part of what UK TV viewers are watching.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
He must have missed the bit where Ben Kingsley played Yitzhak Stern in Schindler's List.
He explicitly mentions it in his book, describing it as a great performance (and noting Kingsleys performance in Gandhi is now regarded by many as problematic). And the book is all about how if X is not ok because it is racist, it should also not be ok when it applies to jews as well. So if it is a problem for non-minority actors to portray the experience of a minority, as many believe, that should apply in such a situation.
I think he's right about the double standard, but as I've noted before the whole 'actor must embody the character' trend has been taken way too far. Sometimes due to conflation with issues of lack of bredth of roles for some minorities (eg asian americans). So such an action of 'Only x to play x' is not the right response at all, but it is the logical position for a lot of people.
I think his point is that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If only a black person can play a black person, only a trans person can play a trans person, only a disabled person can play a disabled person, then how come anyone can play someone who's jewish?
Personally I think the clue is in the definition of the word "actor" which quite literally means playing a part, pretending to be someone else. Otherwise you end up with a reductio ad absurdam, e.g. by the same rule surely it's unacceptable for anyone who isn't actually a royal, or at the very least an aristo, to act in The Crown, on the basis of "lived experience"?
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
In historical dramas we readily accept actors having different hair colour, accents, languages and physical proportions than the figures they are representing, but we still have a problem with different skin colours. That’s, to use a phrase many on here hate, white privilege.
I have absolutely zero point zero zero problem with black people playing white people, or vice versa - except in cases where the skin colour is crucial to the story - a white man playing Martin Luther King, say, would be jarring and silly. Ditto trans and gays and the rest. Let everyone play everyone. The Woke idea you can only act within your gender, race silo is profoundly corrosive
Moreover, as an aside, there WERE quite a few black people in 18th century aristo Russia. Not as many as implied in The Great but certainly some. The blue-blooded writer Alexander Pushkin was inordinately proud of his part-African heritage
You say you have no problem with (eg) a black actor playing a white man (in a fictional drama) if the whiteness of the man in the drama isn't crucial to the story. But surely if a black actor is used the character is now *not* a white man (in this fictional drama) so the premise on which your test is based is rendered null before you can apply it?
Interesting proposal by Dave Baddiel that only Jewish actors should play Jewish parts.
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
He must have missed the bit where Ben Kingsley played Yitzhak Stern in Schindler's List.
He explicitly mentions it in his book, describing it as a great performance (and noting Kingsleys performance in Gandhi is now regarded by many as problematic). And the book is all about how if X is not ok because it is racist, it should also not be ok when it applies to jews as well. So if it is a problem for non-minority actors to portray the experience of a minority, as many believe, that should apply in such a situation.
I think he's right about the double standard, but as I've noted before the whole 'actor must embody the character' trend has been taken way too far. Sometimes due to conflation with issues of lack of bredth of roles for some minorities (eg asian americans). So such an action of 'Only x to play x' is not the right response at all, but it is the logical position for a lot of people.
How do they deal with the Tiger Woods questions?
How many actors are one quarter Thai, one quarter Chinese, one quarter Caucasian, one eighth African American, one eighth Native American to be eligible to play Woods?
And if Woods had wanted to be an actor instead of a golfer, is he limited to roles with that near unique ethnicity?
It is absurd.
Agreed, the actor should be someone who looks a little like him. It's not supposed to be a DNA test or a photo for god sake, it's a film.
I’m intrigued as to where cases end up in a couple of weeks. By date of reporting we are almost back to pre omicron. Has the huge numbers of cases and boosters done enough to shove cases down more than about 50k per day? One would certainly hope so. Data missing, afaics, how much delta remains?
I asked Nick earlier what his threshold would be to drop Plan B. I don’t think he’ll mind me saying that he is one of the more cautious PBers. In any case, he seemed happy to drop the theatre and cinema masks now (I inferred @NickPalmer ?) but wanted WFH and shopping masks to carry on until dailies dropped below 20k.
Bizarre as it might seem, there is a chance (a chance!) that we might even get there by 26 Jan, to meet even Nick’s threshold.
On the BBC Survival story, and its inability to fight Netflix and Prime etc, there is one slight counter-argument. The big American companies are Woking themselves to death
Read this remarkable article about diversity and Wokeness in Hollywood and US TV:
If the US streamers just pump out unfunny PC comedy and tediously liberal movies they won't prosper, either. Perhaps the Koreans will take over, because they don't give a shit and they are highly creative. Squid Game
I can vouch for the paragraphs about the endless hunt for "diversity hires". It is the same in the UK (if not quite as bad). Every job has to go to a Woman or a "BIPOC" (think BAME plus Native Americans)
What is extraordinary in America is that they now have strict racial quotas for movies that want to be considered for the Oscars:
"So, in September 2020, the Academy launched its Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry platform (or RAISE). For a movie to qualify for Best Picture, producers not only had to register detailed personal information about everyone involved in the making of that movie, but the movie had to meet two of the Academy’s four diversity standards—touching on everything from on-screen representation to creative leadership. (An Academy spokesperson said “only select staff” would have access to data collected on the platform.)
"The Academy explained that movies failing to meet these standards would not be barred from qualifying for Best Picture until 2024. But producers are already complying: In 2020, data from 366 productions were submitted to the platform.
"Meanwhile, CBS mandated that writers’ rooms be at least 40 percent black, indigenous and people of color (or BIPOC) for the 2021-2022 broadcast season and 50 percent for the 2022-2023 season. ABC Entertainment issued a detailed series of “inclusion standards.” (“I guarantee you every studio has something like that,” a longtime writer and director said.)
A telling remark:
"How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. “Best way to defend yourself against the woke is to out-woke everyone, including the woke,” one writer said. Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?"
Archive 81 on Netflix is great. Not even a hint of workery, just solid TV.
And, of course, THE GREAT
The funniest TV show in years, and absolutely non-PC (except they have multiple black actors in 18th century Russia? - but why not, it works). Still amazing it got made
Uploaded unchallenged by a guy called Matt Spanner, as opposed to being monetised by the official BBC ITV account. A great example of what’s wrong with UK TV companies in their approach to the internet.
Would 'On The Buses' have much value though? I'd have thought all you could monetize is the threat - "Pay us now or we'll put repeats out!" - and that's probably not legal.
On the Buses would have limited value. ITV3 screen it regularly as it costs them little to do so and it has already been released on DVD. Same with the films.
Mutiny on the Buses was shown on ITV3 this very morning.
and, before it, On the Buses.
It's a genuinely fascinating snapshot of a particular era. All those beiges!
Harry Enfield did quite an amusing parody of On The Buses a few years back, which suddenly comes back to mind.
Coincidentally saw this brilliant old Harry Enfield clip on Twitter just now. Again one has to ask, would it get made now? Could be seen as misogynist, despite the fact it is clearly sending up archaic misogyny
I'm not sure why we have to compare the BBC with Netflix, Amazon, Disney etc. The BBC is a platform designed for UK consumption and has to include all areas of the UK in programming. It also has to cover News and Current affaires impartially and diversely. It also has to provide local news and religious programmes and many others I ahve forgotten. You tell me any of the others that have to do that.
Whether you like it or not Netflix, Amazon, Disney and so on are the competition. This isn't the 1980s where the only US TV we might see is if the BBC or ITV buy some episodes of Dallas, Columbo, or The A-Team, anyone in the UK can watching American streaming services round the clock. The BBC and UK TV broadcasters in general are becoming a ever smaller part of what UK TV viewers are watching.
Ultimately this is my core issue with the BBC and the licence fee. They are still operating like it is the 1980s, where there are a few channels and we all huddle around the moving picture box to watch them, and we should be thankful for this.
The idea of a licence tied to your home, which you have to pay to watch any of the 100s of other channels (plus any live streaming) is totally out of date.
Widespread Wifi and 4G/5G means you can stream content at any time, any where, the system can't enforce you sticking to the law of having to have a tv licence and increasingly it is a totally alien concept where the market has decided that subscription services like Spotify and Netflix are extremely popular ways of paying for it. Sky is moving to a totally streaming based service. And yet we have the BBC relaunching BBC3 as an over the air channel.
Comments
It is up to Conservative MPs to do the deed. I have written to Cairns demanding he writes to Brady.
Salmond 2017 was great but I found it extremely depressing that SNP (or SNP Types if you prefer) managed to keep a majority of Westminster Scottish seats; if only by one.
It is supposed to be a jaunt around the world, instead they shot a load of episodes on the same street in Romania.
The bar has been raised so much now. We now expect movie quality production from the big budget Netflix et al. shows.
What is 24 refering to?
EDIT - Your general point is correct though - they did do better than a simple majority. I think I was comparing it to the exit poll.
Clearly a lot of attention to detail for a production which, Dave Chapelle apart, they’re generally only paying six figures for the finished programme.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/features/uhd-connected-tv/#/Notification
The problem for the BBC is that they have to be platform neutral, so they cannot go for 4K on Sky Q only.
It bears repeating until we are all blue in the face, but a culture of X does not render one incapable of resisting that culture. Seeking to move focus from personal actions to some nebulous 'culture' is pretty shameless, especially when, as seems likely, other individuals will be held accountable and indeed possibly fired for their actions despite the same excuse about 'culture' being applicable.
It follows that overwrought expressons of sorrow and anger at a culture as if it made people do things, is no excuse whatsoever.
Now a days, no mark bloke doing car reviews on YouTube has every show in 4k.
They should be producing everything in 4k, so people watch it on iPlayer.
https://museum.rcsed.ac.uk/the-collection/key-collections/key-object-page?objID=1190&page=1
Use for training new folk in the horrors of the past of their profession.
The hatred towards Boris Johnson is now so visceral, and the blame for what has happened so personally focused on the man, that this has all the hallmarks of truth about it.
As a non-Conservative I quite liked the idea of Johnson flying by the seat of his pants to the next election. But in a time of crisis do we need this fool anywhere near the levers of power? No we don't, so I'll take my chances with someone else. Anyone else.
not sure where I've managed to pull the one seat thing from (possibly versus an exit poll or a bet I had on).
Apologies
I recall the sneers. Then they realised about the money and grabbed it back......
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1482741077337595905
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1482739732723515396
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/12/helen-mirren-golda-meir-maureen-lipman-david-baddiel-row-jews-bojack-horseman
We live in interesting times: a man can choose to be a woman and go to a women's prison and sexually assault the inmates, but a white person can't play another white person in a sitcom if he doesn't share that fictional character's religion.
First, people who voted Conservative for the first time in 2019, in the 'Red Wall' seat of Bolton North East:
“He’s a coward.” (1/18)
To think me calling Boris Johnson was called out as partisan nonsense.
David Baddiel's "great-uncle being an atheist [did not get] him any free passes out of the Warsaw ghetto".
I'm encountering a few people who are not exactly Boris loyalists (they all think he lies) but who express similar comments to DavidL - they're tired of people who they don't admire (Labour politicians, journalists) piling on, feel vaguely it was a year ago and he's apologised, and would rather move on. If Sue Gray's report is not especially focused on him, I'd think that tendency will strengthen.
It's entertaining to see all the expectation management about it, anyway.
If its about producing some more youth content or giving a break to up and coming ideas, stick on iPlayer, just like Netflix does. Good stuff gets spotted and word of mouth you get plenty of views e.g. Queen's gambit on Netflix.
Have you done a curve fit, or do you just mean "a lot"?
Arguably the principal beneficiary of the situation is seventh seed Matteo Berrettini, who would've been slated to play Djokovic (his conqueror in last year's Wimbledon final) in the quarter-finals, but has now had that banana skin removed from his path. Everyone now in contention for Djokovic's place in the quarter-finals will also be seeing this as a big opportunity for advancement, as that section is now very open.
- Cases down. R is collapsing to some of the lowest numbers we have seen
- Admissions. R is stil 1 or so - flat
- MV beds The steeper decline continues
- Numbers in hospital are starting to decline
- Death. Still rising slowly.
It's a genuinely fascinating snapshot of a particular era. All those beiges!
Data missing, afaics, how much delta remains?
- For most, cover-up rather than the deed itself has done the most damage to Boris' personal brand.
This means the current defence (blame others / work party excuse) is unlikely to work with the public - and may even make things worse. (18/18)
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1482739789229142016?s=20
https://twitter.com/johnschreiber/status/1481770722271760384?s=20
It has gone viral, after long being ignored
America is in deep shit (part 5,928)
I'm not sure why we have to compare the BBC with Netflix, Amazon, Disney etc. The BBC is a platform designed for UK consumption and has to include all areas of the UK in programming. It also has to cover News and Current affaires impartially and diversely. It also has to provide local news and religious programmes and many others I ahve forgotten. You tell me any of the others that have to do that.
I think he's right about the double standard, but as I've noted before the whole 'actor must embody the character' trend has been taken way too far. Sometimes due to conflation with issues of lack of bredth of roles for some minorities (eg asian americans). So such an action of 'Only x to play x' is not the right response at all, but it is the logical position for a lot of people.
And increasingly it is clear things like their news and sport coverage isn't actually very good. They have had a piss poor pandemic, constantly getting simple things wrong time and time again. We know this, because we can simply find out this information via other people on the internet, and in as stepped the likes of Dr Campbell who have built a very large viewership explaining this to the masses.
And the world with the internet is going to a model of specialised knowledge e.g. The Athletic is an infinity better product than BBC Sport website.
"I thought they said Martin Luther ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "
Delete. Delete. Delete.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q1uHcGTK8k
There are real issues to overcome in representation in the profession, and in particular how performance is recognized and praised. But only x can play y is, at best, a short-term bandage, not the long-term solution.
https://youtu.be/zGfG7kOX1-U
How many actors are one quarter Thai, one quarter Chinese, one quarter Caucasian, one eighth African American, one eighth Native American to be eligible to play Woods?
And if Woods had wanted to be an actor instead of a golfer, is he limited to roles with that near unique ethnicity?
It is absurd.
To be facetious, would Charlize Theron today get away with Uglyfacing in Monster? What of all the homely actors who don't normally get prime roles?
I'm assuming the Medvedev will walk it, but if he trips over his own shoelaces then you never know...
Personally I think the clue is in the definition of the word "actor" which quite literally means playing a part, pretending to be someone else. Otherwise you end up with a reductio ad absurdam, e.g. by the same rule surely it's unacceptable for anyone who isn't actually a royal, or at the very least an aristo, to act in The Crown, on the basis of "lived experience"?
Bizarre as it might seem, there is a chance (a chance!) that we might even get there by 26 Jan, to meet even Nick’s threshold.
The drop is astounding.
Precipitous.
https://twitter.com/HarryEnfield6/status/1481935300549136387?s=20
The idea of a licence tied to your home, which you have to pay to watch any of the 100s of other channels (plus any live streaming) is totally out of date.
Widespread Wifi and 4G/5G means you can stream content at any time, any where, the system can't enforce you sticking to the law of having to have a tv licence and increasingly it is a totally alien concept where the market has decided that subscription services like Spotify and Netflix are extremely popular ways of paying for it. Sky is moving to a totally streaming based service. And yet we have the BBC relaunching BBC3 as an over the air channel.