|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 30, 2021 11:41:46 GMT
Was it good in the 60s? Those early Play For Todays? TOTP? TW3?
Do we just remember the good stuff, like we do with music? Were the channels (BBC2 started in 1964) mostly stuffed with rubbish? There was nothing on until 7 pm anyway, I think...
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 30, 2021 11:45:18 GMT
Channel 4 used to be good though! That's declined too. Definitely when it started. I mean, you got shit like Countdown (first thing shown) but there were good plays ( P'tang, Yang, Kipperbang), Brookside (fantastic for its first few years), and some great late-night films (first Bergman I saw - Summer With Monika - but mostly 'cos I expected a bit of t n a )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 11:56:24 GMT
OK - thanks. I was thinking more about what the BBC has done in the past, the sort of programmes that lead some of us to say 'it's the best public broadcaster in the world'. Civilisation, for example, or Fawlty Towers. That would help to see what expectations we have of it, what kind of things we value, and how far back we need to go to find the last examples of greatness. I like those Simon R documentaries too. I don't think they're quite as good as Palin's. Or Alan Whicker's! Does Louis Theroux still make programmes for the BBC? or is he freelance? Personally I prefer them to both, because I actually learn stuff about the political situation in those countries, which I'd never get in a Palin doc. But there is room for both of course.
The point is, I think, the BBC's remit of educate, inform and entertain means it often makes more adventurous and challenging programmes than its commercial rivals who are mainly focused on the 'entertain' part of that mission statement. And you really don't have to go back to the 60s to find examples of that ( and whatever happened in the 60s is somewhat irrelevent to this discussion anyway I think).
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,785
|
Post by rayge on Mar 30, 2021 12:08:23 GMT
The BBC does not have advertising (except for it's own programmes, which I can live with). It doesn't matter about the 'quality' of the programming - ffs the three channels between them broadcast for about 60 hours a day and I can always find something of interest (using a recorder and time shifting) for the two to three hours a day I actually watch it, not to mention thousands of hours of stuff on iPlayer. It's easy to avoid 'wokery' - it's never been an issue for me on TV, in life, anywhere, and I really don't see why anybody gets steamed up about it - inane comedies, daytime fodder, current affairs shows (always hated them) and daytime programming.
Commercial TV is not interested in providing programming for minorities (and no, I don't mean racial minorities), just people with spending power in mass markets, but it's in the remit for BBC channels and Channel 4 to provide niche programming.
And I'd like to say too that the amount paid for the licence fee is very reasonable compared with the amount everyone has to pay every time we buy anything to support the advertising budgets of those who support the crap channels and streaming services.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 12:19:16 GMT
You have to take in BBC's past competition when talking about how good it used to be or not be. I think this is right, the BBC had no competition until Thames and ITV came around, then channel 4. Now it still has those, along with Netflix, Prime, Sky, hulu etc.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 30, 2021 12:25:54 GMT
"pronouncements". People are giving their opinions on the Beeb and its decline. Yes but it's all so vague. 'The BBC is crap' etc. We always do this here. Someone starts a thread and everyone charges in to say what they think. Sharing the opinion is more important than anything else - including knowing what the fuck the discussion is about! I don't see anybody saying "the BBC is crap" but it is in decline and even supporters like yourself recognise this although we may disagree on the severity of it. To go back to what I said before.... Loss of sport. Crap comedy. Too much shit aimed at yoof (BBC3) and not enough aimed at those who pay the license fee therefore failing in their remit. Not strong enough culturally, the waste of time that was BBC4, declining journalistic standards, political bias, nonsense infiltrating even the sports pages, vast amounts of money to be spunked on vanity diversity projects rather than on quality programming etc. I also recognise that they can still be world class at times. I don't think that's vague and the general thrust of the thread from the first post was a critical one. My post was in response to yours about the decline and the notion that this was the "last" of a golden age. I don't think it is was my point....I think we are past that point quite comfortably.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 30, 2021 13:11:34 GMT
OK - thanks. I was thinking more about what the BBC has done in the past, the sort of programmes that lead some of us to say 'it's the best public broadcaster in the world'. Civilisation, for example, or Fawlty Towers. That would help to see what expectations we have of it, what kind of things we value, and how far back we need to go to find the last examples of greatness. I like those Simon R documentaries too. I don't think they're quite as good as Palin's. Or Alan Whicker's! Does Louis Theroux still make programmes for the BBC? or is he freelance? Personally I prefer them to both, because I actually learn stuff about the political situation in those countries, which I'd never get in a Palin doc. But there is room for both of course.
The point is, I think, the BBC's remit of educate, inform and entertain means it often makes more adventurous and challenging programmes than its commercial rivals who are mainly focused on the 'entertain' part of that mission statement. And you really don't have to go back to the 60s to find examples of that ( and whatever happened in the 60s is somewhat irrelevent to this discussion anyway I think).
I think it's absolutely relevant to a discussion which is centred on the decline of the BBC. If we don't know how good it was, then how can we tell how far it's fallen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 13:14:45 GMT
Like BCB.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 30, 2021 13:16:05 GMT
Yes but it's all so vague. 'The BBC is crap' etc. We always do this here. Someone starts a thread and everyone charges in to say what they think. Sharing the opinion is more important than anything else - including knowing what the fuck the discussion is about! I don't see anybody saying "the BBC is crap" but it is in decline and even supporters like yourself recognise this although we may disagree on the severity of it. To go back to what I said before.... Loss of sport. Crap comedy. Too much shit aimed at yoof (BBC3) and not enough aimed at those who pay the license fee therefore failing in their remit. Not strong enough culturally, the waste of time that was BBC4, declining journalistic standards, political bias, nonsense infiltrating even the sports pages, vast amounts of money to be spunked on vanity diversity projects rather than on quality programming etc. I also recognise that they can still be world class at times. I don't think that's vague and the general thrust of the thread from the first post was a critical one. My post was in response to yours about the decline and the notion that this was the "last" of a golden age. I don't think it is was my point....I think we are past that point quite comfortably. I've highlighted the points I don't agree with. I can't say I'm very familiar with BBC3 but I know what I've seen is focused on young people. Is that in itself a bad thing? Shouldn't they be aiming at entertaining the under-25s too? If you've seen stuff there that you thought was shit, then that's to be expected isn't it? seeing as you're 20 years older than their target audience! Why was BBC4 a waste of time? For many years it was the best channel on TV! What are these 'vanity diversity projects' you're talking about? Can you give us an example?
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 30, 2021 13:18:00 GMT
Let's discuss the BBC canon.
|
|
|
Post by clive gash on Mar 30, 2021 13:34:29 GMT
Rock on Tommy?
ITV mate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 13:44:48 GMT
the waste of time that was BBC4 I don't know what this means. It's become a waste of time (although it's still the first channel I'll look at) because it's become underfunded to the point it no longer makes programmes, but for the first few years its output was brilliant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 13:49:37 GMT
Personally I prefer them to both, because I actually learn stuff about the political situation in those countries, which I'd never get in a Palin doc. But there is room for both of course.
The point is, I think, the BBC's remit of educate, inform and entertain means it often makes more adventurous and challenging programmes than its commercial rivals who are mainly focused on the 'entertain' part of that mission statement. And you really don't have to go back to the 60s to find examples of that ( and whatever happened in the 60s is somewhat irrelevent to this discussion anyway I think).
I think it's absolutely relevant to a discussion which is centred on the decline of the BBC. If we don't know how good it was, then how can we tell how far it's fallen? The irrelevence is to compare the BBC in an age of two channels to what it does now in a multi-channel, multiple platform age.
I'm not a proponent of the 'great decline' narrative on the whole so I can't help you with that particular point. It goes through peaks and troughs I think.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 30, 2021 14:06:09 GMT
I don't see anybody saying "the BBC is crap" but it is in decline and even supporters like yourself recognise this although we may disagree on the severity of it. To go back to what I said before.... Loss of sport. Crap comedy. Too much shit aimed at yoof (BBC3) and not enough aimed at those who pay the license fee therefore failing in their remit. Not strong enough culturally, the waste of time that was BBC4, declining journalistic standards, political bias, nonsense infiltrating even the sports pages, vast amounts of money to be spunked on vanity diversity projects rather than on quality programming etc. I also recognise that they can still be world class at times. I don't think that's vague and the general thrust of the thread from the first post was a critical one. My post was in response to yours about the decline and the notion that this was the "last" of a golden age. I don't think it is was my point....I think we are past that point quite comfortably. I've highlighted the points I don't agree with. I can't say I'm very familiar with BBC3 but I know what I've seen is focused on young people. Is that in itself a bad thing? Shouldn't they be aiming at entertaining the under-25s too? If you've seen stuff there that you thought was shit, then that's to be expected isn't it? seeing as you're 20 years older than their target audience! Why was BBC4 a waste of time? For many years it was the best channel on TV! What are these 'vanity diversity projects' you're talking about? Can you give us an example? The youth thing is not just specifically BBC3 (hell I watch Rupaul and I enjoyed Fleabag so BBC3 hasn't been complete toss) but it's also a general cultural change at the Beeb that actually has an undercurrent of ageism about it imo as they chase a market they are scared has left them behind for other pastures. In the link I posted earlier: Outlining its priorities for the next 12 months, the BBC said: “We will invest in more young-appealing British drama and comedy, entertainment and events which bring the whole nation together, impactful factual across the full range of specialisms – on iPlayer and our channels.”
Yet in the same plan there was evidence that the BBC needs to concentrate on retaining its older audience. Its own research found that the take-up of subscription services during the pandemic has been fastest among those aged 55 and over.
The youth drive also extends to Radio 4, where the station “will continue to reinvent audio drama for younger audiences with a range of new titles aimed at the podcast generation”.They are saying this themselves and yet older viewers are turning away and taking up more subscription services, one would assume in part, because the BBC is not scratching their itch anymore. I don't think they either and given that BBC4 will become an archived service whilst BBC3 returns then, ffs, you know, it's not exactly a sign that the BBC is prioritising older viewers who like a bit of serious culture is it? That doesn't mean some good shit might not come from BBC3, such as Fleabag, but given BBC4 was supposed to be for older, more cultured audiences this is sad news but it's been a long time coming. There have been budget cutbacks for years now and too many repeats so whilst it hasn't been a total waste of time - I was exaggerating for effect - I think something that started off promisingly with a serious, important remit has become a bit of a damp squib that now ends with this. In doing so it leaves a hole behind and for people like me I'm a bit like, "fuck these guys, what's in it for me?". www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53135022I support meritocracy, not tick box diversity where some people will land roles simply because of their immutable characteristics (whilst others are excluded of course based on theirs) so some middle class tosser can feel good about himself. That's not what the BBC is there for and yet they are using our money to do this. It's bullshit and yet they can't fund BBC4 properly. Yeah, no.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 30, 2021 14:14:02 GMT
the waste of time that was BBC4 I don't know what this means. It's become a waste of time (although it's still the first channel I'll look at) because it's become underfunded to the point it no longer makes programmes, but for the first few years its output was brilliant. I was exaggerating for effect and I agree it was good for a while but it started in 2002. It has been poor for many years and now it's finished basically. Nice one Beeb.
|
|