Quote: T.W. @ 6th March 2014, 9:55 PM GMTGiving an extra £30 million to BBC One drama, as things stand, seems like throwing good money after bad.
My first thought, but they can probably sell much more drama and costume drama around the world than some comedy programmes.
Quote: zooo @ 6th March 2014, 8:58 PM GMTWhat's wrong with Bluestone 42?
I didn't make a comment.
nb reading it again, another 30 million for drama.
Is that really neccessary, is this all that bollox about Dr Who and Sherlock breaking America.
http://popwrapped.com/2014/01/21/sherlock-is-welcomed-back-on-pbs-to-record-us-viewing-figures/
4 million viewers, talk about the cultural cringe.
http://www.tvguide.com/news/most-watched-tv-shows-top-25-2012-2013-1066503.aspx
they're not even in the top 25.
Quote: sootyj @ 6th March 2014, 10:17 PM GMTnb reading it again, another 30 million for drama.
Is that really neccessary, is this all that bollox about Dr Who and Sherlock breaking America.
http://popwrapped.com/2014/01/21/sherlock-is-welcomed-back-on-pbs-to-record-us-viewing-figures/
4 million viewers, talk about the cultural cringe.
http://www.tvguide.com/news/most-watched-tv-shows-top-25-2012-2013-1066503.aspx
they're not even in the top 25.
Well they wouldn't be. And yes, they're pretty well known shows over there now, and I'm sure the BBC would like to create more money making properties, why wouldn't they..?
Quote: Oldrocker @ 6th March 2014, 10:15 PM GMTMy first thought, but they can probably sell much more drama and costume drama around the world than some comedy programmes.
Not sure about 'much' more, but they certainly do sell a lot, yes. However that means they need less of their own cash to make them in the first place, because they get other broadcasters as co-producers and other investors (for example, BBC Worldwide) putting cash in to make the programmes.
Besides, have you looked at a BBC One drama at any time recently and thought to yourself, "Ooh it looks like this was a really cash-strapped production."? I know I haven't.
I'm not sure Aaron; Jonathan Creek, Sherlock, Dr Who, a decent script editor would be cheap at twice the price....
Quote: Matthew Stott @ 6th March 2014, 10:46 PM GMTWell they wouldn't be. And yes, they're pretty well known shows over there now, and I'm sure the BBC would like to create more money making properties, why wouldn't they..?
Matt I'm shocked, money making for the BBC is good and subsidises all it's other activities.
But it's public service broadcasting, so sacrificing a broad range of programs, especially those that encourage new talent, for big ticket shows is anathema.
The BBC is ditching a whole channel, with a focus on young people, new talent and innovation. So it can prime the DVD and download pump with an aim in competing for sales with commercial channels.
BBC3 has consistently been in the top 3 of UK digital channels, by any fair comparison it's been a success.
Quote: sootyj @ 7th March 2014, 6:08 AM GMTMatt I'm shocked, money making for the BBC is good and subsidises all it's other activities.
But it's public service broadcasting, so sacrificing a broad range of programs, especially those that encourage new talent, for big ticket shows is anathema.The BBC is ditching a whole channel, with a focus on young people, new talent and innovation. So it can prime the DVD and download pump with an aim in competing for sales with commercial channels.
BBC3 has consistently been in the top 3 of UK digital channels, by any fair comparison it's been a success.
I don't believe I said I agreed with chopping BBC3.
I meant the idea that the BBC should be looking to increase revenue, thus using public monies to make profit.
I mean you'd be annoyed if the British Army started looting in Iraq to subsidize the navies new jets.
I acknowledge your initial aprobation at the loss of BBC3.
That said I watched a program with Rod Gilbert that would have shamed the community channel.
In some ways it's more complex. The latest series of Attenborough docos are made with US cable channels. Fine saves the license fee wonga.
But...
They also adopted a very BBC neutrality on natural selection and generally simplified.
Seriously.
Quote: Aaron @ 6th March 2014, 7:31 PM GMTFactually incorrect. According to the BBC themselves, only 4% of current BBC Three viewing is via iPlayer.
In case maths is not someone's strong point, that leaves a whopping 96% of the channel's audience who'll be robbed of the station if these plans are given the go-ahead.
Whilst I'd much rather BBC3 keep transmitting (and I've liked a lot more of its non-reality output than I'd expect given its target demographic) I think you misrepresent the position with this quote.
It is not 96% of the channel's audience who'll be robbed of the station, it is 96% of the current audience who will not be able to view it in the same manner that they have used up to now. Some, possibly even most, of the 96% who watch the broadcast channel (as opposed to iPlayer) will move to using iPlayer.
I've usually watched BBC3 by the broadcast, but I'll certainly use iPlayer when it goes off air.
It may make it a lot less likely that people discover new shows on BBC3 though: a mix of (presumably) not making as much new stuff, iPlayer-only content not usually making 'TV reviews' in the general media and the removal of BBC3 from onscreen TV schedules (and also from channel surfers).
they should not shut down and close bbc3.
