I just wondered what YOU meant by flagship. It just means most viewers then?
BBC Drama academy Page 3
It's hard to explain, in my opinion (and it literally is just mine, I don't want to speak on behalf of everyone!) it's sort of a semiotic thing. I always see 'flagship' as meaning the shows that people associate with a channel. I'd include Doctor Who in there too. But Eastenders, Casualty etc...the sort of shows you wouldn't find anywhere else. We can look at the most 'critically acclaimed', but you could easily find those on other channels. Eastenders, Doctors, Casualty etc (and again Doctor Who) are (to me) synonymous with the BBC.
It's a shame if the shows that spring to mind when one thinks of the BBC is Soap Operas. The BBC used to be the best, and universally acknowledged as so, producer of television in the world. Doctor Who I'll grant you mind you 
And Doctors was nominated for a BAFTA as most original show when it first came out.
Just like I said. We are snobs, and that's a good thing! Writers should have an in-built sense of quality (albeit a personal one). But what we think is 'tat', millions of people see as being part of their daily routine. So I just make sure I never dismiss them really.
I'm not saying these shows are tat by the way, because...well, I'm a fan...I applied to the scheme haha! But I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Wow, how amazing am I that I can be a fan of EastEnders AND Sherlock AND Dexter all at the same time!? 
I'm not a snob. Best show on Television at the moment is Game of Thrones Nothing wrong with populist stuff either. But soaps shouldn't be perceived as Flagship drama for the BBC and if they are.... the BBC is doomed!
Quote: Sophie Petzal @ April 29 2011, 9:47 AM BSTPretty sad that people deem themselves 'above' BBC flagship shows. Unemployed = Undiscovered genius I suppose...
So any writer who's not interested in writing for BBC soaps is "sad" and basically arrogant, are they? OK.
Quote: Sophie Petzal @ April 29 2011, 10:20 AM BSTJust like I said. We are snobs, and that's a good thing! Writers should have an in-built sense of quality (albeit a personal one). But what we think is 'tat', millions of people see as being part of their daily routine. So I just make sure I never dismiss them really.
I'm not saying these shows are tat by the way, because...well, I'm a fan...I applied to the scheme haha! But I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Wow, how amazing am I that I can be a fan of EastEnders AND Sherlock AND Dexter all at the same time!?
You seem to have adopted the difficult position of on the one hand condescending soaps and the people who watch them, and on the other hand saying they're great and you'd love to write for them. 
Quote: Tim Walker @ April 29 2011, 10:29 AM BSTSo any writer who's not interested in writing for BBC soaps is "sad", are they?
That's not what I was saying at all. What you 'want' to do is regardless, what you believe yourself to be 'above' is something altogether different. I'm not going to re-word myself forever though. If people are going to take offence...silly me, what am I saying...this is the internet...of course people will take offence...
Quote: Tim Walker @ April 29 2011, 10:33 AM BSTSo any writer who's not interested in writing for BBC soaps is "sad" and basically arrogant, are they? OK.
You seem to have adopted the difficult position of on the one hand condescending soaps and the people who watch them, and on the other hand saying they're great and you'd love to write for them.
No I haven't, I've been trying to tip-toe around the territory of the argumentative online by sitting astride a rather sharp fence.
I don't think anybody is taking offence just having a debate on a serious question.
Good luck with your application.
Quote: Marc P @ April 29 2011, 10:29 AM BSTI'm not a snob. Best show on Television at the moment is Game of Thrones
Game of Thrones is going to take over my life pretty soon, I can tell. So many kinds of awesome.
I don't know though, if I absolutely loathed Doctor Who, and suggested that 'if this is what passes for good television, we are all doomed!' you would probably rise to its defence.
Soaps/continuing drama are sneered upon because they are 'mainstream' and quite heavily regulated and have simply been around for a long time. Saying 'well it's bad', is useless, because I could counteract your argument by saying 'well it isn't' and neither of us are any better. All I'm saying is it is subjective, but we can not deny what it does for the millions who watch, and for the hundreds whose careers are kickstarted because of it.
Quote: Sophie Petzal @ April 29 2011, 9:47 AM BSTPretty sad that people deem themselves 'above' BBC flagship shows. Unemployed = Undiscovered genius I suppose...
Sorry if that come across as a bit sniffy; I am past the age where being discovered is a likely outcome, even were I not lazy and untalented. So I honestly have no axe to grind.
Other than that these BBC flagship programmes as you call them (or soaps, as I call them) are programmes that I have absolutely no interest in watching, and I cannot help wondering if that is not the case with some of the drama academy graduates who are put too work on them. Certainly it could help explain what I perceive as the dead-eyed soullessness of these programmes.
Obviously it is paid work, and doubtless still more stimulating than what many of us end up doing for a living; writers have always taken commissions on this basis of makiing ends meet,with varying degrees of enthusiasm. But what concerns me is that the BBC seem to be mapping out a career path for writers; work on continuing dramas is being held out as a means to the end of working on more interesting commissions, and I fear in time it may become the only means to that end. It is a safety first human resources approach to commissioning drama, which judges ability in terms of how qualified the applicant is; rather than a creative one which relies on the ability to recognise and trust talent.
Of course writers have always had to learn their trade, but I think there may be a danger in placing too much structure on this. The value of career paths is an unchallenged truism of modern human resources theory, which is insiduously spreading across the corporate world; my concern is that this approach places a premium on conformity and shuts out mavericks. That is not healthy in business, and certainly is not healthy in the arts.
At any rate I wish you well with your application; there is no denying that this is a valuable opportunity, but ultimately whether you are successful in this or not it is up to you to map out your own path.
Quote: Marc P @ April 29 2011, 10:35 AM BSTI don't think anybody is taking offence just having a debate on a serious question.
"So any writer who's not interested in writing for BBC soaps is "sad" and basically arrogant, are they? OK. "
Quote: Sophie Petzal @ April 29 2011, 9:59 AM BSTThe fact that they still provide an avenue for the training of new writers is so uncommon, and believe me, they don't have to do it. They have too many writers already.
I did not know there was such thing as a quota for writers. The BBC's recent success rate in the fields of drama and comedy does not provide evidence that they are drowning in talent.
Quote: Timbo @ April 29 2011, 10:37 AM BSTSorry if that come across as a bit sniffy; I am past the age where being discovered is a likely outcome, even were I not lazy and untalented. So I honestly have no axe to grind.
Other than that these BBC flagship programmes as you call them (or soaps, as I call them) are programmes that I have absolutely no interest in watching, and I cannot help wondering if that is not the case with some of the drama academy graduates who are put too work on them. Certainly it could help explain what I perceive as the dead-eyed soullessness of these programmes.
Obviously it is paid work, and doubtless still more stimulating than what many of us end up doing for a living; writers have always taken commissions on this basis of makiing ends meet,with varying degrees of enthusiasm. But what concerns me is that the BBC seem to be mapping out a career path for writers; work on continuing dramas is being held out as a means to the end of working on more interesting commissions, and I fear in time it may become the only means to that end. It is a safety first human resources approach to commissioning drama, which judges ability in terms of how qualified the applicant is; rather than a creative one which relies on the ability to recognise and trust talent.
Of course writers have always had to learn their trade, but I think there may be a danger in placing too much structure on this. The value of career paths is an unchallenged truism of modern human resources theory, which is insiduously spreading across the corporate world; my concern is that this approach places a premium on conformity and shuts out mavericks. That is not healthy in business, and certainly is not healthy in the arts.
At any rate I wish you well with your application; there is no denying that this is a valuable opportunity, but ultimately whether you are successful in this or not it is up to you to map out your own path.
That is a very good point, and I agree, if there is a degree of 'soullessness' in some of the writing, it would be completely possible that people who are not all that passionate, but looking for work (and with some talent) are being put to work on it regardless.
With regards to mavericks though, call me naive or pedantic, but I was under the impression that doors were always 'shut' to mavericks. It's sort of what makes a maverick a maverick - they have to overcome those obstacles, and the more troublesome the obstacles the better.
It's a defeating circle really. Scriptwriting is mind-numbingly difficult to get into. Even more so these days. What the BBC is trying to do is make it a little easier for those who they believe are good enough to do something (if you look at the academy alumni, many have certainly not just 'stayed put'). You are right, it is a little structuralist, and at worst 'feudal'. But for many, it's the helping hand they desperately need.
Think about the criteria though - it requires one credit or commission. This means the writers they select are already used to 'graft' or forcing their way in some how. So it's not all doors slammed in the face of 'mavericks' (though what I did was by no means 'maverick-like'.)
Quote: Timbo @ April 29 2011, 10:43 AM BSTI did not know there was such thing as a quota for writers. The BBC's recent success rate in the fields of drama and comedy does not provide evidence that they are drowning in talent.
No but...through the grape-vine, these particular schemes/shows are a little over-stocked at the moment.
If you have a genuinely good script you'll get it read. Problem is you probably don't.