Oh yeah, because more adverts and braindead commercial pressure is exactly what comedy needs to flourish.
British comedy is no longer funny Page 20
So does that mean a great comedian is funnier on the BBC because there are no adverts? The revenue from the TV license is roughly around £130 mil a year, so it's not really a problem to throw £2.5mil an episode at Ricky Gervais to put out rubbish like 'Life's Too Short'. I guess my own bone of contention is I do not really see why I pay a yearly license fee to a company that produces shows of lesser quality than the independents, I am sure someone will post a very justifiable reason for it. As for the topic, funny British comedy is still out there and booming you just have to go out to see it as it won't be shown on television or if it is it will definitely not be on the BBC.
It's all subjective isn't it? I personally thought Matt Berry's recent Radio 4 series 'I, Regress' was really funny - besides being inventive, original and dark.
Quote: Martin Caine @ February 26 2012, 12:56 PM GMTSo does that mean a great comedian is funnier on the BBC because there are no adverts? The revenue from the TV license is roughly around £130 mil a year, so it's not really a problem to throw £2.5mil an episode at Ricky Gervais to put out rubbish like 'Life's Too Short'. I guess my own bone of contention is I do not really see why I pay a yearly license fee to a company that produces shows of lesser quality than the independents, I am sure someone will post a very justifiable reason for it. As for the topic, funny British comedy is still out there and booming you just have to go out to see it as it won't be shown on television or if it is it will definitely not be on the BBC.
Lesser quality than 'the independents'? That's just your opinion, not fact; the BBC has obviously produced thousands and thousands of hours of high quality shows, both for TV and radio, for many, many years.
We should all be greatful for the great things the BBC has provided for us over the years, instead of complaining about the paltry yearly fee it asks of us. Could it do better? Of course, what channel couldn't?
Quote: Martin Caine @ February 26 2012, 12:56 PM GMTSso it's not really a problem to throw £2.5mil an episode at Ricky Gervais to put out rubbish like 'Life's Too Short'.
£2.5M per episode? Where does that figure come from?
Aparently in the next series Warwick Davies has to earn a crust as a midget rent boy.
It's called
"coming up short"
Quote: Tony Cowards @ February 26 2012, 3:57 PM GMT£2.5M per episode? Where does that figure come from?
What would they spend all that money on? Ricky's hair gel??
Wasn't it also a co-production with HBO?
Quote: Tony Cowards @ February 26 2012, 3:57 PM GMT£2.5M per episode? Where does that figure come from?
Well Tony, that actually originated from Ricky Gervais on Twitter and for the record the £80 million he has earned from his profession I do take my hat off to him.
As for Matt's comment you are right that is just my opinion which is probably why I use 'I' instead of 'We' it is a forum. Though your comment about paying £145.50 (paltry fee)a year to fund a company that I get no direct pleasure from is probably shared by many.
Quote: Martin Caine @ February 26 2012, 5:02 PM GMTThough your comment about paying £145.50 (poultry fee)a year to fund a company that I get no direct pleasure from is probably shared by many.
Wasn't Chickens C4?
And now bought by Sky who are kinda playing the BBC's game better than you.
Quote: Martin Caine @ February 26 2012, 5:02 PM GMTWell Tony, that actually originated from Ricky Gervais on Twitter and for the record the £80 million he has earned from his profession I do take my hat off to him.
As for Matt's comment you are right that is just my opinion which is probably why I use 'I' instead of 'We' it is a forum. Though your comment about paying £145.50 (paltry fee)a year to fund a company that I get no direct pleasure from is probably shared by many.
What about all the extra money you pay for products advertised on ITV or Sky?
People who don't even have Sky contribute to it financially whenever they buy a product advertised on it and yet people still believe the myth that commercial channels are "free".
Quote: Tony Cowards @ February 26 2012, 7:34 PM GMTWhat about all the extra money you pay for products advertised on ITV or Sky?
People who don't even have Sky contribute to it financially whenever they buy a product advertised on it and yet people still believe the myth that commercial channels are "free".
I think you might find that companies do not increase the price of their products to cover advertising budgets they justify advertising by gaining a greater market share resulting in increased sales. As a good 65% of television adverts are comedy based I am a little amazed that on a comedy forum people seem quite happy with the license system we have in the UK.
At least we have proved that British comedy is funnier than discussing TV licenses
Well, I don't think the BBC is anything like as bad as you say, even in comedy, in which it has definitely lost its way and especially sitcom. They still do many things better than most stations. And many people watch it because they don't like commercial breaks. And Sky isn't free, it costs me about three times as much as the BBC licence fee, for stuff I watch about a tenth as much. And they still have adverts! The BBC is still good value, but I do think they need shaking up a bit. It wouldn't bother me if part of it went commercial, and/or subcription only, and the licence fee was reduced, but the core of it would have to remain advert free.
Quote: Martin Caine @ February 26 2012, 8:10 PM GMTa good 65% of television adverts are comedy based
We see very different adverts.
Quote: Martin Caine @ February 26 2012, 8:10 PM GMTI think you might find that companies do not increase the price of their products to cover advertising budgets they justify advertising by gaining a greater market share resulting in increased sales. As a good 65% of television adverts are comedy based I am a little amazed that on a comedy forum people seem quite happy with the license system we have in the UK.
At least we have proved that British comedy is funnier than discussing TV licenses
So you're saying that money spent on advertising is, in effect "free money" and doesn't come from money that we, as consumers, pay to the companies advertising? I'm not sure that is true at all.
As for the claim that 65% of adverts are comedy based (another made up statistic?), well ifthat's the standard that would come from commercial TV companies (imagine the horror of a 25 minute long "Go Compare" or "Compare the Meerkat" TV show) then long live the BBC!