I remember Michael Grade in an interview in 1989 when they were discussing the 1990 Broadcasting Act and the 1991 ITV franchise auction - Michael said about his experience at the BBC he said:
"if you have run both BBC channels as I have, and you have to put those schedules together, by about March you have run out of money, and from March until September BBC One and BBC Two are reduced to endless repeats which is not the corporation's fault"
And that was back in 1989, I bet it is the same or even worse now in 2021.
JK1985 post_id=34495 time= user_id=1347 Wrote:"if you have run both BBC channels as I have, and you have to put those schedules together, by about March you have run out of money, and from March until September BBC One and BBC Two are reduced to endless repeats which is not the corporation's fault"
Indeed, in the early nineties the Beeb were more or less resigned to the fact that they couldn't afford a proper schedule all year round, which looked particularly poor next to ITV which could produce a lot more new programming. 1993 was a particularly bad summer for the Beeb as there'd been an accounting cock-up and they'd accidentally gone way over budget so there was some particularly severe cost-cutting.
In the summer of 1994 there were a lot of really weak shows on primetime BBC1, some stuff that was clearly intended for daytime or late at night was shoved in really prominent slots, clearly they'd decided they needed new shows, any new shows. But from the following year things got better, the rise of docusoaps was a real boost for BBC1 because they were relatively cheap, compared to most primetime shows, so they could make the budget stretch further. And in addition there were really huge strides in TV production in the nineties so programmes were generally cheaper to make, you could edit them on a laptop and so on, so that helped.
There's certainly more new content in the summer now than you ever got in the past, there are shows like Ghosts and MasterChef and a lot of new stuff every night, whereas up until about 25 years ago it would just be endless repeats until the first week of September when everything would come back. But obviously it is a bit tougher at the moment as TV shows are currently more expensive and take longer to make cos of Covid. It's amazing we're getting as much as we have, really.
There is a trend at the BBC towards fewer and bigger shows so if something like Ambulance or The Repair Shop for example hits the ground running then it'll get a big episode order for future series and IIRC it's actually more cost effective for a broadcaster to order in volume.
I don't think ITV will be too surprised with the ratings for The Void or Cooking with the Stars. Maybe if you read the press releases then you would think they have huge faith in them but its the usual fake praise that's given out.
Only The Masked Singer has warranted the hype in recent times and unless viewing figures are exceptionally bad, swapping shows about is as much ITV will do.
It's a shame that the schedule is filled with stuff that is either past its best or has been underwhelming from the start but it's up to certain people to come up with formats that are fresh and inventive instead of cobbling together the best bits from other shows and ending up with a mess.
Have to credit ITV too for usually at least trying in the summer with at least one new show on a Saturday night. Even if ratings have been underwhelming scheduling a new show after a returning (surprise) hit and before an institution of a gameshow is, on paper at least, a fairly solid Saturday night line up. The BBC's seems much more random at the moment - you might get a film, you might get Pointless, you might get Casualty at 7.30, 8.30 or 9.30.
Of course on the flip side ITV is a write off on Sundays unless you're a Harry Potter fan whilst the BBC has had a fairly stable schedule with Countryfile generally at 6.30 and a big drama at 9pm.
Brekkie post_id=34776 time= user_id=976 Wrote:Have to credit ITV too for usually at least trying in the summer with at least one new show on a Saturday night. Even if ratings have been underwhelming scheduling a new show after a returning (surprise) hit and before an institution of a gameshow is, on paper at least, a fairly solid Saturday night line up. The BBC's seems much more random at the moment - you might get a film, you might get Pointless, you might get Casualty at 7.30, 8.30 or 9.30.
The Beeb had "at least one new show on a Saturday night" in Take Off, which has certainly done better than The Void. I know it had been on the shelf for ages because Covid intervened, but it was a new show - and they certainly had a better excuse than ITV for some rather ragged Saturday nights as they also had to work around the Olympics. What with people going on holiday as well, if they were to schedule any longer-running series around this time they'd be shuffled around all over the place, and people would miss episodes. There's certainly more new stuff on Saturday nights in August than you would have got in the past, this was a more familiar line-up in the nineties, non-stop repeats -
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/se...2#at-17.10
I also wouldn't give ITV much credit for a Saturday night line-up of shiny floor show followed by shiny floor show followed by shiny floor show, when BBC1 has offered much more variety with drama as well (I know it's Casualty, but it still counts). Why should we give ITV credit for "trying" by commissioning a (fairly derivative, pretty unsuccessful) light entertainment show? The channel's been doing that for nearly seventy years. If we're giving ITV credit for doing that, the channel must be in a pretty poor state. AT LEAST YOU TRIED.
JK1985 post_id=34460 time= user_id=1347 Wrote:Memory plays tricks on a lot of people harking back to what they believe what where the better days of TV in their opinion, but being realistic, there was a lot of dross on the four main TV channels even back in 1991, before the hey days of multi channel viewing.
In fact, now in 2021, I find myself very rarely watching linear TV at all on most nights, and I use YouTube as my TV station - which can make people think the old days were better.
When you have YouTube on, and you have archive shows from Noel's House Party to Big Break to old Parkinson talk shows etc, you get the feeling it was a better world, but forgetting the fact that these programmes were not available every day to watch, and when you want to watch them, as they are now on YouTube.
For example, if we go back 30 years to this date in 1991, which was a Friday, and their prime time offering on the four channels looks okay but still not great television - BBC One offered Wogan, Little and Large, Paul Daniels Magic Show, News, Madigan (US detective series) and Omnibus at the Proms as their core peak time viewing whilst ITV was lacklustre with Very Big Very Soon, Coronation St, Survival, This Man ... This Woman, News at Ten - not exactly great Friday night viewing was it?
There seems to be a theory that there have been "golden ages" of British television which I've always found laughable. Yes there have been some good shows across all genres but they have been accompanied by some absolute garbage. This will cause a stink but I've never found Fawlty Towers to be funny.
I tend to gravitate towards the idea that if things are going well in a person's life then that feeling is reinforced by the programmes on air.
[mention]JK1985[/mention] referred to Youtube as his main TV Station. So do I, not just for old programmes (I came across a fantastic Channel 4 documentary from 1998 called "The King Of Chaos" recently) but for the independent programmes as well.
"Normal television" as I call it has fallen back on tried and tested formulae such as soaps, quizzes and movies which in my opinion has led to therise of Youtube, Amazon et al.
I think it can damage future show’s ratings taking shows off half way through as viewers lose trust that it won’t happen again. This was more important when ITV used to do it to dramas.
Newshound47 post_id=34797 time= user_id=1854 Wrote:I think it can damage future show’s ratings taking shows off half way through as viewers lose trust that it won’t happen again. This was more important when ITV used to do it to dramas.
Reminds me of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brighton_Belles
Humphrey Hacker post_id=34793 time= user_id=1128 Wrote:JK1985 post_id=34460 time= user_id=1347 Wrote:Memory plays tricks on a lot of people harking back to what they believe what where the better days of TV in their opinion, but being realistic, there was a lot of dross on the four main TV channels even back in 1991, before the hey days of multi channel viewing.
There seems to be a theory that there have been "golden ages" of British television which I've always found laughable. Yes there have been some good shows across all genres but they have been accompanied by some absolute garbage. This will cause a stink but I've never found Fawlty Towers to be funny.
...
"Normal television" as I call it has fallen back on tried and tested formulae such as soaps, quizzes and movies which in my opinion has led to therise of Youtube, Amazon et al.
Well no, because "normal television" (by which I presume you mean linear TV broadcasts with emphasis on the PSB broadcasters) was always going to get eaten by the rise of digital/satellite TV and fragmenting the audience
What helped YouTube more than anything else was the rise of high speed internet, as video up to that point was the likes of RealPlayer and streaming in low resolution potatovision. The fact it later became a dumping ground for pretty much everything is beside the point. Netflix used to be a DVD mailer in the 2000s, so its indents into video streaming is relatively new.
Re: "golden age", that's just code for rose-tinted spectacles. If you move jobs you can quite often say your previous job was a "golden era" for you, particularly if it paid more/less weekly hours/had a closer commute than what you do now. Much like people say school days are the best days of your life. But you only realise that once you start work, when it suddenly dawns on you that you're doing 37hrs a week for minimum wage and most of that goes to the mortgage/rent/bills/kids/government, what's left for you?
Most of the BBC’s non films and sport on Saturdays recently have been repeats. Itv has also ran professor t on Sundays after Harry Potter which hasn’t disgraced itself either which is good
Steve Williams post_id=34788 time=1629272301 user_id=1326 Wrote:Brekkie post_id=34776 time= user_id=976 Wrote:Have to credit ITV too for usually at least trying in the summer with at least one new show on a Saturday night. Even if ratings have been underwhelming scheduling a new show after a returning (surprise) hit and before an institution of a gameshow is, on paper at least, a fairly solid Saturday night line up. The BBC's seems much more random at the moment - you might get a film, you might get Pointless, you might get Casualty at 7.30, 8.30 or 9.30.
The Beeb had "at least one new show on a Saturday night" in Take Off, which has certainly done better than The Void. I know it had been on the shelf for ages because Covid intervened, but it was a new show - and they certainly had a better excuse than ITV for some rather ragged Saturday nights as they also had to work around the Olympics. What with people going on holiday as well, if they were to schedule any longer-running series around this time they'd be shuffled around all over the place, and people would miss episodes. There's certainly more new stuff on Saturday nights in August than you would have got in the past, this was a more familiar line-up in the nineties, non-stop repeats - https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/se...2#at-17.10
I also wouldn't give ITV much credit for a Saturday night line-up of shiny floor show followed by shiny floor show followed by shiny floor show, when BBC1 has offered much more variety with drama as well (I know it's Casualty, but it still counts). Why should we give ITV credit for "trying" by commissioning a (fairly derivative, pretty unsuccessful) light entertainment show? The channel's been doing that for nearly seventy years. If we're giving ITV credit for doing that, the channel must be in a pretty poor state. AT LEAST YOU TRIED.
Although worth noting that without support from the Olympics Take Off took a dive on the Saturday just gone and actually performed worse than The Void in both rating and share, so I expect it might be both of them on the scrapheap come the end of the Summer.
I don't think Casualty bringing down the mood every Saturday constitutes "much more variety" either. Really it is good that both have tried new formats over the Summer because we've had years in the past when both have just thrown films and repeats on, so always good to see them go for new content instead, especially in these tricky times. It hasn't really worked and I certainly wouldn't say The Void deserved to do any better than it did but hopefully it doesn't mean a return to films and repeats next year.
What I suspect it might mean is a return to The Voice Kids which has done a reasonably good job over the past few Summers but this year finds itself strangely converted to being a "Christmas event" instead which would seem to read as code for them wanting to see if they could do better over the Summer, but not wanting to scrap Voice Kids entirely so finding a slot for a shortened series elsewhere instead. If The Void was an attempt at doing better then it was clearly not a successful one.
On Brekkie's point about random schedules, the BBC1 Saturday schedule has seemed quite hapazard for a few months now, with series such as The Wall and The Hit List having incredibly protracted runs as they're seemingly on one week and off the next, then back for two then gone again for a month.
Neil Jones post_id=34806 time= user_id=961 Wrote:Humphrey Hacker post_id=34793 time= user_id=1128 Wrote:JK1985 post_id=34460 time= user_id=1347 Wrote:Memory plays tricks on a lot of people harking back to what they believe what where the better days of TV in their opinion, but being realistic, there was a lot of dross on the four main TV channels even back in 1991, before the hey days of multi channel viewing.
There seems to be a theory that there have been "golden ages" of British television which I've always found laughable. Yes there have been some good shows across all genres but they have been accompanied by some absolute garbage. This will cause a stink but I've never found Fawlty Towers to be funny.
...
"Normal television" as I call it has fallen back on tried and tested formulae such as soaps, quizzes and movies which in my opinion has led to therise of Youtube, Amazon et al.
Well no, because "normal television" (by which I presume you mean linear TV broadcasts with emphasis on the PSB broadcasters) was always going to get eaten by the rise of digital/satellite TV and fragmenting the audience
What helped YouTube more than anything else was the rise of high speed internet, as video up to that point was the likes of RealPlayer and streaming in low resolution potatovision. The fact it later became a dumping ground for pretty much everything is beside the point. Netflix used to be a DVD mailer in the 2000s, so its indents into video streaming is relatively new.
Re: "golden age", that's just code for rose-tinted spectacles. If you move jobs you can quite often say your previous job was a "golden era" for you, particularly if it paid more/less weekly hours/had a closer commute than what you do now. Much like people say school days are the best days of your life. But you only realise that once you start work, when it suddenly dawns on you that you're doing 37hrs a week for minimum wage and most of that goes to the mortgage/rent/bills/kids/government, what's left for you?
And all that can be tied in to both the broadcasting act of 1990 and even further back to the Peacock report of 1986. The latter of which I propose was more responsible for pushing the notion of multi-channel TV from the small cable firms into the mainstream although I doubt very much that either foresaw the rise of the internet.
Just for clarity "normal television" was the term I used for analogue terrestrial to explain to my parents the difference between that and Sky. "Golden Age" and "rose-tinted spectacles" are of course interchangeable.
I can't work due being disabled and as regards school days. The least said about that the better
Humphrey Hacker post_id=34923 time= user_id=1128 Wrote:Neil Jones post_id=34806 time= user_id=961 Wrote:Well no, because "normal television" (by which I presume you mean linear TV broadcasts with emphasis on the PSB broadcasters) was always going to get eaten by the rise of digital/satellite TV and fragmenting the audience
What helped YouTube more than anything else was the rise of high speed internet, as video up to that point was the likes of RealPlayer and streaming in low resolution potatovision. The fact it later became a dumping ground for pretty much everything is beside the point. Netflix used to be a DVD mailer in the 2000s, so its indents into video streaming is relatively new
And all that can be tied in to both the broadcasting act of 1990 and even further back to the Peacock report of 1986. The latter of which I propose was more responsible for pushing the notion of multi-channel TV from the small cable firms into the mainstream although I doubt very much that either foresaw the rise of the internet.
First of all the primarily aim behind commissioning the Peacock report was in the hope that it would suggest scrapping the licence fee. Which it didn't. Some of the other other recommendations were implemented, such as ITV franchises should be put out to competitive tender and Channel 4 should be able to sell its own advertising, and other recommendations were not, such as privatising Radio 1 and 2.
Second of all, Multichannel TV wasn't new by 1990, Sky had been around since (I think) 1982, its only the current incarnation after the merger of Sky and BSB in 1990 when they were both loosing money hand over fist.
And third of all, the internet has been around in one guise or another since the 1960s, the modern vision of it dates back to the mid 1980s, though it was being looked at as early as the 1940s. It was only going to be a matter of time before it became mainstream and BT figured out a way to provide it over the phone line, thus squeezing it into a system that was only ever designed for voice calls.