Reply With QuoteHow many real houses for real people could you build with that fecking utter madness!
Paul.
Has they lost all perspective
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46521700
That would be the homeless sorted, and a far better use of our licence money.
How many real houses for real people could you build with that fecking utter madness!
Paul.
Don't get me started on footballers wages. Still, it's a small price to pay to keep Joe and Joanna Public occupied enough so that they don't wake up and notice that they and their children are being sold down the river.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
I was going to start a thread on this myself, an insane amount of money for what is described surely.
Cheers..
Jase
the BBC has a great track record for wasting other peoples money , its about time it was turned into a subscription service.
You don't have to have a TV. Its your choice in this country not to have one. If you don't want to pay the license fee you can also have a TV, you just need to meet the criteria for not having a license. The works of Dickens and Voltaire are all freely available.Originally Posted by pugster
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
But there are many people who DO want a TV, and might be quite happy to watch hundreds of other channels - but don't want to pay for the BBC. The BBC didn't invent television and it should not be allowed to coerce you into funding it for the privilege of owning TV equipment.
you have obviously had no experience with the BBC's collection agency - AKA capita , who will harrass you left right and centre for not having a TV licience ( *when you legally dont need one )
*i.e dont watch live TV or use BBC iplayer service
Anglia water didn't invent water, but they still charge me 400 quid a year so I can have it coming out my taps
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
My uncle Jimmy never had a licence. When the bloke come round, he asked if he could come in. Jimmy said yes. He had a stack of four old black and white TV sets piled on top of each other in his living room. Jimmy had sellotaped pictures of his favourite footballers on the screens that he had cut out of newspapers. Bloke took one look and couldn't leave fast enough.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
uncle jimmy should not have let them in , capita have no more rights than any other door to door salesman and are known for stiching people up when given the chance .
personally ive not owned a TV licience for around 4 yrs now , i dont watch live TV and dont use any of the BBC's other services regardless of the money wastage /constant shite the BBC produce /dont produce -repeats and bias new reporting.
the BBC does not want subscription for one reason only - it will fold when people get told they dont have to pay for it , it survives in its current format for one more reason only -its the governments mouthpiece that is being paid for by the plebs themselves.
I don't think I've had a TV license for at least 20 years. It was a bit of a blow when Iplayer got withdrawn from non licence holders, but somehow I managed to survive :)))
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
When you think £87 million
And read this has the world gone mad.
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...sing-building/
Paul.
I love the BBC…. I don’t where I’d be without R4…? In fact, I do…. Far less well informed and educated…
I love 6 Music
And BBC one and two are where I tend to view most programmes
£87m is plain daft though…
It’s a drop of water. Just like net contribution to the EU, it’s peanuts compared to what it brings.
I don’t know how many countries buy the program, but it probably amply pays for the whole thing.
Same thing with Clarkson’s salary and production costs of Top Gear.
More importantly, the chances that this money had been affected to noble cause, be it to tackle homelessness, social services in general or the NHS are nil. Zilch. Nada. Zero.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Why?
Club are businesses like any other. In their market you have to pay to play, want the best you have to pay the price.
However, I concede that the whole market is obscene compared to others
Even if its earmarked for so called good causes, the chances of it ending up in someone's back pocket are not impossibly small. Anyway, enough bleak house for today. I'm going to have a lie down.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
BBC has its faults but it still stands far above the commercial channels. Pay the licence fee and stop moaning is my advice, I can moan and rant with the best of 'em but there are far more important things to worry about.
Footballers for good or bad are in the entertainment industry and command the wages of that industry. How much does Chris Evans or Ant/Dec get paid? They are often working class boys made good so rags to riches and they (or their agents) will charge what the market will bear. Bruce Springsteen recently finished his Broadway run of shows. he played 236 shows to 900 people per night and grossed $113 million dollars. So basically a year working two thirds of the year in a show that uses a piano, a guitar and 2 vocal mics so costs are low. That's an awful lot of money but that's how it is in the top end of the music/entertainment business.
Last edited by mrushton; 13th December 2018 at 16:03.
While we are on the subject of obscene payments. Apparently Elton Johns, John Lewis Christmas advertisement is the most expensive advert ever commissioned, its a secret what dear old Reg was paid but you can imagine the £'s
Funnily enough the advertising authority banned the advert originally because John Lewis did not sell Piano's! JL hastily purchased a few million quids worth and put them in their stores!!
football fans have a choice! Springsteen fans have a choice! TV viewers in this country don't.
I don't think that is true any more, I think that Sky, Amazon and Netflix each have more original content of better quality.
Apologies for the source but this just rubs it in....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Christmas.html
Really? Can you please point me to a radio service from any of those companies, let alone one that puts out the quality of that offered by Radio 4.
You don’t need a licence in the UK to listen to the radio.
The Swiss pay €460 a year for their TV licences.
No, but the radio service is part of the BBC which is funded by the TV licence fee. There's no workable mechanism for funding a public service radio service so to claim that Sky/Amazon/Netflix can replace the BBC offering is incorrect.
But Sky, Amazon and Netflix would cost you how much per month. At about a tenner a month the BBC is far better value, IMO.
But I have a choice
It’s one of those things. Like Council tax, you may hardly ever use many of the services they offer (for a price) but you still need to pay it. Consider it a public service. I can guarantee that compared to most European national networks it’s an absolute peach, a beacon. And I won’t mention American TV.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
FWIW I agree with you both, yes £87 million is a huge amount and as one who won't watch such drivel I get nothing out of it, likewise bakeoff, get me out, Coronation St, Emmerdale etc, all just pap however I'll continue to back the BBC warts and all.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
£87 mill is not that excessive for such a large set and production facility that is designed to last for many years. The tech infrastructure behind this will be immense - nothing like the temporary sets when I used to work at Elstree and other studios.
So clever my foot fell off.
I have - they wrote to me and wrote to me for over a year - they kept promising to visit but never did. The letters started looping after a while.
Better to spend a billion it on another Stadium for London and then spend another 700m converting it to a football stadium for a football team who already had a Stadium. Most cost effective.
Other peoples money.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Not really a fair comparison because I don't have Sky or BT Sports, so am not funding anything football related except when the BBC show a live FA cup game or MOTD! But I doubt they pay very much for that. Those that do fund footballers wages are exactly those who happily fund Sky, go to games etc for the privilege of watch 22 men chase a ball around. So fair enough.
But if you want to have a moan, then a better target would be those Golfers who get paid for their participation in the Open or those "poorly" paid Tennis Players who pitch up at Wimbledon with it's £31.6m prize fund.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Yes, could be spent on something ‘useful’ like that Bloodhound ‘car’.
You are kind to bless us with your warm salty drops of vigorous insight
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Tee he he!
"A man of little significance"
Exactly this. Syndicating the show brings in a lot more money than it costs and allows the BBC to fund even more TV and radio programmes.
"A man of little significance"
The idea of a "HD-ready Albert Square" is rather funny.
What did they build the last set out of, Play-doh..?!
Not really - better quality finish required as imperfections will show up in HD.
I had a look and cannot find the revenue value for Eastenders, I can find the costs, I can find the actors salaries but not the revenue.
Do people really watch such s anyway? And if the programs are so successful why not switch to pay per view and stop criminalising people for not paying tv license?
Fas est ab hoste doceri
I think what they really mean isn't down to the painting / finish, but more to do with the equipment and setup.
Upgraded lighting rigs, mic setups, camera tracks, digital storage / server setup and more versatility to help future proof a little better.
I suspect this is where a large chunk of that £87m will go, rather than just the structural / set dressing side. The bits we don't usually get to see as a viewer :)
It's just the way they phrased it in the article was rather funny, maybe I was a little facetious.
There was an article in the Metro this morning about the new Crapita MOD recruitment contract. An absolute shambles, a horrible waste of money, and leaving prospective recruits in limbo.
Given the sometimes hundreds of millions that some film cost to produce, the price of this Eastenders' set seems puny by comparison, given it's life expectancy and how many shows will be produced and the number of people who will watch during it's run, given both native and foreign syndicated audiences.
I've never watched it, but the costings don't seem out of order to me.
That's one of the key things - when I was working in TV and Film (left the industry in around 2000) the sets were pretty shoddy close up. You could get away with a lot - I remember doing a sequence for Red Dwarf and it really was held together with sellotape and string. Many ills were covered with some creative lighting.
The advent of HD meant everyone had to substantially up the game in terms of sets, optics, fx etc.
4k must be a bit of a nightmare to be honest - the level of finish and detail required must be orders of magnitude more complex and consequently expensive.
So clever my foot fell off.
I think ratings started high, peaked at 20 to 30 million, and have now plunged to 7 million*.
I don't know if the series sells well in the foreign markets, and I'm not sure its still a flagship in terms of numbers here in the UK
I think they should have spent the money on bringing back Blue Peter or even Nationwide.
*all figures made up. We love a few facts on tz.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Blue Peter's still going Dave!
Nationwide went the way of Frank Bough - hookers and coke.
So clever my foot fell off.
“We used to say, if it’s not bigger than a two-inch circle, you’re not going to see it on film,” Hollywood prop master David Marais told me in his sunny South African lilt. “Now, with high def, it’s down to an eighth of an inch. It’s got to look real. And the dust on the floor, now they’re going to see the dust on the floor underneath the couch ... It has definitely changed the way I look at things, because now you look at the dirt around the doorknob, you look at chips on the paint, all those sorts of things, and you think, ‘Ah, I gotta fix that.’”
His job is to make things look the way the director wants them to look, which on one occasion involved spending days slicing thousands of tiny rubber hairs off a set of Mercedes tires
It turns out all tires come with these little hairs, “vent spews,” which ensure that all the air is expelled when the tire is formed. But new, perfect tires—the most perfect tires you could buy in real life—wouldn’t be ideal tires in HD, because they wouldn’t match what we think we see when we look at tires. What we think we see would have a completely sleek, smooth surface, even from very, very close up. Hence the hair-slicing.
If you believe Wikipedia the average for 2018 is 6.68 million viewers for each episode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Ea...ional_versions
This double the best viewing figures the BBC ever got for an F1 race, so clearly Eastenders is better serving a public demand than covering F1 ever did:
https://f1broadcasting.co/2016/12/15...-year-on-year/
Personally I'm surprised nearly 10% of the population watch Eastenders but given that they do then clearly the BBC is right to be focusing resources on the programme. It's public money & a considerable number of them watch Eastenders.
Should anyone really wish to aereated about money the BBC is spending then I suggest they do a little investigation into the costs of running S4C which the Government forced the BBC to pick up. In 2016 the BBC were obliged to fund S4C to the tune of £74.5m every year until 2022. This to support a channel which gets an audience of about 360,000 in a week. A week, not an hour or a day.
Given those figures the one-off cost of £87m for the Eastenders set is damn good business.
Posting Permissions
