you just download it off the net with torrent the next day anyways.
Thats what I do.
you just download it off the net with torrent the next day anyways.
Thats what I do.
Great news, can't wait to see what they've got in store for us this time!
They always have awesome stuff that I just don't see coming.
They always have awesome stuff that I just don't see coming.
BBC America pwease 
I'm tempted to say "Good!", but only because I really get a kick out of the cheap car challenges.
They've driven through buildings before
I think the millions of people who watch Top Gear would have something to say about that.....and it's good the local residents are against it as these eco-towns are nothing but a big waste of money
exactly, i hate that in almoust every good shows. altrough my dad has got discovery+etc, those show quite new episodes if i know right. not sure, but always when on mtv starts the ''new'' season of mythbusters or fifth gear, ive seen it ages ago from jim or discovery
Except, the programming put out by the BBC (and their Norwegian equivalent NRK) is consistently better than anything I've ever seen a commercial channel do. At least according to my taste at the moment. (I'm sure you'll violently disagree)
Once you add the "must make money" requirement you need broad, lowest common denominator programming that can appeal to the most people for the least amount of money. That line of though has never resulted in anything I want to watch, but has repeatedly killed off TV shows I enjoyed thoroughly. There is just no room for stuff with a more narrow appeal (like even Top Gear was in the early days) in that kind of an environment, which is why I happily pay my TV-license.
I'm going to the Top Gear filming next Wednesday
make a big sign that says Live For Speed and hold it up the whole show lol
Bit old to be honest (on their page). It's been in the works since 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunsfold_Aerodrome#The_future
Are you being serious? The reason the commercial channels can't put anything decent on is because the BBC have a complete monopoly on the market. You don't understand opportunities lost. How do you know that we might be missing out on some FANTASTIC and INNOVATIVE programming because of the massive restrictions on being a commercial channel?
For the one good show on the BBC - Top Gear (which has a very large COMMERCIAL ARM) there is a ton of sh1t!
There is room for stuff with a narrow appeal... it's called.... the INTERNET! Or would you happily pay a licence to use that??? eermrm... i think not!
Even more HUMOROUS about you is you play a simulator that TOTALLY CONTRADICTS the point you are trying to make. not everyone goes to the lowest common denominator otherwise this SIM WOULDN'T EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
Because if you look at the USA, which has no equivalent of the BBC and where the market rules, it produces some of the most obnoxious shite television there is. The few gems of real quality you see on American television quickly get cancelled or morph into complete shit because they want to appeal to a wider audience (See Mythbusters). Gotta make those dollars!
I AM SO ANGRY!!! WATCH MY GRATUOTOUS USE OF CAPS LOCK AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fact is, the internet is a very different medium from television, and it's exactly these differences that allow narrow focus projects like LFS to exist and thrive. How would the devs set up shop if the internet was a broadcast medium? The up front cost of starting up a broadcast TV-channel that can reach the audience the internet can, automatically excludes 3-man operations like LFS. It's not even remotely possible, so your comparison misses the mark completely.
I cannot wait for broadcast television to die a horrible, horrible death so the internet can take over (and competition and choice return), but until that time comes the BBC and NRK produce much more quality TV than anything the commercial channels do.
Do you actually watch the BBC or do you nit pick certain bits on Youtube every now and then?
Eastenders = bollox
Radio 1 - bollox
BBCThree = bollox
etc...
All of the above tosh licencer payers PAY for.... at least in the states you do not HAVE to pay for it!
Being Norwegian I obviously don't watch or listen to everything the BBC does, and as such a lot of my opinions on the BBC are probably coloured by my opinion of our equivalent NRK.
But, I don't have to watch, or even like, everything they make in order to appreciate that their business model results in a lot of programming no commercial channel would take the risk to produce. Planet Earth for instance. I don't believe for a second you'd see a huge production like that if it wasn't for the BBC, and my god what a beautiful thing.
At the other end of the scale, NRK a few years back produced a series on the Norwegian language. Hugely boring topic, and certainly not something that draws people to the screen, but if you actually tuned in you'd discover one of the most witty and interesting programmes I've ever watched on Norwegian television.
Furthermore, I believe that the fact that the BBC doesn't have to answer to advertisers is one of the main reasons programs like Top Gear can be given such free reigns when reviewing cars. A commercial channel depending on ad income cannot afford pissing off advertisers to that degree on a weekly basis.
But, I don't have to watch, or even like, everything they make in order to appreciate that their business model results in a lot of programming no commercial channel would take the risk to produce. Planet Earth for instance. I don't believe for a second you'd see a huge production like that if it wasn't for the BBC, and my god what a beautiful thing.
At the other end of the scale, NRK a few years back produced a series on the Norwegian language. Hugely boring topic, and certainly not something that draws people to the screen, but if you actually tuned in you'd discover one of the most witty and interesting programmes I've ever watched on Norwegian television.
Furthermore, I believe that the fact that the BBC doesn't have to answer to advertisers is one of the main reasons programs like Top Gear can be given such free reigns when reviewing cars. A commercial channel depending on ad income cannot afford pissing off advertisers to that degree on a weekly basis.
Fixed for you.
+1 :d
That is UTTER nonsense. Seriously dude that is utter rubbish!
Radio 1 is full of overpaid smug pretentious presenters! If I hear one more time
"He's an absolute legend"
or
"That's just sooo random"
I will lose it
Okay then.
Hmm, yes, he is being serious. There is no BBC monopoly otherwise the commercial channels and stations wouldn't survive. You really think the commercial sector would be interested in producing any interesting natural history programs, documentaries, or anything more niche when they could be filling the airwaves with yet more Britain's Got (No) Talent, Britain's Got (No) More Talent, I'm a Celebrity..., X Factor, etc?
The only restrictions to commercial programming is the funding. The funding comes from selling advertising space. In order to maximise funding, they need the most viewers/listeners possible to see/hear the adverts. When was the last time ITV spent years and a couple of million to produce a natural history series?
Yeah, so I don't listen to Radio 1 much either. But there's very little commercial radio I enjoy listening to as well, because it's all much like Radio 1, aiming for the lowest common denominator. Eastenders is hugely popular and really isn't hugely expensive to make.
I suppose by the same principle, you're totally against the BBC having the F1 coverage now.
If only you weren't so young and naive. You'd be having an apoplectic fit if you lived in the era of the GPO.
Ok Fern and Reggie are a bit silly... granted. :hide:
(1993weeman)
DELETED
by 1993weeman
Young and naive? I think you'll find my views are shared by much older and wiser people though I wouldn't expect you to understand that!
You are the one being naive to believe that if the BBC wasn't there then you would get the varied broadcasts we get on the BBC. You, and I do not know what might or might not happen.
If the demand is there for such broadcasts then they would be made by commercial organisations. If the demand isn't there then these programmes being made are a total waste of money.
As for the F1 coverage. I was absolutely furious believe it or not. F1 simply isn't worth it. I feel sorry for the millions of people that have to pay for their licence. Just look at the TOTAL wastage. For example Lee Mckenzie and Holly Samos. They both do EXACTLY the same job for the BBC F1 broadcast team. Then we have two commentary teams doing the SAME job!
On the radio the BBC has about 6-7 stations and each news broadcast is made by a separate news team. It's stunning how much money is just thrown down the drain.
Are you just regurgitating points from the Daily Mail Letters section?
Top Gear starts June 21st
(100 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG