New BBC drama Vigil

[chrishornx]

Me too.

me too it is just a sunday night hour of entertainment that doesn't need dissecting by a bunch of wannabe admirals who feel they know all the technical facts  and criticise any inaccuracies

just enjoy it as a bit of good tv

[King Nuts]

British productions are still a byword for quality and the BBC is probably better regarded outside the UK than within it. Massive inward investment because of that. Axxxxxx, Netflix, Apple, Hollywood - they can't get enough of us.

I'm sorry but this isn't strictly true. The BBC has an amazing legacy but it's simply not in a position to keep up with local as well as worldwide developments.

End of the day, it's down to spend. The BBC doesn't have the money that the likes of Sony, Netflix, Apple TV+ etc have.

Good example: The Crown. Sony/Netflix committed at the outset to multiple series of 10 episodes per series. It's thought that each series cost anything between 50 and 100 million pounds. The BBC cannot compete with that kind of spend.

[King Nuts]

Where's your proof that this is happening? It is misleading to say they are tearing up their licences, just that they may decide that they don't want or need a licence.

No they don't. Their remit is to be politically neutral. They reflect the society of the day.

TV licence income is down: External Link/Members Only

Even the BBC admits it.

As regards neutrality, I simply don't believe the BBC is neutral. Even the Guardian wonders: External Link/Members Only

[King Nuts]

 You're just not going to be able to get past this.

Doesn't seem you have either.

[chrishornx]

Doesn't seem you have either.

he may get over it yet you seem hell bent on attacking the BBC

Lost and Found make some good points and you respond highlighting the inadequacies of the BBC, incompetent against the likes of Netflix, but you fail to acknowledge that L&F's comments we re about 'British productions' in general not specifically the BBC and as such he is right - the quality of tv product in this country is still revered hence why the likes of Apple and Netflix are investing in this country

and the notion that the BBC in particular can't compete due to monetary budgets is misguided - money does not, as I am sure you accept, mean quality

Netflix has some great original work but also a lot of dross - if they wires good they wouldn't have to rely on White House Farm, The Serpent, The Bodyguard Marcella and Downtown to fill their 'most popular' programmes

much of their 'new work' are remakes of UK products - Shameless, Hour of Cards  etc

[Liverpool]

TV licence income is down: External Link/Members Only

You quote an article that does not mention anywhere "thousands ripping up their licence fee" 

[King Nuts]

he may get over it yet you seem hell bent on attacking the BBC

Lost and Found make some good points and you respond highlighting the inadequacies of the BBC, incompetent against the likes of Netflix, but you fail to acknowledge that L&F's comments we re about 'British productions' in general not specifically the BBC and as such he is right - the quality of tv product in this country is still revered hence why the likes of Apple and Netflix are investing in this country

and the notion that the BBC in particular can't compete due to monetary budgets is misguided - money does not, as I am sure you accept, mean quality

Netflix has some great original work but also a lot of dross - if they wires good they wouldn't have to rely on White House Farm, The Serpent, The Bodyguard Marcella and Downtown to fill their 'most popular' programmes

much of their 'new work' are remakes of UK products - Shameless, Hour of Cards  etc

I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but the glory days of 'British television' are way behind us.

In tv production, money does mean quality. It means a network can commit, for instance, to series with longevity. Like Game of Thrones and The Crown. If the BBC were running those shows, they'd have spent a quarter of the money, made only four episodes, and given up.

The BBC has got to stop trying to be everything to everybody. It's great at radio, it's great at sports coverage, it used to be good at news and current affairs (and could get back to being good if it wanted to) but it's no longer great at tv drama. it just isn't. The playing field isn't level, and is never going to be.

[King Nuts]

You quote an article that does not mention anywhere "thousands ripping up their licence fee" 

The 'ripping up' bit is a metaphor. Not that that should need explaining.

You can google the numbers. Try the TV licensing website.

People are abandoning broadcast television.

[Liverpool]

The 'ripping up' bit is a metaphor. Not that that should need explaining.

You can google the numbers. Try the TV licensing website.

People are abandoning broadcast television.

Actually they are not. With an aging population, the numbers who qualify for free licences goes up. This is not indicative of an abandonment of network TV.

[lamboman]

it's great at sports coverage,

No it's not,sports coverage is rubbish compared to Sky/BT and ever limited in choice.

[Alonsy]

Modern submarines ARE spacious.

I was listening to a radio programme talk about this. Apparently on Subs the corridors are narrow, fits one person and not two abreast but for filming purposes you have to have a corridor that fits two people side by side or you would never see much when filming.

[mr.bluesky]

No it's not,sports coverage is rubbish compared to Sky/BT and ever limited in choice.

BBC only give blanket coverage to sports like snooker and Wimbledon tennis because that's all they've got .

[southcoastpunter]

Actually they are not. With an aging population, the numbers who qualify for free licences goes up. This is not indicative of an abandonment of network TV.

True to some extent - but you only have to talk to a number of young people (18-30ish) and it is clear that many are not watching mainstream TV or buying a licence.

No it's not,sports coverage is rubbish compared to Sky/BT and ever limited in choice.

The coverage that they do is of a high quality but nowdays you have to buy the right to cover many/most sports and the BBC does not have the money or chooses not to spend too much of it on sport. So that in itself, limits its actual coverage of sport!

[Coriniumstud]

BBC has gone woke and hated the fact that 52% voted for Brexit

[Bertiebeenthere]

BBC has gone woke and hated the fact that 52% voted for Brexit

Actually, to be pedantic, it was 51.89%

[PepeMAGA]

Actually they are not. With an aging population, the numbers who qualify for free licences goes up. This is not indicative of an abandonment of network TV.

Only those on benefits are eligible now as the BBC didn't keep to the agreement to pay for them out of their budget.
Being over 75 no longer gets you a free licence.

[Bertiebeenthere]

What do people want, to keep the licence or go to a monthly subscription service?
I know people who pay up to £100 pcm for Sky and moan about the licence fee but 90% of what they watch is available free to air
IMO ITV news and Sky news is tabloid TV.

BBT

[chrishornx]

In tv production, money does mean quality. It means a network can commit, for instance, to series with longevity. Like Game of Thrones and The Crown. If the BBC were running those shows, they'd have spent a quarter of the money, made only four episodes, and given up.

it is just wrong to say 'money does mean quality' as it doesn't by any measure assure quality and whilst it is easy to quote the successes what about all the Amazon/netflix flops - Alpha House , Mad Dogs, Crisis in six scenes, Disjointed, Insatiable, Marco Polo - all produced at great expense all flops

look at the movie industry the might of Disney and all the money doesn't automatically mean quality - Pluto Nash $100m costs $96m loss, 47 Ronin $175m cost $98m loss Monster trucks $125 cost $115 loss  - how can you argue money DOES mean quality?

Apple - one of the richest companies on the planet  with all that money your perception is that it will mean quality but Apple tv is proving a loss maker and  flop with less than 10% take up

and if your argument is to hold up and the Netflix money makes quality how come so many of their top watched programmes are British mainline TV shows ?

[The Film Director]

it is just wrong to say 'money does mean quality' as it doesn't by any measure assure quality

Really, all you need to do is to look at the big budget mega blockbusters at the average multiplex to see that that argument does not hold water.

[chrishornx]

Really, all you need to do is to look at the big budget mega blockbusters at the average multiplex to see that that argument does not hold water.

do explain further - yes big budget mega blockbusters exist - but so do big budget megabuster flops - money does not necessarily mean quality

[lamboman]

Actually, to be pedantic, it was 51.89%

A wins a win.

[lamboman]

True to some extent - but you only have to talk to a number of young people (18-30ish) and it is clear that many are not watching mainstream TV or buying a licence.
 

The coverage that they do is of a high quality but nowdays you have to buy the right to cover many/most sports and the BBC does not have the money or chooses not to spend too much of it on sport. So that in itself, limits its actual coverage of sport!

Most people I know think their coverage is awful.Far too much talking by awful presenters on the BBC gravy train and little action which is  actually what sport is about.

[Marmalade]

British productions are still a byword for quality and the BBC is probably better regarded outside the UK than within it. Massive inward investment because of that. Axxxxxx, Netflix, Apple, Hollywood - they can't get enough of us.

So which of those world leading streaming platforms is less "woke" than the BBC?

Amaz whatsit simply as it has the largest collection, loadsa cash, and just gets on with it — though for some stuff it seems you really do have to search by the exact title or use a non-Axxxxxx search. Plus they can more easily restrict ‘adult’ content by making you pay for an individual film.

Back to Vigil-aint — when you watch it you can see the budget restrictions and how it could maybe have been a decent movie lasting two hours instead of six. Of course Channel 4 gets to make real movies by getting other people to stump up cash — better business model shoooorly!

[The Film Director]

do explain further - yes big budget mega blockbusters exist - but so do big budget megabuster flops - money does not necessarily mean quality

Sorry for the confusion I was agreeing with you.

Most mega blockbusters (IMHO) are totally vacuous and unoriginal .... oh and just because something is mega successful at the box office does not imply 'quality' (in my book).

[chrishornx]

Sorry for the confusion I was agreeing with you.

Most mega blockbusters (IMHO) are totally vacuous and unoriginal .... oh and just because something is mega successful at the box office does not imply 'quality' (in my book).

fully agree. 

[bobgobwick]

I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but the glory days of 'British television' are way behind us.

In tv production, money does mean quality. It means a network can commit, for instance, to series with longevity. Like Game of Thrones and The Crown. If the BBC were running those shows, they'd have spent a quarter of the money, made only four episodes, and given up.

The BBC has got to stop trying to be everything to everybody. It's great at radio, it's great at sports coverage, it used to be good at news and current affairs (and could get back to being good if it wanted to) but it's no longer great at tv drama. it just isn't. The playing field isn't level, and is never going to be.

I disagree the BBC is still able to put out some great Drama, this year you've had, The Serpent, Line of Duty, Baptiste, Vigil, The North Water to name a few.

Probably don't spend as much as Netflix, HBO etc, but at the end of the day they can still put out engaging and gripping content.
Less episodes, but each one will be meaningful with no filler.

[King Nuts]

I disagree the BBC is still able to put out some great Drama, this year you've had, The Serpent, Line of Duty, Baptiste, Vigil, The North Water to name a few.

Probably don't spend as much as Netflix, HBO etc, but at the end of the day they can still put out engaging and gripping content.
Less episodes, but each one will be meaningful with no filler.

'The Serpent' was produced by a company called Mammoth Screen, and made with cheques written out by The BBC and Netflix.

'Baptiste' was made with money from Disney, with The BBC kicking in some of the budget.

'Vigil' was BBC money, and they spent a lot less on that, than was spent on the above two series.

'The North Water' likewise was made by an indie, with money from the US network AMC and The BBC kicking in some of it.

'Line of Duty' was made with money from the BBC as well as others, but I think it's the only production you list that can be said to be a 'BBC job'.


There's no such thing as a solely BBC production these days. Money swishes around the world, and The BBC stays in the game because of streamers like Netflix, Disney+, Hulu and others.

But don't think The BBC is putting up some valiant fight against the Yankee dollar and trying to be meaningful on a budget of 18 quid. Might have been the case up to the 1990s, but not any more.

[King Nuts]

i
and if your argument is to hold up and the Netflix money makes quality how come so many of their top watched programmes are British mainline TV shows ?

I refer you to my answer above.

[King Nuts]

i
Apple - one of the richest companies on the planet  with all that money your perception is that it will mean quality but Apple tv is proving a loss maker and  flop with less than 10% take up

Apple TV+ is behind one of the finest series that's been made in the last couple of years. I speak of 'The Morning Show'. Can't recommend it highly enough. Quality writing, acting, and all the rest of it. And it cost until millions to make. Because it's good.

We can also look forward to 'Foundation' later this month on Apple TV+. Phenomenally brilliant series, based on the Isaac Asimov novel that was always thought to be unfilmable.

Apple TV+ isn't fucking around. They're spending the money and making some brilliant TV.

[chrishornx]

I refer you to my answer above.

Your answers deflect from the issue in question - 'Money means quality' - it doesn't guarantee but you are not prepared to accept that

I don't see your point about the BBC using other production companies to make programmes like the Serpent - but the very same benchmark Sony and left Bank made the Crown for Netflix and Game of Thrones was an HBO/Warner brothers production Netflix purchased under licence -

I don't see what point you try to make everyone makes for everyone these days but money does not mean quality

[Marmalade]

I don’t mean the beeb is awful but its major drama hits are too rare to put it in the top league. Fleabag was outstanding but basically down to one brilliant writer, not oodles of cash. I disagree about The Serpent etc which in my opinion are just the same old same old churned out. It really can’t compete with the likes of HBO etc whose stuff will end up on Prime eventually anyway. For long running drama series, Universal still has an edge, which again ends up on Five or Amazon.

It’s easy to nitpick and split hairs as it isn’t black and white, and if Apple pull off Foundation I’ll be thrilled as I thought the books were great. But Apple’s library of originals so far is minute.

[binbag]

"Netflix has some great original work but also a lot of dross" - just like the BBC. And what's available on Netflix varies according to region. There are fewer British dramas available on Netflix if you watch in other countries. I enjoy a lot of the "foreign" shows - Belgium's The Outlaws, France's Spiral, Fauda and The Spy from Israel I think,  Australia's Rake, Offspring, 800 words, Spain's Money Heist, Holland's Undercover
Best BBC drama I've seen lately is "Time" with white middle aged male, Sean Bean.

[lostandfound]

Apple TV+ is behind one of the finest series that's been made in the last couple of years. I speak of 'The Morning Show'. Can't recommend it highly enough. Quality writing, acting, and all the rest of it. And it cost until millions to make. Because it's good.

We can also look forward to 'Foundation' later this month on Apple TV+. Phenomenally brilliant series, based on the Isaac Asimov novel that was always thought to be unfilmable.

Apple TV+ isn't fucking around. They're spending the money and making some brilliant TV.

And on its 'wokeness', on a scale of 1 to 10, where would you put 'The Morning Show'?

11, 99, 1000?

[chrishornx]

And on its 'wokeness', on a scale of 1 to 10, where would you put 'The Morning Show'?

11, 99, 1000?

reviews weren't great

External Link/Members Only

[chrishornx]

Apple TV+ is behind one of the finest series that's been made in the last couple of years. I speak of 'The Morning Show'. Can't recommend it highly enough. Quality writing, acting, and all the rest of it. And it cost until millions to make. Because it's good.

We can also look forward to 'Foundation' later this month on Apple TV+. Phenomenally brilliant series, based on the Isaac Asimov novel that was always thought to be unfilmable.

Apple TV+ isn't fucking around. They're spending the money and making some brilliant TV.

can't something be good without costing 'until millions'?

[Marmalade]

can't something be good without costing 'until millions'?

Apple are making record profits, true (and felt by anyone who has bought a new iPhone 11 or 12). It will take some genius to imagine a convincing Foundation into reality. One of the greatest sci-fi series of all time.

If it’s successful it would be nice to see Culture series as well (Iain M Banks) and even a society with some of their tech.

[chrishornx]

Apple are making record profits, true (and felt by anyone who has bought a new iPhone 11 or 12). It will take some genius to imagine a convincing Foundation into reality. One of the greatest sci-fi series of all time.

If it’s successful it would be nice to see Culture series as well (Iain M Banks) and even a society with some of their tech.

not sure what relevance that has to my question ?

[Marmalade]

not sure what relevance that has to my question ?

It acknowledges your point in a way. If we want to look at value for money then channel 4 historically have done rather well.

[King Nuts]

And on its 'wokeness', on a scale of 1 to 10, where would you put 'The Morning Show'?

11, 99, 1000?

The Morning Show was good because it actually offered a good deal of nuanced view and opinion around the MeToo issue. There weren't any caricatures and all the key characters were shown as flawed but not inherently bad. Yes of course it had to come down on the 'right' side, but it did so in a clever and grown-up way, and over multiple episodes.

[King Nuts]

it is just wrong to say 'money does mean quality' as it doesn't by any measure assure quality and whilst it is easy to quote the successes what about all the Axxxxxx/netflix flops - Alpha House , Mad Dogs, Crisis in six scenes, Disjointed, Insatiable, Marco Polo - all produced at great expense all flops

look at the movie industry the might of Disney and all the money doesn't automatically mean quality - Pluto Nash $100m costs $96m loss, 47 Ronin $175m cost $98m loss Monster trucks $125 cost $115 loss  - how can you argue money DOES mean quality?

Apple - one of the richest companies on the planet  with all that money your perception is that it will mean quality but Apple tv is proving a loss maker and  flop with less than 10% take up

and if your argument is to hold up and the Netflix money makes quality how come so many of their top watched programmes are British mainline TV shows ?

You seem determined to disagree, so let me try putting this another way.

HBO realised at the outset of Game of Thrones that the only way you can really build up and sustain viewing figures is by having long-ish runs of each series, and then multiple series.

Each series got better figures than the one that preceded it. More money was spent on each series than the one that preceded it. It became a juggernaut. It cost millions to make each episode but it was drawing in millions of views from all over the world, and at one point, it was the most watched TV drama in the world.

Apple TV+ understands this. It might be performing poorly now, but Apple has deep pockets, and it will turn things around.

Yes, you can make great TV drama cheaply. Happens all the time. But TV networks, streamers and producers are always looking for loyalty, i.e. audiences returning time and time again. You don't get that with a four-episode cheapo drama, however brilliant the script or acting might be.

[lostandfound]

The Morning Show was good because it actually offered a good deal of nuanced view and opinion around the MeToo issue. There weren't any caricatures and all the key characters were shown as flawed but not inherently bad. Yes of course it had to come down on the 'right' side, but it did so in a clever and grown-up way, and over multiple episodes.

Basing an entire drama - well, let's be honest - soap opera, on #METOO is still 1000% woke!

[King Nuts]

Basing an entire drama - well, let's be honest - soap opera, on #METOO is still 1000% woke!

Yep, I suppose so. But it was handled very intelligently, unlike the cartoon-ish way a lot of modern dramas handle characters these days.

Steve Carell's character wasn't all bad by any means. Likewise, Jennifer Aniston's character wasn't exactly spotless either. The others were mostly pretty nuanced too.

[chrishornx]

You seem determined to disagree, so let me try putting this another way.

HBO realised at the outset of Game of Thrones that the only way you can really build up and sustain viewing figures is by having long-ish runs of each series, and then multiple series.

Each series got better figures than the one that preceded it. More money was spent on each series than the one that preceded it. It became a juggernaut. It cost millions to make each episode but it was drawing in millions of views from all over the world, and at one point, it was the most watched TV drama in the world.

Apple TV+ understands this. It might be performing poorly now, but Apple has deep pockets, and it will turn things around.

Yes, you can make great TV drama cheaply. Happens all the time. But TV networks, streamers and producers are always looking for loyalty, i.e. audiences returning time and time again. You don't get that with a four-episode cheapo drama, however brilliant the script or acting might be.

yes as determined as  you to do disagree as you still won't accept that money does not necessarily mean quality so we must agree to differ

as for the point about  'each series got better figures' I don't see why that is relevant. Did not Peaky blinders audience grow, and Line of duty etc etc.? Word of mouth from viewers is enough to get more to watch - it would be an unmitigated disaster if that didn't happen with a second series, as is the case with many Netflix/Apple original works, which just demonstrates money does not necessarily mean quality

[Marmalade]

Money doesn’t necessarily mean quality, I agree. Even ITV has had its hits. But there are also certain logistics. Money can pay for top scriptwriters and top actors. Anything involving CGI and real or simulated explosions requires cash, as do certain locations.

The French have an excellent track record for intelligent, notable cinema that doesn’t rely on heaps of cash — but it’s not the sort of stuff the U.K. and USA market wants to stay glued to. (The French also produce standard rubbish as well but that’s beside the point — and fuck knows how they spent even €8 million on Caché — maybe Binoche’s salary?)

Occasionally someone gets an unusual idea that sells — Memento, Ghost World, Garden State, Searching for Sugarman were all inspired, low budget hits. But the industry — and binge viewing — doesn’t survive on one-offs. 

On the other hand money doesn’t necessarily produce greatness. The only thing that strikes me as great about Apple just now is packaging. They are making lots of cash — and the technology is still way behind a Galaxy sold several years ago.

[King Nuts]

yes as determined as  you to do disagree as you still won't accept that money does not necessarily mean quality so we must agree to differ

as for the point about  'each series got better figures' I don't see why that is relevant. Did not Peaky blinders audience grow, and Line of duty etc etc.? Word of mouth from viewers is enough to get more to watch - it would be an unmitigated disaster if that didn't happen with a second series, as is the case with many Netflix/Apple original works, which just demonstrates money does not necessarily mean quality

You want to keep this rather futile argument going. If you don't see how better audience figures translates into financial success and consequently better budgets, then I can't help you.

TV, whether it's the BBC, ITV, Sky or any of the streamers, is all about audience figures and all about market share. They all chase the ratings.

[chrishornx]

You want to keep this rather futile argument going. If you don't see how better audience figures translates into financial success and consequently better budgets, then I can't help you.

TV, whether it's the BBC, ITV, Sky or any of the streamers, is all about audience figures and all about market share. They all chase the ratings.

to the contrary I did suggest we could 'agree to disagree' and that could have been that.

Unequivocally I agree that audience figures are paramount, no doubting it. I fully see how better audience figures translate into financial success - you are absolutely right I agree wholeheartedly and big audiences equate to better budgets through revenue streams such as advertising income - your are correct and I agree.

The issue issue I have is with your sweeping statement that 'money means quality' - it does not necessarily follow that money pumped into a tv programme means it will be a quality production, as witnessed by the number of mega budget flops. Others on this thread have agreed with that view but you  seem hell bent insisting that every high budget programme must be of quality - and to be clear quality is a different thing to success. Love Island is very successful but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered 'quality'

We must agree to differ

[Bertiebeenthere]

Anyroad, back to Vigil.
Last night's was brill IMO

[chrishornx]

Anyroad, back to Vigil.
Last night's was brill IMO

agree

[lostandfound]

Money doesn’t necessarily mean quality, I agree. Even ITV has had its hits. But there are also certain logistics. Money can pay for top scriptwriters and top actors. Anything involving CGI and real or simulated explosions requires cash, as do certain locations.

The French have an excellent track record for intelligent, notable cinema that doesn’t rely on heaps of cash — but it’s not the sort of stuff the U.K. and USA market wants to stay glued to. (The French also produce standard rubbish as well but that’s beside the point — and fuck knows how they spent even €8 million on Caché — maybe Binoche’s salary?)

Occasionally someone gets an unusual idea that sells — Memento, Ghost World, Garden State, Searching for Sugarman were all inspired, low budget hits. But the industry — and binge viewing — doesn’t survive on one-offs. 

On the other hand money doesn’t necessarily produce greatness. The only thing that strikes me as great about Apple just now is packaging. They are making lots of cash — and the technology is still way behind a Galaxy sold several years ago.

 

[lostandfound]

Yep, I suppose so. But it was handled very intelligently, unlike the cartoon-ish way a lot of modern dramas handle characters these days.

Steve Carell's character wasn't all bad by any means. Likewise, Jennifer Aniston's character wasn't exactly spotless either. The others were mostly pretty nuanced too.

Around $300M for 2 seasons? They're certainly splashing the cash, that's for sure. And they threw it at Aniston and Witherspoon, who it appears make the episodes and personally pick up > $1m for each episode.

So, it's very woke, and it's put together by external production companies. Weren't those the criticisms you threw at the BBC?