Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:00 am

We're not choosing in the strictest sense but the BBC charter states that programmes must serve the interests of everybody - that is why they have to serve the interests of numpties - as well as those interested in documentaries, all types of sport, learning programmes, language, arts and so forth. The BBC have tended to adhere to this charter on the whole.

I'd contend that the quality of programming would be overly commercial If the BBC scrapped the licence fee, they would programme what suited the majority - not the interests of everybody - i.e. the opposite of a pluralistic system.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:07 am

Well I actually LIKE Jonathon Ross, but maybe that's just me...

I agree, though, that the quality from the past is totally lacking nowadays - where once we had Only Fools and Horses, One Foot in the Grave, Red Dwarf, Blackadder, The Fast Show, Goodnight Sweetheart (before it turned to sh*te), Dad's Army, Porridge, Open All Hours, Fawlty Towers, Monty Python's Flying Circus, and Mr Bean, we are now reduced to sh*te like The Office, Little Britain and...

There are absolutely NO quality comedy shows from the BBC anymore. I know people rave on about Little Britain and the first couple of series of The Office, but it is my firm belief that people think these are good because they have no other reference points. We have been doped by the BBC with utter sh*t like that abomination "My Family" - a comedy that has all the fun and laughter of a bout of diarrhea.

The only decent ones they've made recently (that I can think of) are Two Pints of Lager, and The Vicar of Dibley.

The question is - would I perceive these to be as funny if they were up against a modern day Monty Python, or Blackadder?

I think not.

by **LFC2007** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:11 am

These things change with the times, people clearly like Little Britain and the office as they receive high ratings, it is not about individual preference it is about pluralistic choice.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:21 am

That's as well as maybe, but I personally believe that the standard of comedy has fallen in recent years, both in volume and quality.

I can only give my own view on this.

by **babu** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:33 am

Lando_Griffin wrote:I can only give my own view on this.

Go on, give them my view as well.

(and you think good comedy is dead.

)

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:49 am

babu wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:I can only give my own view on this.

Go on, give them my view as well.

(and you think good comedy is dead. )

I would say THAT was funnier than the Office, mate - it's gash of the highest order IMHO.

I think the writers of these things must have had very sheltered lives - there's no wit or charm about any of it - TO and LB are just simple tosh that any idiot could knock up. I sometimes think that they're aimed at those with a low attention span/intelligence level. I mean - what is funny about watching two men dress as women week in, week out? What's funny about the same 2 characters doing the same gags, just in different settings? It's hardly pure comedy gold, now is it? It's about as inventive as Copying Colin the Punchline-Pinching Plagiarist.

And as for the Office - Gervaise writes a bag of b*llocks and it becomes a hit with the yuppie masses who hang around in Wine bars and drink alcopops. (A.K.A. - the easily led.)

It's rubbish. Absolute f*cking mind-numbing, humourless rubbish, and it's popularity is due almost entirely to the following:

1. Little/no competition.

2. Thick audiences.

My tuppence worth, anyhow.

by **66-1112520797** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:56 am

In the 60's or 70's the Australian government tried to introduce a license fee over here, apparently it lasted for a year maybe two. No doubt an idea they got from old Blighty, apparently it was lasted a year or two because the nation of Australia more or less kicked up a right old stink, and booted it out. So now they dont have a T.V license fee.Cool. Although there adverts are cheap and tacky, there programes are okay and they have more movies on there terestrial (sp) TV then you have in the UK, and they dont cut them, so IMO generally Aussie TV is better and free.

by **LFC2007** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:07 am

Lando_Griffin wrote:
babu wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:I can only give my own view on this.

Go on, give them my view as well.

(and you think good comedy is dead. )

I would say THAT was funnier than the Office, mate - it's gash of the highest order IMHO.

I think the writers of these things must have had very sheltered lives - there's no wit or charm about any of it - TO and LB are just simple tosh that any idiot could knock up. I sometimes think that they're aimed at those with a low attention span/intelligence level. I mean - what is funny about watching two men dress as women week in, week out? What's funny about the same 2 characters doing the same gags, just in different settings? It's hardly pure comedy gold, now is it? It's about as inventive as Copying Colin the Punchline-Pinching Plagiarist.

And as for the Office - Gervaise writes a bag of b*llocks and it becomes a hit with the yuppie masses who hang around in Wine bars and drink alcopops. (A.K.A. - the easily led.)

It's rubbish. Absolute f*cking mind-numbing, humourless rubbish, and it's popularity is due almost entirely to the following:

1. Little/no competition.

2. Thick audiences.

My tuppence worth, anyhow.

I'd agree with that, but if it failed miserably and no-one watched it, it probably wouldn't be broadcast.

The BBC have no option than to change and adapt with the times, shows like The Office and Little Britain show this change.

Maybe it's a mark of changes in our culture - changes I don't like - but that's inevitable. Yo can find just as much cra.p on ITV and channel 4.

by **Judge** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:20 am

Bamaga man wrote:In the 60's or 70's the Australian government tried to introduce a license fee over here, apparently it lasted for a year maybe two. No doubt an idea they got from old Blighty, apparently it was lasted a year or two because the nation of Australia more or less kicked up a right old stink, and booted it out. So now they dont have a T.V license fee.Cool. Although there adverts are cheap and tacky, there programes are okay and they have more movies on there terestrial (sp) TV then you have in the UK, and they dont cut them, so IMO generally Aussie TV is better and free.

yeah, but you gave us reg grundy :angry:

by **66-1112520797** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:31 am

Judge wrote:
Bamaga man wrote:In the 60's or 70's the Australian government tried to introduce a license fee over here, apparently it lasted for a year maybe two. No doubt an idea they got from old Blighty, apparently it was lasted a year or two because the nation of Australia more or less kicked up a right old stink, and booted it out. So now they dont have a T.V license fee.Cool. Although there adverts are cheap and tacky, there programes are okay and they have more movies on there terestrial (sp) TV then you have in the UK, and they dont cut them, so IMO generally Aussie TV is better and free.

yeah, but you gave us reg grundy

Not me.

I'm English (not Scouse)

by **ste123lfc** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:36 am

LFC2007 wrote:These things change with the times, people clearly like Little Britain and the office as they receive high ratings, it is not about individual preference it is about pluralistic choice.

I would sooner slam my k nob in a car door than watch little britain or the office. They are just not funny.

by **66-1112520797** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:38 am

ste123lfc wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:These things change with the times, people clearly like Little Britain and the office as they receive high ratings, it is not about individual preference it is about pluralistic choice.

I would sooner slam my k nob in a car door than watch little britain or the office. They are just not funny.

Agreed.

I'd slam your Knob in a car door just for the fun of it, but little Britain and the Office are " just not funny " like you said Ste123lfc.

by **LFC2007** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:38 am

Individual preference vs. pluralism

by **Sabre** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:44 am

In the mean time you think the Beeb does mistakes, the Beeb is put as an example in Spain. Here the watchers have not to pay a fee, which makes the TV ridiculously government dependant, watching the news program after a presidential change is a joke.

Since there's not fee, it depends a lot on publicity and adverts, and it costs lots of money of taxes. Not to mention the public TV is shíte, with full of soap operas, and other programs of the liking of the majority of ignorant twáts.

Fortunately enough the majority of ignorant twáts like football

So my point is, no matter how bad is the Beed, it's miles better than other national TVs. The Beeb is well known for it's documentals, for it's humour programs, and for being somewhat independent. Something coming from the Beeb has more credibility than other sources. That's the outer view of the Beeb.

by **ste123lfc** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:58 am

Bamaga man wrote:
ste123lfc wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:These things change with the times, people clearly like Little Britain and the office as they receive high ratings, it is not about individual preference it is about pluralistic choice.

I would sooner slam my k nob in a car door than watch little britain or the office. They are just not funny.

Agreed.

I'd slam your Knob in a car door just for the fun of it, but little Britain and the Office are " just not funny " like you said Ste123lfc.

I'll bear your offer in mind should I ever be tempted.

Liverpool FC Forum

Tv licence - Were paying for it, why cant we decide?

Who is online