British Television and Programs of Note

[John in Covina]

Here in the US some viewers of TV find that the BBC produce a lot more vintage or period piece programs and that the BBC seems to do a better job on many of these programs. Two programs revered here in the US are / were Masterpiece Theater and Mystery. When they presented a vintage era it was usually well done, great sets, locations, costuming and fine acting.

I'd be interested in people comparing US productions of vintage era focused programs as to the BBC productions. What do like about either and what you don't like about either sources productions.

 

[Edward]

The biggest difference I see is that the Beeb of old were never held back by the sort of constraints that having to play to the highest ratings put on anything. The Beeb still have quality output, even if in the past few years, in order to address the criticisms of those who resent paying the licence fee because thy don't watch the Beeb, they have sadly become rather too keen to play to the lowest common denominator - see endless reality shows, or anything with Bruce Forscythe in it for example. Where US broadcasters will always have the edge is in having the budget available to do a show like Boardwalk Empire -there's simply no way the Beeb could ever afford to put together a piece of that expense. Not that that prevents them from making stunning content - see, for instance, the recent Being Human series, or one-of Christopher and His Kind.

What the Brits do seems to really have a grasp of that is all too often absent in the US in knowing when to end a show. It seems that in the US things are likely to drag on until they just get ridiculous and somebody crucial quits or gets fired - the whole "jumping the shark" concept. Here in the UK they seem more often to kill something off and have it go out on a high. Also, there is a real difference in expectation. A cult sitcom in the UK can easily reach twenty-four episodes and stop there - that's actually enough for three or four series here, whereas an American season of a show seems to run for twenty episodes and more, which means it can be that much more likely to burn out. JMO.

 

[Romy Overdorp]

I think the BBC does a better job. The costumes and story lines are way better and the US shows always seem to have a huge amount of the word f##k in it. I was watching boardwalk empire and it was f-ing this and f-ing that. Not that I'm saying that nobody used those words back then but it seems to be some sort of trend to swear all the time.

 

[John in Covina]

The idea that cursing and swearing adds realism goes back a ways but I believe that it represents a general coarsening of life here in the US. The inner city use of F this and Mother F'er has moved thru cable and MTV so that is is an expected element.

I recently heard of a comedian telling about watching a girl do a comedy act that was quite good but it fell flat because she wasn't swearing and using the F-bomb constantly. She shifted a couple of minutes in and added the f word. The audience then began to laugh because without the F word in the stand up show they did not know when to laugh.

A sad commentary on life today.

 

[angeljenny]

Love the BBC! They do such fab adaptations including my favourite - North and South with Richard Armitage. So moving!

Even the modern dramas are good - they have a habit of killing off main characters which can be shocking at the time especially when they spend ages building up your sympathies towards them.

I have quite a few BBC DVDs and they don't seem to get old and I can watch them over and over. When I first got North and South I was up until 2 in the morning because I just couldn't stop watching it!

 

[rue]

I would say that for the most part the BBC does a better job, but we have a few that were made here that are pretty good too. As Edward said and I think he's right.... it's a money thing.

 

[Warden]

I voted for the Beeb, but I did think HBO's Band of Brothers was very good.

Also lets not forget our friends at Channel 4, I thought ‘the 1940s House’ was excellent, but shame it lead to so many other reality shows

 

[Doctor Strange]

I didn't vote - it's too general a question.

The BBC generally did it better in the past (I've been watching BBC productions on PBS since The Forsyte Saga in the sixties!), and they still have the edge on sophisticated adaptations of literary classics. But American cable (NOT broadcast!) channels/networks are doing some really outstanding stuff now, like HBO's Boardwalk Empire and Mildred Pierce, and of course, AMC's Mad Men.

And Romy, note that the HBO-produced projects always include lots of cursing and overdone sex: it's their traditional brand signifier, because they can get away with stuff that basic cable and broadcast channels simply can't. (Hence the slogan: "It's not television, it's HBO.") A lot of it is indeed unnecessary, but it's the house style!

 

[Edward]

I've long been of the opinion that feeling the need to use profanity several times in one sentence as the norm is significant of nothing more than a limited vocabulary. That said, it is a peculiarly middle class concern; the upper and lower classes swear with riotous abandon and don't care a jot. That's how it has always been.

I recently heard of a comedian telling about watching a girl do a comedy act that was quite good but it fell flat because she wasn't swearing and using the F-bomb constantly. She shifted a couple of minutes in and added the f word. The audience then began to laugh because without the F word in the stand up show they did not know when to laugh.

A sad commentary on life today.

This reminds me of one thing I hate, which is more common in the US but sadly has become a lot more so over here: an audience laugh track on sitcoms. It doesn't stop me watching a great show, but I really don't see the point. Are people so insecure that they need to be told when it is okay to laugh in their own home??

 

[rue]

Kind of off topic, but .....
Maybe I'm wrong and I don't know if it was just in the US, but didn't laugh tracks start in radio, because the vaudevillians had a hard time not hearing anyone laugh when they crossed over?
Although, nowadays I don't see a point in them.

 

[Edward]

You are probably right, Rue - I've encountered it more as a TV thing (Radio has become a medium I have taken to more as I got older), but what you say does make sense.

 

[John in Covina]

As someone that doesn't have cable or satellite (Satellite is one word I can never spell right without looking it up) i have not seen much of the programming they produce. On open air channels they don't do much extraordinary TV in either vintage or period type programs. Although, some of the programs are regularly pretty good as comedies or police dramas but they don't do what we see from the BBC on our PBS stations.

 

[Romy Overdorp]

I didn't vote - it's too general a question.

The BBC generally did it better in the past (I've been watching BBC productions on PBS since The Forsyte Saga in the sixties!), and they still have the edge on sophisticated adaptations of literary classics. But American cable (NOT broadcast!) channels/networks are doing some really outstanding stuff now, like HBO's Boardwalk Empire and Mildred Pierce, and of course, AMC's Mad Men.

And Romy, note that the HBO-produced projects always include lots of cursing and overdone sex: it's their traditional brand signifier, because they can get away with stuff that basic cable and broadcast channels simply can't. (Hence the slogan: "It's not television, it's HBO.") A lot of it is indeed unnecessary, but it's the house style!

Ah I wasn't aware that it's a style. I just noticed it as a non-American. But I guess they have to do that to reach a wider audience. Dutch television is also getting worse each day on the matter of that topic.

 

[Edward]

Thing is, I'm not sure they do have to do that. Same with cinema. Sure, there was a time when nudity (in particular, female nudity) and simulated sex might have been a draw, but nowadays all it takes is a few mouseclicks and if all someone wants to see is sex, well, then.... the real thing is available in almost any permutation they might want. Seems to me that it is the quality of the shows that will keep people coming back.... Of course, I approach this with a UK sensibility; I know the US is different. I once saw Rocky Horror on network television over there, and even at 11.30pm they had bleeped out the single use of the 'f' word, pixellated out several kisses (specifically, the same-sex ones) and even altered bedroom scenes that are so tame, they make Dallas look like it should have had Debbie Does n front of its title. lol

 

[Tiller]

Is Dad's Army, considered a "program of note"?

 

[Cobden]

I think one important factor, which has been touched upon but not fully explored, is actually the BBC's rather ingenious way of getting around the lack of funds when compared to US programme makers: shorter series. This, as Edward pointed out, means that a series can last a long time without actually being very long - avoiding shark jumping rather well (as, assuming the normal run of a series is five years, there'll be fewer BBC episodes over that time), and of course improves anticipation.

I don't think that the BBC's content has really gone down-hill - what has changed, and I think for the worse, is the blasted BBC3 and BBC4, which dilutes the TV schedule somewhat and means that the quality programmes are more spread out, as well as stretching the budget. Thus there are more repeats and cheap (usually antique, cooking and property) programmes now, as in order to continue to make the top rate productions without having gaps in the scheduling - thus making it appear it's got worse. However, I think the quality of the best stuff has remained pretty consistent - my favourite Telly of all time is fairly well spread, including stuff from recent years (Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes) right back to items that were shewn before I was born, which includes my favourite programme of all time: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Americans, buy a British DVD player, by the DVD, clear a weekend, and watch it all at once. It's that good.)

 

[AtomicEraTom]

and on that note, "Keeping up Appearances"? That's my favorite!

Is Dad's Army, considered a "program of note"?

 

[Tomasso]

the BBC's rather ingenious way of getting around the lack of funds when compared to US programme makers:

You mean by selling out to the Americans.

So NBC is actually producing Downton Abbey.....who knew!? [huh]

 

[Edward]

I think one important factor, which has been touched upon but not fully explored, is actually the BBC's rather ingenious way of getting around the lack of funds when compared to US programme makers: shorter series. This, as Edward pointed out, means that a series can last a long time without actually being very long - avoiding shark jumping rather well (as, assuming the normal run of a series is five years, there'll be fewer BBC episodes over that time), and of course improves anticipation.

I don't think that the BBC's content has really gone down-hill - what has changed, and I think for the worse, is the blasted BBC3 and BBC4, which dilutes the TV schedule somewhat and means that the quality programmes are more spread out, as well as stretching the budget. Thus there are more repeats and cheap (usually antique, cooking and property) programmes now, as in order to continue to make the top rate productions without having gaps in the scheduling - thus making it appear it's got worse. However, I think the quality of the best stuff has remained pretty consistent - my favourite Telly of all time is fairly well spread, including stuff from recent years (Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes) right back to items that were shewn before I was born, which includes my favourite programme of all time: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Americans, buy a British DVD player, by the DVD, clear a weekend, and watch it all at once. It's that good.)

Increasingly I find I am watching less and less on the main channels, more and more on digital. The Beeb is a little hamstrung, i think, by the obligation to not 'leave out' those who still don't have digital. Once we're all switched over, I would anticipate that they'll be able to reorganise better. I love what ITV do, with 3 & 4 largely given over to fantastic old content that one might otherwise not see again outside of DVD.

 

[Romy Overdorp]

I don't think that the BBC's content has really gone down-hill - what has changed, and I think for the worse, is the blasted BBC3 and BBC4, which dilutes the TV schedule somewhat and means that the quality programmes are more spread out, as well as stretching the budget. Thus there are more repeats and cheap (usually antique, cooking and property) programmes now, as in order to continue to make the top rate productions without having gaps in the scheduling - thus making it appear it's got worse.

True, but you got to love Bargain hunt and the antiques roadshow

Programmes from the BBC I love are: The house of Eliott (nearly done watching all three seasons), Allo allo, You rang my lord? and Oh, doctor Beeching!