Fiona wrote:
In many ways, modern television programmes seem to be trying to be more
like
cinema films, and as such to place more emphasis on the director than on
the
writer. This unfortunately makes for poor television in three regards; firstly because it fails to play to the real strengths of the medium, secondly because a programme lacks the budget of a film, and finally
because
most television directors are, unfortunately, mediocre.
Not sure I agree with your latter sentiment. The 'Inspector Morse' series seemed to get more and more cinematic in its conventions as time went on, and on the whole seemed to succeed (at least if you like pix of some mediocre provincial university town...)
I also think film and television budgets overlap more than one might at first think; I've seen some excellent micro-budget films, as well as stuff like Morse, like the beeb P&P, that was big budget, popular, and on the whole relatively entertaining.
So what are the real strengths of the televisual medium? At least in the UK, high audience penetration must be important, surely? I'd imagine more people would watch something aired during the evening on one of the major channels than any but the most well-publicised cinema films, let alone a theatre production. Again specific to the UK, public subsidies to the beeb should allow them to take risks in a way that's rarely in evidence in films (not that one would notice).
Tavia
From: Tavia tavia@btinternet.com
I also think film and television budgets overlap more than one might at first think; I've seen some excellent micro-budget films, as well as stuff like Morse, like the beeb P&P, that was big budget, popular, and on the whole relatively entertaining.
Another factor that occurs to me: in the pre-video days, a TV broadcast would normally only be transmitted once, with maybe a repeat or two, whereas films could be shown time and time again, possibly pulling people back for a second viewing. So it wasn't worth spending too much on television, because of the inherent transience of the medium.
Now there is a lucrative video market, so there's more cause to spend money on prestige productions because it will help them to sell. Also anything that might get watched over and over is obviously going to be subjected to greater scrutiny, so there's more imperative not to let too many cracks show.
B7 was pre-video, just about (I got the 4th Season on this thing called 'Betamax' which greying Lysters might remember), made to be seen once and then consigned to memory, if that. Less than half the series was ever repeated, at least on BBC. This might also explain why they didn't bother too much on continuity - they had no reason to think that anyone might notice.
Neil
In message 001801c0bef4$5ce541c0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner, Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net writes
B7 was pre-video, just about (I got the 4th Season on this thing called 'Betamax' which greying Lysters might remember),
We still had a Umatic at work, last time I looked...
made to be seen once and then consigned to memory, if that. Less than half the series was ever repeated, at least on BBC. This might also explain why they didn't bother too much on continuity - they had no reason to think that anyone might notice.
Just about <digs deep into memory> but it *was* possible, just not widespread.
I was living in Australia at the time B7 was originally broadcast - we went back to the old country and the old folks for Christmas 1981, which meant that with the ABC being several months behind the BBC in showing B7, I got to see series 4 for the first time starting from (IIRC) Gold. Interesting experience... Anyway, back to the matter in hand. One of the distant cousins had this new-fangled thing called a video recorder, which was jolly good as far as I was concerned because he'd been merrily recording "The Five Faces of Dr Who", the Who retrospective with one story from each doctor, and it was my first chance to see "An Unearthly Child". (And for the Who pedants, yes, I *know*, but that's what most people think of it as.)
John's a bit of a tv geek (hardware, not software) with a decent disposable income, so he would undoubtedly have been the first one in the street to get a domestic vcr. I'm not sure how long he'd had it for, but I'd guess several months.
Parents were so impressed with the educational potential of this new toy that they bought one when we got back to Australia, _Cosmos_, for the taping of. Needless to say, *I* used it for taping series 4, and _Edge of Darkness_.
----- Original Message ----- From: Tavia tavia@btinternet.com
Fiona wrote:
In many ways, modern television programmes seem to be trying to be more
like
cinema films, and as such to place more emphasis on the director than on
the
writer. This unfortunately makes for poor television in three regards; firstly because it fails to play to the real strengths of the medium, secondly because a programme lacks the budget of a film, and finally
because
most television directors are, unfortunately, mediocre.
Not sure I agree with your latter sentiment. The 'Inspector Morse' series seemed to get more and more cinematic in its conventions as time went on, and on the whole seemed to succeed (at least if you like pix of some mediocre provincial university town...)
But that's just it-- it's just filming Oxford, not reconstructing Stalingrad, or projecting Oxford into 2020, or doing a purely studio-bound story and making it work. They can make Oxford look cinematic because Oxford is there and you can't ruin it :), but they don't strike me as being particularly adventurous.
I also think film and television budgets overlap more than one might at first think; I've seen some excellent micro-budget films, as well as stuff like Morse, like the beeb P&P, that was big budget, popular, and on the whole relatively entertaining.
Yes, I'd agree-- what the beeb is often doing is making shows which could easily be low-budget films. But thing is, in a low-budget film you don't get fantastically-realised space battles and aliens either; notice that the programmes you mention are book adaptations. It seems like what's being made these days is either book adaptations or contemporary-set, mainly cop, series.
So what are the real strengths of the televisual medium? At least in the UK, high audience penetration must be important, surely? I'd imagine more people would watch something aired during the evening on one of the major channels than any but the most well-publicised cinema films, let alone a theatre production. Again specific to the UK, public subsidies to the beeb should allow them to take risks in a way that's rarely in evidence in
films
(not that one would notice).
The Beeb don't strike me as having taken a risk of that sort in years... it's interesting, the more innovative shows out of the USA (e.g. Buffy and B5) show signs of having been influenced by programming from the UK in the 60s and 70s, e.g. B7 and Doctor Who. Unfortunately, the BBC has been trying to do the reverse, but with rather less in the way of success; the sci-fi we've had in the past few years (Ultraviolet, Bugs, Invasion Earth) has all seemed like misguided attempts at imitating American television.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Filmed in Technicolour at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Fiona Moore -
Julia Jones -
Neil Faulkner -
Tavia