Yeah, Steve. Stupid of me to say Comedy as well as Drama. Drama is poor generally but we have good comedy, still.
Office, Boosh, Spaced, Black Books, Peter Kay, have been some of the best TV I've seen... It is interesting, though, that they all last very few episodes compared to US series. And most of them are on the secondary channels, getting very low audience share until quite late on, if ever. My point about US drama was not that it's not here and not hyped - it is - my point was just that it's not allowed on the big channels. Lost was shown on Channel 4, which always has a low audience share and is allowed more US exports under its license. Because they couldn't afford to keep it, season 3 has gone to Murdoch on Sky 1, which is unregulated and also has a low audience share. Ditto 24, which was originally shown on minority channel BBC 2. With 2-3 million viewers. (I got half of that for my short documentaries about real women called Bridget Jones!) And I remember it was the same with Twin Peaks 10 years ago - they just aren't allowed to compete with the (IMO) lower quality UK drama fare that's pumped out on the big channels. Thus we don't have to raise our game. Anyway. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 15 Apr 2007, at 20:24, Steve Watkins wrote: Agree. The original fear these sorts of regulations were designed to guard against, is that American companies would end up owning all the tv networks, and wouldnt bother making any local programming. Whereas if any media monopolies appear on the net, its less likely as a result of them strangulating the competition, but perhaps viewers choosing to go to that site. I think if they do decide to act, it will be mostly through trying to provide stuff to give their own domestic internet video companies a leg up. And at worst they could dictate what %age of content Canadian internet video companies host & promote. And oops I used even more extreme emotive example of why regulation sometimes needed, in a previous post I mentioned kids up chimneys. I boradly agree withyou about the UK stuff, although I think that started to change long before the internet, getting a few more channels has opened the floodgates, and there have been some US shows like 'Lost' that have been very heavily promoted. Didnt the BBC show 24 for a few seasons? Yeah we sure do create out fair share of trash TV in the UK, US citizens are probably aware of this as I believe Benny Hill was on of our stronger exports to that part of the world! Some of my favorite TV shows have been American, but I disagree with you about British comedy, which hasnt been as hot in the last few years but sometimes creates interesting stuff ont he surreal side of the spectrum. No idea how well any of it exports, The Office was the last big export I know of but it was remade for the American audience, I dont want to see that version. Has Extras or things like The Mighty Boosh made it over the Atlantic? Id never like to guess what comedy translates to different cultures, was funny seeing Borat in action Stateside :) Id bet heavily that if regulation is kept at bay for years, then a trigger for it eventually ariving would be once net video enters a mature phase where it is possible that entrenched service monopolies could exist, and government will decide it has to act to 'give the consumer choice'. The EU kicking Microsofts ass could be the EU spanking youtube 10 years down the line, who knows. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Doctor P, > I realise your comments were directed at Casey, > > but my own 2 cents: > > Your intentions are right in combating what you see as McMedia, > > but personally I find it hard to believe that geographically based > programming quotas lead to better quality. > > i don't want to get into a whole Positive Discrimination discussion > here. Oh, hell, I guess it's impossible not to. > > but i don't think you can really conflate all the issues that you've > mentioned. makes for a nice emotive argument to say 'without > regulation, schools would not be teaching xxx', but this is a > different argument. > > i don't think many people think that all regulation is bad. it's > part of our system of checks and balances to preserve our freedoms > and rights and quality of life. but it *can* get out of control, and > needs itself to be checked. > > different types of regulations come with their own areas of concern. > > there are specific problems - both practical and ethical - that arise > from regulating broadcasting, information and the internet according > to state boundaries. > > to regulate for quality (however one does that) can be a good thing, > and in the UK those who receive public funds (BBC and others) are > judged by quality and public service standards, as well as having to > fulfil a UK production quota. > > one of the joys of internet video is that the production values and > distribution methods mean that niches can be served in a way that > they can't be in MSM. so regulating it with the intention of de- > Americanizing and improving quality is not only unnecessary, it's > potentially counterproductive, putting restrictions on niche producers. > > Finally, I don't know if I agree with your characterisation of most > American content as "namely entertainment for its own sake, is > void of content even if the production is great." I've seen a lot of > TV from around the world, including Canadian TV, and I think that the > main bulk of TV *anywhere* fits your description. Including the > UK. Trash TV in the UK is as bad as trash TV in America, Italy, > Japan - they're all crazy and inane, and make up 95% of all programs, > probably. > > The important area for judgement of quality IMO is in the high > quality programming. UK TV is considered some of the best quality > TV in the world. We have some factual programming that's great (it's > being eroded) but I am hard pushed to think of a UK drama or comedy > that is as inventive as complex as the big American exports - > Sopranos, Seinfeld, Sex & City, West Wing, going back to Twin Peaks > and beyond. We make great period dramas. Occasionally. But they're > pretty filmmaking-by-numbers. Good American TV is the best in the > world, I think. > > These American shows won't get shown at primetime on the main 2 > British networks, largely I think because of the UK regulations. > They would blow most UK shows out of the water, and so because we > don't have to compete, we don't rise to the challenge. So to > restrict programming in this way can actually be anticompetitive and > patronising. > > Anyway, that's more than 2 cents. And it's probably all bullshit. > But it's my instinctive reaction. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
