Waste of TV license fee

I think they are diverse enough, but try watching them again
(they'll be on YouTube) and they will be very dated. It's surprising how disappointing it can be to watch old favourites that have been fondly remembered, and see just how bad they are by today's standards.

I recommended that my daughter, who shares my interest in Tudor History, watch Elizabeth R, recently. I loved it as a child (possibly young teen), but it was laughably awful - overacted, clunky and simplistic. By comparison with, say, The Tudors, it was like a pantomime.

In their Archives the BBC have many excellent old programmes. I'm thinking - The Search for the Nile, The Voyage of the Beagle, The Ascent of Man etc. I'm sure they could resurrect some of these, maybe show them on BBC4, - the over-40s might enjoy them - they were quality viewing compared with today's pap.

Or are they not diverse enough for todays viewers?

I saw online that over 98000 people had cancelled their licenses last year ,,,so I'd say they are going to be too cash strapped for big spending like that .

eazybee

I would not call EastEnders quality TV and am ashamed to think that parts of the world view this as representative of Britain.

I wondered who would be first to say that?

It may not be your cup of tea, but lots of people watch it, and as I said, it brings in money - more than enough to justify spending on a set.

I'd be interested to know what it is about it that you consider low quality, or what you think about it means that it is not worth spending money to keep it as a money-spinner for the BBC?

Kali2

Due to Covid, we have not been able to spend much time at our UK flat- but we still paid our TV licence!

As do we at our French property. Not because we want to watch the programmes, but because we want to watch DVDs.

Due to Covid, we have not been able to spend much time at our UK flat- but we still paid our TV licence!

I think the quality of viewing available on the BBC has massively gone downhill over the last couple of years. I was away for a year and returned to the UK to find nothing on it I've wanted to watch. And that has been the case for the last 6 months.

If they want us to cough up the licence fee they need to improve. Otherwise, given the amount of online choices available now, people will just stop using it.

eazybee

I would not call EastEnders quality TV and am ashamed to think that parts of the world view this as representative of Britain.

In what way not quality? Because of the culture it portrays? Only Fools and Horses another example?

I would not call EastEnders quality TV and am ashamed to think that parts of the world view this as representative of Britain.

BBC programmes are sold around the world and make a lot of money.

The last time I saw Eastenders was around 12 years ago, in Saudi Arabia!

Oh c'mon bruv, the Enderz set is hardly representative of the place these days. The Queen Vic and the caf are not the sort of gaffs the geezers and gals frequent anymore. When they go out out they're more likely seen drinking jaegerbombs in plush bars and flat whites in classy bistrots. Added to that the streets are paved with artisan bakers and posh cheese shops.
The Beeb has to move on from the days of the Kray twins and pearly kings and queens too. Otherwise the show might as well remain in Call the midwife territory.

Would you rather the BBC operated on a shoestring and we had dramas with wobbly scenery and no special effects? Quality TV costs money to produce, and Eastenders has high viewing figures and brings in revenue from audiences outside of the UK. That revenue has to be set against the production costs, which help to pay for other dramas, educational programmes and investigative reporting.

I think that the issue of subsidised viewing is an entirely separate one, and can’t drive the expenditure of programme makers. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, not a charitable organisation.