Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popular

[23skidoo]

OK, I get it that there are many who feel Doctor Who shouldn't be made by the BBC. There are elitists who feel the Beeb should only show ballet and Shakespeare. I understand that. Here in Canada a similar sentiment exists regarding the CBC.

I also understand those who don't mind the BBC making Doctor Who, but feel it should be relegated to "minor production" status because, of course, it's just a kid's show. It's an attitude that was outdated in 1964, yet still persists. And I get it and understand it.

But then you have this British actor who was quoted recently as criticizing the BBC for spending too much money on Doctor Who. But his rationale, as I interpret from this article, is face-palm worthy. The BBC should have ended the show once it became popular, rather than continuing to make money off it.

Double face palm because he says the same applies to his own show, which I personally have never heard of, but that's beside the point.

Now, I've become an advocate for "limited run" series in the last few years. I do think a case can be made in some cases that shows are prolonged unnecessarily in some cases. Alias, for example, should have been restricted to two seasons. DS9 shouldn't have gone past 5. There are simply some concepts that do start being a little shaky after a while.

But even so, if the writers are able to continue producing good ideas, good scripts, and people are interested in watching. And, as a bonus, the show makes its production company a few bucks, then I don't see the problem. Who knows, if the BBC makes enough off Doctor Who and its other shows, there's always the (slim slim slim) chance they might even be able to do something about that licence fee everyone in the UK seems to simultaneously embrace and hate.

He does make a good point regarding reality TV taking away chances for good drama. Yet he seems to suggest DW is also taking away chances for shows to be commissioned, seemingly forgetting about Merlin, Primevel, Being Human, and a number of other shows that likely would not have been commissioned had DW not come back a big success in 2005.

Anyway, maybe I'm reading this guy all wrong. I suppose I might have missed something with all the face-palming. You be the judge.

http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/8146/british-actor-bbc-spends-too-much-on-doctor-who.html

Alex

 

[wamdue]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Hasnt stoppd him taking BBC money, so that his production company can make a spin-off from his show.

 

[diankra]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Trevor Eve said the same thing (in almost exactly the same words) six months back, when he was publicising his role in Bouquet of Barbed Wire (a remake of a 1970s series... and according to friends who watched both versions, a poor remake).
To be charitable to him, he's probably saying stuff that'll get publicity for the series he's currently publicising, by mentioning shows that'll get his interview noticed.

 

[Cutter John]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Okay, agreed. But only if all the money made from selling dvds, books, and toys goes directly back into the show, and not the BBC general fund.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Eve wont be happy till Dr who is made on a....Shoestring....budget....(Drum roll)

 

[captcalhoun]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

TREVOR EVE IS A TOSSER WHO'S ACTING CONSISTS OF SHOUTING A LOT!

 

[WillsBabe]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

I know what he means about series going on and on and on and on and on on the BBC for eternity. In my opinion the BBC will flog any dead horse. Some things should end well before the BBC lets them. I can see some of his other points, too, but I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all of them wholeheartedly - for example not all the the BBC's output is panel/game/talents shows.

 

[STR]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

I don't see why BBC has to be as boring as PBS, the tired, part-non-profit, part-government supported counterpart to the superior BBC. I wish PBS would fork out some real money for a product that would get mainstream attention.

 

[Starkers]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

I know what he means about series going on and on and on and on and on on the BBC for eternity. In my opinion the BBC will flog any dead horse. Some things should end well before the BBC lets them. I can see some of his other points, too, but I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all of them wholeheartedly - for example not all the the BBC's output is panel/game/talents shows.

Yeah looking past the "how dare he insult Dr Who" ire I can see some merit in what he's saying, too often shows do run on too long (though this isn't always a bad thing, I still like Waking the Dead myself , along with Spooks and Silent Witness which you could also say have been flogged to death by the BBC).

Personally I think the BBC does a pretty good job of balancing quality and popularity for the most part, but I guess like anything else (tv, films, books) a lot of potentially good stuff never gets made, or has to struggle to get made, because producers/publishers would rather go with the safer option of making series 17 of Mike the scuba diving pathologist, than making something new.

Although of course, much as I admire Eve --he's always been a favourite actor of mine since Shoestring--, his argument could very easily be turned back on him. How many actors aren't given a chance because the BBC/ITV would rather hire a popular name actor like him after all?

 

[Lonemagpie]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Trevor Eve said the same thing (in almost exactly the same words) six months back, when he was publicising his role in Bouquet of Barbed Wire (a remake of a 1970s series... and according to friends who watched both versions, a poor remake).
To be charitable to him, he's probably saying stuff that'll get publicity for the series he's currently publicising, by mentioning shows that'll get his interview noticed.

This is that interview- the site must be behind the times...

 

[Pseudo]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

"The program is great, but it was created for kids in 1963," Eve told The Mirror newspaper. "One doesn’t need to say more."

Oh, go on. I really wish you would. Why does a show being created for kids in 1963 mean that it's not worth funding?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Sounds like the guy whose favorite bands "sell out" once they've become popular.

Not being from the UK, I won't pretend to understand the BBC mandate and the license fee and all that but shouldn't they provide popular entertainment? If everyone has to pay shouldn't the BBC be obliged to try to please as many as possible with shows that are as highly rated as possible?

 

[WillsBabe]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

^ On the whole I think the BBC do a good job of balancing popular and niche stuff; high brow and mass-appeal programming. I can't say I enjoy all, or even the majority of their output, but I think they do a decent job.

 

[Shazam!]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

I'd much rather the BBC was giving money to wacky shows like Doctor Who with science and aliens and laughs than more detective dramas as though those produced by ITV and the countless number of imports from the states aren't enough.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

I know what he means about series going on and on and on and on and on on the BBC for eternity. In my opinion the BBC will flog any dead horse. Some things should end well before the BBC lets them. I can see some of his other points, too, but I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all of them wholeheartedly - for example not all the the BBC's output is panel/game/talents shows.

I think it really depends. I mean yeah some shows do go on for years, probably past their sell by date in some cases, but really a lot of people would be complaining if their favourite show got cancelled just because.
I don't disagree that it'd be nice to see them take more risks, but why does more risks mean cancelling popular shows? Why cancel QI or HIGNFY or Hustle while they still get big audiences or even smaller shows while they're still entertaining their audience well?

There seems to be two sides on this, one side saying "The BBC shouldn't do popular" and the other side saying "No one watches this, what a waste of our money." And then you have producers saying "They should support popular shows by increasing their budget when they prove popular" while other producers say "Once they've proven popular cut their budget or make them make more on the same money, so you can funnel money off in to new projects". So basically the BBC are never right whatever they do.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

I suppose one thing you can say in his favour is that he's consistent. He walked away from Shoestring after two seasons, some 30-odd years ago because he didn't want it to go on and on. So clearly he hasn't changed his outlook in that regards.

But I think he's, at best, guilty of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, some shows clearly go on past their best (Shameless, anyone?) and by and large I prefer the UK model of stopping while you're ahead (Life on Mars, The Office, Extras etc) to the US model of flogging a dead horse (Smallville, Prison Break).

But the fact is that, IMHO, the more recent series of DW are among the best things on tv and are better than the old ones. It may be nearly 50 years old but it's not past its best. It may have started off as a kid's show but it's clearly beyond all that and has become a show all the family can watch - and generally do.

I know I'd rather see it run for another century than see more Eastenders, Holby, Casualty, take your pick ...

 

[Starkers]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Yeah but Eve's been doing Waking the Dead now about 10 years! He does at least admit its gone on too long!

But damn it Boyd's just so funny to watch I'd rather it didn't end!

 

[Tulin]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

TREVOR EVE IS A TOSSER WHO'S ACTING CONSISTS OF SHOUTING A LOT!

That's kind of ironic, considering Tennant's style over the past few years.

 

[Sci]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Hm. Let me get this straight.

A publicly-funded broadcasting corporation, which operates on the basis of a compulsory license fee paid by all owners of television sets, should not use the license fee to pay for shows that a large percentage of license fee payers enjoy?

In other words... money that people have to pay should not go to things they like?

I understand the rationale behind the license fee -- it ensures that quality programing that might not be commercially viable will get a chance and that commercialism will not utterly control all television. But I would argue that that means the BBC's obligation is to find a balance between using the license fee to fund shows a huge percentage of fee payers enjoy and using the license fee to fund shows that would otherwise not get a chance on commercial TV. It shouldn't all be just one or the other.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: Actor says shows like DW shouldn't be supported by BBC once popula

Hm. Let me get this straight.

A publicly-funded broadcasting corporation, which operates on the basis of a compulsory license fee paid by all owners of television sets, should not use the license fee to pay for shows that a large percentage of license fee payers enjoy?

In other words... money that people have to pay should not go to things they like?

I understand the rationale behind the license fee -- it ensures that quality programing that might not be commercially viable will get a chance and that commercialism will not utterly control all television. But I would argue that that means the BBC's obligation is to find a balance between using the license fee to fund shows a huge percentage of fee payers enjoy and using the license fee to fund shows that would otherwise not get a chance on commercial TV. It shouldn't all be just one or the other.

Exactly. There seems to be a group that things if it's not popular the BBC shouldn't do it, and a group that if it's popular the BBC shouldn't to it.

Meanwhile the BBC are pulled in all sorts of directions from the media and the government and the idiotic views of the public in general. No wonder you end up with a lot of shit on TV.