BBC Production Values
- Thread starter Shawnster
- Start date
Well I think Star Trek probably fares better than Blake's 7 but I'm looking back at both from an 80s kid point of view.
I think if you look at shows like The Starlost, Planet of the Apes, Logan's Run and so on there were a lot of low production values at the time.
It gets thrown a little because Battlestar Galactica was a big exception to the rule and its production costs sunk it in the end. Buck Rogers was able to use a lot of the BSG prodcution to offset its costs.
If you take those shows out of the picture and the Gerry Anderson shows a lot of Sci-Fi shows of the time were cheap.
I think production standards have changed with the times, the BBC were behind the American networks as any comparisons between Battlestar Galactica and Blake's 7 have shown. But generally the BBC have upgraded their techology over the years and by 2005 when Doctor Who returned the show was on IMO on the same level as their American counterparts.
re: DWF and Mr Adventure... The accurate comparison between the budgets of Blake's 7 and US-ish TV is that Blake had a better budget than Starlost, but a lot less than the Apes tv series.
Blake's script editor Chris Boucher once said something along the lines of 'Star Trek's effects budget was our entire budget. Star Wars' catering budget was more than our entire budget."
Blake's script editor Chris Boucher once said something along the lines of 'Star Trek's effects budget was our entire budget. Star Wars' catering budget was more than our entire budget."
^^ I found a link to a TV Guide article at the time of production suggestion 200-300K (EDIT: US $ 
) per episode for POTA which is more than I had expected, I always thought it was low budget but with inflation that's quite respectable.
) per episode for POTA which is more than I had expected, I always thought it was low budget but with inflation that's quite respectable.^^ I found a link to a TV Guide article at the time of production suggestion 200-300K (EDIT: US $
That's more than just respectable, that made POTA one of the higher budgeted shows on American TV at the time.
The highest budgeted SF series of the 1970's (and at the time of production the highest budgeted TV series ever IIRC) was 'Space:1999'. Which looks amazing on Blu-Ray. In fact better picture quality than a lot of other far more recent films and TV shows I've seen.
And until Battlestar Galctica came out in 1978 at a million per ep. Space:1999 was the most expensive sci-fi series of the '70s.
Having watched most of the DW Confidentials back in the day, it was amazing how well they managed their location filming budget. Just using various Cardiff locations to stand in for futuristic bases and historic locations. I guess it explains why we so almost no alien planet stories the first few seasons.
A few costs I remember:
A late 1980s (Sylvester McCoy) Doctor Who cost about £100,000. So arguably a 50 minute episode would have been £200,000, which is about $300,000 at the exchange rate that's held solid-ish for the last 20 years.
Backtracking that to the mid-1970s... Well, I can remember that in 1974 a pound was worth four dollars (or at least the news said so, didn't get to the US till 1989), but it dropped massively by 1980 to the current $=£.60ish.
And from the start of the oil-shock in 1972-ish through to the mid 1980s, the UK (and I assume the US) had 15/20% inflation (which is why the late 1970s Who seasons look awful by the last story of the season: why not spend it all on the first story, when £100 will buy £100 of stuff, rather than save it till the end of season when it'll buy £80's worth?).
Factor it all in and you'll go mad, but an Apes budget of $200-300K per ep in 1975 is far more than original Who or Blake could ever dream of... It's roughly what Who was getting a bit over 10 years later, after inflation had cut the worth of the money. And Apes was, comparitively, cheap to make, as it could shoot in California wastelands rather than building spaceships or space cities. Its biggest expense was the ape make-up (excellent, but Who couldn't use the same make-up in every story).
A late 1980s (Sylvester McCoy) Doctor Who cost about £100,000. So arguably a 50 minute episode would have been £200,000, which is about $300,000 at the exchange rate that's held solid-ish for the last 20 years.
Backtracking that to the mid-1970s... Well, I can remember that in 1974 a pound was worth four dollars (or at least the news said so, didn't get to the US till 1989), but it dropped massively by 1980 to the current $=£.60ish.
And from the start of the oil-shock in 1972-ish through to the mid 1980s, the UK (and I assume the US) had 15/20% inflation (which is why the late 1970s Who seasons look awful by the last story of the season: why not spend it all on the first story, when £100 will buy £100 of stuff, rather than save it till the end of season when it'll buy £80's worth?).
Factor it all in and you'll go mad, but an Apes budget of $200-300K per ep in 1975 is far more than original Who or Blake could ever dream of... It's roughly what Who was getting a bit over 10 years later, after inflation had cut the worth of the money. And Apes was, comparitively, cheap to make, as it could shoot in California wastelands rather than building spaceships or space cities. Its biggest expense was the ape make-up (excellent, but Who couldn't use the same make-up in every story).
Sort of fits. I think the average budget for a 1963 episode was £1250.
(Who almost got cancelled a few weeks in because someone hostile to it was pointing out that it was way over planned budget so far, deliberately ignoring that the first episode included the cost of the TARDIS set, which it was fine when split over the planned 52 episode run, but made the cost of the series so far seem immense).
(Who almost got cancelled a few weeks in because someone hostile to it was pointing out that it was way over planned budget so far, deliberately ignoring that the first episode included the cost of the TARDIS set, which it was fine when split over the planned 52 episode run, but made the cost of the series so far seem immense).
I gotta thank everyone for their input. Love reading the responses and you've given some good points.
This was my initial thought when Deckard asked to compare US shows from the 70s. Maybe it's my American bias but I have always thought US series looked like they had a bigger budget. Maybe it's just the sets look more expansive? The laser effects (or phaser) seemed to be better, if memory serves. Again, this may just be my point of view.
Costuming for some shows definitely looked better than I've seen on Dr. Who or Blake's 7.
What I've really noticed are the cheap FX shots on Blake's 7. From the exterior ship model to the matte shots with multiple planets and visible galaxies (or at least star clusters), it doesn't look as serious as it could.
This was my initial thought when Deckard asked to compare US shows from the 70s. Maybe it's my American bias but I have always thought US series looked like they had a bigger budget. Maybe it's just the sets look more expansive? The laser effects (or phaser) seemed to be better, if memory serves. Again, this may just be my point of view.
Costuming for some shows definitely looked better than I've seen on Dr. Who or Blake's 7.
What I've really noticed are the cheap FX shots on Blake's 7. From the exterior ship model to the matte shots with multiple planets and visible galaxies (or at least star clusters), it doesn't look as serious as it could.
American shows do have higher budgets than their BBC counterparts, buyt then Space:1999 came from Gerry Anderson not the BBC and Battlestar Galactica coming out three years after Space:1999 was a far more expenisve series.
Similar threads
