Strictly Come Chuffing Dancing!!!!

[Alf W]

It's just the BBC providing balanced and diverse programming. Early evening reality show for the birds and gay fellas, later on it's MOTD for the blokes.

[d000hg]

It's not the BBC's fault that reality TV shows attract bigger audiences than decent programming. It's the wonderful British public. BBC could create the most vibrantly brilliant 5-part drama with wonderful acting and putting it up against X-factor/dance-on-my-face/lock-the-celeb-in-the-monkey-cage would be ratings suicide.

[zeitghost]

Wasn't there a rerun of CSI on? NCIS is the most blatant rip-off and seems to compromise of stereotyped roles using actors who couldn't get a part in CSI or any of its spin-offs.

Yes.

Seen it before (probably).

I never watch repeats of CSI.

The NCIS episode was timeshifted from Friday at 21:00 on FX, the True Blood ep (which gives it away really) was timeshifted from Friday at 22:00 on FX.

[Board Game Geek]

Dooohg posted : BBC could create the most vibrantly brilliant 5-part drama with wonderful acting and putting it up against X-factor/dance-on-my-face/lock-the-celeb-in-the-monkey-cage would be ratings suicide

I agree wholeheartedly.

That got me thinking however. As you say, a vibrantly brilliant drama wouldn't compete against the reality mush, but what about something like Rome ?

BBC Two premiered Rome in the United Kingdom on 2 November 2005, attracting 6.6 million viewers (27%); viewing figures declined in future episodes, with the season finale only attracting 3 million viewers (13%).

Let's face it, Rome was hardly historically accurate, but it featured plenty of violence and nudity, and well, the viewing figures are a case in point and speak for themselves.

Particularly when you consider that Rome was also shown in Italy, in a much more sanitised version without the acres of flesh and gratuitous blood-letting. It's ratings ? 10% of the audience share, though I cannot find what that corresponds in to actual numbers.

It's all about ratings, and getting as many as possible, and if cheap, no-brainer TV can accompany that, then that's what we will get.

As long as people continue to watch these programs, and deliver the ratings the TV Stations require, then we're stuck with them I'm afraid.

Out of interest, I did some more digging around on the interwebs, and found this.

BBC2, which paid £100,000 per episode of THE SIMPSONS, pulled out of bidding in 2002, after the channel controller at the time, Jane Root, said she refused to pay "football match cash" for the rights.

Channel 4 struck a deal said to be worth £750,000 per episode. Since its launch on Channel 4 in Nov 2004, the cartoon has attracted ratings of up to 3.5 million at the time of this report (dated Dec 2004)

Back to Rome. I cannot see "I, Claudius" attracting the same level of viewing figures, even though it was more plausibly accurate (well, better researched in most areas anyway).

If the BBC wanted to "fix" this for the Saturday night audience, all they need to do is get Graham Norton in a toga and crown, mincing around ala Frankie Howerd in "Lurcio " character (Up Pompeii!)

Throw in a generous helping of "bottom jokes", suggestive deviant behaviour, a constant stream of double entendres, nudge nudge jokes about Centurions "Weapons", a General called "Farticus" (because Biggus Dickus has been done before), some steamy Roman Bath shots, a nympho Senator's wife, a slave girl with a big pair of wotsits, and I think we could have a winner.

The counter argument is that is has always been as thus.

Look back over the history of TV in this country and it trends the native British obsession with the above style of humour.

Even Shakespeare realised that us Brits were quite a bawdy lot and his plays are stuffed full of puns and naughty innuendo.

The TV producers must be aware of this, and cater to the majority tastes. That's not to say they don't produce any quality, high brow drama and documentaries, because they do. Just not in the volume that they shoot celebrity mush, because there is a greater demand for the latter.

I wouldn't get too worked up about it, personally.

I purchase the DVD or Blueray box sets of what I like to watch, and never turn on the telly for terrestrial programming. It's a win-win.

(Well mostly, although even the sort of programs I like are highly prone to ratings requirements, and the Yanks tend to cancel a program, even if it has a cult following, because the ratings are not high enough. Firefly being an example)

[BrilloPad]

A BJ is inadequate compensation IMO

What should I be asking for?

[Zippy]

What should I be asking for?

Something pleasant that lasts as long as that bloody show! (Use your imagination)

[gingerjedi]

Saturday night TV has always been dire, it's proof that you really can't please everyone. I can't remember what was on in that time slot before but you can bet it wasn't any more stimulating than SCD.

What's the problem with TV schedules anyway? I would have thought everyone had a PVR by now.

Flavia FTW!

[d000hg]

A BJ is inadequate compensation IMO

What should I be asking for?

Something pleasant that lasts as long as that bloody show! (Use your imagination)

I don't see why the original suggestion doesn't meet those requirements.

[BoredBloke]

I can't understand the attraction of these shows.

Why watch some z lister dance or skate really badly when you could watch people who are actually good at it.

Then you get x factor which is just a mechanism to increase the wealth of Simon Cowell. Watching a bunch of nobodies warbling away to the same old sad arsed songs. The show is only any good when they have the auditions on but even a lot of that is staged - and as 'good' as that bit is, it still doesn't get me watching.

Big brother - watching a load of (often) imported freaks sitting around in a house. Great!

Why is ther now celeb cum lapdancing?