!!!The BBC thinks Buffy is a Kid's Show!!!
John Rees
Slayer" is a children's programme. The schedule for Autumn/Winter 99 have
been published, and according to their press release, Buffy is for the
kiddies, and that is why it is shown at 6:45pm. This incredible fact is
there for all to see in the current edition of "Cult Times" Magazine.
The mind just boggles. These people obviously haven't these people
watched any of the episodes that they are going to be broadcasting from the
end of Season 2 and from Season 3. Somehow, I don't think so.
--
"Like shooting flies with a laser cannon, the aims a bit tricky, but it certainly deals with the flies". Lord Miles Vorkosigan from "Komarr" by Lois McMaster Bujold.
e.mail - jw...@argonet.co.uk
Website - http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jwcr/
Lois McMaster Bujold UK Mailing List http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/LMB-UK
Eric F.
> So, it is now official, the BBC thinks that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a children's programme. The schedule for Autumn/Winter 99 have been published, and
> according to their press release, Buffy is for the kiddies, and that is why it is shown at 6:45pm. This incredible fact is
> there for all to see in the current edition of "Cult Times" Magazine.
Interesting. Sounds a bit late for a kid's show. Across the pond in the U.S., children's shows usually start in the mornings, around 6.30 AM...
> The mind just boggles. These people obviously haven't these people watched any of the episodes that they are going to be broadcasting from the end of Season 2 and
> from Season 3. Somehow, I don't think so.
I agree. They really should WATCH the shows they'll schedule...
Later,
Eric F., Buffy Fan
----
Post: In fact is that there has been talk in the council that you have become a bit too American.
Giles: Me?
Buffy: Him? ("Revelations")
Keith
>So, it is now official, the BBC thinks that "Buffy the Vampire
>Slayer" is a children's programme.
The BBC do *not* think that Buffy is a "children's show" - any more than
they regard any of the Star Trek series as children's shows - they
(rightly, as it happens) recognise that it's a show very popular with
teenagers - the only thing they've got wrong is a massive under-
estimation of the number of adults who like it - which is something
they've done in the past (notably with The X-Files to start off with...)
>The mind just boggles. These people obviously haven't these people
>watched any of the episodes that they are going to be broadcasting from the
>end of Season 2 and from Season 3. Somehow, I don't think so.
Presumably you'll be alerting them to this fact immediately to save them
the time of watching the episodes, yes?
Cally
news:WSkSyFAa...@tooon.demon.co.uk...
> John Rees <jw...@argonet.co.uk> writes
> >So, it is now official, the BBC thinks that "Buffy the Vampire
> >Slayer" is a children's programme.
>
> The BBC do *not* think that Buffy is a "children's show" - any more than
> they regard any of the Star Trek series as children's shows - they
> (rightly, as it happens) recognise that it's a show very popular with
> teenagers - the only thing they've got wrong is a massive under-
> estimation of the number of adults who like it - which is something
> they've done in the past (notably with The X-Files to start off with...)
Then why have they (apparently) officially classified it as childrens
television?
Cally
Keith
>> The BBC do *not* think that Buffy is a "children's show" - any more than
>> they regard any of the Star Trek series as children's shows - they
>> (rightly, as it happens) recognise that it's a show very popular with
>> teenagers - the only thing they've got wrong is a massive under-
>> estimation of the number of adults who like it - which is something
>> they've done in the past (notably with The X-Files to start off with...)
>Then why have they (apparently) officially classified it as childrens
>television?
If it's "children's television" it would be going out on CBBC before
5.35pm. I think wherever this description has appeared (Cult Times, did
somebody say? Yeh, I'd trust *their* opinions about as far as I can spit
- Hi Ian! Hi Mark!) I think might be a case of somebody putting tow and
two together and coming up with nineteen...
Keith
"everything begins, and ends, at exactly the right place"
Kathryn Sugg
> Cally <as...@moonheart.demon.co.uk> writes
> >> The BBC do *not* think that Buffy is a "children's show" - any more
than
> >> they regard any of the Star Trek series as children's shows - they
> >> (rightly, as it happens) recognise that it's a show very popular with
> >> teenagers -
If the BBC are putting it on at this time because of the teenage following,
why isn't it going out at 8pm or later.
There are still a lot of young children up at 6.45 who should not be
watching a program like BtVS.
Kathryn
Keith
>If the BBC are putting it on at this time because of the teenage following,
>why isn't it going out at 8pm or later.
>There are still a lot of young children up at 6.45 who should not be
>watching a program like BtVS.
It's not a question of how many children are "up" (there's a lot of
children up at 9pm or later - I'm sure this is true of America also -
and I'm sure lots of children are allowed by their parents to watch
material that is probably unsuitable for them), it's a question of
scheduling. British television has always followed certain rules about
when programmes are put on to capture which audience - it's an often
complicated formula that's existed pretty much unchanged since the
1950s, but it basically boils down to 4pm to 5.35pm children's
programming, 5.35 to approximately 8pm "family viewing" - programmes
with broad appeal for the whole of the family, 8pm to 9pm a strange
netherland before the 9pm "adult" schedule in which slightly more
risqué, explicit or adult family programmes can be shown (normally
comedy). 9pm onwards, adult material.
The BBC's response to all of this is that they do not consider Buffy to
be significantly more "adult" show than, say any of the Star Trek
series, all of which they show in the 6pm to 6.45pm slot so that's where
they intend to show Buffy also. And cut it accordingly.
Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Buffy shown later and uncut as
much as anyone, all I'm doing is explaining the reasons behind the BBC's
decisions, much as I disagree with them. And being realistic. All of
this ranting and raving will not change the BBC's scheduling one iota -
they've had *decades* of practice at pissing people off and they've
faced the ire of bigger fan audiences than Buffy's (if you want to talk
about real, lasting fan campaigns have a look at their treatment of
Blake's 7, for instance, over a *long* period of time) and still done
what they damn well liked in the end. That's because they're the BBC.
And they *can*. And they'll do so again. British viewers option's remain
what they've been since Buffy started; a) buy a satellite disc and watch
the episodes uncut on Sky, b) get a friend in the states to tape them
for you, c) buy the video's when they eventually come out or d) watch it
on the BBC in cut form.
And, lest it be said that this is a one-sided argument, I'll also give
you the BBC's additional response to "what are you doing with Buffy"; It
goes something like this: "We've paid a lot of money to acquired this
programme - we like it, we think it'll be a big hit - so we put it in a
slot that similar programmes (like DS9 and Voyager) are shown in. And it
got *reasonable* (and we'll put it no higher than that) ratings in this
slot, but it did get a lot of positive viewer feedback. Except a couple
of hundred viewers who complained that we're cutting it. But, our
research shows that most of the audience isn't made up of twenty-and-
thirty-something fanboys with acne and smelly feet, but rather teenage
girls who really like the show (for Angel, chiefly). Lots of them have
written to us to tell us that." From the BBC's point of view Buffy
fandom amounts to nothing more than a tiny percentage of the audience
(what, 2%, if *that*).
Whether that attitude is right or wrong is another matter, but
the fact is, it *is*.
higgy
Kathryn Sugg <K...@sugg64.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7p9lcp$7s3$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> If the BBC are putting it on at this time because of the teenage
following,
> why isn't it going out at 8pm or later.
> There are still a lot of young children up at 6.45 who should not be
> watching a program like BtVS.
I'm not a big fan of obsessive parents who don't like their kids seeing
BtVS, but I know that there are a number who are annoyed at it being on so
early. Personally, I wish they'd show it at 8 or 9 PM, uncensored and get
rid of all arguments.
Dave.
higgy
Cally <as...@moonheart.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:934789264.16040.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Then why have they (apparently) officially classified it as childrens
> television?
I tend to assume that they discriminate against it because it's American,
rather than aimed at a young audience. With a (very) few exceptions all US
show get shown in crap time slots, whilst their own garbage gets shown at
prime time and in some cases twice in the same week.
Dave.
Luke Croll
>been published, and according to their press release, Buffy is for the
>kiddies, and that is why it is shown at 6:45pm. This incredible fact is
>there for all to see in the current edition of "Cult Times" Magazine.
>
>watched any of the episodes that they are going to be broadcasting from the
>end of Season 2 and from Season 3. Somehow, I don't think so.
>
They've done it again - despite all the complaints, etc, they've just
ignored everything that has been said. s2 is so dark compared to s1,
it's going to be cut to pieces. More complaints after each episode, I
think.
--
Luke Croll
Marc
John Rees <jw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:na.5e21e6493...@argonet.co.uk...
> So, it is now official, the BBC thinks that "Buffy the Vampire
> Slayer" is a children's programme. The schedule for Autumn/Winter 99 have
> been published, and according to their press release, Buffy is for the
> kiddies, and that is why it is shown at 6:45pm. This incredible fact is
> there for all to see in the current edition of "Cult Times" Magazine.
Just goes to show that those bastards at the BBC, still don't give a rat's
ass for any Buffy fan. Especially when they insult us and say we're all
children.
--
Marc
We Hate Angel Assembly; http://members.tripod.co.uk/Marczilla/index.htm
Xander Dance Member #413
Xander Guardian Guild member #180
Nicholas Brendon Aficionados #283
Official Guradian of Spike's Ability to kick Angel's Arse.
AOL IM: Dood1ehead
Yahoo Pager: Nightmare_clown
Jedimail: Ob...@jedimail.net
simon
<Da...@higton.freeserve.co.uk> writes
think it might be partly embarrasement that if they did show it at a
decent slot people might realise the the home grown stuff is a waste of
time. The only decent slot for an american series recently was the x-
files and maybe Chicago hope. Going back Dallas/Dynasty got quite a good
slot IIRC.
--
simon
"feelin kinda groovy, working on a movie"
simon
<ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> writes
>Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Buffy shown later and uncut as
>much as anyone, all I'm doing is explaining the reasons behind the BBC's
>decisions, much as I disagree with them. And being realistic. All of
>this ranting and raving will not change the BBC's scheduling one iota -
>they've had *decades* of practice at pissing people off and they've
>faced the ire of bigger fan audiences than Buffy's (if you want to talk
>about real, lasting fan campaigns have a look at their treatment of
>Blake's 7, for instance, over a *long* period of time) and still done
>what they damn well liked in the end. That's because they're the BBC.
>And they *can*. And they'll do so again.
You know what? I've been saying this all along (though you did put it
very well) but a lot of people think that the bbc will buckel if enough
people get involved. Sadly I've been flamed for pointing it out. Oh
well....
Keith
>>Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Buffy shown later and uncut as
>>much as anyone, all I'm doing is explaining the reasons behind the BBC's
>>decisions, much as I disagree with them. And being realistic. All of
>>this ranting and raving will not change the BBC's scheduling one iota -
>>they've had *decades* of practice at pissing people off and they've
>>faced the ire of bigger fan audiences than Buffy's (if you want to talk
>>about real, lasting fan campaigns have a look at their treatment of
>>Blake's 7, for instance, over a *long* period of time) and still done
>>what they damn well liked in the end. That's because they're the BBC.
>>And they *can*. And they'll do so again.
>
>You know what? I've been saying this all along (though you did put it
>very well) but a lot of people think that the bbc will buckel if enough
>people get involved. Sadly I've been flamed for pointing it out. Oh
>well....
Don't worry mate, prophets are always spat upon in their homeland...!
One of my main concerns about the way Buffy fandom in the UK is
progressing is the totally unrealistic expectations that seem to have
been fed to a lot of them about how much can be achieved by protest. All
TV fandom's have this - Christ, I was in Doctor Who fandom long enough
to know that threatening to chain yourself to the gates of the BBC if we
don't get another series next year is likely to produce a response like
"go ahead, we could use a good laugh" - largely because of the *one*
great success a TV fandom ever had. The famous Star Trek letter-writing
campaign that saved the show from cancellation in 1967. But that was
*thirty years ago* and the world is a *very* different place now.
Example: One of the big things happening in Buffy UK at the moment is a
campaign for fans to send postcards to the BBC highlighting nine things
from seasons two and three that they believe the BBC will not be able to
show in their current timeslot for Buffy (it's called "9 at 9" - trying
to get them to show it at 9pm, see) good title, bloody *silly* idea. Do
you know what the BBC's likely response to this is going to be (apart
from "where's that bin?" "Plop"): "Dear License Fee Payer, thank you for
your concern about these scenes which are of seemingly adult content in
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a series we consider to be family
entertainment with a mainly teenage audience. You are absolutely
correct, we cannot possibly show - for instance - the pitch folk killing
in 'Dead Man's Party' at 6pm. So, we're not going to show it AT ALL.
BECAUSE WE'RE THE BBC. AND WE *CAN*. MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!"
Sometimes if you complain, you change things. Sometimes if you complain,
you get a reputation for being a whinger and get your chocolate rations
confiscated. It's up to the individual to decide which side of the
barricade's they're on.
Cally
news:$L2IUFAc...@tooon.demon.co.uk...
> Cally <as...@moonheart.demon.co.uk> writes
> >> The BBC do *not* think that Buffy is a "children's show" - any more
than
> >> they regard any of the Star Trek series as children's shows - they
> >> (rightly, as it happens) recognise that it's a show very popular with
> >> estimation of the number of adults who like it - which is something
> >> they've done in the past (notably with The X-Files to start off
with...)
>
> >television?
>
> 5.35pm. I think wherever this description has appeared (Cult Times, did
> somebody say? Yeh, I'd trust *their* opinions about as far as I can spit
> - Hi Ian! Hi Mark!) I think might be a case of somebody putting tow and
> two together and coming up with nineteen...
It was TV Zone actually (yeah I know, still VI but someone standing in the
glass house of Dreamwatch can't exactly afford to throw stones either). And
yes, I am aware that it may not be correct which is why I said "apparently".
If it turns out to be a case of someone there putting "two and two together
and coming up with nineteen" all well and good but I'm a pessimist by nature
and the BBC's treatment of the show and it's various replies to people's
letters and e-mails over the past few months do tend to support the
'children's television' idea.
The exact quote BTW is "For some extraordinary reason, Buffy The Vampire
Slayer has also been classed a children's programme by the BBC, so expect
cuts and omissions when the show returns to BBC2." This comes straight after
the section where they've been talking about what is coming up in the new
season on CBBC.
Cally
Fraxis
Keith wrote:
>
>
> Example: One of the big things happening in Buffy UK at the moment is a
> campaign for fans to send postcards to the BBC highlighting nine things
> from seasons two and three that they believe the BBC will not be able to
> show in their current timeslot for Buffy (it's called "9 at 9" - trying
> to get them to show it at 9pm, see) good title, bloody *silly* idea.
Of course it's a good title Keith - I thought of it (g)
> Do
> you know what the BBC's likely response to this is going to be (apart
> from "where's that bin?" "Plop"): "Dear License Fee Payer, thank you for
> your concern about these scenes which are of seemingly adult content in
> Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a series we consider to be family
> entertainment with a mainly teenage audience. You are absolutely
> correct, we cannot possibly show - for instance - the pitch folk killing
> in 'Dead Man's Party' at 6pm. So, we're not going to show it AT ALL.
> BECAUSE WE'RE THE BBC. AND WE *CAN*. MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!"
The BBC's actual response was "We're going to bury our heads in the sand and
hope they go away!
As it turned out they are a seemingly impossible nut to crack (not helped by
the fact that very few fans apart from the main campaign team really got
behind the project.) The postcard thing seemed to work well with SKY, opening
up a dialogue with their management that still exists to this day so it
seemed logical to try it on the Beeb too. Nothing ventured, nothing gained
but I'd have to concede it was ultimately a flop due to the BBC attitude to
such things as set out in one of your earlier postings.
It's just a shame that the majority of fans may end up seeing an emasculated
version of a great show - I wish there was something that could change that
without great expense being incurred by them.
Rob
>
>
>
--
"Oh, I know this one. 'Slaying entails certain sacrifices, blah blah bliddy
blah, I'm so stuffy give me a scone'". Buffy Summers, Inca Mummy Girl.
The Watcher's Web (at it's new home):
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~fraxis
Cally
> campaign for fans to send postcards to the BBC highlighting nine things
> from seasons two and three that they believe the BBC will not be able to
> show in their current timeslot for Buffy (it's called "9 at 9" - trying
> to get them to show it at 9pm, see) good title, bloody *silly* idea.
You're rather out of date. We tried it, it failed but the point is we TRIED.
Simon was flamed (although that is somewhat inaccurate) not because of his
opinion - which he is perfectly entitled to - but because of the way he
expressed it.
<stuff snipped>
we cannot possibly show - for instance - the pitch folk killing
> in 'Dead Man's Party' at 6pm.
It was a shovel. I am the queen of the nitpickers<g>
> Sometimes if you complain, you change things. Sometimes if you complain,
> you get a reputation for being a whinger and get your chocolate rations
> confiscated. It's up to the individual to decide which side of the
> barricade's they're on.
I'm on the side which says don't give up before you've tried.
Cally
Hall
Cally <as...@moonheart.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<935000854.4116.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> Keith <ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > Example: One of the big things happening in Buffy UK at the moment is a
> > campaign for fans to send postcards to the BBC highlighting nine things
> > from seasons two and three that they believe the BBC will not be able
to
> > show in their current timeslot for Buffy (it's called "9 at 9" - trying
> > to get them to show it at 9pm, see) good title, bloody *silly* idea.
>
>
> You're rather out of date. We tried it, it failed but the point is we
TRIED.
> Simon was flamed (although that is somewhat inaccurate) not because of
his
> opinion - which he is perfectly entitled to - but because of the way he
> expressed it.
>
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
> we cannot possibly show - for instance - the pitch folk killing
> > in 'Dead Man's Party' at 6pm.
>
>
> It was a shovel. I am the queen of the nitpickers<g>
More importantly, why can't you?
Carl
>
> It's not a question of how many children are "up" (there's a lot of
> children up at 9pm or later - I'm sure this is true of America also -
> and I'm sure lots of children are allowed by their parents to watch
> material that is probably unsuitable for them), it's a question of
> scheduling. British television has always followed certain rules about
> when programmes are put on to capture which audience - it's an often
> complicated formula that's existed pretty much unchanged since the
> 1950s, but it basically boils down to 4pm to 5.35pm children's
> programming, 5.35 to approximately 8pm "family viewing" - programmes
> with broad appeal for the whole of the family, 8pm to 9pm a strange
> netherland before the 9pm "adult" schedule in which slightly more
> risqué, explicit or adult family programmes can be shown (normally
> comedy). 9pm onwards, adult material.
Sure its not a case of what children are "up" at 6.45, but anything on
much before 8pm is cut for the lowest age range possible, basically a
PG film certificate. Anything above that classification would be either
cut or shown later.
> The BBC's response to all of this is that they do not consider Buffy to
> be significantly more "adult" show than, say any of the Star Trek
> series, all of which they show in the 6pm to 6.45pm slot so that's where
> they intend to show Buffy also. And cut it accordingly.
The BBC's problems with Buffy rest more on a desire for fixed junction
points in the schedule and a tendency towards half hour programmes
before 9pm than 5.35-8pm being "family" viewing. Unlike even ITV, the
chance of BBC2 showing *anything* other than a 30 minute programme
between 7.30 and 9pm is virtually non-existent. Somewhere in that time
slot is the *ideal* slot for Buffy (okay there might be some cuts but less
than at 6.45), but how the BBC wants to structure its schedule means that
it comes down to a choice between 6.45 and 9pm.
The problem with the BBC treating Buffy as for basically the same age
range as Star Trek is that even if Trek was subject to minor cuts at 6.45,
it would still attract those ppl it is intended to attract. The simple fact
that
it is called Star Trek is enough to pull in anyone who is remotely
interested
or even likely to be remotely interested in watching a particular Trek
series.
On the other hand, Buffy only has a fairly lame film to draw fans who
haven't
read about it in any of the usual mags (which surely can't account for much
more than a very tiny fraction of the audience). By putting it on at 6.45,
the BBC are giving the impression that it is a kids' show and a lot of ppl
who would enjoy it won't even give it the time of day.
All of
> this ranting and raving will not change the BBC's scheduling one iota -
> they've had *decades* of practice at pissing people off and they've
> faced the ire of bigger fan audiences than Buffy's (if you want to talk
> about real, lasting fan campaigns have a look at their treatment of
> Blake's 7, for instance, over a *long* period of time) and still done
> what they damn well liked in the end. That's because they're the BBC.
> And they *can*. And they'll do so again. British viewers option's remain
> what they've been since Buffy started; a) buy a satellite disc and watch
> the episodes uncut on Sky, b) get a friend in the states to tape them
> for you, c) buy the video's when they eventually come out or d) watch it
> on the BBC in cut form.
I fail to see what on earth Blakes 7 has to do with it. Like 99.99% of TV
series *ever* it ran for a number of seasons then it ended. Deal with it.
Enjoy the episodes by all means, but if TV companies listened to every
set of fans who wanted their favourite series brought back we'd still be
watching a load of series that were dropped in the 50s and 60s.
Any complaints about Buffy are a completely different thing. It comes down
to the BBC buying a series without any apparent appreciation of what that
series is about. The BBC seems to regard Buffy as being for kids because
the of the setting and the age of the characters. Whether it's *suitable*
for
kids is debatable, but it sure as hell isn't *for* kids.
The other problem is that because of the audience the BBC is pitching the
series at, it affects the show in other ways. You say that ppl can go and
buy
the videos. Yes, *maybe*. We'll get season 1 as a boxed set (unless bloody
Fox have changed their mind *again*) but after that it is really debatable,
and
depends big-time on the sales of the first box. By making at least a
sizeable
minority of the audience *young* teens and under, the BBC have put a decent
video release schedule in real jeopardy. It's bad enough that they stuff up
the
show on TV, but to stuff it up the videos for those of us who want to buy
the
videos is unforgiveable.
The other problem with the BBC's attitude that if you want to watch it uncut
then get Sky is that they're in serious danger of reducing their audience
even
more than it would reduce anyway. One day they might realise that driving
viewers into the arms of Sky is the quickest way of ensuring their eventual
demise as their audience drops to a point where the licence fee becomes
untenable.
> And, lest it be said that this is a one-sided argument, I'll also give
> you the BBC's additional response to "what are you doing with Buffy"; It
> goes something like this: "We've paid a lot of money to acquired this
> programme - we like it, we think it'll be a big hit - so we put it in a
> slot that similar programmes (like DS9 and Voyager) are shown in. And it
> got *reasonable* (and we'll put it no higher than that) ratings in this
> slot, but it did get a lot of positive viewer feedback.
Of course, the BBC *could* check the ratings for the first 17 episodes. Top
rated - WTTH and Witch (which was top). And what time did WTTH go out?
8pm. Whether Buffy would get many much more than 3-4 million at 9pm is
perhaps unlikely, at least for the first couple of seasons, but it was
barely
getting 2.5million by the end its run at 6.45, and if episodes get either
pulled
or majorly cut then the BBC are in serious danger of marginalising the show
completely. Keeping Buffy at 6.45 is the surest way of keeping an audience
with a large percentage of teenagers, and then the old "kids watch it so
we've
got to give them the chance to watch it" than Sky used to fall back on for
The
Simpsons or Xena is wheeled out for another outing.
Except a couple
> of hundred viewers who complained that we're cutting it. But, our
> research shows that most of the audience isn't made up of twenty-and-
> thirty-something fanboys with acne and smelly feet, but rather teenage
> girls who really like the show (for Angel, chiefly). Lots of them have
> written to us to tell us that." From the BBC's point of view Buffy
> fandom amounts to nothing more than a tiny percentage of the audience
> (what, 2%, if *that*).
> Whether that attitude is right or wrong is another matter, but
> the fact is, it *is*.
Yes, but you seem to be making rather broad generalisations here. It is
perfectly possible to be in your late teens, twenties or older and watch
Buffy without being a sad sci-fi anorak. Admittedly, a 6.45pm slot means
that the only viewers it will attract are kids who would normally watch
BBC2 at that time and those who have read about Buffy in the usual mags
- but even these can be objective viewers who watch a wide range of TV.
A 'normal' 20something viewer would probably not be watching BBC2 at
6.45 and even less so if they see the words "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
in the listings.
"Fandom" has nothing to do with it. One of the things that is great about
Buffy is that it is relatively free of the sort of "fandom" that
unfortunately
dominates too many other genre programmes.
Okay, so complaining to the BBC might not achieve anything. In fact, it
probably won't achieve anything. But not complaining is definitely not
going to achieve anything.
Cheers.
Carl
Planet Buffy: http://www.btvs.freeserve.co.uk
Bring Back Buffy Campaign: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/bbbuffy
Officially responsible for Buffy's ratings on Sky One
"Do you know what the last Xon said just before he died?
AAAAAARGH!!" - Londo Molari, the Parliament of Dreams
Carl
> >I tend to assume that they discriminate against it because it's American,
> >rather than aimed at a young audience. With a (very) few exceptions all
US
> >show get shown in crap time slots, whilst their own garbage gets shown at
> >prime time and in some cases twice in the same week.
> >
> True. Seinfeld is an absolute classic but it gets next to no viewers. I
> think it might be partly embarrasement that if they did show it at a
> decent slot people might realise the the home grown stuff is a waste of
> time. The only decent slot for an american series recently was the x-
> files and maybe Chicago hope. Going back Dallas/Dynasty got quite a good
> slot IIRC.
Well, the BBC's argument about the scheduling of Seinfeld (and Larry
Sanders for that matter, although the language there *might* have something
to do with that one) is that they appeal to the more intelligent type of
viewer
that watches Newsnight.
The sad thing about the BBC's schedules now is that there is a complete
aversion to show anything other than soaps, docusoaps and pre-watershed
comedy on BBC1 before the news and nothing other than factual-ish
magazine-type series on BBC2 between 7.30 and 9pm. The days when
BBC1 showed imports like (as Simon points out) Dallas and Dynasty in
primetime weekday slots and gets great ratings for them are long gone. I
can remember watching Star Trek on BBC1 in peaktime as a kid, but you'd
*never* get anything like that these days.
Peter Kleiweg
> Sometimes if you complain, you change things. Sometimes if you
> complain, you get a reputation for being a whinger and get
> your chocolate rations confiscated. It's up to the individual
> to decide which side of the barricade's they're on.
Didn't the BBC have two tv programs for viewer complaints? One
is Points of View, and the other BiteBack (?), were a studio
audience can discuss matters with program makers. Anyone try
their protests there?
--
Peter Kleiweg | P e t r o n o m i c o n |
e-mail: xl -> nl | http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg |
Guardian of Spike's Innocence, and his Dislike of Puppies
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cat got his tongue?
-- Ethan, The Dark Age
Keith
>Of course it's a good title Keith - I thought of it (g)
Sorry mate, nowt personal! I'll buy you dinner sometime, yes?!
>The BBC's actual response was "We're going to bury our heads in the sand and
>hope they go away!
What a surprise!
>As it turned out they are a seemingly impossible nut to crack (not helped by
>the fact that very few fans apart from the main campaign team really got
>behind the project.)
But you, of all people should know that Rob. The BBC is TOO BIG to take
on - and, unlike all US TV and all other British TV, it isn't driven
(entirely) by commercial concerns. A threat to one of the Independent
companies over lost revenue *may* bring some response - it seemed to get
some reaction at Sky for instance - but the BBC is an altogether more
big, difficult and unfathomable beast...
>It's just a shame that the majority of fans may end up seeing an emasculated
>version of a great show
I agree entirely. In an ideal world the BBC would have known what they
were buying from day one and would have treated it differently. But it
isn't, and they didn't...
Nobody ever said life was fair!
Keith
>It was a shovel. I am the queen of the nitpickers<g>
>> Sometimes if you complain, you change things. Sometimes if you complain,
>> you get a reputation for being a whinger and get your chocolate rations
>> confiscated. It's up to the individual to decide which side of the
>> barricade's they're on.
>I'm on the side which says don't give up before you've tried.
More power to yer elbow, then. I'm only concerned that there are things
that *can* be changed in the wide, wide world of TV companies, and
things that can't, and if you spend all your time chasing the dragon of
things that can't you're going to end up achieving *nothing*. And, as a
consequence, some of those who are valiantly writing their "annoyed of
Surbiton" letters to the Beeb will see the whole thing as a failure. If
you believe that the BBC are treating Buffy badly (and hell, yes they
damn well are, and it's *damn annoying* - I *am* aware of this), it's
your right (indeed, your *duty*) to say so. All I'm saying is don't
expect to change the mountain. Coz it ain't gonna happen.
Keith
>> If it's "children's television" it would be going out on CBBC before
>> 5.35pm. I think wherever this description has appeared (Cult Times, did
>> somebody say? Yeh, I'd trust *their* opinions about as far as I can spit
>> - Hi Ian! Hi Mark!) I think might be a case of somebody putting tow and
>> two together and coming up with nineteen...
>
>It was TV Zone actually (yeah I know, still VI but someone standing in the
>glass house of Dreamwatch can't exactly afford to throw stones either).
I once had a book of mine "reviewed" by somebody in *that magazine*, who
didn't even bother to read it properly, criticised aspects of the plot
as being unexplained that clearly *were* explained within it (so she
didn't understand it either) and, when Martin and I presented these
errors in her review in a right to reply letter, she was allowed to
reply to our reply (without our knowledge) within the pages of the
magazine itself in a sarcastic and dismissive (not to mention totally
unprofessional) manner. To such an extent that if I ever meet her, like
as not I'll chew her nose off. I haven't bought an issue since and
continue not to to this day even though two of my best friends work on
the magazine. I reserve the right to be bitter and twisted and childish
about this, thank you very much! :-)
If TV Zone stated that white was white I'd want a second opinion.
I *never*, *ever* "speak for" DreamWatch (a company that I am not
employed by, merely freelance for) officially or unofficially. That's
*grossly* unfair, Cally. My opinions as reflected on newsgroups and in
conversations (both virtual and personal) are my own - if you *ever* see
them presented as being an "official" one for any magazines, or
publishing company I've worked for (Guinness, Virgin or BBC Worldwide)
then you have my permission to shoot me in the head! A lot!
I write about Buffy for DreamWatch (and for Virgin for that matter) for
lots and lots of money, and because somebody's got to do it, so it might
as well be me. That's called being a professional writer. I talk about
Buffy online because I *love* the series, and want to share that love
with other people who do. That's called being a fan. The two are *not*
mutually incompatible - myself, Mark Wyman and Ian Atkins are all proof
of that. But they *have* to be separated at times.
>yes, I am aware that it may not be correct which is why I said "apparently".
I know that - and that's why I said "I think this *might* be..."
>The exact quote BTW is "For some extraordinary reason, Buffy The Vampire
>Slayer has also been classed a children's programme by the BBC, so expect
>cuts and omissions when the show returns to BBC2." This comes straight after
>the section where they've been talking about what is coming up in the new
>season on CBBC.
Well, as I probably should have said in my first reply, I'd like to see
*where* the BBC classify Buffy as a children's show, and in what context
it is described thus; if there's a BBC press release somewhere saying
"Top-rated children's show Buffy the Vampire Slayer..." then I'll be
both vocal and *angry* in my reaction to this since somebody within the
organisation clearly doesn't know what they're talking about - and the
left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing since the scheduling
department clearly don't regard Buffy as a children's programme, as seen
by its time of broadcast - see above; *no* "children's programmes" are
broadcast after 5.35 on the BBC (or ITV come to that) let alone in the
6.00 - 6.45 slot also populated by the Star Trek series.
If, on the other hand, we've got a statement from somebody
within the Beeb that Buffy the Vampire Slayer "is a show very popular
with children" ... 2+2=19 I'm afraid :-)
Keith
>I fail to see what on earth Blakes 7 has to do with it. Like 99.99% of TV
>series *ever* it ran for a number of seasons then it ended.
series that suffered from poor scheduling of exactly the kind that Buffy
is currently - being placed opposite Coronation Street during it's
fourth season, for instance - and a lesson to a new generation of TV
fans that all of shouting and complaining and saying "but how DARE you
do this to my favourite programme" in the world will not have *any*
effect within the BBC, even for a series with a 10-12 million audience
let alone 3 million as Buffy currently has (and a *much* bigger, and
*much* more vocal fandom). It wasn't anything to do with the series
being dropped (although that was another debate that ran, and ran, and
ran, and ran...)
A more recent example - and perhaps more pertinent to this discussion -
would be (an even more popular series) Casualty - which had its format
and its time slot change despite viewer *outrage*.
The point was, and is, the BBC do not take notice of fan groups -
organised or otherwise - because they are exactly that; a small minority
of the overall audience. They're not interested in what a few hundred
Buffy (capital F) fans think - they're (slightly) more interesting in
what the other 2.999999 million viewers (who probably don't *care* what
time it's on, and whether it's cut or not) tell them. Which seems to be
"we like this show, give us some more"....
>Yes, but you seem to be making rather broad generalisations here. It is
>perfectly possible to be in your late teens, twenties or older and watch
>Buffy without being a sad sci-fi anorak.
Well *obviously* - that's why this (fictious) statement was in inverted
comma's, because it was an invention...
Keith
"everything begins, and ends, at exactly the right place"
spooky
wrote:
> Keith
>
> "everything begins, and ends, at exactly the right place"
>
The BBC may be a big company and they may not be driven by commercial
concerns, but they still have to retain a certain audience share in
order to keep their license (think it's 30% or there about, but I cant
be sure. Ok, so even we all decided we were not going to watch the
BBC anymore as a point of protest they still would'nt drop below that
figure but the point is they are not all powerful enough to just
dismiss viewer complaints. The real problem here is that not enough
fans are bothered enough to complain, it's the same faithful few that
get involved every time.
As for campaigns on the whole being a bad idea, I got a reply from Sky
today, which was a bit long whinded to post here but theres an extract
which will help to convey my point:
We always listen to comments we get
from viewers on Buffy (that's one of the reasons we did the double
bill) so
if you have any suggestions, please pass them on to me.
I wonder if they would be so keen to here from fans if we had just sat
back and let them get away with pulling Buffy last year?
Cally
> I *never*, *ever* "speak for" DreamWatch (a company that I am not
> employed by, merely freelance for) officially or unofficially. That's
> *grossly* unfair, Cally. My opinions as reflected on newsgroups and in
> conversations (both virtual and personal) are my own - if you *ever* see
> them presented as being an "official" one for any magazines, or
> publishing company I've worked for (Guinness, Virgin or BBC Worldwide)
> then you have my permission to shoot me in the head! A lot!
OK, alright! <g> I can understand your personal reasons for being none too
happy with the VI titles now that you've explained why and I didn't mean to
imply that you were speaking on behalf of Dreamwatch. However, given that I
knew you have worked for them (even though it's a freelance thing) what you
said did sound a little 'me over here at a *much* better genre title who
don't make mistakes with their news' type thing and that smug attitude
(theirs not yours) is one of the things I find extremely off putting about
Dreamwatch. So OK, maybe it was my prejudice against the magazine which I
unintentionally transferred over onto you a little for which I apologise.
Cally
simon
<as...@moonheart.demon.co.uk> writes
>> campaign for fans to send postcards to the BBC highlighting nine things
>> from seasons two and three that they believe the BBC will not be able to
>> show in their current timeslot for Buffy (it's called "9 at 9" - trying
>> to get them to show it at 9pm, see) good title, bloody *silly* idea.
>
>
>You're rather out of date. We tried it, it failed but the point is we TRIED.
>Simon was flamed (although that is somewhat inaccurate) not because of his
>opinion - which he is perfectly entitled to - but because of the way he
>expressed it.
And that was how? No one commented on how I said it just what I said.
--
simon
John Rees
<kle...@let.rug.xl> wrote:
> Didn't the BBC have two tv programs for viewer complaints? One
> is Points of View,
showing their complete contempt for what the Licence Payers' opinion.
> and the other BiteBack (?), were a studio
> audience can discuss matters with program makers.
Which was shown once a month, again on a Sunday Afternoon, and the
discussions were so badly stage managed, as to be pointless.
--
"Like shooting flies with a laser cannon, the aims a bit tricky, but it certainly deals with the flies". Lord Miles Vorkosigan from "Komarr" by Lois McMaster Bujold.
e.mail - jw...@argonet.co.uk
Website - http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jwcr/
Lois McMaster Bujold UK Mailing List http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/LMB-UK
Keith
>The BBC may be a big company and they may not be driven by commercial
>concerns, but they still have to retain a certain audience share in
>order to keep their license (think it's 30% or there about, but I cant
>be sure. Ok, so even we all decided we were not going to watch the
>BBC anymore as a point of protest they still would'nt drop below that
>figure but the point is they are not all powerful enough to just
>dismiss viewer complaints.
At the risk of sounding like the pantomime villain I seem to be
becoming, "oh yes they are" - they do it all the time, what makes you
think they're going to treat *this* situation any differently to the
previous 94 fan-related mass protests?
As for boycotting the BBC - go ahead. They've already got your licence
fee, how much do you think they are bothered if you actually *watch*
their programmes? That one has also been tried before (by certain Doctor
Who fans after the 1985 cancellation crisis). But remember, boycotting
the BBC means *everything* - the news, match of the day, repeats of the
fast show, any films they're showing, the works - try it for a week and
see how far you get without your daily dose of eastenders!
Keith
>> I *never*, *ever* "speak for" DreamWatch (a company that I am not
>> employed by, merely freelance for) officially or unofficially. That's
>> *grossly* unfair, Cally. My opinions as reflected on newsgroups and in
>> conversations (both virtual and personal) are my own - if you *ever* see
>> them presented as being an "official" one for any magazines, or
>> publishing company I've worked for (Guinness, Virgin or BBC Worldwide)
>> then you have my permission to shoot me in the head! A lot!
>
>OK, alright! <g> I can understand your personal reasons for being none too
>happy with the VI titles
of salt! As previously stated there are good, intelligent, truthful
individuals (known to both of us) who work there - it's just I would
always take their "news" section with an equally large pinch of salt
because they have a long record of being, shall we say, less than 100%
accurate with their stories. Maybe only 95% accurate, but an inch is as
good as a mile when you're dealing with the kind of information that
we're discussing.
In the meantime, I shall be asking one of my sources within VI to try
and find out the exact comment that has caused Totally Vacant Zone to
publish this startling revelation, what was the context in which it was
said, and to whom. Like I say, if it turns out to be accurate then
*I'll* be in the front of the queue of "Angry of St. Anthony's Estate"
writing to the director general, asking what the hell they are playing
at. Not that my voice will carry any louder than anybody else's and in
the full knowledge that it will just get a standard reply, but as you
said yesterday, there *are* some things worth fighting for. And that's
one of them.
Oh, just while I think about it, "standard replies" - the question has
been raised several times about people writing in to the Beeb about
Buffy and being given the same reply as somebody who wrote in two months
ago. As anybody who works in a large organisation will know if a letter
is sent in concerned some aspect of policy a reply will be drafted, and
kept and filed in a file marked "policy questions [specific, BtVS]". If
a second letter arrives (followed by a further 283...!) which, whilst
asking different specific questions still broadly covers the same
general topic, then the original reply will be used as a template of
basic paragraphs outlining the companies policy towards this particular
aspect, with, perhaps one additional paragraph to deal with the specific
points raised (sometimes not even that). This seems to be what's
happening with the BBC with regard to Buffy - they've got a standard
reply and are sending it out. It still amazes me that people are
actually *surprised* by this. *Any* large organisation - from Railtrack
and the Department of Health, through to The Mirror Group and AA
Insurance have neither the time nor the ability to answer every single
letter of comment, or complaint they get with an individual reply to
ever point raise. Again, that's perhaps another reason to seriously
consider whether it's worth it when you're ready to fire off your "What
the hell are you doing with Buffy?" letters. They'll tell you, in very
general terms, just as they've told the last 50 people that wrote, in
very general terms -and the replies will be *remarkably* similar.
Sorry, that was a diversion it's just that I know somebody on
this thread had expressed astonishment that his or her reply from the
BBC had been so similar to another standard reply that was doing the
rounds a month or two back.
>now that you've explained why and I didn't mean to
>imply that you were speaking on behalf of Dreamwatch. However, given that I
>knew you have worked for them (even though it's a freelance thing) what you
>said did sound a little 'me over here at a *much* better genre title who
>don't make mistakes with their news' type thing and that smug attitude
>(theirs not yours) is one of the things I find extremely off putting about
>Dreamwatch.
I'm not involved *at all* in the news gathering at DreamWatch - there's
a completely separate team involved in that from the feature writers,
and reviewers. I will say, in the magazine's defence (as I'm bound to),
that DreamWatch had never, to the best of my knowledge, published a news
report that was subsequently discovered to be erroneous or factually
inaccurate - at least, not since Paul Simpson took over as editor a
couple of years back (before that, they did it *all the time*!)
>So OK, maybe it was my prejudice against the magazine which I
>unintentionally transferred over onto you a little for which I apologise.
Cheerfully accepted :-)
simon
nkyou.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>simon <si...@wezland.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> >I tend to assume that they discriminate against it because it's American,
>> >rather than aimed at a young audience. With a (very) few exceptions all
>US
>> >show get shown in crap time slots, whilst their own garbage gets shown at
>> >prime time and in some cases twice in the same week.
>> >
>> True. Seinfeld is an absolute classic but it gets next to no viewers. I
>> think it might be partly embarrasement that if they did show it at a
>> decent slot people might realise the the home grown stuff is a waste of
>> time. The only decent slot for an american series recently was the x-
>> files and maybe Chicago hope. Going back Dallas/Dynasty got quite a good
>> slot IIRC.
>
>
>Well, the BBC's argument about the scheduling of Seinfeld (and Larry
>Sanders for that matter, although the language there *might* have something
>to do with that one) is that they appeal to the more intelligent type of
>viewer
>that watches Newsnight.
Hmm, they didn't have that problem in the US though. Do you like
newsnight? It just seems very formal rather than informative. Maybe they
should put it on after panarama, horizon or QED.
BBC 1 has become a no go zone for me and anything decent gets put on BBC
2. It still seems that people just won't watch anything on BBC2 for some
reason.
--
simon
simon
>Keith skriver...
>
>> Sometimes if you complain, you change things. Sometimes if you
>> complain, you get a reputation for being a whinger and get
>> your chocolate rations confiscated. It's up to the individual
>> to decide which side of the barricade's they're on.
>
>audience can discuss matters with program makers. Anyone try
>their protests there?
>
propoganda machine than anything effective. When someone complains they
usually get an explination rather than a reformation.
--
simon
simon
<ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> writes
>But remember, boycotting
>the BBC means *everything* - the news, match of the day, repeats of the
>fast show, any films they're showing, the works - try it for a week and
>see how far you get without your daily dose of eastenders!
Actually, aside from match of the day I don't watch any BBC1 with the
exception of Neighbours and I could live with out it quite easily. BBC2
is different (but only just). Now I couldn't boycot paramount or Ch4
--
simon
simon
<ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> writes
>Oh, just while I think about it, "standard replies" - the question has
>been raised several times about people writing in to the Beeb about
>Buffy and being given the same reply as somebody who wrote in two months
>ago. As anybody who works in a large organisation will know if a letter
>is sent in concerned some aspect of policy a reply will be drafted, and
>kept and filed in a file marked "policy questions [specific, BtVS]". If
>a second letter arrives (followed by a further 283...!) which, whilst
>asking different specific questions still broadly covers the same
>general topic, then the original reply will be used as a template of
>basic paragraphs outlining the companies policy towards this particular
>aspect, with, perhaps one additional paragraph to deal with the specific
>points raised (sometimes not even that). This seems to be what's
>happening with the BBC with regard to Buffy - they've got a standard
>reply and are sending it out. It still amazes me that people are
>actually *surprised* by this.
Me too, It seems on the list that there were a handful of posts a week
saying "I e-mailed the BBC and I got the same reply as everyone else".
So I asked what is the point in just repeating what was already known?
Do you say to your friends "The newspaper was still 30p today" everyday?
--
simon
David M. Sueme
wrote:
> So, it is now official, the BBC thinks that "Buffy the Vampire
>Slayer" is a children's programme.
BufLite, perhaps?
Sometimes I suspect that there must be mineral deposits near London
which attract all the "sense" in the entire universe.
Dave
Keith
>>But remember, boycotting
>>the BBC means *everything* - the news, match of the day, repeats of the
>>fast show, any films they're showing, the works - try it for a week and
>>see how far you get without your daily dose of eastenders!
>
>Actually, aside from match of the day I don't watch any BBC1 with the
>exception of Neighbours and I could live with out it quite easily. BBC2
>is different (but only just). Now I couldn't boycot paramount or Ch4
No more top of the pops, no more grandstand, no more radio 1, 2, 3, 4 or
5live, or local radio, or UK Gold...
It's a big list...
Fraxis
Keith wrote:
> Fraxis <fra...@globalnet.co.uk> writes
> >Of course it's a good title Keith - I thought of it (g)
> Oh, fuck! Really???!
>
> Sorry mate, nowt personal! I'll buy you dinner sometime, yes?!
I'll settle for a new Buffy Chuppa Chups lolipop if you can find one <g>
>
>
> >The BBC's actual response was "We're going to bury our heads in the sand and
> >hope they go away!
> What a surprise!
>
> >As it turned out they are a seemingly impossible nut to crack (not helped by
> >the fact that very few fans apart from the main campaign team really got
> >behind the project.)
> But you, of all people should know that Rob. The BBC is TOO BIG to take
> on - and, unlike all US TV and all other British TV, it isn't driven
> (entirely) by commercial concerns. A threat to one of the Independent
> companies over lost revenue *may* bring some response - it seemed to get
> some reaction at Sky for instance - but the BBC is an altogether more
> big, difficult and unfathomable beast...
>
> >It's just a shame that the majority of fans may end up seeing an emasculated
> >version of a great show
> I agree entirely. In an ideal world the BBC would have known what they
> were buying from day one and would have treated it differently. But it
> isn't, and they didn't...
>
> Nobody ever said life was fair!
It didn't seem such a huge mountain to climbe compared with, say, getting Doctor
Who back - after all it doesn't cost the Beeb anything to show Buffy two and a
quarter hours later and think of all the money they'd save by not hiring a VT
editor for theafternoon every week <g>.
Bottom line is that they won't and that is probably that. Any devious
suggestions would be welcomed however!
Rob
>
>
> Keith
>
> "everything begins, and ends, at exactly the right place"
--
Keith
>Bottom line is that they won't and that is probably that. Any devious
>suggestions would be welcomed however!
Murder might help.
Actually, it probably wouldn't, but it'd be a good laugh...
Keith -- Net Day 1370/Post USA 182/Post France Day 15
Fraxis
as a crazed Buffy fan picking of the scheduling staff one by one using
set pieces from the series <g>
Rob
Keith wrote:
--
Skeeter
<37bd1725...@news.ais.net>...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 21:15:50 BST, John Rees <jw...@argonet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > So, it is now official, the BBC thinks that "Buffy the Vampire
> >Slayer" is a children's programme.
>
> BufLite, perhaps?
If so, why do you continue to watch?
Go ahead and confess; you only liked the ReelBuffy because of Paul
Rubens...
> Sometimes I suspect that there must be mineral deposits near London
> which attract all the "sense" in the entire universe.
Nope, just "crop circles".
Skeeter
simon
<ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> writes
>simon <si...@wezland.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>But remember, boycotting
>>>the BBC means *everything* - the news, match of the day, repeats of the
>>>fast show, any films they're showing, the works - try it for a week and
>>>see how far you get without your daily dose of eastenders!
>>
>>Actually, aside from match of the day I don't watch any BBC1 with the
>>exception of Neighbours and I could live with out it quite easily. BBC2
>>is different (but only just). Now I couldn't boycot paramount or Ch4
>
>No more top of the pops,
Don't watch
> no more grandstand,
I'm at work
> no more radio 1, 2, 3, 4 or
>5live,
5live can be good but I haven't listened for ages
> or local radio,
They had TMBG on the bob mills show on GLR so that's on good think
> or UK Gold...
>
Not a bbc station.
--
simon
Keith
>> or UK Gold...
>Not a bbc station.
The BBC owns (or at least owned when it was set up) 30 - 40% of UK Gold
along with its partners Thames and the Pearson Group (who own Granada) -
this situation may be different now, but the station's output is still
approximately 75% BBC or BBC co-production series, serials and one-offs.
And, if you're boycotting the BBC...
No more newsnight, no more dalziel and pascoe, no more goodness gracious
me, no more neighbours, no more x-files (unless you watch it on sky) ...
and, of course, no more buffy...
Like I say, anybody who wants to try boycotting the BBC, go ahead, but I
think you'll find that your protest will have little effect to the final
outcome (which is that the BBC'll do whatsoever they want, as they
always do).
Keith
Keith
>I can see it now - the new series of Murder Most Horrid with Dawn French
>as a crazed Buffy fan picking of the scheduling staff one by one using
>set pieces from the series <g>
Sarah'd have to get on the "100%-lard diet" for a few months first...
Carl
> simon <si...@wezland.demon.co.uk> writes
> >> or UK Gold...
> >Not a bbc station.
>
> The BBC owns (or at least owned when it was set up) 30 - 40% of UK Gold
> along with its partners Thames and the Pearson Group (who own Granada) -
> this situation may be different now, but the station's output is still
> approximately 75% BBC or BBC co-production series, serials and one-offs.
> And, if you're boycotting the BBC...
>
I actually thought that BBC Worldwide's stake in UK Gold was closer to 20%
And unless things have changed from the last time I watched a Thames series
it is Thames that is owned Pearson and not Granada. Flextech is, or at
least was until recently, the largest shareholder IIRC.
Carl
simon
<ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> writes
>simon <si...@wezland.demon.co.uk> writes
>>> or UK Gold...
>>Not a bbc station.
>
>The BBC owns (or at least owned when it was set up) 30 - 40% of UK Gold
>along with its partners Thames and the Pearson Group (who own Granada) -
>this situation may be different now, but the station's output is still
>approximately 75% BBC or BBC co-production series, serials and one-offs.
>And, if you're boycotting the BBC...
it doesn't really matter. IF you were boycotting the BBC it would only
count if they were the sole owners or at least more than 50%.
>
>No more newsnight, no more dalziel and pascoe, no more goodness gracious
>me, no more neighbours, no more x-files (unless you watch it on sky) ...
>and, of course, no more buffy...
>
>Like I say, anybody who wants to try boycotting the BBC, go ahead, but I
>think you'll find that your protest will have little effect to the final
>outcome (which is that the BBC'll do whatsoever they want, as they
>always do).
>
I'm effectivly boycotting them anyway. I won't watch until they start
making decent programs
--
simon
Carl
> >been raised several times about people writing in to the Beeb about
> >Buffy and being given the same reply as somebody who wrote in two months
> >ago. As anybody who works in a large organisation will know if a letter
> >is sent in concerned some aspect of policy a reply will be drafted, and
> >kept and filed in a file marked "policy questions [specific, BtVS]". If
> >a second letter arrives (followed by a further 283...!) which, whilst
> >asking different specific questions still broadly covers the same
> >general topic, then the original reply will be used as a template of
> >basic paragraphs outlining the companies policy towards this particular
> >aspect, with, perhaps one additional paragraph to deal with the specific
> >points raised (sometimes not even that). This seems to be what's
> >happening with the BBC with regard to Buffy - they've got a standard
> >reply and are sending it out. It still amazes me that people are
> >actually *surprised* by this.
>
> saying "I e-mailed the BBC and I got the same reply as everyone else".
> So I asked what is the point in just repeating what was already known?
> Do you say to your friends "The newspaper was still 30p today" everyday?
I don't think people were actually *surprised* by it. Annoyed yes,
surprised
not really. What annoyed people about the standard reply is that even if
you
address the points in the BBC's standard reply - e.g. pointing out that if
6.45 isn't a kids' slot why do programmes shown then also crop up on
Saturday mornings (which definitely *is* a kids' slot) - you still get the
same
reply the BBC were giving out ten months ago.
Apart from anyone who is really naive, no-one would expect the BBC to give
an individual reply, but when the comments being made have moved on from
a simple "please don't show Buffy at 6pm", merely repeating the same thing
you did last October gives the impression that you're not paying any
attention to what people are saying. Since we all have to pay the licence
fee, that sort of behaviour is just insulting. Maybe they won't move Buffy,
but
they could at least pretend they've actually read people's letters and
e-mails.
Carl
valcomp
I fink if you don´t want your kids to watch it´s simple turn
the TV off .
Sorry for the compare , but you fink like those pepole that
fink they can control what goes on the web .
I fink if you don´t want your kids to watch they don´t watch
but it´s wrong , because if they don´t see at home they go
to the street and buy a mag and read all about it wrost or
better .
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John Rees
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 21:15:50 BST, John Rees <jw...@argonet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > So, it is now official, the BBC thinks that "Buffy the Vampire
> >Slayer" is a children's programme.
>
> BufLite, perhaps?
>
> which attract all the "sense" in the entire universe.
>
Tell me Mr. Sueme, where you born stupid, or do you get up early in
the morning and practice?
David G Misner
> Tell me Mr. Sueme, where you born stupid, or do you get up early
in
> the morning and practice?
That statement is SO stupid it is not even funny. Nobody practices to be
stupid
it would be like practicing everyday to be a bad piano player :)
David
Hanneke
valcomp said:
>Hi .
>I fink if you don´t want your kids to watch it´s simple turn
>the TV off .
>Sorry for the compare , but you fink like those pepole that
>fink they can control what goes on the web .
>I fink if you don´t want your kids to watch they don´t watch
>but it´s wrong , because if they don´t see at home they go
>to the street and buy a mag and read all about it wrost or
>better .
Um, yes, but I don't think that's the point here. I've got an 10-year old
completely hooked on Buffy, and a 7-year old who thinks Buffy is cool and
Angel is cute <g>, and since the both of them never experienced any problems
whatsoever with 'scary' things they see on tv, and -more important- because
I don't think the 'message' in Buffy is 'wrong' or something, I allow them
to watch it. And AFAIK, Buffy isn't cut over here.
Which doesn't mean I consider Buffy a series for children.
*I*, personally, or rather, me and my husband <g> do *censor*. There are a
couple of soap series aired on Dutch tv that I will *not* allow my kids to
watch, and even some cartoons on the kids' channel, not because of violence
or sex or whatever, but because they portray people who *seem* to be
realistic (re)acting in unrealistic ways in / to events that *seem* to be
realistic but in fact are part of particucarly lousy plots.
:)
In my experience, children will not watch anything that's beyond their age
and comprehension. Both of my children like Voyager, and dislike Babylon 5
(which is shown on Saturday afternoons), and the 7-year old isn't interested
in SAAB or the Pretender, whilst the 10-year old *does* watch.
OTOH, they were *both* completely obsessed with the Power Rangers when it
still aired (and the four of us even went to see the PR *live* on stage,
which was *big* fun for all four of us :)), and if it wasn't for Yorick
(yeah, he's the one that actually owns the email address <g>), I would've
never had discovered the absolute brilliance of 'Teknoman'.
Um, what I'm trying to say is that tv series -except for things like the
Teletubbies and The Red Shoe Diaries :))- usually are made for *people*, not
for adults *or* children. Kids *are* people. If the BBC thinks Buffy is
purely meant for kids, then that's a stupid attitude, but if our Net5 would
decide it was an *adult* show and schedule it past bed-time, well, that
wouldn't be a problem, since I'd tape it anyway, so *my* kids would still be
watching it. :)
Geez, I'm rambling, am I not? Anyway, IMO, the fact that the BBC states
Buffy's a kids' show isn't anything to get all upset about. The fact that
they *cut*, yes, that's something that would get me complaining. But feeling
insulted because you're obviously enjoying something that's considered
appropriate for people younger than you is just as daft. I remember my
parents being as enthusiastic as I was when watching Pippi Longstocking
(waaaay back), *and* I remember staying up late because I was allowed to
watch The Avengers (also waaay back), and those are pretty good memories.
:)))
Er, I'm not certain whether I *did* make a point. Um. The point I was
heading for is 'What's the point?' <g>
Hanneke
BTW: Valcom, it's 'think', not 'fink'. And if you're doing it on purpose,
please don't. You're confusing all us foreign people. :))
David M. Sueme
wrote:
> Tell me Mr. Sueme, where you born stupid, or do you get up early in
>the morning and practice?
I get up very late in the morning with a splitting pain in my head.
It is your spelling that causes it.
Was'ya born ignorant? Of course you were - and for some reason
nothing changed.
Dave
David M. Sueme
<beyo...@proinet.net> wrote:
>
>> Tell me Mr. Sueme, where you born stupid, or do you get up early
>in
>> the morning and practice?
>
>That statement is SO stupid it is not even funny. Nobody practices to be
>stupid
But I suspect some practice that sort of spelling and grammar. And I
applaud their efforts!
Dave
higgy
> me, no more neighbours, no more x-files (unless you watch it on sky) ...
> and, of course, no more buffy...
Dalziel & Pascoe? You threw that in as a joke, right?
Dave.
Keith
>> No more newsnight, no more dalziel and pascoe, no more goodness gracious
>> me, no more neighbours, no more x-files (unless you watch it on sky) ...
>> and, of course, no more buffy...
>Dalziel & Pascoe? You threw that in as a joke, right?
None of these examples made any reference at all to *quality*, I was
merely talking about programmes that get *huge* viewing figures - I
personally can't stand 'Neighbours' (or 'Goodness Gracious Me' for that
matter - I really can't see what every body else finds so hilariously
funny in it) but all of the above, and all of those previously mentioned
are either critically acclaimed or massively popular with viewers. Or
both.
higgy
> None of these examples made any reference at all to *quality*, I was
> merely talking about programmes that get *huge* viewing figures - I
> personally can't stand 'Neighbours' (or 'Goodness Gracious Me' for that
> matter - I really can't see what every body else finds so hilariously
> funny in it) but all of the above, and all of those previously mentioned
> are either critically acclaimed or massively popular with viewers. Or
> both.
I do apologise, but don't be knocking Neighbours. It's the only soap I *can*
stand (some of the time).
Dave.
simon
<Da...@higton.freeserve.co.uk> writes
--
simon
higgy
> >I do apologise, but don't be knocking Neighbours. It's the only soap I
*can*
> >stand (some of the time).
> >
> Please let that be a joke. It's a shell of it's former self.
Kym Valentine. That's all I have to say (and that should be all I need to
say).
Dave.
simon
<Da...@higton.freeserve.co.uk> writes
characters on there.
--
simon