@@sweiland75 hahaha did you watch Russell’s version of Doctor Who in 2005-2009? Far, far more progressive messaging than anything being done at the moment! He was just better at layering it into the stories! I’m not sure what you mean by a “BBC woke agenda” to be honest. 😂
@@harryhill783 yeah, it's not about the politics, it's about the way you layer it into the stories. RTD did it spectacularly and likely will again, Chibnall just writes long political speeches for the Doctor to deliver like she's running for office or something.
I hate to say iy, but there is no recue from this dumpsterfire unless you go to the Dallas solution and have a Regen in a shower and Capaldi walk out going.. I'm never doing shrooms again..
@@TheSmart-CasualGamer really. Well something has changed since I lived in UK because they used to send debt collectors dressed up as ‘TV Licensing enforcement officers’ round the streets in silly vans with fake antennas on the roof to pretend they were monitoring non-payers. They would go to people’s doors and bully them if they didn’t have a tv licence
TV License is worthless. Public TV is full of channel hopping and the gamble that you will find anything worth watching. When you see a show you want to watch, you get a subscription to Netflix or Disney+ or whatever and you enjoy it. When you're done, you unsubscribe until you want it again.
Netflix isn't too bad, but it'll definitely become more like HBO than Netflix. But Russel's larger point of News, Radio, soaps, original programming, we'd lose so much going private. Some people may think it getting that bad will make people outraged and it'll either not happen or immediately be undone, but it's rare that works out. It's far more likely that's just what the BBC becomes and some of us stick around and some of us move.
Netflix can't even compare to HBO when it comes to quality. Can u imagine Netflix doing a show like OZ with it's nudity or Rome/GoT with it's budget? Netflix does 2-3 decent/good shows a year mixed in with a lot of garbage
@@zizek4630 That's the only one that was decent. Look at all the amazing stuff HBO had. Sopranos, Oz, The Wire, Sex and the City, GoT, Deadwood, Six Feet Under, Boardwalk Empire, Succession, BoB, Tales Of The Crypt, Dream On, Arliss, Larry Sanders Show... Hbo was always known for quality adult content while Netflix is just a rent a content service that started doing shows/movies lots of them with questionable quality.
Dear God I miss this man as a showrunner! In his shows there was emotion, there was sincerity, there was commitment, there was seriousness and depth of tone. He wasn't scared to put an episode that had a 12 rating on a show meant for kids and he had no problem writing a show for adults like Years and Years and he had just as little issues with writing "Wizards vs aliens" which was clearly meant mainly for kids, despite the low budgets and unconvincing costumes and badly aged CGI, I have never seen an episode from a show, written by this man that never had me not feeling deeply for the characters and clutching at the endge of my seats on more than one occasion because of the tension and the suspense, which more than made up for whatever lacking and "soap drama" in his shows. Maybe it was the music, the quality of the script, the empathy he inspired in his writings, the originality, the multi-dimensional and multi-layered aspects of the shows, or maybe he was just simply not a stupidly obsessed with whimsical entertainment value showrunner, but he is the best showrunner the BBC has had for quite a while now, for me. I was in tears at the end of "Years and Years" and in his final Dr who episode. This man is deeply committed to being a good BBC showrunner and should be respected.
@@ItsArcticVision Except will RTD continue to push the BBCs current Woke agenda or will he bring Doctor who back to the glory days of when he was last showrunner?
@@sweiland75 Now that is the question! Chibs still has another season and several specials to release before then, it will be interesting to see whats left by the time RTD takes over!
@@sweiland75 RTDs doctor who was more woke than the current era and the third doctors era is probably more woke than both of them combined, the problem with the show is not that its woke, it has been since the 60s, the problem is just that the writing is bad
I listen to the BBC for the Shipping Forecast. "Viking, Fisher , Dogger. Moderate to Good". They used to call you "And that Gent;lemen, is the shipping forcast" but they can't do hat anymore - something to do with the Bechtel Test. All them old salts gathered round the wireless in the wheelhouse of a pitching trawler, chewing on pipes, with the ocean spray lashing at the ol'portholes there, beating in time to "Sailing By" & the Captain Pugwash theme ... Yo ho Me Hearties n tha'
@@mrbubbles6468 I agree in concept, however there is undeniably a portion of fanbases (Dr Who being no exception) that use that line of argument as an excuse to try and pivot towards “politics shouldn’t be involved at all” which, aside from being a complete non-sequitur, is such a regressive mindset when it comes to fantasy writing
My issue with the whole argument of "make it a voluntary subscription and they will have to improve to get the customers" argument is it would absolutely result in more homogenised content appealing to the lowest common denominator. Reality shows are incredibly popular so that would make lots of money but I would rather stare at a wall than any variation on love Island. Long running shows would also go by the wayside as Netflix etc rarely go past a season 3 of anything because you've stopped pulling in enough new customers by then. And lest we forget Netflix recently did a reality show set around TikTok stars living in a house togrther. The way I see our best case scenario is BBC turns into ITV and I don't think that's anyone's idea of a good time
@@mrbubbles6468 I would argue the reason is more likely by season 3 you already have the majority of the subscribers that the show is going to pull. The monetisation scheme is based on growth so if you're not pulling new subscribers youre more valued as a loss
The subscription model for almost every network/service is utter shite. And a tv channel will never be like Netflix because its not supposed to be, so those comparisons are useless. Sky? Awful value for money and every year they rejig the channels in each package making it nearly impossible to downgrade. Our license fee also covers access for the other main channels too. Its a bargain for what you get.
It's only a bargain if you use it and I don't use it anymore. They have killed anything I had an interest in except for one programme and the license fee isn't worth one programme
@@BlackwaterBowes They've had to make deep budget cuts and 'kill' certain aspects of their output because the government have been gradually withdrawing their funding for years. This is how the govt work: neglect the BBC, then use the public's distaste at a reduced quality of service as an excuse to sack the whole thing off.
@@benclarke299 It's what they're doing to the NHS too. Pretty soon, government'll be collecting taxes just so they can pay contractors to do a worse job for a higher price, just like the US government does. And their taxes are astronomically higher than ours. I tell you, if these conmen are allowed to stay in parliament, the average person on the street will lose everything and then get shaken down for what little he has left. The invisible hand of the free market will choke us all.
A subscription service for the beeb would be a tragedy. However, as a publically-funded service, they have a responsibility to actually represent and deliver content that the public wants. The reason there is so much agitation to get rid of the license fee is that the BBC has become corrupted and the majority of the public don't feel represented by it. On top of this, the quality of the programs being produced is pretty disgraceful with Doctor Who, ironically, being the most prominent and most egregious example. If the BBC got their act together and put out good content that the public can get behind, rather than propagandistic drivel which panders to upper class, privileged woke people's sensibilities, then the BBC will be able to avoid meeting the subscription service fate.
I agree, the obvious political messaging in something that’s meant to be for everyone is one of their greatest downfalls. Unless they fix it it’s fucked. Also can someone tell chibnall to calm the fuck down with who, he’s continuously causing controversy that he knows will be controversial, like bruh stop and focus on the story rather then some half arsed twist no one asked for.
@@tomimpala Which bit? The BBC needs to lose the license fee so they get back to what they should have been doing and not all that uncreative rubbish and ignoring the public they're supposed to be making stuff for. The sooner they do the sooner they have to start making good stuff that will make people WANT to subscribe to them instead of being forced to by a legislation that has outlived its usefulness.
i don't get his argument. how does using a similar business model mean that both services would have the exact same kind of content? for example, chick fil a and mcdonalds are both fast food restaurants, but the type and quality of the food is drastically different.
There was a pro-privatisation argument being made that compared the BBC to services like HBO, and Russell is rightly pointing out that the BBC as it is vastly outstrips what HBO offers for about the same fee and thus in reality the comparision actually shows how much better a Public funding model is.
@@pennie2387 thanks, i get where his argument is coming from now. the problem i have is that the argument he's addressing is already flawed for the reasons i stated before, so that doesn't mean the opposite is true (the content WILL suck) if he debunks their argument. i think it's very probable that if the bbc was funded like hbo is, the content type and quality would likely be very different compared to hbo, since there are many, many other factors other than how they are funded that affect that.
Alright so I feel his pain, but. Big but. I was entering the radio broadcast industry in high school around 1995 and while I was really into it, the man who mentored me said not to even bother. Analog is giving way to digital and as much as people loved that era of radio, as much as people depended on the local broadcast for news and events, it was doomed to die and it did. Television, the way we have always known it, is not compatible with this future that we're all nurturing. Its simple really, we just don't have time for this shit.
Well the BBC didn't start as a TV thing, it was originally a radio broadcaster and it adapted. Today it does all kinds of stuff, it publishes magazines, it does TV, it has online on demand stuff, radio, podcasts, it has a symphony orchestra, it releases recorded music, it does original research. All kinds of stuff. Whether you think TV is on the way out or not, that doesn't mean that there will be no need for a public service institution in this new world.
The problem with the BBC becoming funded by adverts is that it will not be able to make the public service programming that it makes now, as it will not be profitable. Look at ITV, who have dumped all religious programming, axed nearly all regional shows except for regional news. Have merged regional news programmes to save money. BBC with adverts will also be the last thing ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 or Sky want, as it will hoover up commercial money which they all use. So, a BBC with adverts is simply a non starter.
Why do you think one of the reasons was he would come back to Dr. Who because he feels that show must be protected from the Tory government who have openly mocks Doctor Who in the house of Parliament by saying it causes stabbings that is why he must have come back because when the BBC goes so do some of the programs
The problem with the BBC becoming funded by adverts is that it will not be able to make the public service programming that it makes now, as it will not be profitable. Look at ITV, who have dumped all religious programming, axed nearly all regional shows except for regional news. Have merged regional news programmes to save money. BBC with adverts will also be the last thing ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 or Sky want, as it will hoover up commercial money which they all use. So, a BBC with adverts is simply a non starter.
@@rossthesauceboss If they want people to subscribe then the exact opposite has to happen. That's why this is necessary if it means going abck to the 70's style of Dr Who where they had to make ends meet so story over expensive effects then thats what they have to do but the story is ultimately more important so they want viewers then make the stuff they want to see rather than the crap Chibs have been foisting on everybody!
@@rossthesauceboss What the hell are you talking about? I’m sorry but the 70s has some of the best Doctor Who stories in not only the classic series but the entire series.
@@rossthesauceboss And I have no nostalgia goggles, I’m 17. I’ve been watching these over the years as I’ve absolutely despised the Whitaker era. And some of my absolute favourite doctor who stories are in that period. Inferno, Genesis, Talons, City of Death. There’s so many good stories lmao.
The problem that the Tories have with the BBC and NHS is that theres all this cash going into them , but theres no real profit margins being generated that they and their friends can fill their accounts with , when the last licence fee was being negotiated , the Tory minister that was doing the negotiation was heard talking to friends or other ministers and telling them that there was millions to be made with the BBC for the person that got in there first , when it was privatised , and that is why the people that call for the privatisation of the BBC are Sky , the Sun , the Murdoch family , because they want their hands on the back catalogue that the BBC has for their own networks , the Tories , because they and their backers want the cash that can be made selling everything off , but nobody thinks about what happens after its privatised , more soaps , more foriegn programs because there will not be the money to make their own , no sports of any kind because they will not have the cash to win the rights to broadcast them , no original content because , again , there will not be the cash to wait while they build a following to a program like they did to so many historically famous programs that were slow to find an audience , but ended up as must see programs after a season or two
The BBC could help themselves massively by curbing the salaries paid to ‘top talent’ like Gary Lineker. And if the likes of David Dimbleby truly believe that the unique business model of the BBC is so important, perhaps they could show that by working for less money.
Own opinion now but the trouble with these sorts of arguments is that the one's who are accused of being naysayers or any other negative connotations are quite often the one's who are not only telling you the truth but are basically telling you how things actually are and giving strong advisory warnings about going down certain trajectories. The sad truth is that with some of these subscription services you may well pay what you may call a decent monthly price but what is it that you're actually getting for it?
Choice. The BBC makes people in the UK pay for it under threat of heavy fines and court time. It's not the same. Comparing it to quality like HBO is laughable.
Yet again, he ‘forgets’ that you have to pay the BBC AS WELL. To watch ANY live as broadcast TV, on top of the HBO subscription. And BBC is almost all repeats.
I think he forgets that most people with a TV License have not actually been able to see a lot of good shows because they're either sharing a time slot with something else on another channel or they're busy. Sure there's on demand... which is shown to be unreliable and riddled with annoying adverts that no one wants to have to sit through.
I'm afraid i just don't like the BBC's modern output. It all seemed to go crap three or four years ago. Go back four or so years ago and it wasn't too bad. These days I feel aggrieved that i have to pay for crap like Years and Years or post 2005 Doctor Who even though it holds no interest for me. And it doesn't help to prove his case that at one point he cites Holly W and Philip Sc as a reason to keep the BBC. I thought they were ITV ... Finally, most proposals I have seen for a subsciption based BBC seem to say keep a public service arrangement in place for a News Channel but you don't have to fund all the crap the BBC churn out thru a licence fee just because they provide some things that genuinely fulfill some public good duties.
to be fair, Phil and Holly have both worked for the BBC early in their careers, the presenters they are today are certainly affected by what they learnt at the BBC. so though might not be the point he was directly making, it does actually prove his case.
You make a good point that people could fund elements of the BBC, but then we lose out on Opera and other smaller stuff that larger crowds either don't know about or aren't interested in. Also, in the landscape of TV, four years is nothing. Why wouldn't it go back to being something you're interested in? The BBC doesn't stop making new dramas, literally all of them don't appeal to you or will ever appeal to you, and there's nothing new on the horizon in the future you'd think you'd like? Think it through.
And the stuff they refuse to cover like the BLM riots from what a year or so ago or false reporting events when it serves their leftist viewpoint instead of the unbiased reporting they should be doing?
I don’t want the BBC to lose its public funding because it might improve, but because I don’t watch it anymore. It’s like being forced to pay for a Sky subscription I don’t want.
You pay income tax for a huge amount of services you never ever use. People pay for the NHS and never ever use it. People pay for the fire brigade but never need it. Pay for the police, but never ever have to call them in their lives. You see what I mean??
I just won't pay for the subscription fee then, I can get all my news and weather like I have always been doing for the last 10 years, from my phone. As for soaps? they are bad tv, thats why people don't want to pay for it and would much rather watch netflix/amazon/disney plus. The BBC didn't move with the times and will now face the consequences of that.
It’s going to go. About time as well. The BBC has become a monster. I used to be a fan, but I have seen the light - and the BBC has to go to a different model.
While i like russell i can't agree with what he's saying here, bring me a single person who still listens to the radio. Outside of the news as well the variety that Russell claims to exist doesn't really exist, the BBC still makes Dramas but i don't see anything else on despite having public funding they refuse to experiment with all the money of the country. And whilst this may not be true for the older generation hardly anyone i know watches the news actively and gets it from other sources
In the online world, the BBC has quickly become irrelevant. It's making 20th century TV in the 21st century. Old people are the only one's watching terrestrial TV now and that's mainly out of habit. You never hear of anyone saying they enjoy British TV these days. It's exhausted, the same formats cloned again and again and again. Anyone can make a TV show at their level. I went to a conference last year and top BBC Executives admitted to having a complete disconnect with anyone aged below 35. The only programme they could really celebrate was Blue Planet. Russell's description of HBO sounds very similar - hasn't that pretty much been the BBC's schedule for years? Who cares about the lack of news, the BBC is obviously biased in its coverage and we've ample other news platforms to tap into these days, not to mention online news if that's what we want. The BBC is a dinosaur whose day is done. The only ones calling for its preserve are those who have benefited personally from working within it. Everyone else with a brain switched off years ago.
Nobody watches the BBC apart from Doctor Who, His Dark Materials, Dracula, A Christmas Carol, Worzel Gummidge, Line of Duty, Peaky Blinders, Luther, Killing Eve, Taboo...
Now the BBC journalistic process is so piss-poor, I'm happy for this HBO model. Literally, all BBC "journalists" do is sit on Twitter or exchange whatsapp messages with government ministers. A joke of a corporation.
"...in ten years time"
dude was 2 years too generous
It will take them a good two years to run it through Parliament, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
@@MarktMorris then everyone votes for labour who prob will keep the licence fee. lol
@@Zauchi hope so. But the next election isn't until 2024 and historically it's incredibly hard to overturn such a big majority in one election.
Love how my recommendations are now full of RTD bc he was just announced to be returning as showrunner of Doctor Who 😁
I just hope he will not continue the BBCs Woke agenda to destroy Doctor Who.
*Same* 😁
@@sweiland75 hahaha did you watch Russell’s version of Doctor Who in 2005-2009? Far, far more progressive messaging than anything being done at the moment! He was just better at layering it into the stories! I’m not sure what you mean by a “BBC woke agenda” to be honest. 😂
@@harryhill783 yeah, it's not about the politics, it's about the way you layer it into the stories.
RTD did it spectacularly and likely will again, Chibnall just writes long political speeches for the Doctor to deliver like she's running for office or something.
I hate to say iy, but there is no recue from this dumpsterfire unless you go to the Dallas solution and have a Regen in a shower and Capaldi walk out going.. I'm never doing shrooms again..
Russell is the David Attenborough of television.
Pretty sure David Attenborough is the David Attenborough of television.
"now look what we have here.. aah the BBC.. starving and alone it will die here without help!"
This aged far too well
The RUclips algorithm is strong.
It’s already a subscription service, but no one in the UK can opt out.
Yes you can
You... You literally can. You're not forced to pay the license fee.
@@TheSmart-CasualGamer really. Well something has changed since I lived in UK because they used to send debt collectors dressed up as ‘TV Licensing enforcement officers’ round the streets in silly vans with fake antennas on the roof to pretend they were monitoring non-payers. They would go to people’s doors and bully them if they didn’t have a tv licence
He’s not wrong, it might be becoming a subscriber fee based system today
This should have many more views, this is important stuff :)
TV License is worthless. Public TV is full of channel hopping and the gamble that you will find anything worth watching.
When you see a show you want to watch, you get a subscription to Netflix or Disney+ or whatever and you enjoy it. When you're done, you unsubscribe until you want it again.
Netflix isn't too bad, but it'll definitely become more like HBO than Netflix. But Russel's larger point of News, Radio, soaps, original programming, we'd lose so much going private. Some people may think it getting that bad will make people outraged and it'll either not happen or immediately be undone, but it's rare that works out. It's far more likely that's just what the BBC becomes and some of us stick around and some of us move.
Netflix can't even compare to HBO when it comes to quality. Can u imagine Netflix doing a show like OZ with it's nudity or Rome/GoT with it's budget? Netflix does 2-3 decent/good shows a year mixed in with a lot of garbage
@@mesicek7 those marvel originals Netflix did were pretty damn good (like daredevil)
@@zizek4630 That's the only one that was decent. Look at all the amazing stuff HBO had. Sopranos, Oz, The Wire, Sex and the City, GoT, Deadwood, Six Feet Under, Boardwalk Empire, Succession, BoB, Tales Of The Crypt, Dream On, Arliss, Larry Sanders Show... Hbo was always known for quality adult content while Netflix is just a rent a content service that started doing shows/movies lots of them with questionable quality.
And he was exactly right.
Dear God I miss this man as a showrunner!
In his shows there was emotion, there was sincerity, there was commitment, there was seriousness and depth of tone. He wasn't scared to put an episode that had a 12 rating on a show meant for kids and he had no problem writing a show for adults like Years and Years and he had just as little issues with writing "Wizards vs aliens" which was clearly meant mainly for kids, despite the low budgets and unconvincing costumes and badly aged CGI, I have never seen an episode from a show, written by this man that never had me not feeling deeply for the characters and clutching at the endge of my seats on more than one occasion because of the tension and the suspense, which more than made up for whatever lacking and "soap drama" in his shows.
Maybe it was the music, the quality of the script, the empathy he inspired in his writings, the originality, the multi-dimensional and multi-layered aspects of the shows, or maybe he was just simply not a stupidly obsessed with whimsical entertainment value showrunner, but he is the best showrunner the BBC has had for quite a while now, for me. I was in tears at the end of "Years and Years" and in his final Dr who episode.
This man is deeply committed to being a good BBC showrunner and should be respected.
boy have I got news for you 😁
@@ItsArcticVision Except will RTD continue to push the BBCs current Woke agenda or will he bring Doctor who back to the glory days of when he was last showrunner?
@@sweiland75 Now that is the question!
Chibs still has another season and several specials to release before then, it will be interesting to see whats left by the time RTD takes over!
@@sweiland75 Christ, if you think the original RTD era wasn't "woke" you weren't paying attention.
@@sweiland75 RTDs doctor who was more woke than the current era and the third doctors era is probably more woke than both of them combined, the problem with the show is not that its woke, it has been since the 60s, the problem is just that the writing is bad
I swear, he has some sort of crystal ball.
I listen to the BBC for the Shipping Forecast. "Viking, Fisher , Dogger. Moderate to Good". They used to call you "And that Gent;lemen, is the shipping forcast" but they can't do hat anymore - something to do with the Bechtel Test. All them old salts gathered round the wireless in the wheelhouse of a pitching trawler, chewing on pipes, with the ocean spray lashing at the ol'portholes there, beating in time to "Sailing By" & the Captain Pugwash theme ... Yo ho Me Hearties n tha'
And people say they are glad RTD is back to Dr Who because it won’t be “as political”
ha
Hahaha
hahahahHaHaHhhhaaaaahaaaa
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
underrated comment lol
@@mrbubbles6468 I agree in concept, however there is undeniably a portion of fanbases (Dr Who being no exception) that use that line of argument as an excuse to try and pivot towards “politics shouldn’t be involved at all” which, aside from being a complete non-sequitur, is such a regressive mindset when it comes to fantasy writing
My issue with the whole argument of "make it a voluntary subscription and they will have to improve to get the customers" argument is it would absolutely result in more homogenised content appealing to the lowest common denominator. Reality shows are incredibly popular so that would make lots of money but I would rather stare at a wall than any variation on love Island.
Long running shows would also go by the wayside as Netflix etc rarely go past a season 3 of anything because you've stopped pulling in enough new customers by then.
And lest we forget Netflix recently did a reality show set around TikTok stars living in a house togrther.
The way I see our best case scenario is BBC turns into ITV and I don't think that's anyone's idea of a good time
@@mrbubbles6468 I would argue the reason is more likely by season 3 you already have the majority of the subscribers that the show is going to pull. The monetisation scheme is based on growth so if you're not pulling new subscribers youre more valued as a loss
The subscription model for almost every network/service is utter shite. And a tv channel will never be like Netflix because its not supposed to be, so those comparisons are useless. Sky? Awful value for money and every year they rejig the channels in each package making it nearly impossible to downgrade. Our license fee also covers access for the other main channels too. Its a bargain for what you get.
It's only a bargain if you use it and I don't use it anymore. They have killed anything I had an interest in except for one programme and the license fee isn't worth one programme
And give it a bit more time they'll kill that one programme too
@@BlackwaterBowes They've had to make deep budget cuts and 'kill' certain aspects of their output because the government have been gradually withdrawing their funding for years. This is how the govt work: neglect the BBC, then use the public's distaste at a reduced quality of service as an excuse to sack the whole thing off.
@@benclarke299 It's what they're doing to the NHS too. Pretty soon, government'll be collecting taxes just so they can pay contractors to do a worse job for a higher price, just like the US government does. And their taxes are astronomically higher than ours.
I tell you, if these conmen are allowed to stay in parliament, the average person on the street will lose everything and then get shaken down for what little he has left. The invisible hand of the free market will choke us all.
A subscription service for the beeb would be a tragedy. However, as a publically-funded service, they have a responsibility to actually represent and deliver content that the public wants. The reason there is so much agitation to get rid of the license fee is that the BBC has become corrupted and the majority of the public don't feel represented by it. On top of this, the quality of the programs being produced is pretty disgraceful with Doctor Who, ironically, being the most prominent and most egregious example. If the BBC got their act together and put out good content that the public can get behind, rather than propagandistic drivel which panders to upper class, privileged woke people's sensibilities, then the BBC will be able to avoid meeting the subscription service fate.
I agree, the obvious political messaging in something that’s meant to be for everyone is one of their greatest downfalls. Unless they fix it it’s fucked. Also can someone tell chibnall to calm the fuck down with who, he’s continuously causing controversy that he knows will be controversial, like bruh stop and focus on the story rather then some half arsed twist no one asked for.
I don't know what you're trying to communicate lol
@@tomimpala Which bit?
The BBC needs to lose the license fee so they get back to what they should have been doing and not all that uncreative rubbish and ignoring the public they're supposed to be making stuff for.
The sooner they do the sooner they have to start making good stuff that will make people WANT to subscribe to them instead of being forced to by a legislation that has outlived its usefulness.
@@jamesattenbourgh I miss the days of RTD when there was no obvious and unsubtle political messaging!... oh...
@@Bagofnowt cope harder
Share this EVERYWHERE!
RTD would be great at Ted Talks. 👍
This aged well
I lost it at "no Phil and Holly"
The difference is you can tell HBP to shove it and keep your money. And there#s plenty of other subscription services than HBO.
i don't get his argument. how does using a similar business model mean that both services would have the exact same kind of content? for example, chick fil a and mcdonalds are both fast food restaurants, but the type and quality of the food is drastically different.
There was a pro-privatisation argument being made that compared the BBC to services like HBO, and Russell is rightly pointing out that the BBC as it is vastly outstrips what HBO offers for about the same fee and thus in reality the comparision actually shows how much better a Public funding model is.
@@pennie2387 thanks, i get where his argument is coming from now. the problem i have is that the argument he's addressing is already flawed for the reasons i stated before, so that doesn't mean the opposite is true (the content WILL suck) if he debunks their argument. i think it's very probable that if the bbc was funded like hbo is, the content type and quality would likely be very different compared to hbo, since there are many, many other factors other than how they are funded that affect that.
Alright so I feel his pain, but. Big but. I was entering the radio broadcast industry in high school around 1995 and while I was really into it, the man who mentored me said not to even bother. Analog is giving way to digital and as much as people loved that era of radio, as much as people depended on the local broadcast for news and events, it was doomed to die and it did. Television, the way we have always known it, is not compatible with this future that we're all nurturing. Its simple really, we just don't have time for this shit.
Well the BBC didn't start as a TV thing, it was originally a radio broadcaster and it adapted.
Today it does all kinds of stuff, it publishes magazines, it does TV, it has online on demand stuff, radio, podcasts, it has a symphony orchestra, it releases recorded music, it does original research. All kinds of stuff.
Whether you think TV is on the way out or not, that doesn't mean that there will be no need for a public service institution in this new world.
I hope the BBC becomes more like ITV or Channel 4 and not HBO, and by that I mean it's completely free but there are ads in between programmes.
The problem with the BBC becoming funded by adverts is that it will not be able to make the public service programming that it makes now, as it will not be profitable. Look at ITV, who have dumped all religious programming, axed nearly all regional shows except for regional news. Have merged regional news programmes to save money. BBC with adverts will also be the last thing ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 or Sky want, as it will hoover up commercial money which they all use. So, a BBC with adverts is simply a non starter.
Why do you think one of the reasons was he would come back to Dr. Who because he feels that show must be protected from the Tory government who have openly mocks Doctor Who in the house of Parliament by saying it causes stabbings that is why he must have come back because when the BBC goes so do some of the programs
The problem with the BBC becoming funded by adverts is that it will not be able to make the public service programming that it makes now, as it will not be profitable. Look at ITV, who have dumped all religious programming, axed nearly all regional shows except for regional news. Have merged regional news programmes to save money. BBC with adverts will also be the last thing ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 or Sky want, as it will hoover up commercial money which they all use. So, a BBC with adverts is simply a non starter.
if a BBC subscription service means more/new Doctor Who spinoffs then yes.
@@rossthesauceboss If they want people to subscribe then the exact opposite has to happen.
That's why this is necessary if it means going abck to the 70's style of Dr Who where they had to make ends meet so story over expensive effects then thats what they have to do but the story is ultimately more important so they want viewers then make the stuff they want to see rather than the crap Chibs have been foisting on everybody!
@@rossthesauceboss How about you check out Classic Doctor Who then you can recognise how badly you just messed up?
@@rossthesauceboss What the hell are you talking about? I’m sorry but the 70s has some of the best Doctor Who stories in not only the classic series but the entire series.
@@rossthesauceboss Well that’s your opinion, not a fact.
@@rossthesauceboss And I have no nostalgia goggles, I’m 17. I’ve been watching these over the years as I’ve absolutely despised the Whitaker era. And some of my absolute favourite doctor who stories are in that period. Inferno, Genesis, Talons, City of Death. There’s so many good stories lmao.
The problem that the Tories have with the BBC and NHS is that theres all this cash going into them , but theres no real profit margins being generated that they and their friends can fill their accounts with , when the last licence fee was being negotiated , the Tory minister that was doing the negotiation was heard talking to friends or other ministers and telling them that there was millions to be made with the BBC for the person that got in there first , when it was privatised , and that is why the people that call for the privatisation of the BBC are Sky , the Sun , the Murdoch family , because they want their hands on the back catalogue that the BBC has for their own networks , the Tories , because they and their backers want the cash that can be made selling everything off , but nobody thinks about what happens after its privatised , more soaps , more foriegn programs because there will not be the money to make their own , no sports of any kind because they will not have the cash to win the rights to broadcast them , no original content because , again , there will not be the cash to wait while they build a following to a program like they did to so many historically famous programs that were slow to find an audience , but ended up as must see programs after a season or two
The BBC could help themselves massively by curbing the salaries paid to ‘top talent’ like Gary Lineker.
And if the likes of David Dimbleby truly believe that the unique business model of the BBC is so important, perhaps they could show that by working for less money.
Well said!
Own opinion now but the trouble with these sorts of arguments is that the one's who are accused of being naysayers or any other negative connotations are quite often the one's who are not only telling you the truth but are basically telling you how things actually are and giving strong advisory warnings about going down certain trajectories. The sad truth is that with some of these subscription services you may well pay what you may call a decent monthly price but what is it that you're actually getting for it?
Choice. The BBC makes people in the UK pay for it under threat of heavy fines and court time. It's not the same. Comparing it to quality like HBO is laughable.
Wow. Hair properly blown back. Thank you Russle T. Davies yet again.
The RUclips algorithm is strong.
They should make the BBC subscription or adverts. The license fee is a Mafia scam that’s utterly indefensible.
Yet again, he ‘forgets’ that you have to pay the BBC AS WELL. To watch ANY live as broadcast TV, on top of the HBO subscription. And BBC is almost all repeats.
I think he forgets that most people with a TV License have not actually been able to see a lot of good shows because they're either sharing a time slot with something else on another channel or they're busy.
Sure there's on demand... which is shown to be unreliable and riddled with annoying adverts that no one wants to have to sit through.
Iplayer doesn't have ads
I'm afraid i just don't like the BBC's modern output. It all seemed to go crap three or four years ago. Go back four or so years ago and it wasn't too bad. These days I feel aggrieved that i have to pay for crap like Years and Years or post 2005 Doctor Who even though it holds no interest for me.
And it doesn't help to prove his case that at one point he cites Holly W and Philip Sc as a reason to keep the BBC. I thought they were ITV ...
Finally, most proposals I have seen for a subsciption based BBC seem to say keep a public service arrangement in place for a News Channel but you don't have to fund all the crap the BBC churn out thru a licence fee just because they provide some things that genuinely fulfill some public good duties.
to be fair, Phil and Holly have both worked for the BBC early in their careers, the presenters they are today are certainly affected by what they learnt at the BBC. so though might not be the point he was directly making, it does actually prove his case.
You make a good point that people could fund elements of the BBC, but then we lose out on Opera and other smaller stuff that larger crowds either don't know about or aren't interested in. Also, in the landscape of TV, four years is nothing. Why wouldn't it go back to being something you're interested in? The BBC doesn't stop making new dramas, literally all of them don't appeal to you or will ever appeal to you, and there's nothing new on the horizon in the future you'd think you'd like? Think it through.
And yesterday that's exactly what the Tories set in motion.
Why do I have to watch doctor who on Disney plus then now?
Because like Thanos "I am inevitable". Streaming is the future.
Probably because you don't live in the UK and Ireland? That's why I have to watch it on Disney+ too since I live in Germany.
I recommend Freeview. No subscriptions
The Tories short sightedness blinds them to th fact that if they get rid of the BBC their sons and daughters will have nowhere to work
with what the BBC has done to dr who, they should be threatened with this though.
No news. Considering the rather biased news that it currently dolls out, that would be a plus.
interestingly BBC News gets criticized by both the left and the right. so either it is failing both, or doing it's job.
And the stuff they refuse to cover like the BLM riots from what a year or so ago or false reporting events when it serves their leftist viewpoint instead of the unbiased reporting they should be doing?
@@Darkwintre Lol they are liberal, not left wing
I don’t want the BBC to lose its public funding because it might improve, but because I don’t watch it anymore. It’s like being forced to pay for a Sky subscription I don’t want.
You pay income tax for a huge amount of services you never ever use. People pay for the NHS and never ever use it. People pay for the fire brigade but never need it. Pay for the police, but never ever have to call them in their lives. You see what I mean??
@@johnking5174 Yes, but I don’t wish to opt out of those as I mean need them some day. I can’t say the same for the BBC.
@@hobanagerik You can opt out
I just won't pay for the subscription fee then, I can get all my news and weather like I have always been doing for the last 10 years, from my phone. As for soaps? they are bad tv, thats why people don't want to pay for it and would much rather watch netflix/amazon/disney plus. The BBC didn't move with the times and will now face the consequences of that.
Gutting the BBC News may be a good idea nowadays.
GOOD
Britbox
Britbox is like their netflix, Russel's talking more about HBO/Sky services. Which are way worse.
"nothing new at all, you get NOTHING!" so exactly the same as the BBC then. 😂
Are they making any progression in getting rid of the BBC? Because this is kinda old.
I agree its been postponed until '27 because the Govt don't want to lose its mouthpiece despite that might improve its popularity more if they did.
Wonder how Russell T Davies will address the BBC's political leanings in that respect.
Hear hear
The BBC’s been shit for years and I’ve been forced to pay it the entire time. Hope it rots.
It’s going to go. About time as well. The BBC has become a monster. I used to be a fan, but I have seen the light - and the BBC has to go to a different model.
I wholly disagree with this. It is such good value and produces brilliance!
How far back do you want to go to point out such "brilliance"?
Inside Number 9, Peter Kay's Car Share, This Country, Line Of Duty, Peaky Blinders, Worzel Gummidge...
@@lucasoheyze4597 which was created when?
Not this decade.
@@Darkwintre They're all from within the last 10 years.
While i like russell i can't agree with what he's saying here, bring me a single person who still listens to the radio. Outside of the news as well the variety that Russell claims to exist doesn't really exist, the BBC still makes Dramas but i don't see anything else on despite having public funding they refuse to experiment with all the money of the country.
And whilst this may not be true for the older generation hardly anyone i know watches the news actively and gets it from other sources
I do, and I'm 20 I'm not a pensioner
🤡
In the online world, the BBC has quickly become irrelevant. It's making 20th century TV in the 21st century. Old people are the only one's watching terrestrial TV now and that's mainly out of habit. You never hear of anyone saying they enjoy British TV these days. It's exhausted, the same formats cloned again and again and again. Anyone can make a TV show at their level.
I went to a conference last year and top BBC Executives admitted to having a complete disconnect with anyone aged below 35. The only programme they could really celebrate was Blue Planet.
Russell's description of HBO sounds very similar - hasn't that pretty much been the BBC's schedule for years? Who cares about the lack of news, the BBC is obviously biased in its coverage and we've ample other news platforms to tap into these days, not to mention online news if that's what we want.
The BBC is a dinosaur whose day is done. The only ones calling for its preserve are those who have benefited personally from working within it. Everyone else with a brain switched off years ago.
Nobody watches the BBC apart from Doctor Who, His Dark Materials, Dracula, A Christmas Carol, Worzel Gummidge, Line of Duty, Peaky Blinders, Luther, Killing Eve, Taboo...
Well since they turned Dr Who to forward an agenda without decent writing to support it, that means none of those qualify!
@@markmanhetherington1 dont forget bodyguard that was pretty great
@@thomaspaterson1354 there's loads of good stuff on the BBC, its just become fashionable to bash it. People will miss it if it's abolished.
@@markmanhetherington1 Emmy award winning Fleabag...
Now the BBC journalistic process is so piss-poor, I'm happy for this HBO model. Literally, all BBC "journalists" do is sit on Twitter or exchange whatsapp messages with government ministers.
A joke of a corporation.
Russell really shows his age and out of touch nature with this one
Really he shows that he knows exactly what he is talking about.
@@pennie2387, yep, and he's exactly right.