In the UK it works pretty much the same way as it does in the US. Even the BBC has become all about profitability instead of the thing it should be about - To inform, educate and entertain. There is very little entertainment in watching Bruce Forsyth in Strictly Come Dancing but it makes money (for the record the American version is so much better). But there again - Spooks - made by the BBC - sold everywhere - high quality entertainment. I am probably one of the only people in the country who paid the license fee (the thing every house with a television pays to keep the BBC running) with a smile.

Avitable - Right, the first library episode is Silence in the Library, then Forest of the Dead, then Midnight, followed by Turn Left and then The Stolen Earth and Journey’s End so… you have 5 left to watch.

moobs - 2010 baby! Russell oversees the feature length specials next year and then Moffatt takes over for the next full series… when HOPEFULLY Mr Tennant will still be in…

moobss last blog post..Communion

Avitables last blog post..I ain’t got shit

And if you’d like to discuss the episode further, I’d be happy to do so with you — although it’s probably quite late where you are.

Now — on with your philosophy on what makes good television: I don’t know enough about the way this works in the UK, but in the USA the creation of television programs exist for one primary motive — advertising revenue. If a network show can gain a larger audience, the networks can charge higher fees for product placement or advertisement breaks. It’s a similar situation for premium pay-for television channels: quality programming begets a higher subscription rate.

(We do have public television in the USA which receives an allotment from the Federal government, but it’s only a small fraction of the operating costs of the network. The rest of the costs are underwritten by private companies and charitable donations from viewers.)

In any case — the way a television show remains on the air is its profitability. Which is why an Aaron Sorkin show such as “The West Wing” remained on the air for the better part of a decade and his clever creations “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” and “Sports Night” lasted for a much shorter time. It’s also why so-called “reality shows” and game shows, which cost substantially less to make than certain scripted shows, will take their place on the air. (Another example of a less-expensive show: The Office. Far fewer sets and location shots than many other shows of its quality.) Fortunately, there are some quality shows that people will watch. But often, however, the networks will go with a potential “sure thing” rather than risk it with a show that may be expensive out of the gate and yield no viewers.

Example: there was a short-lived series called “Mister Sterling” which debuted on NBC in the middle of 2003. Although Aaron Sorkin had nothing to do with it, it had some “West Wing” references as it dealt with the life and times of a freshman senator from California. It simply didn’t garner that much interest — people apparently didn’t want to watch a show about a member of the US Congress. The show lasted only a few episodes.

Doctor Who is a prime example of a show to which viewers (in the UK) will sprint. It has such a vibrant history and legendary backstory. The only thing I can compare it to in the States is the many incarnations of Superman (including The Adventures of Lois and Clark and Smallville). There’s enough confidence to hire impressive actors, writers, directors and producers to give us something with amazing quality.

Sadly. though, the financial incentive is still the highest priority…

shinys last blog post..Memory of a Helms…