Its not about the budget. The budget is clearly there. Its about the amount of episodes per week. Steve Frost is doing a brilliant job so it hasnt been much of a problem having 5 episodes this past 6-9 months (which is why ive not mentioned them reducing it to 3 a week for some time) but during 2003/4 and especially 2005 there were often about 2 episodes a week worth of padding and storylines would drag on forever.
This has been discussed in the Corrie thread so I won't get into it too much but I actually think that it's more of a problem now than it has been in a long time. The quality has completely dropped - I'm just incredibly bored and a lot of it is pure filler.
Brekkie Boy posted:
Re: Corrie - "protecting the quality"
Do you really think that would happen if they reduced it to three episodes as wouldn't ITV just cut the budget accordingly?
You don't need a large budget to write a good episode. The point is that the writers have more pressure to fill five episodes a week but still make sure storylines aren't wrapped up too early and so the result is filler. And I like good filler (i.e. not developing the plots but still consisting of brilliantly written dialogue and subtle comedy - much like the Christmas Day ep last year) but what we're currently seeing is bad filler which is basically boring, nonsensical, terribly wirtten rubbish (I'm sure Jez disagrees however).
Its not about the budget. The budget is clearly there. Its about the amount of episodes per week. Steve Frost is doing a brilliant job so it hasnt been much of a problem having 5 episodes this past 6-9 months (which is why ive not mentioned them reducing it to 3 a week for some time) but during 2003/4 and especially 2005 there were often about 2 episodes a week worth of padding and storylines would drag on forever.
This has been discussed in the Corrie thread so I won't get into it too much but I actually think that it's more of a problem now than it has been in a long time. The quality has completely dropped - I'm just incredibly bored and a lot of it is pure filler.
Brekkie Boy posted:
Re: Corrie - "protecting the quality"
Do you really think that would happen if they reduced it to three episodes as wouldn't ITV just cut the budget accordingly?
You don't need a large budget to write a good episode. The point is that the writers have more pressure to fill five episodes a week but still make sure storylines aren't wrapped up too early and so the result is filler. And I like good filler (i.e. not developing the plots but still consisting of brilliantly written dialogue and subtle comedy - much like the Christmas Day ep last year) but what we're currently seeing is bad filler which is basically boring, nonsensical, terribly wirtten rubbish (I'm sure Jez disagrees however).
I like "good filler" episodes as you call them too. In the 70s and 80s for example there would be filler episodes with things happening you wouldnt really call storylines e.g. things happening with Susie and Gail, The Ogdens, Jack and Vera etc.
Yes I do disagree im afraid. We get good filler storys now - Blanche, Reet/Norris/Emily - most of these characters have what you could call filler "storys" Steve Frost IMO is getting the balance right.
I do agree that Christmas Day last year was excellent, and its much better when we have a lighter episodes with families together having a traditional Christmas and lots of comedy. Thats why I hated Christmas 2004 - doom and gloom apart from Reet singing - that episode would have been fine any other time but not Christmas Day.
The budget for both Crossroads and Corrie wasnt high in the 60s/70s and there were often fluffed lines and filming equipment shown on screen, yet these episodes were some of the best episodes of British soap ever made. The ratings for them says it all. Crossroads was even beating Corrie in the ratings for a long period I understand. And in fairness Crossroads had a lower budget and more episodes to make than Corrie did.
As usual with ITV formats, they've ditched the idea of the best person winning and will instead throw it open to a revenue building public vote - and of course throw in a competition too where viewers win a stake in the (presumably doomed) winning venture.
And on top of all that, forget about focusing on the talent and instead throw in the idiots from the auditions for viewers to laugh at and mock!
No idea how much of this was originally planned and how much is a reaction to the poor ratings (I think it's the latter myself), it's still a very bad idea and pretty much sums up how much ITV have got to learn.
ITV seem to have gone into panic mode after their Apprentice rip-off Tycoon unsurprisingly flopped with just 2 million viewers.
No idea how much of this was originally planned and how much is a reaction to the poor ratings (I think it's the latter myself), it's still a very bad idea and pretty much sums up how much ITV have got to learn.
It sound to me like a twist in a reality type show to boost ratings. Nobody else would do that would they?
ITV seem to have gone into panic mode after their Apprentice rip-off Tycoon unsurprisingly flopped with just 2 million viewers.
No idea how much of this was originally planned and how much is a reaction to the poor ratings (I think it's the latter myself), it's still a very bad idea and pretty much sums up how much ITV have got to learn.
It sound to me like a twist in a reality type show to boost ratings. Nobody else would do that would they?
As someone who watched it then Jez, do you know if the stuff in that Media Guardian article was the original intention (i.e. viewers choosing the winner) - or is it an act of desperation?
The audition stuff especially sounds like a last minute inclusion - surely if it was planned it would have been in episode one. (I'm assuming it wasn't)
ITV seem to have gone into panic mode after their Apprentice rip-off Tycoon unsurprisingly flopped with just 2 million viewers.
No idea how much of this was originally planned and how much is a reaction to the poor ratings (I think it's the latter myself), it's still a very bad idea and pretty much sums up how much ITV have got to learn.
It sound to me like a twist in a reality type show to boost ratings. Nobody else would do that would they?
What on earth could you mean?
That's the point though - a show like Tycoon is supposed to be targeting The Apprentice audience, not the Big Brother audience.
As someone who watched it then Jez, do you know if the stuff in that Media Guardian article was the original intention (i.e. viewers choosing the winner) - or is it an act of desperation?
The audition stuff especially sounds like a last minute inclusion - surely if it was planned it would have been in episode one. (I'm assuming it wasn't)
Nothing was mentioned about the viewers choosing the winner, or viewers participating in the programme at all. The person who makes the most profit will be the winner and would also take any profits anyone else had made.
Might as well put this here as I doubt there will be much mileage in starting a new thread.
In tonights Tycoon the first 5 minutes were rather odd as they showed a small selection of the auditions - surely it would have been better to do that at the start of the first episode. There then followed a short recap about last weeks show.
The only viewer involvement in this series came at the end where there was a competition with the prize being a share in the eventual winner of the series company.
- that episode would have been fine any other time but not Christmas Day.
