Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide
* David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > ObLon.pm: A buffy DW crossover would be cool... In fact: > http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/dwxst.htm > Buffy as the Doctor's assistant, now that would rock. Picture it some shambling monster is coming down the corridor, Buffy and the Doctor are stopped a large metal door. D> One second my dear, i'll have this open. *The doctor hunts around in many pockets for his sonic screwdriver, taking out bits of string and packets of jellybabies as he does.* B> Hurry Doctor! D> Yes yes, one moment here it is! M> g, *shamble* *the doctor starts to examine the lock and mutters all the time* B> Hurry! D> Please quiet, this is very delicate, hmmm ... aha i think i know *Buffy loses it, pulls down the doctor aside, kicks the door down and goes to run with the doctor out, but suddenly stops, turns around and proceeds to beat up the shambling mound* D> What? What? B> Don't mention it, you can make it up to me by taking me shopping - there is simply oodles of closet space to fill in the tardis. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 10:44:00AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:06:10 -0400, David H. Adler wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 07:31:59PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > > > > If they do start doing Doctor Who again it will have a finite lifespan, > > > is he not near the maximum number or lives a timelord can regenerate? > > > > Nah. He's only up to his 8th incarnation. he's got 13. Also, > > depending on how you look at things, he may be a special case. > > I remember an episode where Peter Davidson was going to "donate" (ie. > under pressure) his remaining generations to a bunch of aliens who > would all have died otherwise. Surely this can be stretched so that > other timelords can be persuaded to donate their generations to the > Doctor, in order to keep the series going when the actors get fed > up/sacked/die. That would have been Mawdryn Undead. Yes, this does imply that it is theoretically possible, but... there is also the implication that just a lot of generic engergy is what was needed, as a sudden influx of such is what kept the doctor from having to give up his regenerations. Actually, now that I think of it, the aliens were just regenerating over and over and over again (with almost immediate deterioration), due to their having nicked a piece of time lord technology that they had intended to use to prolong their lives. At the point we meet them, they want the Doctor's regeneration energies just so they can finally *die*. So the implication is far from clear. > > [note: this does not take the comic relief special as canon...] > > With my scheme, that doesn't matter, unless you want any of those > actors to play the Doctor in the future and you believe that he can't > be incarnated the same way twice. :-) Regeneration theory is somewhat confused, if you take everything we know about it into consideration. Surely Romana doesn't use up a bunch of regens while trying on bodies at the beginning of Destiny of the Daleks... which raises the idea that regeneration and bodily transformation are not the same thing. Which also leads us to think that the doctor may actually be only on his 7th regen, as he does not actually die at the end of The War Games, but is sentenced to exile in a different body. ObLon.pm: A buffy DW crossover would be cool... In fact: http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/dwxst.htm dha -- David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ "What is this Japanese preoccupation with the name Ken???" - Tom Servo
Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:06:10 -0400, David H. Adler wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 07:31:59PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > * David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > > Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it... > > > > > > > If they do start doing Doctor Who again it will have a finite lifespan, > > is he not near the maximum number or lives a timelord can regenerate? > > Nah. He's only up to his 8th incarnation. he's got 13. Also, > depending on how you look at things, he may be a special case. I remember an episode where Peter Davidson was going to "donate" (ie. under pressure) his remaining generations to a bunch of aliens who would all have died otherwise. Surely this can be stretched so that other timelords can be persuaded to donate their generations to the Doctor, in order to keep the series going when the actors get fed up/sacked/die. > [note: this does not take the comic relief special as canon...] With my scheme, that doesn't matter, unless you want any of those actors to play the Doctor in the future and you believe that he can't be incarnated the same way twice. :-) -- Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's even a page about it on the web; I don't know the address, you know, the slash-slash thing, but I'm sure our techie viewers out there can find out... Ha, ha..."-- quote from PBS pledge break
Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 07:31:59PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: > * David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it... > > > > If they do start doing Doctor Who again it will have a finite lifespan, > is he not near the maximum number or lives a timelord can regenerate? Nah. He's only up to his 8th incarnation. he's got 13. Also, depending on how you look at things, he may be a special case. [note: this does not take the comic relief special as canon...] dha -- David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ Well (s)he is only a type of deer after all so its particularly spectacular to have learnt English from only 'A Stranger in a Strange Land' and 'A Clockwork Orange' - Jonathan Stowe in c.l.p.misc (It was even better *in* context... :-)
Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide
* David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it... > If they do start doing Doctor Who again it will have a finite lifespan, is he not near the maximum number or lives a timelord can regenerate? -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:42:48PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: > > I'd be happy to pay a £400/year voluntary sub for a BBC with no > adverts during programs. ... > But for that they're going to have to stop producing so much crap. I > want more stuff of the quality of Clocking Off and Walk On By, and > less of the vets in kitchens making your home look horrible cheap > shit. Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it... dha -- David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ My theory is that his ignorance clouded his poor judgement. - Alice, in Dilbert's office
Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide
Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it likely that the licence fee will go. It would be a popular > move with the Great Unwashed. ( who seem happy to spend 400 quid a year > on a Sky subscription ), so I can see the BBC being released from its > licence fee. This would have huge knock-ons in the commercial TV world. > The advertising cake is only so big, if the BBC suddenly started taking > adverts then I doubt many of the commercial stations would appreciate the > 50% drop in revenue. Assuming the BBC could decure 50% of the current TV > advertising cake they would be significantly better off than they are > now. > > Personally I would rather pay a licence fee and have a (largely) > independent public service broadcaster than yet another commercial > station that can't say various things in case it upsets a major > advertiser. YMMV I'd be happy to pay a £400/year voluntary sub for a BBC with no adverts during programs. I'd probably be prepared to put up with adverts between programs a la FilmFour. But if they ever start running ads on Radio 4 then they can whistle for my money. But for that they're going to have to stop producing so much crap. I want more stuff of the quality of Clocking Off and Walk On By, and less of the vets in kitchens making your home look horrible cheap shit. -- Piers, who can't remember the last time he watched anything on ITV.
Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, you wrote: > Neil Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Don't be suprised if by then the abolishment of the licence fee hasn't been > > announced and that the BBC hasn't announced subscription charges for it's > > services. Better that than the Beeb starts carrying ads. > > Politically the BBC has been lucky with its licence fee. There was > some discussion about abolishing it in the early 1980s under Thatcher > but its been off the political agenda since then. The election of > Labour must have been a relief for them. umm ... thats not quite true. The BBC has had quite a hard time of it over the last few years. In order to have its charter renewed in 199X it had to undergo a series of reforms that basically tore the guts out of it. The sale of it transmision facilities and the moving of all its 'hardware' to BBC Resources Ltd are all as a result of that process. Over the last 10 years its been a constant battle to try and maintain the service. Every licence fee review (and they happen more often than you might think) seems to involve more reforms being demanded from government in order to approve this years fees. The licence fee has been subject to modest rises basically either in line or slightly behind inflation. In an arena where the cost of broadcasting is actually increasing at a rate somewhat above inflation this leaves an ever increasing gap in the finances. This, coupled with a legal requirement to have 25% of its programmes produced by external companies (who typically cost 20% more than producing the same programme in house) place further stresses on the budgets, leaving little money for in house productions. I think it likely that the licence fee will go. It would be a popular move with the Great Unwashed. ( who seem happy to spend 400 quid a year on a Sky subscription ), so I can see the BBC being released from its licence fee. This would have huge knock-ons in the commercial TV world. The advertising cake is only so big, if the BBC suddenly started taking adverts then I doubt many of the commercial stations would appreciate the 50% drop in revenue. Assuming the BBC could decure 50% of the current TV advertising cake they would be significantly better off than they are now. Personally I would rather pay a licence fee and have a (largely) independent public service broadcaster than yet another commercial station that can't say various things in case it upsets a major advertiser. YMMV Several areas of the BBC have been split off into 'wholly owned, self financing subsidiaries' that can compete against other players in the market. this is not hugely popular with other players in the market, but you can expect to see it start to flex its muscles a little more over the next few years. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
BBC was Re: Beginners Guide
Neil Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't be suprised if by then the abolishment of the licence fee hasn't been
> announced and that the BBC hasn't announced subscription charges for it's
> services. Better that than the Beeb starts carrying ads.
Politically the BBC has been lucky with its licence fee. There was
some discussion about abolishing it in the early 1980s under Thatcher
but its been off the political agenda since then. The election of
Labour must have been a relief for them.
As for the "Beeb" carrying ads, well it has done this for several
years on its web site which was setup with ICL
http://www.beeb.net/
(this is the "Beeb" in the sense of "beeb Ventures Ltd", a subsidiary
of BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC.) Of course few
outside the corporation itself realise that "Beeb" is actually the
brandname of a profit making company with online shopping.
The BBC proper of course actually carries adverts on television for
its own commercial products like "Radio Times" and even political
adverts supporting the way its financed ("its the unique way .. blah
blah").
But it doesn't carry adverts for anyone else.
> The BBC are definitely working towards the licence fee being withdrawn at some
> point by some government (hence all the curfuffle over ads on bbc.com), so
> alternative forms of financing will need to be sort.
The BBC is pragmatic enough to realise that long-term the licence fee
will probably go.
It's the how and when that are interesting!
--
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mary had a little key - she kept it in escrow, and every thing that
mary said, the feds were sure to know. -- sam simpson
