Not just now, all-time influence and all that jazz.
Debate that.
Debate that.
British TV > American TV
- Thread starter Zen
- Start date
Not a lot of UK TV on over here, whereas the UK has hundreds of programs from US studios and networks. When it comes to influence the US wins hands down.
Only Fools & Horses > All US sitcoms
Isn't British TV mostly repeats of what was on at least 10 years ago?
Yet Britain rarely remakes American shows....and America is constantly remaking British stuff....the upcoming Veep being the newest one.
American networks have huge budgets to chuck at shows, thats why they remake a lot of stuff sometimes even into films.
Classic Simpsons is probably the best show ever to be fair.
I love them both. Viva la difference!
Rome > Rome
People really celebrate our good programmes because they come along only every now and then, as opposed to six hours or so of Coronation Street, Eastenders and Emmerdale each and every week.
Another way to look at it is actors and actresses - how much highly rated American talent is making British programming as opposed to British people making American programmes? There is a reason why the likes of Hugh Laurie is working stateside.
Another way to look at it is actors and actresses - how much highly rated American talent is making British programming as opposed to British people making American programmes? There is a reason why the likes of Hugh Laurie is working stateside.
I wish I could say that Monty Python / Fawlty Towers / Black Adder > all, but USA have produced simply too many great shows in recent times to make me think that.
I have just found a list of 'the 50 greatest television dramas' as compiled by The Guardian, how rubbish a list it is.
If you want to know just how bad it is I can put it into two words for you: '38. Brookside'.
If you want to know just how bad it is I can put it into two words for you: '38. Brookside'.
The Prisoner is probably the best show ever made.
The easiest way to judge would be to make a list of best programmes for each country - you would be struggling badly for Britain after twenty or thirty perhaps.
All that proves is that Americans are more likely to copy something to try to make more money. It's not like your country is the only one that we've copied shows ideas from. We just take a lot from you guys because we speak roughly the same language.
Guardian list pretty good tbf, has all the great British stuff in it unlike most lists which are just made up of recent American stuff with OFAH thrown in, stuff like Our Friends in the North, Smileys People, Tinker Tailor, Cracker, Prime Suspect, State of Play, Talking Heads all hold their own with the best from stateside very well.
I'd also add Black Mirror with that lot...that and Game of Thrones were the best things on TV last year.
I'd also add Black Mirror with that lot...that and Game of Thrones were the best things on TV last year.
True. Well most will be documentaries and period dramas - Auntie and ITV are good at that. Comedies on the other hand...
Well it all depends on how you interpret the results, too. You could come up with the results you expect on that and I might say that that just means Americans have more to choose from or that our entertainment industry is larger than the UK's (as it should be considering we serve a much larger population of content consumers).
I think to have a genuine attempt of answering OP's question, you'd need to factor in the budgets involved, populations/viewing figures and all sorts just to be able to have some common denominators to base it on- a tall task.
That is irrelevant ultimately, whether you enjoy or don't enjoy the television output is what matters - I have never sat at home thinking even though a certain American programme is better than the British counterpart, the British programme is better relatively due to a smaller industry and lesser budgets available.
If the Americans have better output, which they do, it doesn't matter how or why, it just matters that they do.
American shows really dont get remade over here, but are appreciated in and of themselves. However, they tend to take successful uk shows and americanize them, which can sometimes lead to piles of shite (their Fawlty Towers and Steptoe & Son were wank) or shows that are arguably better (US Office).
It's hardly even a debate that the US have much better TV shows than the UK or anyone else for that matter. The UK however have better 'classics' in my opinion, and the odd modern show that I love, like The Peep Show, but cannot compare to giants like The Soprano's or Lost.
The question is like asking what animal has the most protein, it'll just be the biggest one, as opposed to pound for pound where you might get a fairer answer.
The question is like asking what animal has the most protein, it'll just be the biggest one, as opposed to pound for pound where you might get a fairer answer.
The BBC's budget on programmes is perhaps twice that of its American counterparts. They are publicly funded so it is inexcusable to think American networks are the only ones splashing big. Do you think ABC would have commissoned a show like Frozen Planet? In fact they would have probably done a cooperation deal with another broadcaster in order to fund it. Which is what the BBC did with Discovery.
Frozen Planet was co-produced -_-
And ABC had Desperate Housewives and Lost......one of which paid more than Frozen Planet and Planet Earths budgets combined on a pilot and the other of which paid $100m on it's main 5 cast members in it's final seasons, so yes if they wanted, they could of easily budgeted Frozen Planet -_-
And ABC had Desperate Housewives and Lost......one of which paid more than Frozen Planet and Planet Earths budgets combined on a pilot and the other of which paid $100m on it's main 5 cast members in it's final seasons, so yes if they wanted, they could of easily budgeted Frozen Planet -_-
Still my point stands, do you think ABC or one of the Big Four would have commissioned that kind of show to an American primetime audience?
In 2010/11 the BBC on all television content spent just under £1.9 billion, how that compares with American networks I do not know.
Those channels, to my knowledge have NEVER done wildlife or travel on prime time, whereas the BBC has always had time for stuff like that, it's a unfair comparison. PBS probably shows some of that stuff though.
In America, production companies are responsible for the running costs - not the network. The network pays for episodes (the finished product) with the money they expect to get from advertising in mind. The model is reliant on advertising, if it is successful you get 30 second spots filled up meaning that the network can jack up the price to benefit their stars (hence pay increase). And you get product placement. If the show is successful and airs a long time, the production company gets money from syndication (repeats which are sold to other cable networks/stations). Best example for this would be Friends, aired on NBC, Warner Bros has made a fortune out of Channel 4 repeats.
You can't say the same about Britain or indeed the BBC, who produce and screen themselves. That was more or less the point I was trying to get at.
Frozen Planet cost £16 million for seven episodes - basically about $3.5 million an episode which is alot of money for any programme, especially a nature documentary.
Rarely, but almost never. And I suppose if you mean prime time to be "prime time during peak tv seasons", then the answer is much closer to never.
PBS seems to lean towards science and music for prime time content (though I don't watch enough to give you an educated answer). Our cable networks seem to be the ones catering to travel (Discovery Networks, Travel Channel) and wildlife (Discovery Networks, Nat Geo) and any other content that isn't going to draw 15 million viewers.
I don't know what the proportion is but lots of BBC programmes are commissioned from outside production houses, the likes of Spooks, Hustle, Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes come from such sources - even the likes of Have I Got News for You is not made by the BBC.
Most of the networks are production companies themselves. NBC is Universal. CBS is Viacom. Fox is Fox. ABC is Disney.
As best as I can work out, Eastenders costs £30 million to produce every year, for 70 hours of content or so.
Though this is for a programme that makes virtually nothing in overseas and DVD sales, and isn't in syndication.
Though this is for a programme that makes virtually nothing in overseas and DVD sales, and isn't in syndication.
The most expensive programme I can find produced for British television is Spooks at £900,000 an episode - of which there was only six in the final series recently aired.
The BBC funding deal for independent productions makes it very difficult for them - they deliberately underfund to the tune of 20% of costs on the proviso that the company sells it abroad and on DVD, though the BBC dictates exactly what it wants and gets to put it on iplayer at no additional cost.
Better than 24 for 1/10th the budget. Not bad.
Spooks went seriously downhill after the first two series and when you consider that is only 16 episodes it isn't that great.
Yet you the license fee payer pays for the show to be broadcasted and for the stars salaries. Where as in America, that is dependent on advertising. Which itself is dependent on commercial and rating success.
One third of all BBC revenues is commercial and is booming year on year and at the rate commercial revenue is growing it will overtake the licence fee contribution inside ten years.
Game of Thrones might as well have been British tbh with the amount of British stuff in the production....so make that Black Mirror, Game Of Thrones, Appropriate Adult, Sherlock, This Is England, Top Boy, man Britain crushes America.
Oh and The Shadow Line and Luther pretty good too. All America came out with recently is like Homeland, Boardwalk and a crappy Killing remake.
Oh and The Shadow Line and Luther pretty good too. All America came out with recently is like Homeland, Boardwalk and a crappy Killing remake.