Talking Point: are American complaints about Netflix price rises totally unjustified?

I've heard that Netflix have decided to raise their prices, in an effort to effectively get Americans to stop renting discs and instead start streaming content (which is much cheaper for them to deliver).

The unpopular way Netflix have chosen to influence this change has been an unexpected price rise. In particular, Netflix's popular $9.99 per month rental-and-streaming package has risen to $15.99 per month.

Thing is, when you adjust dollars into Pounds Sterling, this "outrageous price rise" looks anything but to British eyes! The pre-existing $9.99 package equals a trivial £6! This means the controversial increase to $15.99 is a deal worth £9.70 in British currency. Yes, Americans are complaining because renting and streaming movies will cost them less than a tenner every month! To me, a $15.99 package would be a bite-your-hand-off-to-get-it bargain!

I subscribe to LoveFilm (the European equivalent of Netflix) and pay about £15 a month for unlimited rental of three discs at any one time, and streaming of content (not including recent releases, where you pay about £3.60 each). This deal is something I've considered reasonable—considering it can cost £15-25 to buy a Blu-ray disc outright.

But £15 in US dollars is a staggering $24! Would any American pay $24 to Netflix, considering they're upset about paying just $15.99? I seriously doubt it. Considering the rumpus Netflix's price increase has caused going up by $6, people would probably cancel their subscriptions if it had gone up by $14.

So today's talking point is: are Americans once again guilty of moaning about nothing, considering the prices Brits pay for an equivalent service? Or are Brits again unaware they're paying extortionate prices, and foolish enough to do so? Or is it a bit of both?

If you live in another country, feel free to say what your own video rental subscriptions are. It would be particularly helpful if you can calculate the cost in dollars/pounds. I'd love to know if the rest of the world have a service that charges similar prices to the US, but I suspect most people are paying similar to the UK. Is that assumption true?

And to any American Netflix users reading this, do you now feel guilty for grumbling about a price rise that Brits would consider a significant reduction?

moreless

Talking Point: what have you series-linked?

If you own a Sky+, V+ or TiVo box, chances are you've series-linked various TV shows to record every week. And like browsing someone's bookshelf, what people choose to series-link says a lot about them. So what do you have series-linked—that's airing right now? Care to share, or just too embarrassed to admit you've recorded multiple episodes of The Jeremy Kyle Show?

This is the current rundown of shows my V+ box is diligently recording for me:

Alan Carr -Chatty Man: I've warmed to this Channel 4 chat show recently, as I think Alan Carr's improved slightly and the guests are starrier than they used to be (the result of limited chat show options in the UK?) But I still fast-forward through Carr's opening monologue and any guests that don't interest me, so can easily delete a recording if that week's guests don't appeal.

Arrested Development: FX have been running double-bills of this axed comedy every week, so I've been tearing through its three seasons. This is a show I missed during its original run, but kept hearing about over the years, so I'm glad I took the plunge and caught up. It's excellent. The best US comedy of the '00s.

Coast: I love this BBC series where a team of voluble scientists travel around the UK coast (and, increasingly, the shores of our European neighbours), revealing interesting societal, scientific, geographic, and historical stories along the way. It's always an hour of interesting discoveries, mixed with stunning aerial photography. Beautiful, enriching and fascinating.

Dynamo - Magician Impossible: Bradford's answer to David Blaine gets his own street magic series. And despite the fact it's massively derivative of Blaine's late-'90s shows, in terms of format and style, Dynamo's magic is still astonishing and will leave you scratching your head and giggling like a seven-year-old. This is easily the best original show Watch has ever made.

The Hour: It's early days, but I enjoyed episode 1 of this 1950s newsroom drama and, it would seem, conspiracy thriller. Stylish, well-acted, a little sluggish and awkward at times, but ultimately memorable with enough to lure you back. The kind of quality drama that was once commonplace on BBC2.

Lee Mack's All-Star Cast: There are things here I enjoy for their well-meaning shiny floor cheesiness, but a lot I hate or have grown to find tedious. This has been a surprise hit for the BBC on Saturdays, but I think that's more to do with the fact audiences want a show that's like this... of which this is a middling example. The problem is that it's not a very good chat show, and the best moments are when it goes all Noel's House Party-meets-Generation Game (a comedy sketch involving celebs and the public, and a webcam segment where people try to impress us in 15 seconds). Mack's a likeable host in the music hall tradition, but this show started uneven and has now become repetitive. I wouldn't mind a second series to improve things, or the BBC could just make something similar for primetime that works better. It's close to being deleted on my DVR.

Mock The Week: This satirical BBC2 panel show is still series-linked, but there are weeks where I can't be bothered to watch and delete it. MTW's struggled without Frankie Boyle's savage bite these past few years, and I never particularly liked the rounds and format to begin with. Funny acronyms from tabloid headlines, etc? Weak. Without Boyle lancing the week's politicians and celebs, it's become toothless pap.

The Office USA: Yes, you read that right. You must think I'm a masochist because I'm always mentioning I dislike the American version of The Office. But yes, I have seen most of the episodes and it's series-linked. So I must like this show deep down, right? Well, I'll admit I've learned to enjoy it on a shallow level—mainly because I think Steve Carrell's great and his charisma alone covers a multitude of sins. The rest? Well, it has some funny moments and some good lines. I do laugh sometimes, I'm not made of stone, but I don't embrace this show as anything other than a way to pass half-an-hour.

Penn & Teller - Fool Us: Entertaining ITV1 magic show, which hasn't done as well as it deserves to. I'm struggling to see why it hasn't caught on more, because it's one of the weekend's highlights for me. Maybe people don't like how Penn & Teller never outright expose how a trick is done, which appears to be the point when you're told the premise? I don't know. Do people really want the magic spoiled at the end of every act? Or maybe the ITV audience just don't like Penn & Teller themselves, who are a better fit for Channel 4—where they had a show in the '90s? ITV primetime certainly means their notorious edginess has been lost.

The Rob Brydon Show: Another chat show hosted by a funnyman, as if there wasn't already enough on British TV. Brydon's USP is that he's heterosexual, it would seem. Now, I like Rob Brydon, but what I saw of his chat show's inaugural year was limp and forgettable schedule-filler. All chat show live or die on the quality of their guests, and Brydon tends to rely on showbiz mates as his best bookings, sadly. It's series-linked for series 2, to see if things have improved, but I can see me deleting this.

Top Gear: I'm less enamored with this motoring show than I was five years ago, when it seemed to hit a peak, but it remains the UK's best-produced show in many ways. Truth is though, I tend to fast-forward through most of the hour these days –- except the news segment (doing my best to ignore the scripted "ad libs") and Star In A Reasonably-Priced Car lap. If there's a cross-country challenge, I'll perhaps watch that, but Jeremy Clarkson aggrandizing a Ferrari on an airstrip? No.

But what about you? Let me know what shows YOU'RE series-linking in the comments below. If you don't have a DVR, a quick rundown of which shows you're watching religiously will suffice!

moreless

Talking Point: is BBC1 the worst BBC channel?

The BBC has discovered that flagship channel BBC1 is the worst of the corporation's four main channels, according to the Audience Appreciation Index (AI) figures taken from 20,000 viewers.

The BBC found that audiences rating their channels for "quality" and "distinctiveness" returned the following results: BBC2 (83/74), BBC3 (84/74), BBC4 (85/100), and BBC1 (81/65). It's the 65 ratings for BBC1's distinctiveness that's caused the biggest upset, but it's also surprising BBC1 was perceived as having the least quality of the four channels.

So are these AI ratings accurate? Is BBC1 genuinely the worst BBC channel in terms of quality and distinctiveness? The channel that brings us Strictly Come Dancing, Doctor Who and Luther is worse than the others? Maybe people are just harder on BBC1? Did digital channels like BBC3 and BBC4 succeed in this poll because there are lower expectations involved? Even so, I struggle to see how anyone could say BBC2's better than BBC1. Despite a recent move into "Original British Drama" like The Shadow Line, the only things I tend to watch on BBC2 are Psychoville, Top Gear and Mock The Week.

What do you think? Are these AI scores crazy? Or is BBC1 genuinely the worst channel the BBC have these days?

moreless

Talking Point: which US TV show (that's never aired in the UK) do you want to see most?

The cast of PARKS & RECREATION: unseen by British viewers

These days, the best US drama/comedy usually arrives in the UK, even if it occasionally takes 9 months (I'm looking at you FX, with your indolent scheduling of Dexter). The birth of digital TV in the mid-'90s meant there were suddenly dozens of extra channels in the UK, many on 24/7 schedules and consequently desperate to fill their airwaves with programming. The two options available to them are: (a) repeats of UK shows, or (b) airing US imports. Some channels specializing in those areas, like Dave or 5USA, respectively.

But even in the year 2011, there are numerous gaps in the UK TV landscape when it comes to some American shows. For whatever reason, some shows have never been picked up by a British broadcaster, and I'd love to know why. Too expensive? Very unlikely. I hear it's because some shows are perceived as being "too American" for British audiences (despite the fact we're very Americanised these days), or just not something anyone's interested in buying.

Here are a few US shows that have never been broadcast in the UK: The Colbert Report (strange, seeing as The Daily Show was a notable part of More4 for awhile*), Men Of A Certain Age, The Middleman (short-lived, but perfect for Syfy), Parks & Recreation (great fit for Comedy Central, who show its spiritual antecedent The Office USA), and the United States Of Tara (starring Toni Collette, whom Brits took to their hearts in Muriel's Wedding). It's actually rather interesting whenever Collette appears on a UK chat show and can't even discuss Tara, a project she did from 2009-11, because nobody's seen it here.

So today's Talking Point is simple: are there any US TV shows you've been longing to see come to UK TV, that hasn't arrived yet? And if so, do you have a theory for WHY that's the case? Do you think most US shows that don't air here are deserving of that fate? Or is it ludicrous in some cases?

* I've since been told The Colbert Report aired on FX here for awhile.

moreless

Talking Point: would you watch a foreign-language import channel?

Government/Borgen

BBC4 have announced they're going to air the Danish political drama Borgen (retitled Government), in the wake of its success with The Killing. The digital channel's previously shown French cop drama Spiral, Icelandic comedy Night Shift, and Swedish detective drama Wallander. Should BBC4 just rename itself BBC Fjord? These shows are incredibly cheap acquisitions, especially compared to US drama, and seem to appeal to their intended highbrow audience. Astonishingly, The Killing's ratings were better than the acclaimed Mad Men, and it even won a BAFTA this year!

BBC4 have announced plans to stop showing comedy/drama, as part of the 20% cutbacks at the BBC, and return to their origin as... well, the only major rival to Sky Arts. It sounds like madness considering all their best shows have been in comedy or drama—like First Men In The Moon or Dirk Gently. Who here watches BBC4 purely for its documentaries and arts programming, on a regular basis? Maybe BBC4 should make an exception for cheap European dramas. I'm no expert, but writer Stephen Gallagher recently tweeted me a recommendation list of Euro dramas he's enjoyed lately (Beck, Varge Veum, Unit One, Those Who Kill, A Game of Kings, The Sandholm Murders, Bodyguards), and they all sound worth a look.

Is Europe coming out of the shadow cast by the UK and US, to lead the way in the cop/lawyer/politician-led dramatic stakes? Or are we just seeing more willingness from BBC4 to import a tiny percentage of continental drama that's worth seeing? Would it be a good idea to launch a channel dedicated to foreign language programming, aimed at English-speakers? Forget Sky Atlantic, how about launching Sky Europe? Would you watch something like that, or is foreign programming best left as irregular treats on niche channels that welcome cheap imports?

moreless

Talking Point: is broadcasting multiple episodes a week a wise move?

Injustice, ITV1

It's becoming common for UK broadcasters to air TWO episodes of a drama every week, sometimes more. Outcasts spent the first few weeks of its life airing episodes on Mondays and Tuesdays; the currently-airing Case Histories launched with an episode on Sunday and Monday; and it's always been common for ITV two/three-part dramas to air their entire run in a week, etc.

In some cases this is done because the broadcaster know they have a turkey on their hands and want to get it over with as quickly as possible, but there's often a genuine belief it's a brilliant idea because modern audiences weaned on DVD box-sets love a fast turnaround. One episode per week? How archaic!

But is that actually true? I'm of the opinion that occasionally "stripping" a TV show over multiple days (a la Torchwood: Children Of Earth, Criminal Justice or last week's Injustice) can be an interesting scheduling treat. But the more it's done, the more irritating it becomes. Sometimes I just don't have time to watch multiple episodes of the same show in a week, or even the inclination to do so. I actually like having six days to discuss a show, and let it swim around in my head for awhile. It's just about acceptable for a new show to start with a double-bill (Camelot) or two episodes in a week (Teen Wolf), just to get the ball rolling, but otherwise I prefer the traditional "one episode per week" approach.

The fact the UK don't have very long runs of TV drama/comedy also makes it seem crazy how they willfully burn through a whole 6-8 week series in half that time. Where's the sense in that?! Are British audiences really so desperate for content in double doses?

What do you think? Have broadcasters got it all wrong about our appetite for TV these days? Do you hate it when you notice a show is demanding TWO hours of your time every week, instead of the usual one? Does this practice mean you tend to watch one episode and record the other to watch a week later, effectively ensuring you're seven days behind everyone else? Or is that unacceptable because of spoiler concerns with some of the more popular shows? Do you find that the hassle of multiple episodes means you avoid something altogether, or save it on your DVR knowing you'll probably delete it because it feels like you're dragging behind from the get-go?

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this puzzling trend. Does it happen where you live, if you're not a resident of the UK?

Over to you!

moreless

Talking Point: is Doctor Who's Amy Pond a badly written insult to women?

US TV screenwriter Kay Reindl (Millennium, Haunted) wrote an interesting, impassioned rant about the current state of Doctor Who over at her blog—a show she's fallen out of love with since Steven Moffat took over from Russell T. Davies, despite the fact she was a vocal fan of Moffat's earlier work.

In this blog post, Kay posits that Moffat's writing for Amy Pond has been dictated by an alarmingly old-fashioned view on what a woman's role is in fiction. Amy was introduced as a "cute little girl", grew up to become a "leggy kissogram", then a "blushing bride", and now a "mother". The next logical step is to turn her into a "wrinkled old hag", right? In a quirk of the plot, Amy doesn't even have any parents or guardians to give her any sort of personal context beyond the fact she's the fiancé/wife of Rory.

Basically, Kay's claim is that Moffat's developing Amy in a mildly chauvinistic way, by shoehorning her into perceived "roles" women in fiction must occupy to be of "value" to male characters: a child, a lover, a wife, and now a mother.

What do you think? Is Moffat unable to write three-dimensional female characters of the strength Russell T. Davies achieved with Rose and Donna, or is he just using Amy in a way that hasn't been tackled on the show before--and that just happens to involve utilizing marriage and motherhood? I don't think Moffat intends to treat Amy/women with derision, but are there some subconscious biases and viewpoints bubbling to the forefront of the show he's unaware of himself? Pre-Who, Moffat was well-known for writing strong women (such as Press Gang's Linda Day), and River Song's certainly a good female role model on the show right now, so is Kay Reindl's theory wide of the mark?

I'm particularly interested to hear from women about this issue. Do you identify with Amy more than her nu-Who predecessors because she's a normal girl who got married and became a mum? Has Amy's use been insulting to you in any way? Do you think Amy's little more than a mini-skirted sex object who's being utilized in ways according to gender over character? I mean, Amy's actually been made pregnant twice since she was introduced last year, so it's hard not to feel there's something in the theory that Steven Moffat's at fault somewhere... but is it something work getting worked up about?

Thoughts, anyone?

moreless

Talking Point: do you start watching TV shows you know have been cancelled?

This is perhaps more of a concern for television shows that are imported, but would a show's cancellation put you off watching them to begin with? A good recent example is The Chicago Code, which was axed by Fox in the US the same week it made its UK debut on Sky1. For UK audiences, did that put you off investing time in The Chicago Code, or were you happy to just watch the season that exists? Or maybe this issue never affects you, because you don't keep a close eye on which foreign shows are being renewed/cancelled

Personally, I think good television is good television, regardless of how much of it exists. I'd happily watch a brilliant American TV show, knowing it was axed in the US. But I must admit, TV shows of only mild interest would probably get overlooked if I knew they only lasted a short while. Early cancellation doesn't inspire confidence in something, even knowing that ratings and quality are not intrinsically linked.

What do you think? Does foreknowledge of a TV show's untimely demise ever put you off watching them? Or doesn't it matter--unless you're aware there's a particularly stinging end-of-season cliffhanger that will never be resolved?

Over to you!

moreless

Talking Point: why are the BBC refusing to air Scottish comedy to the rest of the UK?

Have you seen the sketch show Burnistoun? Doesn't ring a bell? Oh, how about Gary: Tank Commander? No? You must have seen Limmy's Show? Still drawing a blank? If so, chances are you're not Scottish, because those are three popular Scottish comedies that have never been broadcast south of the border. The invention of the BBC iPlayer means they're just one click away for Welsh, Northern Irish and English viewers, of course, but quite why the BBC are resistant to airing them is anyone's guess...

Are the schedules really too full to squeeze them in somewhere? I don't believe that. BBC2 or BBC3 would surely welcome three extra comedies on their schedule, so why don't they show them? Are they perceived as being TOO Scottish and of no appeal to the rest of Britain? Is there even such a thing as "too Scottish" -- beyond a ginger, kilt-wearing Highland Games champ called Angus McAngus riding the Loch Ness Monster to an Edinburgh shortcake festival, while playing bagpipes with his face painted Braveheart blue?

What do you think, Scottish readers? Are we missing out on some treats here? And to everyone else, who may have sampled these shows via iPlayer, are they worth watching or deservedly obscured behind Hadrian's Wall? Although, rather interesting, many are popular in Australia. You can read more in this article from the Herald Scotland.

And for those who haven't seen those shows, here are some samples:

moreless

Talking Point: is physical media really doomed?

It's been revealed that US sales of DVDs fell 20% in the first quarter of 2011, falling from $2.58bn to $2bn over three months. The report by the Digital Entertainment Group (DEG) also showed that rentals fell 36% to $440m, but online streaming rose by 33% to $695m.

Hollywood is quick to claim that four tent-pole cinema releases in the first quarter of 2011 perhaps steered moviegoers away from DVD and to the multiplexes. Or, y'know, it was a blip and things will even out as the year progresses. And they may be right about that.

But some insiders say the movie industry's starting to feel the effects of its customers moving away from physical media to embrace digital. This is something the music industry was forced to deal with in the early-'00s, and has seemingly managed to turn online streaming into decent revenue -- via the likes of iTunes, which has managed to entice customers because of low prices and user-friendliness.

Can the movie industry do the same, now super-fast broadband is just around the corner? Will you embrace a world where movies come as purely electronic content? Or will you miss having a physical disc in your hand, to proudly display on a shelf at home?

Personally, I have the mind of a collector. If I buy an album or a movie, I want to own it tangibly. I hate the idea of a "collection" being a list of text displayed on a computer, that's either accessible on my hard-drive (thus susceptible to deletion/corruption) or held on a central server I have paid access to. I'd much rather see a shelf of colourful spines, which visitors to my home can peruse like a small-scale branch of HMV.

It just feels like you OWN something if you can touch it. But then again, music fans appear to have moved away from CDs in droves. Maybe that's because it makes more sense to turn music into an easily portable medium, which you can listen to while jogging on an iPod without the sound skipping.

But movies? I'm not sure I want empty shelves and a TV streaming content to me. It's handy in some ways (no time-consuming trips to the shops or waits for a postal delivery), but I don't feel like I truly own that content. Then again, maybe digital media will forego the irritating trend for discs to cue up with about an abundance of movie trailers, anti-piracy adverts and studio idents. It can take me three-minutes to play a movie after inserting a Blu-ray these days -- even if I'm furiously stabbing at the skip button. Blu-rays even download content from the internet, unless you disable your connection beforehand!

But what about upgrades? The movie industry make a lot of money when technology progresses, as they can resell their back catalogues on the latest media -- as they're currently doing with Blu-ray now that DVD's been superseded. If you downloaded a movie, would you have to re-download a better version if technology improves? Would customers be as willing to do that with digital media -- without the enticement of snazzy packaging?

What do you think? Do the pro's of digital movies outweigh the con's? Would the demise of physical media be a sad day for film fans? Or is this issue more a concern for people who have a fondness for collecting things, over a general public who just want to see high-quality content delivered quickly and easily?

Over to you!

A quick reminder that I'm unable to read or leave comments here during working hours, on weekdays. So don't expect a response from myself until sometime after 5PM GMT.

moreless

Talking Point: what's so swingin' about the '60s?

Mad Men renewed a long-held media fascination with the 1960s. Transformers 3 is partly set in 1969, the X-Men First Class prequel takes place entirely in the '60s, The Kennedys miniseries obviously focuses on that era, James Bond was rebooted via a Casino Royale update, the two-part premiere of Doctor Who's sixth series takes place on the eve of the Moon Landing, and Will Smith travels back in time to the '60s for Men In Black III. TV pilots Pan Am and Playboy are set in the Swinging Sixties, too. Why are the '60s back in fashion? Or has that decade always been so trendy? And if so, why?

Is it simply because there's so much great stuff to revisit? JFK, The Beatles, the Summer of Love, the Apollo space program, Martin Luther King, the rise of recreational drugs, Malcolm X, the civil rights movement, the Bay of Pigs, bra-burning suffragettes, England winning the World Cup in '66, the Cuban Missile Crisis, hippies, etc. Is there no other decade that can rival its mix of social, political, and cultural changes?

Or is it just the nearest decade that people under-40 (who generally dictate the gaze of entertainment), don't personally remember, so they can re-imagine it with fantasy trappings? And people over-40, who DO remember the '60s, have maybe convinced themselves it was the exciting period the media now promotes? We all think our youth was rosier, as you're more innocent and naïve the further back you go. Is there any truth to any of this?

Or do we just love sharp suits, trilbies, and miniskirts?

Let me know what you think about the media's perception of the '60 and why that decade's always been popular. It may also be fun to reveal your age (if only very generally!), so we can contextualize your thoughts. For me, I was born in 1979, so have no personal attachment to the '60s beyond what I know from history and have seen in the media. I think the decade just has an innate coolness about it (the fashions, the social changes, the politics), and was the birth of the "modern culture". Do you agree?

moreless

'Being Human': Toby Whithouse on the show's future

Being Human's creator Toby Whithouse has been interviewed by Entertainment Weekly, in the wake of the show's third series finale airing on BBC America. Consequently: beware spoilers! It's an interesting discussion, focusing on the departure of Aidan Turner, but he also confirms the return of werewolf Tom (Michael Socha) next year, and the possibility of bringing old characters back (like Craig Roberts' Adam and Paul Rhys' Ivan.) However, it looks like anyone hoping for Mitchell to return in flashbacks are in for a disappointment...

To be honest, the first time I met Aidan. I knew he was somebody we’d only be borrowing from movie stardom. In the U.S. you’ll contract actors for seven seasons -- we don’t have the finances to do that. So every time we start a new series, we have to renegotiate with the actors and see whom we have left. Sure enough, Peter Jackson came along and saw Aidan and whisked him away to New Zealand. The thing is, I was kind of preparing myself for that on series 2 when I wrote the sequence where he kills all those people on the train. I always knew that would ultimately be the reason for the character’s exit, whether it happened at the end of series 3 or 33. Continue reading...

moreless

Talking Point: do you know anyone with a ratings box?

A tiny percentage of the population are given TV ratings boxes to chronicle their daily viewing. There are 16,000 so-called Nielsen families in America, and 5,100 British households given BARB boxes. The results of this minority's viewing are then multiplied to predict what the whole TV-watching nation were tuning into. For example: one BARB household equals 5,000 actual homes. Yes, it sounds ridiculous and antiquated, but it's the only viable system we have.

But have you ever been part of these families? Or do you know anyone who has? After decades of this system, you'd think we'd all know someone who had a ratings box -- but that doesn't seem to be the case. They do exist, right? And what are your thoughts on the way ratings are collected? How can the system be improved? Will there come a time when everyone has a ratings box, transmitting real-time information? Would that be open to widespread abuse? Is it too Orwellian?

Over to you!

moreless

Talking Point: would you care if the BBC cutback on late-night and daytime programmes?

The BBC's latest idea to save money is to axe overnight programming, saving £150m per year. This could mean nothing but repeats airing on BBC1 and BBC2 between 10.30pm and 6.00am every day.

This would put a few art programmes and The Graham Norton Show in the direct firing line, although I suspect the BBC would simply reschedule Graham Norton for slightly earlier in the evening.

There are also plans to cutback on BBC2's daytime schedule, with the channel generally being used to show repeats of BBC1's content during that time.

It's all partly driven by the fact the TV license fee has been frozen at £145.50 per household until late-2016, so the BBC have to make do with their current income for five years.

But what do you make of these proposals? Will you care if the output from the BBC is lessened during non-peak hours? I guess it will only affect you if you watch TV during daytime/nighttime (i.e you're a stay-at-home parent, unemployed, a student, or work shifts, etc.)

Personally, it wouldn't affect me, so I'd be happy for the BBC to make cutbacks in these areas of the schedule. I'd rather this than the BBC cutback on existing primetime shows. But how about you? Do you value the quieter hours of the schedule more than most people? Maybe you work unsociable hours? But if so, would repeats really be so bad? Who actually expect original premieres after midnight, anyway!

Over to you!

moreless

Talking Point: which current TV show deserves a movie adaptation?

The movie industry are always remaking old TV shows (The A-Team arrived last summer, The Smurfs are due soon), but which current/recent TV show most deserves a cinematic interpretation? Doctor Who and perhaps Torchwood feel like no-brainers, and a 24 movie is apparently aiming for a 2012 release, but are most TV shows impossible to translate because they work better as a serialized story?

I can't really see Dexter working in movie form; well, the concept could easily have been a film, but coming up with a worthy film-length story five years into its run? Not happening. Likewise, True Blood. Well, okay, perhaps True Blood could condense a whole book into a two-hour format. But are enough non-fans at least aware of the show to entice them into the cinema? Look at what happened when Serenity released into a world where only a minority knew it was based on an axed TV series called Firefly. It was hardly a runaway success. You need a genuine TV phenomenon to achieve that, but so many shows that fit that description are impossible to replicate on the silver screen -- like Lost.

But actually, we're overlooking a perfect candidate to make an easy leap to the big screen: Glee. An easy concept to explain, with an established fan-base large enough to create a High School Musical-esque hit around the world. I can already imagine a Sing-A-Long version being released to DVD, too. And 3D, of course. Sorry, "3-Glee".

What else? Primeval? Easily done! Flight Of The Conchords? An instant cult hit, surely. Chuck? Uh, very unlikely. Breaking Bad or Mad Men? It's just not happening.

Ideally, you need a show with a simple format that tends to tell episodic stories on the smallscreen, so the leap to the big-screen feels like an opportunity to paint on a bigger canvas. There are fewer candidates around nowadays, given how the TV trend is to embrace things most movies can't easily do -- like tell serialized stories over many years.

But do you have any suggestions?

moreless

Talking Point: is racism endemic in cosy British drama?

Writer Brian True-May has been suspended from work for claiming the success of his ITV series Midsomer Murders was partly down to the fact it doesn't reflect the UK's modern, multicultural society. In his own words:

"We just don't have ethnic minorities involved. Because it wouldn't be the English village with them. It wouldn't work. Fans love the perceived English genreel eccentricity. It's not British. It's very English. We're the last bastion of Englishness and I want to keep it that way."

Midsomer Murders has certainly become a weirdly popular TV series; nominally targeted at the over-40s, it's become very popular with students. It's the definition of a quaint English drama, with its idyllic countryside setting, Agatha Christie-esque whodunnits and comforting mix of characters. And it's plainly evident that it doesn't feature many, if any, characters who aren't white-skinned. The same criticism could be levelled at ITV's Doc Martin and Kingdom, which also rarely feature minority ethnic groups.

So the talking point today takes its cue from this news story. Is British drama (particularly ITV's output, typically airing Sunday) guilty of racism? True-May's remarks are clearly foolish and racist, but might it be true that his audience for Midsomer Murders share his views, deep down?

One anonymous programming executive said of the situation:

"These sort of dramas are almost period pieces in their own right. Although he has blundered into in a very inept way, Brian True May has stated a perfectly reasonable point about middlebrow drama. These are pieces that play well precisely because they are about a sort of mystical England."

Is that why shows like Midsomer Murders don't accurately reflect modern British society? And why hasn't anybody noticed the racial bias before True-May's suspension? Were viewers subconsciously happy to have a show that's stuck in a cultural timewarp? Are audiences perhaps more racist than they'd like to admit? What harm would it do if Midsomer Murders featured more non-white characters?

Over to you.

moreless

Talking Point: should nitpickers be taken seriously?

Today's Talking Point is inspired by the comments left beneath my interview with Outcasts' creator Ben Richards. It's clear from some of the response that a chunk of the audience had issues with what they perceive as lapses of logic and flaws in the fundamental concept of Outcasts. I won't go into detail about specific points raised, but it's safe to say plenty of people didn't think the show's concept withstood scrutiny.

So the question is simple: is nitpicking like this warranted? I mean, obviously there are occasions when you notice a mistake or flaw in a TV show, and feel compelled to mention it. That's fair. I do it in reviews sometimes, but mainly because nitpicks are fun to spot and point out as asides. It's only really worth mentioning in the body of a review if it seriously damaged your engagement with what's happening on-screen.

There are entire books dedicated to nitpicking shows (The Nitpicker's Guide For Next Generation Trekkers, say), so obviously geeks are particularly quick to jump on slip-ups the writers make, and actually enjoy that process.

But is it really fair to condemn a TV show because of minor errors -- many of which most people won't notice, or care about?

In the case of sci-fi (undoubtedly the genre that attracts the most analysis from fans), writers aren't always authorities on subjects like space travel and cloning. Although most will have a keen interest and, you'd hope, some working knowledge. But should they be expected to research more, to pass muster with eggheads? In the US, assistants are paid to gather information to aide a writer's creativity, whereas in the UK writers are more like authors expected to do their own heavy-lifting (i.e. Google and consult Wikipedia!)

Is the odd slipup forgivable, if the core tenets of good drama (great acting, strong storytelling) remain intact?

What do you think? Is nitpicking the pastime of geeks who have little to say about non-technological subjects like emotions and narrative? Or do all writers have an obligation to ensure their work's as water-tight as possible, especially in sci-fi, even if the quest to ensure something withstands scrutiny unravels a good concept and story?

moreless

Talking Point: are same-day American premieres of British TV shows unfair?

Doctor Who's sixth series is being shown on BBC America the same day as its UK premiere on 23 April. This continues a trend started by Doctor Who with its 2010 festive special "A Christmas Carol" and the fourth series premiere of Primeval. I'm sure many Americans are overjoyed at this news, and I certainly don't blame them, but is it fair to British viewers, who pay for the show?

My argument boils down to the fact British viewers, who already have to wait weeks/months for US shows to be legally broadcast, have very few "TV events" to get excited about. The fact a world-famous show like Doctor Who premieres in its native land, weeks before anywhere else, gives British fans a sense of ownership and, yes, some fun bragging rights. For just a few times in the year, it's the rest of the TV-watching world who are jealous of us, and not the other way around. Or am I alone in getting jealous?

There are times when a US show airs within a week of its transmission here, too -- and that's fantastic. I don't begrudge the US getting to see their own shows first. That same-week system should be standardized and cut both ways. If Doctor Who premiered on BBC America within 7 days of its BBC1 premiere, that's absolutely fine with me.

I suppose we should be grateful Doctor Who's broadcast isn't simultaneous because of time zone issues. Thanks science! And I wouldn't complain if more UK broadcasters had regular same-day transmissions of equivalently popular US dramas. But it rarely seems to work that way. Maybe one day global simulcasts will be commonplace. That's fair. But, as it stands, I'm frustrated a perk of being a UK TV license fee payer has been eroded like this.

Do you agree with me? I bet Americans don't! I know it's a (very) petty issue, at heart, but I don't want the few instances of temporary exclusivity on globally popular UK shows to disappear, especially if it's a one-sided situation that benefits American audiences. In light of this news, Torchwood: Miracle Day had better broadcast on BBC1 the same day as Starz in the summer, considering it's actually co-created by the BBC...

moreless

Talking Point: when was your last box-set binge?

The DVD box-set has transformed how many people watch television since the turn of the century. For many people who can't access premium TV channels, box-sets are often their only legitimate alternative. Many shows seem to benefit from box-sets, if you're intolerant to advertising and hate waiting a week between episodes. As serialized storytelling became more popular in the '00s, you could even argue that commercial TV is no longer the best way to watch shows like 24, which many people devoured like crack on DVD.

But when did you last binge on a box-set? Have you ever mainlined a whole 24-episode season in a day? Which TV show received that honour? Why did you get so greedy or obsessed? Is that now a regular part of your box-set experience, to devour them as fast as possible? And what are the pro's and con's of box-set bingeing?

Personally, I'm not a big consumer of box-sets. Occasionally, I'll rent one, but that will usually take me a few months to get through (see The Wire, In Treatment, Firefly.) The last time I remember overdosing on a box-set was in the summer of 2005, when I bought the first season of Lost on DVD. In six days, I watched the whole thing from beginning to end, a few days before season 2 started in the US. Part of the rush was realizing I wanted to get the box-set finished before new episodes started, but it was also a genuinely addictive TV series that hooked me.

So, what are your experiences and thoughts on box-set binges? Do they only work with particular shows, or does all TV drama benefit from quick, concentrated bursts of intemperance? I mean, as much as I adore the show, I don't understand how people manage to get through entire seasons of Mad Men in a weekend. You sometimes need time to process and discuss TV inbetween episodes, don't you?

moreless

Talking Point: the BBC iPlayer's going international, so will you subscribe?

The BBC's famous iPlayer is launching internationally this year on the iPad, for a monthly subscription of less than $10 (£6.13). This means foreign viewers will be able to access much of the BBC's TV archive and see BBC shows mere hours after they premiere in the UK.

What do you make of this news? It sounds like a great development for people overseas who enjoy BBC programmes. In particular, I can already sense the Doctor Who fans salivating over being able to legally stream the show in HD, on the same day as the UK broadcast.

How will this affect the ratings of BBC America and other broadcasters around the world who buy BBC content? The revenue generated by selling directly to a global audience will inevitably be huge for the BBC, even if they're only selling to iPad users initially, but are they strangling their foreign broadcast ventures? Or is this the future: no traditional TV broadcasters, just online content streamed to people who want it?

Let me know your thoughts! If you're American, I'm especially interested to hear how this might affect your viewing. Do you own an iPad? Will you subscribe to BBC iPlayer? And would you stop watching BBC America altogether if you did?

moreless