Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The End of SGU (Will We Ever Know?)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    Originally posted by psl1 View Post
    When you grow up with the likes of....."Monty Python", BBC war docs from the 1960s plus Syfi like "Dr Who" & "A for Andromeda" [Fred Hoyle] then to Star trek etc, well we were spoilt with excellent TV.
    Was that TV supported by commercials, or ... who paid for it? I was always under the impression that it was some kind of TV license fee and other government funding, and the shows didn't have ads. Am I buying into some kind of an urban legend?
    sigpic

    Comment


      #92
      Originally posted by min min light View Post
      Was that TV supported by commercials, or ... who paid for it? I was always under the impression that it was some kind of TV license fee and other government funding, and the shows didn't have ads. Am I buying into some kind of an urban legend?
      No. It's still the case. All "500" channels still come on the back of a TV licence that only pays for the four publicly funded channels (and several publicly funded radio channels). On TV, therefore, four channels without adverts (hurray). It's quite political though: for example, even if you never, ever, watch the public four, you still need the licence.

      Comment


        #93
        Originally posted by Quizziard View Post
        No. It's still the case. All "500" channels still come on the back of a TV licence that only pays for the four publicly funded channels (and several publicly funded radio channels). On TV, therefore, four channels without adverts (hurray). It's quite political though: for example, even if you never, ever, watch the public four, you still need the licence.
        Well that's why you've got better programming! Here, it has to appeal to enough people so that the advertisers are willing to pay for commercials. I'd be happy to pay for a licence instead, if it meant we could ditch this system of the-Nielsen-families-choose. (I'd pay for a U.K. licecnse too if it meant I could watch your shows here, and in the same time frame that you see them.)
        sigpic

        Comment


          #94
          You would be in the minority of people who would be willing to pay a subscription to for their TV. People these days already complain the price of their cable/satelite TV. I don't see them wanting to pay. Even if that was true I am not convinced the content of US TV would change
          Originally posted by aretood2
          Jelgate is right

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by jelgate View Post
            You would be in the minority of people who would be willing to pay a subscription to for their TV.
            I didn't actually say that everyone would be willing to do it, I was speaking for myself.

            Originally posted by jelgate View Post
            People these days already complain the price of their cable/satelite TV.
            People complain about the price of a whole lot of things while still continuing to pay for them. Like, say, cable.

            Originally posted by jelgate View Post
            I don't see them wanting to pay. Even if that was true I am not convinced the content of US TV would change
            Stargate was on cable, right? And so is Mad Men, Game of Thrones and a bunch of other stuff that probably wouldn't survive on a regular network. And that's on a system that still requires advertising (although, less of it).
            sigpic

            Comment


              #96
              In my corner of Canada the Game of Thrones is only finally on cable while Man Men & SGU has been on since the start....

              Didn't realise what I was missing and am seriously considering getting HBO.
              SGU. Best Sci-fi show to come along in decades.

              Comment

              Working...
              X