The ITV drama 'Victoria' was first class. Good lighting. Camera work so professional you were never aware of it. Good clear sound. No absurd political correctness.
If the BBC had made it it would have been filmed in the dark. The camera would have wobbled, the dialogue would have been muffled, and Lord Melbourne would have been a black transgender person in a wheelchair.
Bill
Bullshit. There was nothing like that in Wallander.
Fuck off rod
Ah, that's because that was made by an independent company.
Kenneth Branagh Wallander was co-produced by Yellow Bird a Swedish company.
Most BBC drama is made by contractors not the BBC.
Haven't you forgotten the scratched film effect because it was shot in the 1800s.
as is most "BBC" stuff these days.
And who made that? It is obviously outside my ability to talk about picture quality and the interpretation of characters as I'd not know if that was justified, but I do unfortunately find that many BBC made dramas are full of background noise, sometimes muffled as if the microphone is under a scarf, and the dialogue formulaic. Victoria is not my kind of thing, but the parts I did listen to were I thought well acted and scripted for their entertainment value, not just some lacklustre dumbed down written down the pub type of stuff I've found on many recent BbC series. Maybe the ITV exercise better control over their contracted production companies than bbc do.
On the other hand maybe they can just afford the time to get it right?
Brian
I think, Brian, they cant afford to be arty and self indulgent and partisan and get it WRONG.
Because their income depends on audience figures, not political will.
All of the drama done by the BBC is now.
So his original claim is just plain mindless bigotry.
Or more likely there is no real difference between what the BBC and ITV produce now drama wise.
the problems that Bill suggests are, in general, up to the Director of the show. In the same way that, a few years' ago, we went to see a performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream and were perturbed to read in the programme notes that the director, who had never directed anything by Shakespeare before, thought it would be 'fun' to set the play in a snowstorm.
In message , Bill Wright writes
From what I've read in the press, the ITV version of Lord Melbourne is hardly more true to life. Apparently they've made him a good-looking middle-aged man, when in reality he was almost sixty and fat. Victoria saw him as a father figure, rather than fancying him as she does in the TV series.
In this vien, try reading the main item of Rod Liddle's column in yesterday's Sunday Times. It explains quite a lot about the BBC.
True, he was 40 years older than her.
Initially I thought the actress playing Victoria was too pretty for that old battle axe but she did settle in to it nicely, i.m.h.o.
On the other hand I thought the C.G.I. very poor. Marble Arch plonked down like a piece of iced confection on a wedding cake and the crowd scenes un-realistic and wasn't there very few at that ball ?
All things being equal I will watch more of it.
E
Same with ITV. 'In house' drama productions are rather rare these days.
And in what is mainly a freelance world, the same people can make both ITV and BBC nominal productions.
But of course the main purpose of Bill's posts - cross posted as usual - is to knock the BBC.
I was watching something recently, might have been the Queen Mary documentary on BBC4, and they were using the scratched film effect on bloody STILL PHOTOS!
Did you expect anything else? :-)
As a minor point, the 1800s started in 1800 and ended in 1809. It's a common mistake to use 'the 1800s' meaning the whole century.
Bill
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.