That it’s a co-production is nothing new. Earlier, some stuff was co-produced by the BBC and PBS (American public television), or the BBC and HBO (the TV series Rome, for example) or the BBC and BBC America, along with various other combinations of internationals broadcasters.
To answer this question first -
I’m unaware of any british dramas that have churned out 60 episodes in under three years with the production values of “This Is Us.” (Soaps in both countries have lower production values.) Some of the co-productions have hit about half of that number - but it is my understanding that the UK system just isn’t set up for that kind of grind. American Network shows are unprofitable without it. To be clear, I’m not saying that one system is better than the other - but that both systems have very different ways of commissioning, producing, and profiting off of television shows and as a consequence, the types of shows that get made are going to be different. “Broadcast” in the US is a different beast than “broadcast” in the UK.
Actually, I’d like to question that - from what I can tell, BBC Three is not a top tier channel - it’s not the rough equivalent of the US broadcast channels (ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox, or even the CW). It seems to be more on par with the non-premium cable channels in the US. This doesn’t mean it isn’t a good show or doesn’t deserve its awards. But it is disingenuous to pretend that it isn’t playing with different rules.
Among them: take a look at some of the initial press around fleabag and among the things that it almost all mentions is that it’s explicit (or as some of the news calls it “filthy”). You cannot show that on a US broadcast network. A comedy is also unlikely to get space on a broadcast network unless someone can conceptualize 13-20+ episodes before the pilot airs (Fleabag took 3 years to get to 12). And the ratings for that first year were not high - definitely not high enough for episode 3 to even have gotten aired on the big 4*. The US networks could not make money on this show in the US and therefore it most likely would not air; if the pilot somehow did make it on screen, it would not last.
BBC Three - even BBC - don’t make money the same way, so they can produce and air different shows. There is a similar argument about the streaming services - they don’t make money the same way that the US major networks do, so they can do things that would be unprofitable on the networks.
*Maybe the CW - because who knows what they’re doing?
Thanks. But the BBC is still a major broadcaster, right?
Amarinth - yes, agreed that the BBC would definitely not have produced that many episodes in that time, and it does make a difference to the way people make programmes, in good ways and bad. From the way it was brought up, it seemed more like it was about being “daring” rather than the number of episodes.
The explicit stuff you talk about might be uncommon on a US broadcast network, but it’s not that shocking in the UK.
It’s not really possible to compare broadcast, non-premium, etc, channels. Most of us Brits all these years see Americans talking about whether a show is a cable show or not and it means nothing to us at all; there isn’t really an equivalent. We do have some Sky-only channels, but it’s not the same as cable or not cable system there seems to be in the US. The system is different.
The BBC channels are all available to anyone with a TV licence, whether on TV or on iPlayer, and funded by the same license fee. The implication seems to be that they’re niche. But they’re not. They are still the BBC.
The BBC does make money in a different way, due to the license fee. But it’s still a major network. Which was my entire point. The risks weren’t taken because of a break from a major network.
It just seems really odd to have a very British show with British writers and mostly British actors, produced by the BBC (with Amazon), claimed as something that broadcast networks couldn’t produce. It’s a very BBC show. I’m not sure how anyone could ever watch it and not think it was British.
I think in the Americans’ minds (including mine), after reading this discussion, when Americans say “broadcast network” they’re referring to something that just doesn’t exist in England.
The major disconnect, I think, is the assertion that the BBC is a “broadcast network” in the context of a discussion about television in America.
tell me was zendaya’s dress actually see-through with very carefully placed stripes or was that just an optical illusion ?
heres the last time the broad cast networks won in each category MSN
I can’t believe the space this argument is taking up here.
Try this, as it was clearly what whoever opened this topic meant:
Fleabag is a very British show with British writers and mostly British actors, produced by the BBC (with Amazon), and something that American broadcast networks couldn’t produce.
Feel better?
I think that must be it. But I’m not sure what else it could be. BBC3 (and 2, and 1, where the show was subsequently broadcast; season 2 had its first showings on BBC1) are part of the BBC.
Agreed that it is weird there’s so much argument about it. But iSiddigui didn’t change his argument to it being about only American broadcast networks. That would be a fair point.
Every single person on here knows the niggling annoying feel when you state something factual and people disagree based on opinions. The BBC is a broadcast network (if it’s not, what is it?), and it was one of the two companies that commissioned Fleabag, and broadcast it nearly three years before it was shown on Amazon. Amazon co-producing it at some point doesn’t mean that the BBC’s input suddenly disappears.
It’s not important or anything, it’s just that - and this is the Dope, I know you’ve all had this experience before - it’s irritating to be told you’re wrong when you’re not, even on a small point.
No, his very first post on this subject is 100% correct, and he helpfully clarified when you asked him about it. You are indeed wrong, and have been for many posts now.
The funniest part is that you seem to want to lump the BBC in with the dumpster fire that is the American broadcast networks.
Nope, he said “it was on Amazon in the US.” That doesn’t mean it was never on the BBC in the UK - which it was, years before it was in the US - or that they never commissioned it (with funding from Amazon at some point), and showed it years before Amazon did. The BBC were a (probably the) major reason this show existed.
Like I said a couple of posts ago, if there had been a difference made between American broadcast networks and British ones, then I’d have agreed. But there wasn’t. It wasn’t me who lumped them together.
This such a weird argument. The BBC commissioned Fleabag. Amazon paid for some of it. One person said that this meant Fleabag was made without broadcast network input. So I guess for some of you the BBC is not a broadcast network. Is that right?
No, that’s not right. Nobody in this thread has said or implied that the BBC isn’t a broadcast network. Only you have incorrectly inferred that people have, and that’s why you have been and continue to be wrong.
I have not “incorrectly inferred” that people have claimed the BBC is not a broadcast network. I asked directly if that was the claim just once, in the post directly before yours. The reason is to try to work out what the actual argument is here, because it doesn’t make sense.
The original assertion was that this show was “made without the involvement of a broadcast network.” The “clarification” was that, to him, and apparently to all of you, “it counts firmly as a streaming show” because that’s how it was broadcast in the US. As if that overrides the BBC.
So now the argument is that the show * was* made with the involvement of a broadcast network, but that doesn’t actually mean anything because in America it was shown on Amazon. Gotcha. Amazon can claim credit for all the shows it has distribution rights for, OK, fine.
This is wrong, and is your incorrect inference. Fleabag was not made by an American broadcast network. The “American” part went unstated because it is self-evident that in a thread talking about the Emmys, we’re ONLY talking about American television. Everyone but you understands this context.
In America, yes, it absolutely does “override” that. Broadcast networks in America have to follow FCC guidelines for content. Fleabag does not.
All of this is wrong.
Try this: Re-read the thread, and every single time you see the term “broadcast network” written by anybody, mentally change that to “American broadcast network.” That’s what people actually meant, which is clear and obvious because this is a thread about the Emmys. Everyone else understood this the whole time.
Stepping a little nervously into this debate, I think I can see both sides. I can see that ‘broadcast network’ carries certain connotations in the US that it perhaps doesn’t in the UK, where most of our TV is still made by traditional network broadcasters (or at by least production companies who then air their programmes on network TV).
I can also see that SciFiSam would wince at the suggestion below that it ‘counts as a streaming show’.
I guess you need to picture that for Brits, the BBC is the most famous broadcast network in the world, so the above quote is confusing.
Sort of. I acknowledged that there were differences in terms early on and assumed that was it. And then there was a small pile-on.
Ellis Dee said this:
I don’t think Emmy rules bar programmes produced outside the US and previously broadcast elsewhere and if that’s the case then I’d need a cite. That means they’re not talking only about American-made TV, doesn’t it? It has to be shown there, not made there.
I wasn’t talking about Emmy rules, and Fleabag winning an Emmy very clearly demonstrates that such shows are indeed eligible.
I was talking about people discussing shows that are nominated for Emmys. In a casual discussion about Emmy-nominated shows, when people say the term “broadcast network” they are very specifically talking about American broadcast networks. This distinction has meaning because American broadcast networks must adhere to FCC rules for content or they get fined.
As should be obvious, FCC regulations greatly change the type of shows you can produce. Nobody would ever confuse CBS procedurals for HBO prestige television, for example.
Fleabag got to be dirty and raunchy because it was not subject to puritanical guidelines like American broadcast network shows face from the FCC. Standing your ground that “But the BBC is a broadcast network in England!” is so missing the point I can’t even believe anyone would choose to die on that hill.