BBC funding

[Slick Mongoose]

OK, so the BBC are involved in this project, right?

Many of you will be aware of the dire state of the UK's finances, and the likelyhood that the Tories will get into power after the election this year.

So the question is, will the probable cuts in the BBC's funding affect Game of Thrones in any way?

[Black Wizard]

A Game of Thrones is probably considered to be something sophisticated and worthwhile so I can imagine the BBC going ahead with their part in the project. I think programmes like Total Wipeout are more likely to be affected.

[Werthead]

I admit that I'm a bit puzzled as to why the BBC are involved in the project. The books are well-known in UK genre circles but are not massive blockbuster bestsellers or anything, and the series lacks the obvious historical angle provided by Rome. It may come down to the fact that one of the head honchos as HBO who formerly worked for the BBC is a big fan of the books, obviously keen on the series and may have called in his BBC contacts to provide financial support.

How vital the BBC's support is remains unclear. The BBC's removal of financial support from Rome (after it got bad ratings in the UK because the BBC completely fucked the scheduling and marketing of the show something chronic) triggered the series of events that eventually scuppered the series, although HBO admitted later on it was a mistake and they chould have continued making it solo with a nice profit. If GoT's budget is more like Deadwood's than Rome's (and a recent article suggests that HBO may actually be putting more money into it than we had previously thought) and the show is a big success, than the BBC's contribution will likely be seen as ultimately beneifical but not essential, and HBO could take over funding the project solo with no problems if the BBC do pull out.

Whilst the BBC's involvement hopefully means that the show will air in the UK rapidly after in the US (although it didn't mean this for Band of Brothers or Rome, both of which aired many months later in the UK) and should ensure lots of adverts and buzz before it launches, I must admit that the BBC's total mishandling of Rome does fill me with some concerns over their involvement in GoT.

[Wastrel]

I don't really see the argument. Yes, public finances here are poor relative to the boom years, but they're not at a serious level yet (and if uncertainty about the banks continues, that would take pressue off the public finances anyway - no point taking money out of countries and investing it back into the banks that would fail if the countries stopped backing them! - hence the Japanese experience of being able to support high public debt for ages without damaging their credit rating), so we needn't get all apocalyptic.

Yes, the Tories will make sweeping ideological cuts to everything - and yes, they hate the BBC and would like nothing better than to destroy it. But the BBC is funded by the license fee, not through general taxation, so the spending cuts won't affect it. It could be that they try to slash the license fee, but it's sort of double-protected: if they cut other tax as well, people will say "why are you destroying the BBC when you say you're making us better off through tax cuts anyway?", and if they don't cut taxes people will say "why are you cutting the license fee, which doesn't help public finances, when you could be cutting taxes?".

It's more likely, I suppose, that they decide to redistribute the license fee, giving more to channel 4, regional services, maybe even ITV - but I don't think that's connected to the economy, and I don't think it'll be a Tory priority. That's what really always saves the BBC - everyone (in politics) wants to cut it, but the people who want to cut it have more important things to be doing, and the people who don't want it cut are extremely vocal, so it's never worth fighting over.

I think a more important concern regarding the economy is just the fact that people may spend less on entertainment. But then, maybe they'll spend more on escapist entertainment, and as HBO have to be showing us SOMETHING, maybe they'll thing that spectacular epic fantasy will sell well in a recession?

So I don't think we have to worry TOO much about this side of things.

[red snow]

A Game of Thrones is probably considered to be something sophisticated and worthwhile so I can imagine the BBC going ahead with their part in the project. I think programmes like Total Wipeout are more likely to be affected.

See I see the opposite to be true. Total Wipeout costs virtually nothing and has ratings that the BBC would probably kill for with AGOT. If funding is cut the BBC will be looking for cheap programs with high ratings. The rest of their budget will go onto staple shows like Eastenders, Casualty and Dr Who. Luckily the BBC has to make some "worthwhile" programming but if that's the case it makes far more sense to make it's own show where it can sell the rights to the states etc, not ones where they are a small participant in a HBO show. It makes more sense for them to buy the UK rights to the show as that should be a lot cheaper (although bidding wars with sky 1 prove that's not always the case).

[Padraig]

If funding is cut the BBC will be looking for cheap programs with high ratings.

But presumably from their perspective, GoT is relatively cheap? Since HBO is (presumably) doing most of the funding? The BBC may be more helping with the UK filming rather than throwing millions at it?

[Hereward]

I don't really see the argument. Yes, public finances here are poor relative to the boom years, but they're not at a serious level yet

Words fail me. :stunned:

[red snow]

But presumably from their perspective, GoT is relatively cheap? Since HBO is (presumably) doing most of the funding? The BBC may be more helping with the UK filming rather than throwing millions at it?

It really depends on how much they are supposed to be contributing. Until we know that it's really hard to speculate. If it is merely a case of using their studios or help with filming then the BBC could still do that as presumably HBO would pay them as opposed to the reverse. If they tie up "services rendered" with syndication rights then I think the BBC would still be interested as it has had a relatively good track record with Band of Brothers and Rome (Tudors too but that's showtime). I wonder what happened with the Camelot show the BBC was going to help showtime with? The BBC is supposed to funding that one too. Seems odd to fund both, then again BBC maybe really likes medieval styled shows.

I still hope the BBC are involved as it will be much easier to watch the show through their Iplayer than any of the other UK channels. I don't really want it to end up like "lost" and "BSG" where the only options for watching them were to give Rupert Murdoch money or buy the DVDs.

[Wastrel]

Words fail me. :stunned:

What? Anybody crying too loudly over public finances is either disingenuous, or over-anxious, or ignorant of international and historical comparisons.

As per 2009 figures, public debt was almost 50% of GDP here - about the same that it was ten years ago. Over the year, I gather it's increased to around 60%? That makes it even worse than the nineties or the eighties - but it's still not at the level of debt we had in the early seventies.

For a larger-scale comparison, look at really "dire" times we've had: the debt is still lower than it was anytime between 1930 and 1970. It was between 100% and 200% throughout the Depression, and reached 250% in the fifties, before gradually declining until its current wobble along the bottom. So calling 50%/60% "dire" is over-stating it, I think.

It looks even less noteworthy from an international point of view. In 2009, there were 38 countries in the world with higher public debt than us. Japan, for example, has debt running at 170% - THREE TIMES HIGHER than us. Others with higher debt than us include France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Austria, India, Singapore, Canada, and the United States.

In fact, we have a lower level of public debt NOW than FRANCE had during the boom!

Currently, I'd say our public finances were "not ideal". If, as some suggest, they eventually reach a peak around 100% (where Italy is now, for comparison), we might say they were "bad". If they get up to the Japanese level of over 150%, then I would accept that they were "terrible". They'd qualify for "dire", I think, if they reached post-war 200%+ levels. [And if they top 250%, as probably in Zimbabwe by now, or briefly in post-war Britain, I'd go for "catastrophic"]

It should also be noted that these high levels of public debt are less of a problem while a) everyone else has them too, and B) banks are weak and reliant on government support, or are government-owned. This means that there are fewer places for investors to put their money instead.

---

[incidentally, might the low interest rates encourage more investment in things like TV programmes? No point keeping the money in a bank, after all...]

------

I know this is off-topic, but I wanted to explain what I'd said. Perhaps this line of conversation shouldn't continue here - feel free to PM me, or start a thread elsewhere.

[Werthead]

I'm assuming that the BBC's contribution will be, at maximum, about 15% of the budget, the same for Rome. For Rome that was $15 million for each of the two seasons, which is a reasonable amount. If our thought that GoT's budget is half that, around the same as Deadwood's, is correct then that will translate to much lower contribution from the BBC (about $7.5 million, less in sterling).

But at the moment we don't know what the BBC's involvement with the production is. In fact, outside of a couple of comments by GRRM and Dan & Dave I haven't seen any official confirmation of the BBC's involvement. That suggests that HBO has funded the pilot solo and the BBC will only get involved if it goes to series.

It really depends on how much they are supposed to be contributing. Until we know that it's really hard to speculate. If it is merely a case of using their studios or help with filming then the BBC could still do that as presumably HBO would pay them as opposed to the reverse. If they tie up "services rendered" with syndication rights then I think the BBC would still be interested as it has had a relatively good track record with Band of Brothers and Rome (Tudors too but that's showtime). I wonder what happened with the Camelot show the BBC was going to help showtime with? The BBC is supposed to funding that one too. Seems odd to fund both, then again BBC maybe really likes medieval styled shows.

I still hope the BBC are involved as it will be much easier to watch the show through their Iplayer than any of the other UK channels. I don't really want it to end up like "lost" and "BSG" where the only options for watching them were to give Rupert Murdoch money or buy the DVDs.

Rome bombed on the BBC, due to their own insane scheduling and editing of the episodes. It was not a success at all, as can be seen since the first season was on prime-time (9pm) with lots of coverage and Season 2 aired close to midnight with very little fanfare.

The new Arthur show will be developed by the BBC and Showtime together, but the people working on it are actually the same production team doing The Tudors. Thus, work on the Arthur show will not properly start until The Tudors ends later this year. I imagine that means it not hitting the screens until late 2011/sometime in 2012 at the very earliest. I'm surprised the BBC want to compete with their own Merlin (which currently looks like it will go its full five seasons, taking it up to late 2012), but they may have decided that the audiences for the two shows are different enough, or depending on development the new show won't start until Merlin is winding down in its final season.

[red snow]

Rome bombed on the BBC, due to their own insane scheduling and editing of the episodes. It was not a success at all, as can be seen since the first season was on prime-time (9pm) with lots of coverage and Season 2 aired close to midnight with very little fanfare.

The new Arthur show will be developed by the BBC and Showtime together, but the people working on it are actually the same production team doing The Tudors. Thus, work on the Arthur show will not properly start until The Tudors ends later this year. I imagine that means it not hitting the screens until late 2011/sometime in 2012 at the very earliest. I'm surprised the BBC want to compete with their own Merlin (which currently looks like it will go its full five seasons, taking it up to late 2012), but they may have decided that the audiences for the two shows are different enough, or depending on development the new show won't start until Merlin is winding down in its final season.

What you say about Rome makes it seem even less likely that the BBC should want to get involved and considering that Tudors seems to have done well, the BBC would be better sticking with that show as it involves the same creative team and company. Camelot and AGOT will still be overlapping if they are both greenlit (and AGOT gets a second season) and they are likely to be compared as they are both medievil fantasies. They could end up being fantasy equivalents of Deep space nine vs Babylon 5 :) (though AGOT and camelot aren't that similar). Luckily TV is hardly over-run with Fantasy shows so I think there is room for both to flourish.

£5 million is still a fair bit of cash. The BBC could probably hold down a big presenter for a few years with that.

[Padraig]

£5 million is still a fair bit of cash. The BBC could probably hold down a big presenter for a few years with that.

I might be looking at things simplistically but if you pay £5m and get a show worth £50m, you aren't doing badly at all. Given the success of Merlin, they know the genre is popular also. Camelot for one part of the year, GoT for another. I don't really see a down-side.

[Werthead]

I've heard a whisper that for the Camelot series they may consider going down a 'historically-accurate' 6th Century route (although if they are going to do that they should have just optioned Cornwell's The Warlord Chronicles and been done with it), which would also make it noticeably different from ASoIaF and would also differentiate it from the magic-heavy, geographically-bizarre Merlin as well.

[Werthead]

Actually, the Camelot project may be on hold, as The Tudors team have just committed to doing a new series about the Borgias instead. This is confusing, as I thought the Borgias project was being shipped around by a bunch of ex-HBOers instead. Oh well.