Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
2012-01-13 23:20:11
Paul Trevor Bale laments "working on my Richard screenplay, trying to
get it produced." We are living in a climate that seems to find benefit
in nothing more ambitious than bodice-rippers: Tudors, WOTR. Yes, Paul,
I feel sick about this, too. Why bother writing anything for television,
a medium of slight and perpetually sinking IQ?
I have another problem apart from having written a serious epic in
Shakespeare's English. I'm paying an outrageous amount of money to
maintain a television licence for my occasionally occupied house in
Dorset, while the BBC ventures further and further into the ditch to
create pure trash. Readers who live outside the U.K. are not likely to
believe this: Brits actually have to pay an exhorbitant licence fee to
simply own a TV in the U.K. This goes to support the BBC, so BBC
managers chase audience ratings deeper and deeper into the mud at the
bottom of the national pond in order to look good in the eyes of their
own managers and, ultimately, politicians who debate and set this
tariff. Hence the need to rip bodices as a substitute for national
history.
Yes, I know. I have lived in North America much too long. And I have
probably produced current affairs television in Canada for too long,
too.
On a calmer note, I am announcing that I have written a substantial post
called "Richard III and the North of England" for the "On the Tudor
Trail
<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
iii-and-the-north-of-england/> " URL. My post integrates a fair amount
of text from "Dark Sovereign" into the piece, so you can check how my
grasp on renaissance English fits in.
There is one sentence from "Dark Sovereign" that might fit the BBC's
current trash-quest mindset. Asked in a letter from his allies to ride
south to put a damper on Q. Eliz. Woodville's ambitions, Duke Richard
hurls his scornful response at his long-suffering varlet:
"Is England so phantastically kingÕd, that I /
Ñwhile Scotsmen ravish English wivesÑ /
must haste to London, /
there to save my brother from his queen? /
Psha! His fool's-bell is soon rung doth war two fronts."
That second line should appeal to the BBC -- except that Scotland is now
doing what Quebec has been trying to do for the past forty years, get
Canada to pay for its whining about "humiliation in Canada" and its need
for independence.
I have written too much. I commend you to "Richard III and the North of
England
<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
iii-and-the-north-of-england/> ". At least he didn't have to buy a
licence to watch bad TV.
Robert Fripp
get it produced." We are living in a climate that seems to find benefit
in nothing more ambitious than bodice-rippers: Tudors, WOTR. Yes, Paul,
I feel sick about this, too. Why bother writing anything for television,
a medium of slight and perpetually sinking IQ?
I have another problem apart from having written a serious epic in
Shakespeare's English. I'm paying an outrageous amount of money to
maintain a television licence for my occasionally occupied house in
Dorset, while the BBC ventures further and further into the ditch to
create pure trash. Readers who live outside the U.K. are not likely to
believe this: Brits actually have to pay an exhorbitant licence fee to
simply own a TV in the U.K. This goes to support the BBC, so BBC
managers chase audience ratings deeper and deeper into the mud at the
bottom of the national pond in order to look good in the eyes of their
own managers and, ultimately, politicians who debate and set this
tariff. Hence the need to rip bodices as a substitute for national
history.
Yes, I know. I have lived in North America much too long. And I have
probably produced current affairs television in Canada for too long,
too.
On a calmer note, I am announcing that I have written a substantial post
called "Richard III and the North of England" for the "On the Tudor
Trail
<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
iii-and-the-north-of-england/> " URL. My post integrates a fair amount
of text from "Dark Sovereign" into the piece, so you can check how my
grasp on renaissance English fits in.
There is one sentence from "Dark Sovereign" that might fit the BBC's
current trash-quest mindset. Asked in a letter from his allies to ride
south to put a damper on Q. Eliz. Woodville's ambitions, Duke Richard
hurls his scornful response at his long-suffering varlet:
"Is England so phantastically kingÕd, that I /
Ñwhile Scotsmen ravish English wivesÑ /
must haste to London, /
there to save my brother from his queen? /
Psha! His fool's-bell is soon rung doth war two fronts."
That second line should appeal to the BBC -- except that Scotland is now
doing what Quebec has been trying to do for the past forty years, get
Canada to pay for its whining about "humiliation in Canada" and its need
for independence.
I have written too much. I commend you to "Richard III and the North of
England
<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
iii-and-the-north-of-england/> ". At least he didn't have to buy a
licence to watch bad TV.
Robert Fripp
Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
2012-01-13 23:34:12
LOL Robert.I would GLADLY pay a licence fee to get ANY TV other than the
dribble we get here in Nova Scotia - esp the American TV that is readily
available on zillions of channels, yet most nights - there is nothing
remotely interesting on the telly & the insane BRAINWASHING adverts,
ridiculous 'cameos' selling trash, some are repeated 2 or 3 times during a
single break - & as soon as an ad break comes on the sound is automatically
increased, presumably because so many people walk away from the TV during
these and the ridiculous 'warnings' after EVERY break, even if its just the
credits - it really is driving me bonkers. I'll pay for 'normal' TV. If
anyone knows how we can get SKY or BBC or ITV over here - please please let
me know!!!
On 13 January 2012 19:20, rspfripp <r_fripp@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> Paul Trevor Bale laments "working on my Richard screenplay, trying to
> get it produced." We are living in a climate that seems to find benefit
> in nothing more ambitious than bodice-rippers: Tudors, WOTR. Yes, Paul,
> I feel sick about this, too. Why bother writing anything for television,
> a medium of slight and perpetually sinking IQ?
>
> I have another problem apart from having written a serious epic in
> Shakespeare's English. I'm paying an outrageous amount of money to
> maintain a television licence for my occasionally occupied house in
> Dorset, while the BBC ventures further and further into the ditch to
> create pure trash. Readers who live outside the U.K. are not likely to
> believe this: Brits actually have to pay an exhorbitant licence fee to
> simply own a TV in the U.K. This goes to support the BBC, so BBC
> managers chase audience ratings deeper and deeper into the mud at the
> bottom of the national pond in order to look good in the eyes of their
> own managers and, ultimately, politicians who debate and set this
> tariff. Hence the need to rip bodices as a substitute for national
> history.
>
> Yes, I know. I have lived in North America much too long. And I have
> probably produced current affairs television in Canada for too long,
> too.
>
> On a calmer note, I am announcing that I have written a substantial post
> called "Richard III and the North of England" for the "On the Tudor
> Trail
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-iii-and-the-north-of-england/>>
> " URL. My post integrates a fair amount
> of text from "Dark Sovereign" into the piece, so you can check how my
> grasp on renaissance English fits in.
>
> There is one sentence from "Dark Sovereign" that might fit the BBC's
> current trash-quest mindset. Asked in a letter from his allies to ride
> south to put a damper on Q. Eliz. Woodville's ambitions, Duke Richard
> hurls his scornful response at his long-suffering varlet:
> "Is England so phantastically kingýd, that I /
> ýwhile Scotsmen ravish English wivesý /
>
> must haste to London, /
>
> there to save my brother from his queen? /
>
> Psha! His fool's-bell is soon rung doth war two fronts."
>
> That second line should appeal to the BBC -- except that Scotland is now
> doing what Quebec has been trying to do for the past forty years, get
> Canada to pay for its whining about "humiliation in Canada" and its need
> for independence.
>
> I have written too much. I commend you to "Richard III and the North of
> England
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-iii-and-the-north-of-england/>>
> ". At least he didn't have to buy a
> licence to watch bad TV.
>
> Robert Fripp
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com
Restoration Portfolio Photographs
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
dribble we get here in Nova Scotia - esp the American TV that is readily
available on zillions of channels, yet most nights - there is nothing
remotely interesting on the telly & the insane BRAINWASHING adverts,
ridiculous 'cameos' selling trash, some are repeated 2 or 3 times during a
single break - & as soon as an ad break comes on the sound is automatically
increased, presumably because so many people walk away from the TV during
these and the ridiculous 'warnings' after EVERY break, even if its just the
credits - it really is driving me bonkers. I'll pay for 'normal' TV. If
anyone knows how we can get SKY or BBC or ITV over here - please please let
me know!!!
On 13 January 2012 19:20, rspfripp <r_fripp@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> Paul Trevor Bale laments "working on my Richard screenplay, trying to
> get it produced." We are living in a climate that seems to find benefit
> in nothing more ambitious than bodice-rippers: Tudors, WOTR. Yes, Paul,
> I feel sick about this, too. Why bother writing anything for television,
> a medium of slight and perpetually sinking IQ?
>
> I have another problem apart from having written a serious epic in
> Shakespeare's English. I'm paying an outrageous amount of money to
> maintain a television licence for my occasionally occupied house in
> Dorset, while the BBC ventures further and further into the ditch to
> create pure trash. Readers who live outside the U.K. are not likely to
> believe this: Brits actually have to pay an exhorbitant licence fee to
> simply own a TV in the U.K. This goes to support the BBC, so BBC
> managers chase audience ratings deeper and deeper into the mud at the
> bottom of the national pond in order to look good in the eyes of their
> own managers and, ultimately, politicians who debate and set this
> tariff. Hence the need to rip bodices as a substitute for national
> history.
>
> Yes, I know. I have lived in North America much too long. And I have
> probably produced current affairs television in Canada for too long,
> too.
>
> On a calmer note, I am announcing that I have written a substantial post
> called "Richard III and the North of England" for the "On the Tudor
> Trail
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-iii-and-the-north-of-england/>>
> " URL. My post integrates a fair amount
> of text from "Dark Sovereign" into the piece, so you can check how my
> grasp on renaissance English fits in.
>
> There is one sentence from "Dark Sovereign" that might fit the BBC's
> current trash-quest mindset. Asked in a letter from his allies to ride
> south to put a damper on Q. Eliz. Woodville's ambitions, Duke Richard
> hurls his scornful response at his long-suffering varlet:
> "Is England so phantastically kingýd, that I /
> ýwhile Scotsmen ravish English wivesý /
>
> must haste to London, /
>
> there to save my brother from his queen? /
>
> Psha! His fool's-bell is soon rung doth war two fronts."
>
> That second line should appeal to the BBC -- except that Scotland is now
> doing what Quebec has been trying to do for the past forty years, get
> Canada to pay for its whining about "humiliation in Canada" and its need
> for independence.
>
> I have written too much. I commend you to "Richard III and the North of
> England
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-iii-and-the-north-of-england/>>
> ". At least he didn't have to buy a
> licence to watch bad TV.
>
> Robert Fripp
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com
Restoration Portfolio Photographs
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
2012-01-14 04:42:05
we pay just over 100 dollars a month for satellite tv.
we pay this to get the assorted 24/7 news channels. we get bbc news, al jazeerah, a russian news channel..and then the cbc, ctv, cnn, foxnoise, cpac, and a few others. i think the only news channel we do not get is msnbc. i miss keith obermann.
we get tv channels from toronto, boston, chicago, bbc-canada, bbckids, hbo, and movie central. we can watch tv from eastern canada, central canada, alberta and of course british columbia.
i'm not certain how tv works in england, but i understand the bbc is commercial free, which is why brits pay a fee for the bbc. hecky thump, i'd enjoy ad free tv.
to avoid commerical for our favourite programs, we record them..and with that benefit, we can fast forward through the adverts.
so there ya go..we pay for our tv and still get hit with advertising and often the corporate agenda.
--- On Fri, 1/13/12, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique <lisa.holtjones@...>
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
To:
Received: Friday, January 13, 2012, 6:34 PM
LOL Robert.I would GLADLY pay a licence fee to get ANY TV other than the
dribble we get here in Nova Scotia - esp the American TV that is readily
available on zillions of channels, yet most nights - there is nothing
remotely interesting on the telly & the insane BRAINWASHING adverts,
ridiculous 'cameos' selling trash, some are repeated 2 or 3 times during a
single break - & as soon as an ad break comes on the sound is automatically
increased, presumably because so many people walk away from the TV during
these and the ridiculous 'warnings' after EVERY break, even if its just the
credits - it really is driving me bonkers. I'll pay for 'normal' TV. If
anyone knows how we can get SKY or BBC or ITV over here - please please let
me know!!!
On 13 January 2012 19:20, rspfripp <r_fripp@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> Paul Trevor Bale laments "working on my Richard screenplay, trying to
> get it produced." We are living in a climate that seems to find benefit
> in nothing more ambitious than bodice-rippers: Tudors, WOTR. Yes, Paul,
> I feel sick about this, too. Why bother writing anything for television,
> a medium of slight and perpetually sinking IQ?
>
> I have another problem apart from having written a serious epic in
> Shakespeare's English. I'm paying an outrageous amount of money to
> maintain a television licence for my occasionally occupied house in
> Dorset, while the BBC ventures further and further into the ditch to
> create pure trash. Readers who live outside the U.K. are not likely to
> believe this: Brits actually have to pay an exhorbitant licence fee to
> simply own a TV in the U.K. This goes to support the BBC, so BBC
> managers chase audience ratings deeper and deeper into the mud at the
> bottom of the national pond in order to look good in the eyes of their
> own managers and, ultimately, politicians who debate and set this
> tariff. Hence the need to rip bodices as a substitute for national
> history.
>
> Yes, I know. I have lived in North America much too long. And I have
> probably produced current affairs television in Canada for too long,
> too.
>
> On a calmer note, I am announcing that I have written a substantial post
> called "Richard III and the North of England" for the "On the Tudor
> Trail
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-iii-and-the-north-of-england/>>
> " URL. My post integrates a fair amount
> of text from "Dark Sovereign" into the piece, so you can check how my
> grasp on renaissance English fits in.
>
> There is one sentence from "Dark Sovereign" that might fit the BBC's
> current trash-quest mindset. Asked in a letter from his allies to ride
> south to put a damper on Q. Eliz. Woodville's ambitions, Duke Richard
> hurls his scornful response at his long-suffering varlet:
> "Is England so phantastically kingÕd, that I /
> Ñwhile Scotsmen ravish English wivesÑ /
>
> must haste to London, /
>
> there to save my brother from his queen? /
>
> Psha! His fool's-bell is soon rung doth war two fronts."
>
> That second line should appeal to the BBC -- except that Scotland is now
> doing what Quebec has been trying to do for the past forty years, get
> Canada to pay for its whining about "humiliation in Canada" and its need
> for independence.
>
> I have written too much. I commend you to "Richard III and the North of
> England
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-iii-and-the-north-of-england/>>
> ". At least he didn't have to buy a
> licence to watch bad TV.
>
> Robert Fripp
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com
Restoration Portfolio Photographs
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
we pay this to get the assorted 24/7 news channels. we get bbc news, al jazeerah, a russian news channel..and then the cbc, ctv, cnn, foxnoise, cpac, and a few others. i think the only news channel we do not get is msnbc. i miss keith obermann.
we get tv channels from toronto, boston, chicago, bbc-canada, bbckids, hbo, and movie central. we can watch tv from eastern canada, central canada, alberta and of course british columbia.
i'm not certain how tv works in england, but i understand the bbc is commercial free, which is why brits pay a fee for the bbc. hecky thump, i'd enjoy ad free tv.
to avoid commerical for our favourite programs, we record them..and with that benefit, we can fast forward through the adverts.
so there ya go..we pay for our tv and still get hit with advertising and often the corporate agenda.
--- On Fri, 1/13/12, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique <lisa.holtjones@...>
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
To:
Received: Friday, January 13, 2012, 6:34 PM
LOL Robert.I would GLADLY pay a licence fee to get ANY TV other than the
dribble we get here in Nova Scotia - esp the American TV that is readily
available on zillions of channels, yet most nights - there is nothing
remotely interesting on the telly & the insane BRAINWASHING adverts,
ridiculous 'cameos' selling trash, some are repeated 2 or 3 times during a
single break - & as soon as an ad break comes on the sound is automatically
increased, presumably because so many people walk away from the TV during
these and the ridiculous 'warnings' after EVERY break, even if its just the
credits - it really is driving me bonkers. I'll pay for 'normal' TV. If
anyone knows how we can get SKY or BBC or ITV over here - please please let
me know!!!
On 13 January 2012 19:20, rspfripp <r_fripp@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> Paul Trevor Bale laments "working on my Richard screenplay, trying to
> get it produced." We are living in a climate that seems to find benefit
> in nothing more ambitious than bodice-rippers: Tudors, WOTR. Yes, Paul,
> I feel sick about this, too. Why bother writing anything for television,
> a medium of slight and perpetually sinking IQ?
>
> I have another problem apart from having written a serious epic in
> Shakespeare's English. I'm paying an outrageous amount of money to
> maintain a television licence for my occasionally occupied house in
> Dorset, while the BBC ventures further and further into the ditch to
> create pure trash. Readers who live outside the U.K. are not likely to
> believe this: Brits actually have to pay an exhorbitant licence fee to
> simply own a TV in the U.K. This goes to support the BBC, so BBC
> managers chase audience ratings deeper and deeper into the mud at the
> bottom of the national pond in order to look good in the eyes of their
> own managers and, ultimately, politicians who debate and set this
> tariff. Hence the need to rip bodices as a substitute for national
> history.
>
> Yes, I know. I have lived in North America much too long. And I have
> probably produced current affairs television in Canada for too long,
> too.
>
> On a calmer note, I am announcing that I have written a substantial post
> called "Richard III and the North of England" for the "On the Tudor
> Trail
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-iii-and-the-north-of-england/>>
> " URL. My post integrates a fair amount
> of text from "Dark Sovereign" into the piece, so you can check how my
> grasp on renaissance English fits in.
>
> There is one sentence from "Dark Sovereign" that might fit the BBC's
> current trash-quest mindset. Asked in a letter from his allies to ride
> south to put a damper on Q. Eliz. Woodville's ambitions, Duke Richard
> hurls his scornful response at his long-suffering varlet:
> "Is England so phantastically kingÕd, that I /
> Ñwhile Scotsmen ravish English wivesÑ /
>
> must haste to London, /
>
> there to save my brother from his queen? /
>
> Psha! His fool's-bell is soon rung doth war two fronts."
>
> That second line should appeal to the BBC -- except that Scotland is now
> doing what Quebec has been trying to do for the past forty years, get
> Canada to pay for its whining about "humiliation in Canada" and its need
> for independence.
>
> I have written too much. I commend you to "Richard III and the North of
> England
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/<http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-iii-and-the-north-of-england/>>
> ". At least he didn't have to buy a
> licence to watch bad TV.
>
> Robert Fripp
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com
Restoration Portfolio Photographs
Link<http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1512023445851.2067072.1392349990&l=842dfbb7f4&type=1>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
2012-01-14 07:41:09
There is plenty of excellent television on the BBC: news, current affairs, history, science and nature, Wimbledon (!), Danish, Swedish, French and Icelandic quality drama we would not otherwise get the chance to see, also thoughtful and well-produced programmes for children. I would actually be willing to pay more! Anything is better than the endless advertisements and trailers on commercial television.
Cheers! Nina
Cheers! Nina
Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
2012-01-14 12:08:28
I will only say Robert that I totally disagree with you about the value of the BBC which comes in at only a few pence a day for 5 tv channels and 7 radio stations, most of which with an output of material that would not get made in the purely "commercial" world. The powers that be that dictate the level of yje licence fee have recently been imposing cuts on the corporation in yet another attempt at trying to turn the UK into the USA with almost everything running for profit in a private sector. They demand viewer friendly programmes for their money instead of the cultural and social as well as entertainment reasons the BBC was set up for in the first place. Hence the search for bodice rippers rather than accurate historical subjects.
The same government is now telling the film industry they must invest in product that will make a profit. As if the film industry has not wanted to do that since it began! No-one knows what will make money or hit the right note with an audience, else all movies would make money. Nobody wanted to finance Dr No, Star Wars, 4Weddings, The King's Speech etc etc - the list is endless. Some of the biggest money makers had a very long and twisted road to production.
Ruling the entertainment and cultural life of a nation with accountancy stifles creativity and gives originality no look in whatsoever!
Paul
rant over for now! :-)
On 13 Jan 2012, at 23:20, rspfripp wrote:
>
> Paul Trevor Bale laments "working on my Richard screenplay, trying to
> get it produced." We are living in a climate that seems to find benefit
> in nothing more ambitious than bodice-rippers: Tudors, WOTR. Yes, Paul,
> I feel sick about this, too. Why bother writing anything for television,
> a medium of slight and perpetually sinking IQ?
>
> I have another problem apart from having written a serious epic in
> Shakespeare's English. I'm paying an outrageous amount of money to
> maintain a television licence for my occasionally occupied house in
> Dorset, while the BBC ventures further and further into the ditch to
> create pure trash. Readers who live outside the U.K. are not likely to
> believe this: Brits actually have to pay an exhorbitant licence fee to
> simply own a TV in the U.K. This goes to support the BBC, so BBC
> managers chase audience ratings deeper and deeper into the mud at the
> bottom of the national pond in order to look good in the eyes of their
> own managers and, ultimately, politicians who debate and set this
> tariff. Hence the need to rip bodices as a substitute for national
> history.
>
> Yes, I know. I have lived in North America much too long. And I have
> probably produced current affairs television in Canada for too long,
> too.
>
> On a calmer note, I am announcing that I have written a substantial post
> called "Richard III and the North of England" for the "On the Tudor
> Trail
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/> " URL. My post integrates a fair amount
> of text from "Dark Sovereign" into the piece, so you can check how my
> grasp on renaissance English fits in.
>
> There is one sentence from "Dark Sovereign" that might fit the BBC's
> current trash-quest mindset. Asked in a letter from his allies to ride
> south to put a damper on Q. Eliz. Woodville's ambitions, Duke Richard
> hurls his scornful response at his long-suffering varlet:
> "Is England so phantastically kingÕd, that I /
> Ñwhile Scotsmen ravish English wivesÑ /
>
> must haste to London, /
>
> there to save my brother from his queen? /
>
> Psha! His fool's-bell is soon rung doth war two fronts."
>
>
>
>
>
> That second line should appeal to the BBC -- except that Scotland is now
> doing what Quebec has been trying to do for the past forty years, get
> Canada to pay for its whining about "humiliation in Canada" and its need
> for independence.
>
> I have written too much. I commend you to "Richard III and the North of
> England
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/> ". At least he didn't have to buy a
> licence to watch bad TV.
>
> Robert Fripp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
The same government is now telling the film industry they must invest in product that will make a profit. As if the film industry has not wanted to do that since it began! No-one knows what will make money or hit the right note with an audience, else all movies would make money. Nobody wanted to finance Dr No, Star Wars, 4Weddings, The King's Speech etc etc - the list is endless. Some of the biggest money makers had a very long and twisted road to production.
Ruling the entertainment and cultural life of a nation with accountancy stifles creativity and gives originality no look in whatsoever!
Paul
rant over for now! :-)
On 13 Jan 2012, at 23:20, rspfripp wrote:
>
> Paul Trevor Bale laments "working on my Richard screenplay, trying to
> get it produced." We are living in a climate that seems to find benefit
> in nothing more ambitious than bodice-rippers: Tudors, WOTR. Yes, Paul,
> I feel sick about this, too. Why bother writing anything for television,
> a medium of slight and perpetually sinking IQ?
>
> I have another problem apart from having written a serious epic in
> Shakespeare's English. I'm paying an outrageous amount of money to
> maintain a television licence for my occasionally occupied house in
> Dorset, while the BBC ventures further and further into the ditch to
> create pure trash. Readers who live outside the U.K. are not likely to
> believe this: Brits actually have to pay an exhorbitant licence fee to
> simply own a TV in the U.K. This goes to support the BBC, so BBC
> managers chase audience ratings deeper and deeper into the mud at the
> bottom of the national pond in order to look good in the eyes of their
> own managers and, ultimately, politicians who debate and set this
> tariff. Hence the need to rip bodices as a substitute for national
> history.
>
> Yes, I know. I have lived in North America much too long. And I have
> probably produced current affairs television in Canada for too long,
> too.
>
> On a calmer note, I am announcing that I have written a substantial post
> called "Richard III and the North of England" for the "On the Tudor
> Trail
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/> " URL. My post integrates a fair amount
> of text from "Dark Sovereign" into the piece, so you can check how my
> grasp on renaissance English fits in.
>
> There is one sentence from "Dark Sovereign" that might fit the BBC's
> current trash-quest mindset. Asked in a letter from his allies to ride
> south to put a damper on Q. Eliz. Woodville's ambitions, Duke Richard
> hurls his scornful response at his long-suffering varlet:
> "Is England so phantastically kingÕd, that I /
> Ñwhile Scotsmen ravish English wivesÑ /
>
> must haste to London, /
>
> there to save my brother from his queen? /
>
> Psha! His fool's-bell is soon rung doth war two fronts."
>
>
>
>
>
> That second line should appeal to the BBC -- except that Scotland is now
> doing what Quebec has been trying to do for the past forty years, get
> Canada to pay for its whining about "humiliation in Canada" and its need
> for independence.
>
> I have written too much. I commend you to "Richard III and the North of
> England
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/> ". At least he didn't have to buy a
> licence to watch bad TV.
>
> Robert Fripp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
2012-01-14 14:19:42
I really agree with you, Nina.
I would certainly be happy to pay more and I think that, on the whole, the BBC is really good quality. We lived in France for 8 years and we still had to have a licence for our television and the majority of the programmes were not great.
Over the Christmas period alone we watched enough good stuff to justify our licence fee.
I'm still just a bit concerned about the intentions of the people creating this WotR series.......However, I doubt any BBC executives will be worrying what my opinion is.
--- On Sat, 14/1/12, Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
From: Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...>
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
To:
Date: Saturday, 14 January, 2012, 7:40
There is plenty of excellent television on the BBC: news, current affairs, history, science and nature, Wimbledon (!), Danish, Swedish, French and Icelandic quality drama we would not otherwise get the chance to see, also thoughtful and well-produced programmes for children. I would actually be willing to pay more! Anything is better than the endless advertisements and trailers on commercial television.
Cheers! Nina
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
I would certainly be happy to pay more and I think that, on the whole, the BBC is really good quality. We lived in France for 8 years and we still had to have a licence for our television and the majority of the programmes were not great.
Over the Christmas period alone we watched enough good stuff to justify our licence fee.
I'm still just a bit concerned about the intentions of the people creating this WotR series.......However, I doubt any BBC executives will be worrying what my opinion is.
--- On Sat, 14/1/12, Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
From: Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...>
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
To:
Date: Saturday, 14 January, 2012, 7:40
There is plenty of excellent television on the BBC: news, current affairs, history, science and nature, Wimbledon (!), Danish, Swedish, French and Icelandic quality drama we would not otherwise get the chance to see, also thoughtful and well-produced programmes for children. I would actually be willing to pay more! Anything is better than the endless advertisements and trailers on commercial television.
Cheers! Nina
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
2012-01-14 16:44:29
Since we only get the occasional BBC export, it's hard for me to judge the day-to-day content well. But to get those better shows as exports, we must "subscribe" to Public TV (which my husband and I do, regularly).
People here complain PubTV has a liberal bias, but I say it reflects its viewership; we do our best to keep The News Hour, Front Line, etc. on the air, sometimes at a dollar per day or more...and we're far from wealthy.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
I will only say Robert that I totally disagree with you about the value of the BBC which comes in at only a few pence a day for 5 tv channels and 7 radio stations, most of which with an output of material that would not get made in the purely "commercial" world. The powers that be that dictate the level of yje licence fee have recently been imposing cuts on the corporation in yet another attempt at trying to turn the UK into the USA with almost everything running for profit in a private sector. They demand viewer friendly programmes for their money instead of the cultural and social as well as entertainment reasons the BBC was set up for in the first place. Hence the search for bodice rippers rather than accurate historical subjects.
The same government is now telling the film industry they must invest in product that will make a profit. As if the film industry has not wanted to do that since it began! No-one knows what will make money or hit the right note with an audience, else all movies would make money. Nobody wanted to finance Dr No, Star Wars, 4Weddings, The King's Speech etc etc - the list is endless. Some of the biggest money makers had a very long and twisted road to production.
Ruling the entertainment and cultural life of a nation with accountancy stifles creativity and gives originality no look in whatsoever!
Paul
rant over for now! :-)
On 13 Jan 2012, at 23:20, rspfripp wrote:
>
> Paul Trevor Bale laments "working on my Richard screenplay, trying to
> get it produced." We are living in a climate that seems to find benefit
> in nothing more ambitious than bodice-rippers: Tudors, WOTR. Yes, Paul,
> I feel sick about this, too. Why bother writing anything for television,
> a medium of slight and perpetually sinking IQ?
>
> I have another problem apart from having written a serious epic in
> Shakespeare's English. I'm paying an outrageous amount of money to
> maintain a television licence for my occasionally occupied house in
> Dorset, while the BBC ventures further and further into the ditch to
> create pure trash. Readers who live outside the U.K. are not likely to
> believe this: Brits actually have to pay an exhorbitant licence fee to
> simply own a TV in the U.K. This goes to support the BBC, so BBC
> managers chase audience ratings deeper and deeper into the mud at the
> bottom of the national pond in order to look good in the eyes of their
> own managers and, ultimately, politicians who debate and set this
> tariff. Hence the need to rip bodices as a substitute for national
> history.
>
> Yes, I know. I have lived in North America much too long. And I have
> probably produced current affairs television in Canada for too long,
> too.
>
> On a calmer note, I am announcing that I have written a substantial post
> called "Richard III and the North of England" for the "On the Tudor
> Trail
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/> " URL. My post integrates a fair amount
> of text from "Dark Sovereign" into the piece, so you can check how my
> grasp on renaissance English fits in.
>
> There is one sentence from "Dark Sovereign" that might fit the BBC's
> current trash-quest mindset. Asked in a letter from his allies to ride
> south to put a damper on Q. Eliz. Woodville's ambitions, Duke Richard
> hurls his scornful response at his long-suffering varlet:
> "Is England so phantastically kingÕd, that I /
> Ñwhile Scotsmen ravish English wivesÑ /
>
> must haste to London, /
>
> there to save my brother from his queen? /
>
> Psha! His fool's-bell is soon rung doth war two fronts."
>
>
>
>
>
> That second line should appeal to the BBC -- except that Scotland is now
> doing what Quebec has been trying to do for the past forty years, get
> Canada to pay for its whining about "humiliation in Canada" and its need
> for independence.
>
> I have written too much. I commend you to "Richard III and the North of
> England
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/> ". At least he didn't have to buy a
> licence to watch bad TV.
>
> Robert Fripp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
People here complain PubTV has a liberal bias, but I say it reflects its viewership; we do our best to keep The News Hour, Front Line, etc. on the air, sometimes at a dollar per day or more...and we're far from wealthy.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
I will only say Robert that I totally disagree with you about the value of the BBC which comes in at only a few pence a day for 5 tv channels and 7 radio stations, most of which with an output of material that would not get made in the purely "commercial" world. The powers that be that dictate the level of yje licence fee have recently been imposing cuts on the corporation in yet another attempt at trying to turn the UK into the USA with almost everything running for profit in a private sector. They demand viewer friendly programmes for their money instead of the cultural and social as well as entertainment reasons the BBC was set up for in the first place. Hence the search for bodice rippers rather than accurate historical subjects.
The same government is now telling the film industry they must invest in product that will make a profit. As if the film industry has not wanted to do that since it began! No-one knows what will make money or hit the right note with an audience, else all movies would make money. Nobody wanted to finance Dr No, Star Wars, 4Weddings, The King's Speech etc etc - the list is endless. Some of the biggest money makers had a very long and twisted road to production.
Ruling the entertainment and cultural life of a nation with accountancy stifles creativity and gives originality no look in whatsoever!
Paul
rant over for now! :-)
On 13 Jan 2012, at 23:20, rspfripp wrote:
>
> Paul Trevor Bale laments "working on my Richard screenplay, trying to
> get it produced." We are living in a climate that seems to find benefit
> in nothing more ambitious than bodice-rippers: Tudors, WOTR. Yes, Paul,
> I feel sick about this, too. Why bother writing anything for television,
> a medium of slight and perpetually sinking IQ?
>
> I have another problem apart from having written a serious epic in
> Shakespeare's English. I'm paying an outrageous amount of money to
> maintain a television licence for my occasionally occupied house in
> Dorset, while the BBC ventures further and further into the ditch to
> create pure trash. Readers who live outside the U.K. are not likely to
> believe this: Brits actually have to pay an exhorbitant licence fee to
> simply own a TV in the U.K. This goes to support the BBC, so BBC
> managers chase audience ratings deeper and deeper into the mud at the
> bottom of the national pond in order to look good in the eyes of their
> own managers and, ultimately, politicians who debate and set this
> tariff. Hence the need to rip bodices as a substitute for national
> history.
>
> Yes, I know. I have lived in North America much too long. And I have
> probably produced current affairs television in Canada for too long,
> too.
>
> On a calmer note, I am announcing that I have written a substantial post
> called "Richard III and the North of England" for the "On the Tudor
> Trail
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/> " URL. My post integrates a fair amount
> of text from "Dark Sovereign" into the piece, so you can check how my
> grasp on renaissance English fits in.
>
> There is one sentence from "Dark Sovereign" that might fit the BBC's
> current trash-quest mindset. Asked in a letter from his allies to ride
> south to put a damper on Q. Eliz. Woodville's ambitions, Duke Richard
> hurls his scornful response at his long-suffering varlet:
> "Is England so phantastically kingÕd, that I /
> Ñwhile Scotsmen ravish English wivesÑ /
>
> must haste to London, /
>
> there to save my brother from his queen? /
>
> Psha! His fool's-bell is soon rung doth war two fronts."
>
>
>
>
>
> That second line should appeal to the BBC -- except that Scotland is now
> doing what Quebec has been trying to do for the past forty years, get
> Canada to pay for its whining about "humiliation in Canada" and its need
> for independence.
>
> I have written too much. I commend you to "Richard III and the North of
> England
> <http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/resources/15th-century-england/richard-\
> iii-and-the-north-of-england/> ". At least he didn't have to buy a
> licence to watch bad TV.
>
> Robert Fripp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
2012-01-14 18:13:45
As someone who has never lived outside the UK I suppose it's easy for me to moan about the quality of our tv. However, there ARE good thing on it, BBC 4 in particular is excellent and is my default channel, but BBC1 now often shows the kind of programmes that were only shown on commercial channels in the past and the trashy commercial channels are appalling beyond belief with things such as "Celebrity Big Brother" where the "celebrities" are reality tv stars who no one has ever heard of. Interestingly, the programmes I watch on commercial channels are all American programmes such as The Good Wife, The Mentalist, NCIS and The Big C, which Americans will no doubt tell me are among the best things they export.
The really annoying thing is when all the good programmes are shown at the same time (which is what seems to happen) and then the other 5 or 6 nights of the week are full of dross. (In which case I get out my books or surf the internet and rant about useless BBC executives with no idea of history).
________________________________
From: KATHERINE MICHAUD <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 14 January 2012, 14:19
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
I really agree with you, Nina.
I would certainly be happy to pay more and I think that, on the whole, the BBC is really good quality. We lived in France for 8 years and we still had to have a licence for our television and the majority of the programmes were not great.
Over the Christmas period alone we watched enough good stuff to justify our licence fee.
I'm still just a bit concerned about the intentions of the people creating this WotR series.......However, I doubt any BBC executives will be worrying what my opinion is.
--- On Sat, 14/1/12, Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
From: Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...>
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
To:
Date: Saturday, 14 January, 2012, 7:40
There is plenty of excellent television on the BBC: news, current affairs, history, science and nature, Wimbledon (!), Danish, Swedish, French and Icelandic quality drama we would not otherwise get the chance to see, also thoughtful and well-produced programmes for children. I would actually be willing to pay more! Anything is better than the endless advertisements and trailers on commercial television.
Cheers! Nina
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
The really annoying thing is when all the good programmes are shown at the same time (which is what seems to happen) and then the other 5 or 6 nights of the week are full of dross. (In which case I get out my books or surf the internet and rant about useless BBC executives with no idea of history).
________________________________
From: KATHERINE MICHAUD <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 14 January 2012, 14:19
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
I really agree with you, Nina.
I would certainly be happy to pay more and I think that, on the whole, the BBC is really good quality. We lived in France for 8 years and we still had to have a licence for our television and the majority of the programmes were not great.
Over the Christmas period alone we watched enough good stuff to justify our licence fee.
I'm still just a bit concerned about the intentions of the people creating this WotR series.......However, I doubt any BBC executives will be worrying what my opinion is.
--- On Sat, 14/1/12, Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
From: Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...>
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
To:
Date: Saturday, 14 January, 2012, 7:40
There is plenty of excellent television on the BBC: news, current affairs, history, science and nature, Wimbledon (!), Danish, Swedish, French and Icelandic quality drama we would not otherwise get the chance to see, also thoughtful and well-produced programmes for children. I would actually be willing to pay more! Anything is better than the endless advertisements and trailers on commercial television.
Cheers! Nina
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
2012-01-14 19:45:06
All the good shows, here, are aired in competition with one another, also. The best shows never seem to last more than a few episodes; used to be, time was allowed for a programme to build a following (MASH is a famous example). Now, if the ratings aren't there right off, the show is cancelled. Very unfortunate when an interesting story is underway... a famous example was a series entitled "I'll Fly Away." The show was yanked mid-stream, but sufficient numbers of people complained, a "closure episode," which at least tied up loose ends, was written and broadcast on Public TV.
Judy
WGBH-TV, Boston, is a big producer of historical dramas et al. The only group which might have the interest (and backing) to do a WotR as it ought to be...though they do tend to go for American-based stories....
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
As someone who has never lived outside the UK I suppose it's easy for me to moan about the quality of our tv. However, there ARE good thing on it, BBC 4 in particular is excellent and is my default channel, but BBC1 now often shows the kind of programmes that were only shown on commercial channels in the past and the trashy commercial channels are appalling beyond belief with things such as "Celebrity Big Brother" where the "celebrities" are reality tv stars who no one has ever heard of. Interestingly, the programmes I watch on commercial channels are all American programmes such as The Good Wife, The Mentalist, NCIS and The Big C, which Americans will no doubt tell me are among the best things they export.
The really annoying thing is when all the good programmes are shown at the same time (which is what seems to happen) and then the other 5 or 6 nights of the week are full of dross. (In which case I get out my books or surf the internet and rant about useless BBC executives with no idea of history).
________________________________
From: KATHERINE MICHAUD <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 14 January 2012, 14:19
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
I really agree with you, Nina.
I would certainly be happy to pay more and I think that, on the whole, the BBC is really good quality. We lived in France for 8 years and we still had to have a licence for our television and the majority of the programmes were not great.
Over the Christmas period alone we watched enough good stuff to justify our licence fee.
I'm still just a bit concerned about the intentions of the people creating this WotR series.......However, I doubt any BBC executives will be worrying what my opinion is.
--- On Sat, 14/1/12, Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
From: Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...>
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
To:
Date: Saturday, 14 January, 2012, 7:40
There is plenty of excellent television on the BBC: news, current affairs, history, science and nature, Wimbledon (!), Danish, Swedish, French and Icelandic quality drama we would not otherwise get the chance to see, also thoughtful and well-produced programmes for children. I would actually be willing to pay more! Anything is better than the endless advertisements and trailers on commercial television.
Cheers! Nina
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Judy
WGBH-TV, Boston, is a big producer of historical dramas et al. The only group which might have the interest (and backing) to do a WotR as it ought to be...though they do tend to go for American-based stories....
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
As someone who has never lived outside the UK I suppose it's easy for me to moan about the quality of our tv. However, there ARE good thing on it, BBC 4 in particular is excellent and is my default channel, but BBC1 now often shows the kind of programmes that were only shown on commercial channels in the past and the trashy commercial channels are appalling beyond belief with things such as "Celebrity Big Brother" where the "celebrities" are reality tv stars who no one has ever heard of. Interestingly, the programmes I watch on commercial channels are all American programmes such as The Good Wife, The Mentalist, NCIS and The Big C, which Americans will no doubt tell me are among the best things they export.
The really annoying thing is when all the good programmes are shown at the same time (which is what seems to happen) and then the other 5 or 6 nights of the week are full of dross. (In which case I get out my books or surf the internet and rant about useless BBC executives with no idea of history).
________________________________
From: KATHERINE MICHAUD <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 14 January 2012, 14:19
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
I really agree with you, Nina.
I would certainly be happy to pay more and I think that, on the whole, the BBC is really good quality. We lived in France for 8 years and we still had to have a licence for our television and the majority of the programmes were not great.
Over the Christmas period alone we watched enough good stuff to justify our licence fee.
I'm still just a bit concerned about the intentions of the people creating this WotR series.......However, I doubt any BBC executives will be worrying what my opinion is.
--- On Sat, 14/1/12, Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
From: Nina Boyd <ninaboyd@...>
Subject: Re: Wars of the Roses series? You're right to be sick at heart
To:
Date: Saturday, 14 January, 2012, 7:40
There is plenty of excellent television on the BBC: news, current affairs, history, science and nature, Wimbledon (!), Danish, Swedish, French and Icelandic quality drama we would not otherwise get the chance to see, also thoughtful and well-produced programmes for children. I would actually be willing to pay more! Anything is better than the endless advertisements and trailers on commercial television.
Cheers! Nina
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.