steddyeddy wrote: » Not really. There seems to be a culture of entitlement in some of Ireland's public bodies. People are paying a lot of money for TV licences and they're entitled to know whether their money is being spent correctly. So far we've heard of people spending large amounts of public money on taxis, staff that couldn't care less. work practices which cost the public far more than they need to and Lottie Ryan hired exclusively on the basis of whose vagina she came out of. I apologise for the vulgarity, but to me this sort of entitlement is vulgar and I will describe it as such. So no, an organisation which demands the already squeezed public paying more money for a pension while squandering our money for jobs for the boys isn't a fuss about nothing.
loyatemu wrote: » Drama is very expensive to produce, therefore high-risk. Love/Hate (which was OK but nothing revolutionary) was sold abroad.
leggo wrote: » People earn big salaries for a reason (and I've zero problem with them doing so if they're earning it). If you're not good enough to find and commission a winner then budget the resources necessary to make it succeed...it's kinda like a McDonalds employee saying chicken nuggets are difficult to make. It's literally your job!
loyatemu wrote: » for every successful drama series the likes of the Beeb or Netflix produce they probably have 2 that do less well. RTE only produce a handful every year because that's all they can afford to do - if one does well and is saleable abroad, great. But they have to get the ratings here as a priority. Producing 20 episodes of "The Killing" would absorb their entire drama budget for the year.
VinLieger wrote: » "get a life" come one vogue thats like soooo 2003
CatFromHue wrote: » Vogue was good on the first doc she did on Home and Away
leggo wrote: » Fear of failure is not a valid excuse for lack of effort in ANY job. You or I can't turn up to work and say "That particular task might show me up as incompetent, so I'm not going to do it." That is especially so if you are earning a six-figure salary paid for by the taxpayer.
Dutch Gold Society wrote: » RTE needs to be drastically downsized and the license fee scaled down accordingly. We need a state broadcaster for news and sports coverage and weather. TV stations as we know them are becoming obsolete as people increasingly use the internet for their entertainment needs.
Billy86 wrote: » It should still be used for original content on top of those though, and develop talent therein. Note: original content, not using your and my money to outbid TV3 for the latest season of The Big Bang Theory. What's amazing to me is that we have so much we can borrow from the BBC who are absolutely exemplary at content creation just right next door to us (and Irish and British culture and tastes being so similar means this should be even more relevant) but don't really seem interested in doing so.
Purple Mountain wrote: » Who's not to say that the tweeter isn't from a rival station?
loyatemu wrote: » leggo wrote: » People earn big salaries for a reason (and I've zero problem with them doing so if they're earning it). If you're not good enough to find and commission a winner then budget the resources necessary to make it succeed...it's kinda like a McDonalds employee saying chicken nuggets are difficult to make. It's literally your job! for every successful drama series the likes of the Beeb or Netflix produce they probably have 2 that do less well. RTE only produce a handful every year because that's all they can afford to do - if one does well and is saleable abroad, great. But they have to get the ratings here as a priority. Producing 20 episodes of "The Killing" would absorb their entire drama budget for the year.
mariano rivera wrote: » Right there is the RTE mentality Its too hard In an international market where most competitors don't speak English, we/ RTE/ National Broadcaster cannot create anything of value to sell. (Except Love/ Hate. Gangster drugs thingy. They really put the IMAGINATION boat out on that one) This is the country that produced Beckett, JM Syne, Behan, Joyce, Banville, Roddy Doyle, Colm Toibin, Patrick Kavanagh and Loads more............ The production costs argument dosnt stand up to any scrutiny. Its cheaper than ever to make film with today's camera technology Criticially acclaimed movie "Tangerine" was made last year using primarily an iphone camera It looks gorgeous! Loads of other examples out there too.
Billy86 wrote: » Also here's a random one... what apparently is the RTE's most internationally successful/profitable show of all time? The Lyrics Board, which was picked up in about 15 different countries. :eek: Another poster pointed out that the BBC gets far more licence money than RTE, and that is completely true of course - I personally don't mind them running ads because of this, or even filling out some of the 'dead times' with shows bought in, but there would need to be a cap to ensure it's just bargain basement type stuff. You might actually get some little unknown gems in doing so - leave a team with X amount of budget and Y amount of slots to fill, with the right staff in there there could be a pile of motivation to blow people away with what they produce and that should be a position with a lot of potential for growth and promotion (though there's the whole other side of things RTE would need to change here about culture). But you're also right that shows can be made on a shoestring... even look at TG4 who have built a good reputation when it comes to documentaries. Some look great and would deceive you into thinking they cost far more than they did, while others don't do as good a job masking it but if the content is good then people will often overlook that. And about the BBC making two poor shows for every good one, that's because they've got the right attitude! You've got to be prepared to fail to an extent. Of course a lot has to be weighed up before greenlighting something or not, but a bit like a good sports team you're bound to be more entertaining when you're passionately trying to win than fearfully and pragmatically just trying to avoid losing. I'm more than happy to see shows come and go and some awful dreck on the telly so long as I know the overall network is pushing and promoting innovation - and of course, so long as they know when to call it a day on a failed effort and not wind up on season 4 of the show nobody liked three episodes into season one of; it's also a reason to keep budgets down where possible and to spread the risk. people won't remember that crap show a few years from now so long as you don't drag it on, but they'll remember the ones that succeeded for a long time to come. And they'll likely be willing to part with additional TV licence money when they feel better about what is being produced.
kbannon wrote: » As the claims haven't been disputed, I don't think it matters who the person is or where they're from. The important piece is that it all appears true.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » that wasnt an RTE production though. The profits that were made from the format dont go to them.
osarusan wrote: » If RTE started disputing/refuting certain claims, they'd start a precedent of engaging with specific claims and thus put themselves in an awkward position regarding the other claims that were not disputed or refuted.
VinLieger wrote: » the fact they haven't even done that means its likely some and possibly most of it is true and theres evidence to back it up
