[robertlagrant]

The BBC's content quality varies a bit, and generally production values are worse.

The acting is better than most US shows IMO, but that's not the BBC. The directing, cinematography aren't nearly as good; often very formulaic (e.g. Sherlock), and special effects are 30 years behind many US equivalents.

In other words, the bit that the BBC don't control the creation of, the raw acting talent, is often the best bit. And writing, which they do control some of, is also generally of a reasonable to extremely good standard.

Having said all that, the BBC's model is "create a law that says we must be paid". I don't think that's taboo in any shape or form, but it is quite a tricky thing to pull off in 2023 with the sensitivity around rent seeking.

[augustulus]

writing and acting are basically all that matter. acting is reliant on direction, so the idea that the direction is bad is out. writing is also massively influenced by the broadcaster, special effects are irrelevant if you’re not a child, and what cinematography can you point to in American TV that’s better? maybe you’re confusing films with TV

ITV and Sky manage to find plenty of poor actors, so clearly having good actors is not just some inherent unearned feature of British TV

besides all this, the BBC is much more than just dramas. it has the best documentaries bar none; some of the best and earliest sports coverage; probably the highest quality tv news and interview work; probably the best late night show; BBC radio 4; a hundred great podcasts; they literally invented TV streaming. etc etc etc.

>“create a law that says we must be paid”

this is a misconception. if you don’t want to pay for the BBC, you don’t have to. it’s just a crime to use it without paying. the same as its a crime to use the train without paying. and presumably if you found some way to hack netflix and use that without paying, that would be a crime too

I’d say there’s far less sensitivity around rent-seeking than there ever has been since WW2, as long as it’s for private interest. there’s murdoch sensitivity around setting up new public bodies that benefit society, if that’s what you mean

[robertlagrant]

> ITV and Sky manage to find plenty of poor actors, so clearly having good actors is not just some inherent unearned feature of British TV

Sure, and good British actors do well in the US. The BBC just is more prestigious than ITV/Sky, and might pay better. BBC also has its share of bad actors, of course. I'm just saying that the quality of top British content is more coming from the acting (down to acting schools) than the production house.

> this is a misconception. if you don’t want to pay for the BBC, you don’t have to. it’s just a crime to use it without paying

I think this is a little tricksy - the BBC has had pretty dystopian ads[0][1] out for a long time that mean people pay the licence fee just out of worry about being caught.

[0] https://images.app.goo.gl/5bmE7wpBG23peFVe6

[1] https://images.app.goo.gl/bd1caeqH9NCrSP427