I would say that the difference in quality can be explained through the way these channels are funded. Discovery, NGC, and Animal Planet, take funds from commercial advertisers that advertise their products during commercial brakes. It is also not uncommon that a certain expedition is sponsored by a particular organisation or company (e.g. Toyota), which will also be made visible just before the blocks of commercials that interrupt the documentary.
To have the program interrupted by commercials requires a certain strategy. Just before the commercials will be introduced you need to work towards some kind of climax, or pose a question, or hint at an unexpected development later in the show. This in order to make the viewer stay tuned. After the commercial block there has to be a short summery, to explain what has happened. This re-cap is mainly intended for new viewers, who have just tuned in during the commercial block, again with the intent to keep them with the program. This strategy consumes time, and it also limits the scope of the documentary. Everything that is explained has to be brought down to something that can be summarised in just one or two sentences.
BBC 1 and 2 are state-owned broadcasting cooperations. Although fully independent of the state, as to the contents of her broadcasts, the BBC relies on the state for funding. This means, no sponsors, and no commercial breaks. The makers of the program can fully focus on making the show, without having to think of ways to build in (unnatural) climaxes and summaries. In fact they don鈥檛 even need to make a program that appeals to all viewers. The Open University documentaries are often highly specialised or specific, only appealing to a small segment of people. It is the quality of the program that decides if it is aired, not the amount of viewers.
NGC, Discovery and Animal Planet, simply cannot afford to make programs like, for instance, 鈥楾he Sky at Night鈥? The quality is superb, but the format of the show only appeals to such a small audience, that no advertiser would buy a commercial to be aired during the commercial brakes. Therefore, the other networks need to keep the show as general as possible, in order to appeal to a broad amount of viewers. Loss of depth and quality can be the result. Having said all this, there are also shows on the commercial channels that have, somehow, found an ideal mix of appealing to a wide audience, and maintaining a high quality.
If one would compare it to food, the BBC is a specialised Thai restaurant. You will absolutely love the food, or hate it. Whereas many of the Discovery, NGC, and Animal Pl shows are more like a McDonalds. The food is ok, you will not hate it, but it won鈥檛 be the greatest culinary experience of your life either.
Apart of all this, working for the BBC is somewhat of a status symbol. It really is the best of the best, a documentary maker鈥檚 dream. So they can settle for nothing less than the best host, camera team, sound team, production and post-production team, etc, for every show they make.
I would suppose that a combination of these factors results in the superior quality of the BBC鈥檚 documentaries.
Kind regards,
Thijs PietersWhy BBC wildlife documentaries are much better than Discovery, Animal Planet, Nat. Geographic documentaries?
I believe that the reason that the BBC documentaries are better is that the BBC focuses on teaching and the science and educantional aspect of things. American productions seem to be more into the entertainment aspect and how they can market their show.
Keep in mind that the BBC did most of the work on th Blue Planet series, however it was a combined effort with the Discovery Channel. This shows that the Discovery channel is still capable of making good Documentaries. Lately it seems that the Discovery Channel has gone downhill with all the reality TV shows. However, they did discontinue American Chopper (they sent it over to thier sister network TLC). I hope this shows that they are going to move back to thier roots, and get back in to the Science end of production.Why BBC wildlife documentaries are much better than Discovery, Animal Planet, Nat. Geographic documentaries?
I don't know why, but I love the BBC series, Blue Planet. Absolutely the best wildlife documentary I've ever watched. I own the whole DVD set.
I believe it was 10 years in the making.
Well, I guess one reason that makes this particular series better, is that there is NEVER BEFORE SEEN footage captured in this series. Amazing stuff. Really. I highly recommend.
I agree,and the best comedy shows too.
No comments:
Post a Comment