12-06-2021, 05:48 AM
C4 needed a reason to exist to begin with, considering this was a time when having a new channel was hotly debated. BBC1 was the factual/serious station, BBC2 was "light programming", ITV was basically commercial programming and C4 needed it's own unique identity. IMO I would class the C4 of the 80's to early 2000's as "alternative" as it really tried to experiment with formats and seasons over time. It wasn't really just for one group or anything, it just was allowed to experiment or be more like a TV artist commune in a way, though it had times where it felt like a normal channel, then other times where it full on got it's smock on and started drawing odd things on the walls.
It's always weird looking back at older 80's C4 stuff with things like long operas or lectures from universities which would never air these days.The last thing I really considered novel from C4 was "Easter Egg Live" where they got a whole bunch of animal experts in and set cameras up so you could watch all sorts of animals hatch in real time. Mind I was also fond of the American imports that had a bit less to do with the remit too.
C4 always did lean more progressive but it also did a lot of creative things or was seeking out creative endeavors. It shone it's best when it was seeking to really go outside the box. Or it lucked out on an idea that really stuck to the wall like Big Breakfast. It's less to do with political leanings and more variety to be honest.
Which I suppose somewhat ties into this discussion. Maggie (as I understand it) wanted to try and bring TV out from just London talent wise. Which had some minor success. I recall 90's and 2000's there were some productions coming out of other parts of the UK. But ultimately everything came back to London or select agencies again anyway. I mean it's pretty obvious most of ITV's stars are on the same agency. The BBC pay a lot to keep certain presenters too, which you can argue means less money towards taking chances on unknowns or prod. companies with fresher ideas than the old guard.
My personal feeling is she should of opted for some means to protect the ITV regions in the long run and maybe encouraged the BBC to expand it's regional offices
It's always weird looking back at older 80's C4 stuff with things like long operas or lectures from universities which would never air these days.The last thing I really considered novel from C4 was "Easter Egg Live" where they got a whole bunch of animal experts in and set cameras up so you could watch all sorts of animals hatch in real time. Mind I was also fond of the American imports that had a bit less to do with the remit too.
C4 always did lean more progressive but it also did a lot of creative things or was seeking out creative endeavors. It shone it's best when it was seeking to really go outside the box. Or it lucked out on an idea that really stuck to the wall like Big Breakfast. It's less to do with political leanings and more variety to be honest.
Which I suppose somewhat ties into this discussion. Maggie (as I understand it) wanted to try and bring TV out from just London talent wise. Which had some minor success. I recall 90's and 2000's there were some productions coming out of other parts of the UK. But ultimately everything came back to London or select agencies again anyway. I mean it's pretty obvious most of ITV's stars are on the same agency. The BBC pay a lot to keep certain presenters too, which you can argue means less money towards taking chances on unknowns or prod. companies with fresher ideas than the old guard.
My personal feeling is she should of opted for some means to protect the ITV regions in the long run and maybe encouraged the BBC to expand it's regional offices