|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 6:46:58 GMT
Not a fan of the series but how pleasing is it to see the three female presenters showing some old fashioned loyalty. Well, it's either loyalty or keeping the goose that lays the golden egg happy. All three of them will be rewarded in spades for this by the BBC. I don't like Paul Hollywood but I can understand the decision. This show probably had three years left in it, even if it stayed on the Beeb. He'll have negotiated a huge fee on the back of being the only original cast member and now Top Dog of the show. He's feathering his nest just like the women are, but in a different way. I hardly think they'll be (fiscally) rewarded to the extent Hollywood will, in your scenario...? So I'd have to say that yes, it's nice to see people sticking up for good, old-fashioned values in a world that tends to value money over principles. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 7:03:46 GMT
Mary Berry has already lived a far fuller life than most and lives in a very nice house in an expensive area in the south-east. Mel and Sue will always have other irons in the fire. I don't have any estimated idea of Hollywood's finances, but I'm reasonably confident in saying that the women can afford to be loyal, rather than preferring to chase a fiscal reward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 8:13:41 GMT
Well, it's either loyalty or keeping the goose that lays the golden egg happy. All three of them will be rewarded in spades for this by the BBC. I don't like Paul Hollywood but I can understand the decision. This show probably had three years left in it, even if it stayed on the Beeb. He'll have negotiated a huge fee on the back of being the only original cast member and now Top Dog of the show. He's feathering his nest just like the women are, but in a different way. I hardly think they'll be (fiscally) rewarded to the extent Hollywood will, in your scenario...? So I'd have to say that yes, it's nice to see people sticking up for good, old-fashioned values in a world that tends to value money over principles.Hear hear! Couldn't agree more... |
|
83 posts
|
Post by catqc on Sept 23, 2016 9:29:07 GMT
Interesting that Nadiya is the bookies' favourite to replace Mary...much as I love her, I'm not sure she is quite the baking authority that Mary Berry is!
|
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 23, 2016 9:55:30 GMT
Well, it's either loyalty or keeping the goose that lays the golden egg happy. All three of them will be rewarded in spades for this by the BBC. I don't like Paul Hollywood but I can understand the decision. This show probably had three years left in it, even if it stayed on the Beeb. He'll have negotiated a huge fee on the back of being the only original cast member and now Top Dog of the show. He's feathering his nest just like the women are, but in a different way. I hardly think they'll be (fiscally) rewarded to the extent Hollywood will, in your scenario...? So I'd have to say that yes, it's nice to see people sticking up for good, old-fashioned values in a world that tends to value money over principles. I didn't say fiscally rewarded. I said they would be rewarded in spades but in a different way to Hollywood. By which I mean that despite the constant slagging off the BBC gets it is still hugely respected as our national broadcaster. It is associated with quality and longevity in away that commercial tv can only dream of. Getting a gig on the BBC is about more than the immediate financial gain. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 23, 2016 11:14:37 GMT
I bet a few calls have been put into Delia Smith's agent from CH4 over the last week. But when she's says no (which she will) who do they go to next? Dream cast for Bake Off...? One of my FB 'friends' suggested Adam and Joe as replacements for Mel and Sue. |
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 23, 2016 11:22:11 GMT
Who?  |
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Oct 5, 2016 18:51:16 GMT
Nearly time for this week's Great British Burn Off! Pudding week.
|
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 6, 2016 6:27:27 GMT
Well at least we saw some actual cake. Those roulades were a bit of alright weren't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 6:40:02 GMT
For a Christmas Special this year, I'd like to see Paul and Mary struggle to get some of these "challenges" finished in the time given to the contestants...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 6, 2016 6:57:57 GMT
I hardly think they'll be (fiscally) rewarded to the extent Hollywood will, in your scenario...? So I'd have to say that yes, it's nice to see people sticking up for good, old-fashioned values in a world that tends to value money over principles. I didn't say fiscally rewarded. I said they would be rewarded in spades but in a different way to Hollywood. By which I mean that despite the constant slagging off the BBC gets it is still hugely respected as our national broadcaster. It is associated with quality and longevity in away that commercial tv can only dream of. Getting a gig on the BBC is about more than the immediate financial gain. Getting a gig on the BBC is also about immediate financial gain, in general they pay the talent much better than any commercial rival. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Oct 6, 2016 7:50:23 GMT
I didn't say fiscally rewarded. I said they would be rewarded in spades but in a different way to Hollywood. By which I mean that despite the constant slagging off the BBC gets it is still hugely respected as our national broadcaster. It is associated with quality and longevity in away that commercial tv can only dream of. Getting a gig on the BBC is about more than the immediate financial gain. Getting a gig on the BBC is also about immediate financial gain, in general they pay the talent much better than any commercial rival. Please provide some evidence of that. Why are the moves all FROM the BBC to higher wages elsewhere. This is the rubbish the Daily Mail regurgitates, I expect higher standards here. Lets at least have some basis in fact. ..now back to Bake off. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 6, 2016 8:05:28 GMT
Getting a gig on the BBC is also about immediate financial gain, in general they pay the talent much better than any commercial rival. Please provide some evidence of that. Why are the moves all FROM the BBC to higher wages elsewhere. This is the rubbish the Daily Mail regurgitates, I expect higher standards here. Lets at least have some basis in fact. ..now back to Bake off. Ho hum "please provide evidence" from someone who provides no evidence at all - you need to get over to CiF in the Guardian with that sort of argument. My evidence is anecdotal, I know people who work in the commercial sector (and some who work for the BBC). The commercial people point out that when the BBC say they are paying "the market rate" for talent what they ignore is that the BBC are so dominant in some sectors they effectively set the market rate themselves and it is higher than they can offer - you can look at what they pay panel show contestants, and some hosts, and it is way more than the commercial sector does. Actually the disparity in radio presenters pay is even more startling than on TV but it is there in both - we'll see that when the BBC starts publishing the numbers as they are now obliged to do. Here's a bit of evidence for you, Jonathan Ross took a pay cut of £2 million when he moved from BBC to ITV. Your assertion that "all" moves are from the BBC to commercial for more money is patently untrue, there are many counter-examples of the BBC paying much higher to lure talent from commercial. Graham Norton was one. Johnny Vaughan was (disastrously) another. There are plenty more. Now YOU provide one piece of evidence for your assertion that ALL the moves from the BBC are to higher wages elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Oct 6, 2016 9:37:16 GMT
Since when was 'anecdote' evidence. Oh yes when the Daily Mail heard it. You made the assertion, you can provide the evidence. So far: May I remind you Jonathon Ross was sacked by the BBC and "Surprise, Surprise" ITV offered him less. (PS look up the career of the lady referenced there). Graham Norton possibly, but comparing the salary of a presenter of a late night show on C4 vs BBC 1 AND Radio 2 which have the biggest audiences, is hardly a slam dunk. Johnny who? Radio: you are comparing the most popular Radio stations with mostly local ones where the Rajar figures just don’t compare. Whereas the ones who have jumped ship... www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10683283/Will-Susanna-Reid-be-the-next-Beeb-star-who-falls-to-earth-over-at-ITV.html |
|
591 posts
|
Post by lou105 on Oct 6, 2016 11:53:48 GMT
For a Christmas Special this year, I'd like to see Paul and Mary struggle to get some of these "challenges" finished in the time given to the contestants... Yes! I assume someone has tested the timings, but it frustrates me so much when they have to put icing on a hot cake or something, whereas at home you'd just wait a bit longer. |
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 6, 2016 13:28:55 GMT
For a Christmas Special this year, I'd like to see Paul and Mary struggle to get some of these "challenges" finished in the time given to the contestants... Yes! I assume someone has tested the timings, but it frustrates me so much when they have to put icing on a hot cake or something, whereas at home you'd just wait a bit longer. I suppose it must be achievable if you do nothing wrong and get all of your timings on the nose. But let's face it there would be no show if everyone turned out a perfect or even good result to every challenge. I'm sure at this stage everyone is capable of doing most of these things very well but a winner has to be found somehow, and the time restriction is what allows that. I AM getting a bit tired of the faked-up drama of the "5 minutes to go!" call out though. They do this continually, then show footage which implies that the contestant is way further behind, e.g. pulling a cake out of the oven or wafting it to cool it down. Then within a further five minutes they somehow manage to get a finished, decorated cake in front of the judges. All of these types of show use this exact same same ploy now. Do they think we fell off a Christmas tree or something? I might ring the BBC complaints desk about it, I'm so incensed  . |
|
5,066 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 6, 2016 14:11:24 GMT
I have been watching the Great Indian Bake Off with Paul Bollywood.
|
|
543 posts
|
Post by freckles on Oct 6, 2016 14:11:46 GMT
Yes! I assume someone has tested the timings, but it frustrates me so much when they have to put icing on a hot cake or something, whereas at home you'd just wait a bit longer. I suppose it must be achievable if you do nothing wrong and get all of your timings on the nose. But let's face it there would be no show if everyone turned out a perfect or even good result to every challenge. I'm sure at this stage everyone is capable of doing most of these things very well but a winner has to be found somehow, and the time restriction is what allows that. I AM getting a bit tired of the faked-up drama of the "5 minutes to go!" call out though. They do this continually, then show footage which implies that the contestant is way further behind, e.g. pulling a cake out of the oven or wafting it to cool it down. Then within a further five minutes they somehow manage to get a finished, decorated cake in front of the judges. All of these types of show use this exact same same ploy now. Do they think we fell off a Christmas tree or something? I might ring the BBC complaints desk about it, I'm so incensed . I particularly enjoyed Tom attempting to cool his cakes with a tiny little battery operated fan. Not much better than wafting. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Oct 6, 2016 14:27:12 GMT
I suppose it must be achievable if you do nothing wrong and get all of your timings on the nose. But let's face it there would be no show if everyone turned out a perfect or even good result to every challenge. I'm sure at this stage everyone is capable of doing most of these things very well but a winner has to be found somehow, and the time restriction is what allows that. I AM getting a bit tired of the faked-up drama of the "5 minutes to go!" call out though. They do this continually, then show footage which implies that the contestant is way further behind, e.g. pulling a cake out of the oven or wafting it to cool it down. Then within a further five minutes they somehow manage to get a finished, decorated cake in front of the judges. All of these types of show use this exact same same ploy now. Do they think we fell off a Christmas tree or something? I might ring the BBC complaints desk about it, I'm so incensed . I particularly enjoyed Tom attempting to cool his cakes with a tiny little battery operated fan. Not much better than wafting. Wasn't it a hand crank? Lovely and pink. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 15:17:22 GMT
I have the exact same fan, I suspect Tom has been shopping in Tiger. Not a bad purchase for £1!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 16:44:09 GMT
So a pretty cheap way to cool one's muffins then...  |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 6, 2016 17:24:13 GMT
Since when was 'anecdote' evidence. Oh yes when the Daily Mail heard it. You made the assertion, you can provide the evidence. So far: May I remind you Jonathon Ross was sacked by the BBC and "Surprise, Surprise" ITV offered him less. (PS look up the career of the lady referenced there). Graham Norton possibly, but comparing the salary of a presenter of a late night show on C4 vs BBC 1 AND Radio 2 which have the biggest audiences, is hardly a slam dunk. Johnny who? Radio: you are comparing the most popular Radio stations with mostly local ones where the Rajar figures just don’t compare. Whereas the ones who have jumped ship... www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10683283/Will-Susanna-Reid-be-the-next-Beeb-star-who-falls-to-earth-over-at-ITV.htmlI haven't read the Daily Mail once in the last 30 years, unlike you it seems. As it seems to infuriate you so much I'd recommend not reading it. I agree that citing the corrupt Tory press as "evidence" would be absurd ... oh, sorry, just seen that you are quoting the Torygraph as evidence. It is not even contentious to say the BBC dominates radio so much they skew salaries and pay presenters more than commercial can, try talking to a few people in the business. They pay radio technical staff and producers more too, it is so well known it's not worth arguing about, see here: www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/radio-producerOdd you haven't heard of Johnny Vaughan, How old are you ? He was a famous waste of money by the BBC. Anyway, as the BBC are going to publish the salaries we'll see who is right. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Oct 7, 2016 14:20:08 GMT
I didn't say fiscally rewarded. I said they would be rewarded in spades but in a different way to Hollywood. By which I mean that despite the constant slagging off the BBC gets it is still hugely respected as our national broadcaster. It is associated with quality and longevity in away that commercial tv can only dream of. Getting a gig on the BBC is about more than the immediate financial gain. Getting a gig on the BBC is also about immediate financial gain, in general they pay the talent much better than any commercial rival. This is my final word on the subject. You said they paid the "talent" much better than any commercial rival. The only evidence of 'talent' is Johnny Vaughan. Radio studio engineers do not count. You ignore the names in the Telegraph article and there are so many more. Lord Hall gave the reason for not wanting to disclose the BBC's top talents salary's, was because it would make it easy to make an offer to tempt them away. 'nuff said. |
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 7, 2016 20:24:33 GMT
Read the last few pages of the thread three times trying to work out Jan's beef is here and it's being called a Daily Mail reader isn't it. Doesn't get much lower as insults go that one
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 8:11:09 GMT
Mary Berry has already lived a far fuller life than most and lives in a very nice house in an expensive area in the south-east. Not that you're at all envious. |
|
.
