Whooooosh

[Carbomb]

3 minutes ago, Bicurious Dad said:

sooooo none of the films mentioned by you or gmoney were actually changed for the reason you gave then?

See below.

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

Also, they've been heavily pushing the iPlayer, so maybe they don't want to detract from that. Something also comes to mind about the BBC charter, too - they're not allowed to make anything that you'd have to pay for to be able to continue watching something you've been watching on licenced TV. Cases in point: In The Loop and the original Peter Cushing Doctor Who movies - it's why they changed character stories and names. So perhaps there's something in their charter about the other way round, not being allowed to use free services to push people to their licenced TV for them to continue watching? I reckon someone like @JNLister might know.

If it's non-canon, it's not part of the continuity. If you've been watching it on BBC TV, then they can't make a movie you'd have to pay for to be able to keep up with the series.

[Retro Red]

Right, but that's not what I was referring to. Your 'Cases in point' don't support your claim, and this thing about it being canon or not is a bit silly, Ab Fab and the David Brent movie (I mention these since very few BBC properties turned into film are actually made by the BBC, these being 2 of the few) absolutely are the continuing stories of the characters who previously lived on terrestrial free TV. If they weren't allowed to do so I don't think that 'But it's non canon m'lord' would hold up in court.

All they would need to do to get round it anyway is set up a commercial arm like they've done with BBC America, BBC Films and BBC Studios. Besides, you don't need to pay for Youtube anyway so it's not paid content regardless of what they can and can't do.

[Chris B]

I'm under a similar impression to Carbomb, and am probably the guy who told him about it, but I don't know the details (or, frustratingly, where I got it from, as it was ages ago - might have been Digital Fix or even the MelonFarmers forum). Basically, it's to do with why we're less likely to have spin-offs in the vein of the first X-Files movie, which was very much marketed as 'pay up for the conclusion to the story'. It might be simply more that it's not the done thing, but I'm under the impression there is a legal aspect to it as well - as I remember it being discussed as part of the reason soap opera spin-offs were so often 'Three characters go on holiday, have wacky adventures, and it's never referred to again', as storyline-specific points would be seen as unfair to customers who have effectively paid to watch the complete show already with their licence fees.

I was also under the impression that's part of why the Doctor Who 50th anniversary (and select others) were simulcasts, rather than purely a movie - and why we're unlikely to have a straight Doctor Who movie spin-off at any point. It's not likely to be an issue with shows that aren't ongoing (like sitcoms), as it wasn't like they were sequential in the same way (as it's not using your TV licence to build you up to pay to watch something).

May not be a charter thing, but I'm under the impression that there are some restrictions as well - although I may have been led up the garden path when I read it in the first place.

[BomberPat]

I'm not even sure how you'd quantify whether something was a "continuation" of a story for something like Steptoe or the Likely Lads that didn't really have an episodic narrative in the first place, though.

[PowerButchi]

Dunno. Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads had the story arcs of the Wedding as well as Bob and Thelma's temportary separation. But Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads is a generally superior sitcom when you look through the annals.

[Factotum]

They did try to get Hartnell for the DOCTOR WHO films. He was too ill by then and Troughton has already taken over. I know Moffatt wanted to reference them in the 50th but they were denied the rights for the posters.

[Rey_Piste]

18 minutes ago, johnnyboy said:

I've been watching the Dude Perfect lads since they were doing trick shots in their mum's garden and now they have their own complex.  I would be upset if they're wronguns.

They are huge Christians, so I would hope not as well. It's not stopped people of faith being baddies in the past though.

[stumobir]

For what it’s worth, Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa is without a doubt “a continuation of the same story”, made by BBC Films, and I paid to see that at the cinema.

[King Pitcos]

On 1/3/2019 at 2:42 PM, Chris B said:

I'm under a similar impression to Carbomb, and am probably the guy who told him about it, but I don't know the details (or, frustratingly, where I got it from, as it was ages ago - might have been Digital Fix or even the MelonFarmers forum). Basically, it's to do with why we're less likely to have spin-offs in the vein of the first X-Files movie, which was very much marketed as 'pay up for the conclusion to the story'. It might be simply more that it's not the done thing, but I'm under the impression there is a legal aspect to it as well - as I remember it being discussed as part of the reason soap opera spin-offs were so often 'Three characters go on holiday, have wacky adventures, and it's never referred to again', as storyline-specific points would be seen as unfair to customers who have effectively paid to watch the complete show already with their licence fees.

The ITV soap spin offs do the same thing, and I think Emmerdale and Corrie have done it way more than Eastenders ever have. The reason they’re standalone is that they’d be commercially unviable otherwise. The soaps are on three days a week or more. If the plot on the DVD was tied in to the main storylines, like the resolution to a big whodunnit, it’d be obsolete by 8.30pm on the day it came out because the characters would have to discuss the revelation in that night’s episode. But having them as standalone romps with beloved characters going to the seaside means the DVD can still be enjoyed by Nanna over Christmas.