Stupid Stupid BBC fools

[el duerino]

Given this forum is devoted to current events, what do people think of the BBC changing the television schedule, from final destination 'scaaaaryyy film' to muriels wedding 'happy cheery film' because of news coverage of teh hostage situation in IRAQ? Personally I think whoever made the decision is a sponge brained half witted [ABUSE REMOVED] . If I don't want to watch a film I won't watch it, I don't need some jackass with a view on pop psychology to tell me I need cheering up. No wonder so many people are emotionally messed up, we aren't even trusted to be able to handle our own feelings. This is exactly the type of thing that REALLY winds me up if you hadn't noticed. I simply cannot believe that this decision was ok'd - the person that ticked it has no conception of their actual job function. What would actually cheer people up or take their mind of the situation is watching a film I ACTUALLY WANT TO SEE, not some cheap, lame, unfunny piece of crap you went to see with you bird and found mildly amusing. phew

Vitriol is one thing; please don't tip over the edge into abuse. - AB Editor

[bernardo]

I agree completely. Unfortunately it's not just the BBC. At the time of the Kosovo conflict, a film about the Vietnam War was dropped by Channel 4 and I phoned up angrily to say that objected to being nannied in such a patronising way.

[Sylday]

What a rant over such a trivial matter. Given that "Final Destination" was scheduled by a "sponge brained half witted etc etc" in the first place, why should we think that choice was any better than "Muriel's Wedding".

[auro]

Seeming that Final Destination is just as pony as Murial Wedding., what's the problem ?

[el duerino]

it wasnt necessarily - its not the quality of the films that is the issue. Try and grasp the point behind the actual message next time.

[sideymun]

I don't think the merits of the film are the issue here. The issue as i see it is that someone else made the decision as to whether or not i was intelligent enough to decide if watching a "scary" film would have any effect on me! If i felt that i didn't want to watch it i simply wouldn't, a TV does have a power switch last time i checked. Maybe this change of film happened because new TV's don't have this feature! It seems like so many other things these days and i find it quite insulting that i am not able to make up own mind about what i can and cannot do. This is especially true of some health and safety legislation these days, if i want to change a light bulb at work, i'm going to do it. I am not going to call a fully qualified electrican to do it for me like your supposed to!

[sideymun]

el duerino, sorry for repeating your answer but it wasn't there when i typed mine in. Also i should add that i am just as riled as you are!!

[cheyenne]

calm down,calm down,???

[boognish76]

Do you know for a fact that that is why the film was switched? Because I just don't see the connection between a film about a bunch of teenagers who get off a plane before it crashes, and then die in bizarre ways, and the Iraq hostage situation. It's been a while since I've seen the film but I don't think any of the teenagers where taken hostage. Isn't there ALWAYS going to be something unpleasant going on in the world that you could link tenuously to the tv schedules, if you wanted to?

[bernardo]

I posted my answer above before realising that you were talking about last night. After I logged off my computer, I switched on the TV and got ready to watch the film which I had videoed. At the beginning, the announcer said "In light of current news events, we are not showing the film Final Destination..."

I phoned up the BBC to complain, but the lines were all engaged. I will try later. No doubt I will grill the person on the other end relentlessly to get them to explain exactly what "current news events" are happening which wwere not happening when the schedule was decided a week or three ago.

[el duerino]

Apologies AB editor. Well I am glad to see I'm not the only one who was annoyed at the BBC making some ridiculous calculation on our parts as to our mental suitability for such a scaaarrryy film. Seriously what next? Filling in emotional health questionnaires before watching disturbing films or programmes? I am still in shock that someone, somewhere, thought they could take this decision based on their flimsy knowledge of the human psyche and the effect a hostage situation on the other side of the world would have on it. Interestingly, no tv schedules were changed when Iraqi policemen or Isreali/Palistinian children are blown up. Is the BBC suggesting that a British life is of more value to us than others, or that people are not emotionally distressed by 1000 people dying in Haiti? Honestly, I have to wonder what kind of planet these idiots live on. Yes, I should calm down, yes in the greater scheme of things its no more than an annoyance, but its the PRINCIPLE behind such a decision which winds me up something chronic.

[slimjim]

el duerino, you chastise auro for raising a valid point, saying 'Try and grasp the point behind the actual message next time'. If your original message had been more succint, maybe it would have been easier to understand exactly what your problem was. Anger never comes across well on the internet.

[LeMarchand]

I can't really remember much about FD (wasn't that impressed, obviously!), but apparently there is a beheading in the movie that it was felt could prove upsetting given the situation in Iraq, and it was this that was behind the decision to switch movies rather than the (debatable) "scariness" of FD. If they wanted to replace a "scary" movie with a "feelgood" one, there must have been better choices thn "Muriel's Wedding", which (as far as I can remember) isn't all sunshine and flowers.
Of course, one could argue that we are quite capable of deciding what to watch on our own; or that as people are being taken hostage in Iraq with alarming regularity, the BBC shouldn't have scheduled the movie in the first place if they felt that a beheading would be upsetting!
Personally speaking, I would rather that our viewing wasn't censored, but I can understand the BBC's decision - if they had shown the film, there would have been complaints that they were being insensitive! Of course, I may have been a bit more upset if they'd replaced a good movie!

[emailer]

Boognish - the connection is that in the film one of the teenagers is beheaded, which is what is happening to the hostages in Iraq. Pretty obvious link i thought

[el duerino]

I see so when any program which presents a fictitious occurance which mirrors real life I can then complain of emotional distress can I? People are being killed, raped, murdered, tortured, mutilated, every single DAY, merely because it's on the news does not mean I am more susceptible to it than normal. In fact, every single film ever made will have scenes which represent unpleasant real life - but they will show them when it's not on the news. I swear the lunatics have taken over the asylum if anyone thinks this decision is justified. Merely because decapitation occurs in teh film, and is happening in Iraq, does not mean they should cancel a film. Noone care to answer my point about how sensitive the BBC is to other situations involving people of other nationalities?

[Bubba]

This decision by the BBC caused quite a stir on the BBC Points of View forums. Not sure whether I can post a link here but the thread is titled "Schedule Alterations?". http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?thread=%3C1095883364 -10557.3%40forum1.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&find=%3C1095883364-10557 .3%40forum1.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&board=pointsofview.points-of-v iew1&sort=Te

[el duerino]

utterly flimsy reasoning from the BBC. Nice to see they are getting a panning from their viewers, despite the pathetic protestations regarding the hostage situation. Someone there needs to get a grip because they are completely out of touch with what they are supposed to be doing.

[LeMarchand]

utterly flimsy reasoning from the BBC. Nice to see they are getting a panning from their viewers, despite the pathetic protestations regarding the hostage situation. Someone there needs to get a grip because they are completely out of touch with what they are supposed to be doing.

I would have said that opinion was split on the matter rather than "panning" the BBC.

[el duerino]

I wouldn't. The most opinion was split was some poor souls suggesting that for the Bigley family alone the TV scheduling should be changed. The BBc is a public service, not a counselling dept. My mind is still boggling that some do gooder higher ground moral dimwits think such a decision is justified.

[el duerino]

its ok to show the probable effects of a dirty bomb (ok not bbc), given the current climate of fear, but not ok to show a fictional beheading. . .

[linseli]

I agree that it was a fairly daft (and token) decision from the BBC but they can't win - if they had shown final destination they would then have been bombarded with complaints from people saying they should have been more sensitive to current affairs. The sort of people who want every bit of our lives to be nannied e.g. cutting down trees because kids hurt themselves getting conkers! BTW the dirty bomb prog WAS on the beeb... and I've seen people posting on messageboards today that such 'scary stuff' shouldn't be shown (give me strength!)