Log in
Register
Menu
Log in
Register
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Sky Digital BSkyB, Freesat & Saorsat support forum
Sky & Freesat fringe reception
BBC Starts FTA from July10th
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="2old4this" data-source="post: 22634" data-attributes="member: 174998"><p>Kijk en luister geld hasn't been abolished - it's now paid as part of income tax. The Dutch are very good at this kind of fiscal sleight-of-hand. They did it with their special car-tax too (BVB, or bezondere verbuiksbelasting). When the European commission challenged the Dutch in 1992 that such a tax (25%+) was impeding fair trade, the Dutch dutifully "abolished" that too. It was "abolished" into the BPM (Belasting van personenauto’s en motorrijwielen), which is just as expensive and just as unavoidable...</p><p></p><p>Sure, Dutch satellite cards are easy enough (if expensive) to procure as a Dutch resident. Not so easy if you don't have a Dutch address.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Back to your point about Hollywood:</p><p></p><p>the problem is that we collectively allow Hollywood to get away with selling its wares to each country seperately. The solution is simple: Europeans should stop watching so much Hollywood content in the first place. </p><p></p><p>We are a union of some 380 million citizens (and growing). That's a hunded million more than the US. Aren't we able to generate our own content? Perhaps we need a truly pan-European film industry to be developed, to be funded jointly by member states. </p><p></p><p>In fact, it is the Brits especially that seem to have this love affair with all things American. Pick up a television or satellite publication and you'd be forgiven for thinking that Britain was part of the US instead of part of Europe. What Satellite has its regular splash on the American satellite industry. Why? No-one in Britain can receive American satellite! On the other hand, everyone CAN receive the transmissions for mainland Euope yet there's hardly anything ever appears in print about that. </p><p></p><p>Look at the content of the popular channels. I'd estimate that at least half of the content of Sky One & Sky Mix is US in origin. And look at the news. What does Sky News choose periodically to include on its active screen, and what does it switch to late at night? Fox News from US! OK, I know the two networks are sister organisations, but nevertheless Sky clearly believes that the UK viewing public is at least somewhat interested in pure US news (much of it local). You'd be hard pushed to find anything like that amount of coverage of European issues. How many Brits watch Euronews? </p><p></p><p>So why are so many Europeans apparently more interested in what's going on half way around the world than on their own doorstep (in the union they are part of)? Perhaps if there was any genuine mainstream interest for receiving transmissions from neighbouring countries, the broadcasters and legislators might be less willing to accept the contractual stipulations laid down by an increasingly greedy Hollywood.</p><p></p><p>Oh, and I know that a big part of the problem is language. But while the US is certainly the largest English-speaking nation and able to turn out lots of English-language material, there are also some 100 million people outside the US whose first language is English. I would have thought that a pool of one hundred million people should be able to make and consume sufficient alternative material to rival Hollywood. </p><p></p><p>In those parts of the world (such as much of Europe) where English is not a first-language, we should perhaps be more willing to watch and enjoy films which are not in our own language. If the Netherlands and Scandanavia are perfectly accepting of subtitles, why not, say, the Brits? A well-funded film company in, say, Germany. can make blockbusters every bit as good as the Hollywood big hits. So why not screen those films in subtitles across the whole of Europe? </p><p></p><p>And consider what we do turn out. Home-grown European films tend to be of the genres that do not typically attract the massive audiences. For some reason we like to produce artsy films, or films about society, about a supposedly complex interplay of characters, or some rural or urban strife. Why can't we produce more home-grown science fiction, fantasy, horror or disaster with mass appeal? It wouldn't necessarily need a huge special-effects budget, just a little creativity and a willingness to snap out of the artistic snobbery that pervades our local film industries.</p><p></p><p>In any event, we need to think carefully about the reasons for - and how to break - our addiction to US content if we are ever to develop truly pan-European alternatives.</p><p></p><p>2old</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="2old4this, post: 22634, member: 174998"] Kijk en luister geld hasn't been abolished - it's now paid as part of income tax. The Dutch are very good at this kind of fiscal sleight-of-hand. They did it with their special car-tax too (BVB, or bezondere verbuiksbelasting). When the European commission challenged the Dutch in 1992 that such a tax (25%+) was impeding fair trade, the Dutch dutifully "abolished" that too. It was "abolished" into the BPM (Belasting van personenauto’s en motorrijwielen), which is just as expensive and just as unavoidable... Sure, Dutch satellite cards are easy enough (if expensive) to procure as a Dutch resident. Not so easy if you don't have a Dutch address. Back to your point about Hollywood: the problem is that we collectively allow Hollywood to get away with selling its wares to each country seperately. The solution is simple: Europeans should stop watching so much Hollywood content in the first place. We are a union of some 380 million citizens (and growing). That's a hunded million more than the US. Aren't we able to generate our own content? Perhaps we need a truly pan-European film industry to be developed, to be funded jointly by member states. In fact, it is the Brits especially that seem to have this love affair with all things American. Pick up a television or satellite publication and you'd be forgiven for thinking that Britain was part of the US instead of part of Europe. What Satellite has its regular splash on the American satellite industry. Why? No-one in Britain can receive American satellite! On the other hand, everyone CAN receive the transmissions for mainland Euope yet there's hardly anything ever appears in print about that. Look at the content of the popular channels. I'd estimate that at least half of the content of Sky One & Sky Mix is US in origin. And look at the news. What does Sky News choose periodically to include on its active screen, and what does it switch to late at night? Fox News from US! OK, I know the two networks are sister organisations, but nevertheless Sky clearly believes that the UK viewing public is at least somewhat interested in pure US news (much of it local). You'd be hard pushed to find anything like that amount of coverage of European issues. How many Brits watch Euronews? So why are so many Europeans apparently more interested in what's going on half way around the world than on their own doorstep (in the union they are part of)? Perhaps if there was any genuine mainstream interest for receiving transmissions from neighbouring countries, the broadcasters and legislators might be less willing to accept the contractual stipulations laid down by an increasingly greedy Hollywood. Oh, and I know that a big part of the problem is language. But while the US is certainly the largest English-speaking nation and able to turn out lots of English-language material, there are also some 100 million people outside the US whose first language is English. I would have thought that a pool of one hundred million people should be able to make and consume sufficient alternative material to rival Hollywood. In those parts of the world (such as much of Europe) where English is not a first-language, we should perhaps be more willing to watch and enjoy films which are not in our own language. If the Netherlands and Scandanavia are perfectly accepting of subtitles, why not, say, the Brits? A well-funded film company in, say, Germany. can make blockbusters every bit as good as the Hollywood big hits. So why not screen those films in subtitles across the whole of Europe? And consider what we do turn out. Home-grown European films tend to be of the genres that do not typically attract the massive audiences. For some reason we like to produce artsy films, or films about society, about a supposedly complex interplay of characters, or some rural or urban strife. Why can't we produce more home-grown science fiction, fantasy, horror or disaster with mass appeal? It wouldn't necessarily need a huge special-effects budget, just a little creativity and a willingness to snap out of the artistic snobbery that pervades our local film industries. In any event, we need to think carefully about the reasons for - and how to break - our addiction to US content if we are ever to develop truly pan-European alternatives. 2old [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Sky Digital BSkyB, Freesat & Saorsat support forum
Sky & Freesat fringe reception
BBC Starts FTA from July10th
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top