Talk:Masterpiece (TV series)
|WikiProject Television||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Energy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This isn't part of the article but its interesting - - - - - Gail Shister | PBS offers Oprah a 'Masterpiece Theatre' partnershipBy Gail ShisterInquirer ColumnistPASADENA, Calif. - Oprah's Masterpiece Theatre? It could happen. With PBS's crown jewel still sponsor-less since ExxonMobil bailed in December '04, outgoing network president Pat Mitchell pitched Oprah Winfrey a partnership in the franchise in an e-mail Saturday, Mitchell confirms. And if Winfrey kicks in enough green, she could get her name above the title, Mitchell says. PBS guidelines require a commitment of $8 million to $10 million a year for that to happen - tip money for the billionaire talk-show queen. "There's no downside," Mitchell said in an interview at the TV critics' winter meetings. "How can you get a better trademark, a better brand? Look how many books they sell based on her recommendation." Mitchell and Winfrey go back more than 20 years. Though Mitchell and MT executive producer Rebecca Eaton only began brainstorming the idea on Saturday, Mitchell outlined her perfect scenario: Winfrey and Eaton would coproduce some of the books to which Winfrey owns broadcast rights as TV movies or mini-series, to air on PBS under the MT banner. Winfrey's infusion of capital would dramatically strengthen the overall MT brand in the marketplace, enabling an increase in productions. Simple, right? "The fact is, Oprah could just write a check and save public broadcasting," says Mitchell. " 'Here's your budget for the next three years.' I don't think she's going to do that. She has other things on her plate. Masterpiece Theatre is a really good fit." ExxonMobil had been MT's sole corporate underwriter since its 1971 launch. PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have been keeping it afloat, but with far fewer offerings than in the past. MT will do 10 titles this season, including an eight-hour adaptation of Charles Dickens' Bleak House that begins Sunday. "There's no way I'll let Masterpiece Theatre leave our schedule," Mitchell promises. The final decision on the Winfrey plan - if there is one - would be up to Eaton and Boston's WGBH, the producing station, Mitchell says. "It seems like a wonderful combination," says Eaton, e.p. since '85. "I feel her sensibilities and our sensibilities are quite similar." One example: Tolstoy's Anna Karenina was a Winfrey Book Club selection as well as an MT production. To Eaton, Winfrey "is huge. In another culture, she would be an oracle, like the woman in the village everyone came to for guidance." Eaton says she spoke to Winfrey's Harpo Productions two years ago about coproducing a mini-series based on her book picks, "but they said their plate was full. Now might be the right time to go back." Museum-bound. In her new job as chief executive officer of the Museum of Television and Radio, lame-duck PBS chief Pat Mitchell plans to look to the future, not the past. Mitchell, who begins March 15, says one of her top priorities is to make many of the museum's 100,000-plus TV and radio programs available on the Internet (for a fee). (Fun Fact: Mitchell downloads podcasts of ABC's Desperate Housewives and Lost. She watches them on airplanes.) Named in 2000 as PBS's first female president, Mitchell announced almost a year ago that she would leave the public network at the completion of her contract in June '06. The PBS board has allowed her to exit early, she says. The network is expected to name Mitchell's successor within two weeks. Names on the short list are said to include Gary Knell, head of Sesame Workshop; Vivian Schiller, general manager of Discovery Times Channel; and Jerry Wareham, vice chairman of PBS's board. Mitchell plans to use her new position "as a platform to talk about hugely important issues - how media influences the way we think and live, and the decisions we make." She has signed a two-year deal. The nonprofit museum, with locations in New York and Los Angeles, was founded in 1976 by William S. Paley. Mitchell says she's finding it tougher to leave PBS than she expected. After announcing her planned departure, "I pushed it to the back of my head. We were all in denial. Now that we're actually dealing with it, it's hitting home."
- It might be interesting if anyone could parse it. Please don't copy-and-paste entire articles in here. Either link to the article, or summarize it to support your thesis (assuming you have one...and if you don't, why dump this here at all?). If you must appropriate large chunks of text, at least have the grace to format it to resemble the original. Reading it yourself with its original formatting and then expectorating it here in a random, monolithic form is lazy and inconsiderate. The original writer didn't use spacing and paragraph breaks because he thought it was kooky fun for himself. And sign your posts. If we were allowed to edit Talk Pages, I would move to delete this section. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course, the series are just past of normal TV in Britain, some considered good, some bad, some indifferent; few are considered masterpiecesPliny 23:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- This seems to be a POV comment with little to back it up. Of the many series aired over the years five of them show up on the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes. Said list includes much more than just dramas. But a drama only list might include 'Six Wives...', 'Elizabeth R', 'Upstairs, Downstairs' and two, well done, versions of 'Bleak House' among many others. As I grew up with the show, in the 70's and 80's, critics and commentators often remarked how Americans got a distorted view of British TV because we so often got to see only the best that they had to offer. Oh well, different reactions for different wikipedians. I just couldn't leave this statement on its own without some sort of reply.MarnetteD | Talk 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote a sentence to read as follows:
- A series of movie, theatre, and television show parodies were shown on Sesame Street as Monsterpiece Theatre, hosted by Alistair Cookie as a play on Alistair Cooke
This was reverted back to:
- A series of movie, theatre, and television show parodies were shown on Sesame Street as Monsterpiece Theatre, hosted by Cookie Monster in the guise of "Alistair Cookie".
with the edit comment:
- (this explanation is not really needed as we can all get the ref)
I believe this is wrong. Who is this putative "we"? Wikipedia is not written for a select group of those "in the know", but for a worldwide audience. When making edits, I try to keep in mind a possible reader -- a curious 14 year old child, intelligent but largely still ignorant, living in a poor country, learning English at school and wanting to explore the world. These links would help that person, and many others, understand what the page is about. I aim for maximum clarity, and links can often help, as can a gloss.
I do not want to get involved in an edit war, but I would ask for these comments to be taken into consideration. BrainyBabe 16:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alistair Cooke is already mentioned, and linked, in the article under hosts. There is not really any other person that the Cookie Monsters impression could be of. I had not payed attention to the fact that the image of the book (which was replaced with the logo), which also had his picture on it was gone. When it was there he had been mentioned twice before you get to the section you edited. As it is only mention once it should be okay for you to put it back in (though as his name is already linked there isn't any need to do so again per wikipolicy on excess linking) but it is redundant in my opinion, but, that is only one editors opinion and as you say not worth an edit war so my apologies for causing offense.
- PS the link that you created on my talk page did not work and I am not computer savvy enough to no why. It isn't important because I got here anyway but I thought that I would let you no in case it happens to other edits that you make. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt and courteous response, and for the warning re your talk page. Curiously, there is a separate article, not a redirect, for Alistair Cookie, the alter ego of Cookie Monster, so I will link to that, but heed your warning of not overlinking by repeating the link to Alistair Cooke. Happy editing to you too. BrainyBabe 13:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Lemme guess...this was somebody's idea of a joke? Kransky 15:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you think that it was a joke. It aired on Masterpiece Theatre on Sundays in April and May of 1990 and I saw it back then and enjoy it still on DVD. It was a thought provoking six part series and not the Steven Soderbergh film (which was also well done though its title was spelled with a c rather than a k). Maybe a little research (including clicking on the link to the series) before you make absurd posts would stand you in good stead. MarnetteD | Talk 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the first theme showing views of a British flag was discontinued in the late 1970's. Was the change for a political reason or just for variety? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- The opening credits changed many times over the years. Variety (as you mention) - creativity in what they could do with the credits as the technology advanced - the need to acknowledge more of the popular series they had shown are all possible reasons for the continuing changes. MarnetteD | Talk 03:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Does it still have a host?
Yes, various corporations, foundations and such paid money to have their names mentioned. How is this different from various advertisers for any other TV show? Yes, there is a legal distinction. For our purposes, there is no difference. Unless independent reliable sources have discussed the funding of this show, it is a trivial list. - SummerPhD, v2.0 15:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- (Note: We're talking about Tefkasp/SummerPhD's removal of funding content here. There isn't sufficient context to explain why the funding is noteworthy, and there aren't enough references that make the data believable. These lists pop up all over the place, they're typically unsourced, often submitted by vandals like this guy, who went on a funding spree, adding this unsourced, poorly formatted content all over the map and from different IPs, I believe. He also submitted content at this very article. I agree it should be chopped. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)