23-02-2010, 00:55
10-03-2010, 23:37
(23-02-2010 00:55 )Mellow Wrote: [ -> ]...Instead of the Angels TV logo it is now Playtime Television.
...and now Elite TV
11-03-2010, 00:00
11-03-2010, 08:21
Yes Elite's bought channel 914, so my wish that Angels could become the owners of it has failed.
Therefore its not looking like its going to be a quick return to broadcasting that I'd wished for them and all their babes.
Lucky some have already found other stations.
But it will give them time to evaluate what went well, and what they need to improve.
They will return, but with a better, more exciting format
Therefore its not looking like its going to be a quick return to broadcasting that I'd wished for them and all their babes.
Lucky some have already found other stations.
But it will give them time to evaluate what went well, and what they need to improve.
They will return, but with a better, more exciting format
11-03-2010, 21:21
It looks like Elite are just renting the channel as the licensee remains Over 18 TV, the incompetent shower behind HV. At least Elite have their own infrastructure and are big enough not to take any shit from Over 18. They would presumably just pay them a monthly rental fee for use of the channel and that's it.
Angels' problem was that they were simply operating as freelance producers under a trading name. Despite their denials they were inextricably bound up in Over 18's infrastructure - phone lines, crew, studio etc, so they had very little independence or power.
For what it's worth I liked the ethos behind Angels - genuinely pretty girls who were thankfully mostly devoid of plastic tits and tattoos. There was a warmth and naturalness between model and caller/viewer that is lacking in most of the other channels that go for the pseudo bump and grind routine that is frankly boring. (Paradiso is an exception to this and another channel that's definitely doing the right thing).
I'm surprised that Angels were dumped so quickly but I think that was a combination of panic (and the usual incompetence) at Over 18, along with poor production values which were also largely the fault of Over 18.
If Angels can raise sufficient funding to allow themselves to be a genuine channel (not easy) then they could be a self-contained operation and a channel licensee in their own right, i.e. answerable to nobody (except our friends at Ofcom of course
).
Angels' problem was that they were simply operating as freelance producers under a trading name. Despite their denials they were inextricably bound up in Over 18's infrastructure - phone lines, crew, studio etc, so they had very little independence or power.
For what it's worth I liked the ethos behind Angels - genuinely pretty girls who were thankfully mostly devoid of plastic tits and tattoos. There was a warmth and naturalness between model and caller/viewer that is lacking in most of the other channels that go for the pseudo bump and grind routine that is frankly boring. (Paradiso is an exception to this and another channel that's definitely doing the right thing).
I'm surprised that Angels were dumped so quickly but I think that was a combination of panic (and the usual incompetence) at Over 18, along with poor production values which were also largely the fault of Over 18.
If Angels can raise sufficient funding to allow themselves to be a genuine channel (not easy) then they could be a self-contained operation and a channel licensee in their own right, i.e. answerable to nobody (except our friends at Ofcom of course
).11-03-2010, 22:02
(11-03-2010 21:21 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]For what it's worth I liked the ethos behind Angels - genuinely pretty girls who were thankfully mostly devoid of plastic tits and tattoos. There was a warmth and naturalness between model and caller/viewer that is lacking in most of the other channels that go for the pseudo bump and grind routine that is frankly boring. (Paradiso is an exception to this and another channel that's definitely doing the right thing).
Completely agree with the above paragraph Digital Dave.
(11-03-2010 21:21 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]If Angels can raise sufficient funding to allow themselves to be a genuine channel (not easy) then they could be a self-contained operation and a channel licensee in their own right, i.e. answerable to nobody (except our friends at Ofcom of course
As for this paragraph, it certainly would be good too - I hope they can make it happen.