I actually watched both of those videos. They were mildly interesting.

But as it turns out, I was complaining on the last day that BBC3 existed. So on their last television broadcast, they showed Little Fockers.

I wonder if there's a resource where you can search old television listings. I'm sure there is but I'm mostly finding American stuff. There's also an archive that the BBC has but it only goes up to 2009.

At a guess, I would say that Meet the Parents/Meet the Fockers/Little Fockers was broadcast 50 times on BBC3 last year.

Meet the Parents got generally positive reviews.

Meet the Fockers got mixed to negative reviews.

Little Fockers got decidely poor reviews.

They were all produced and starred and everything else more or less by the same Jews who I mentioned worked on Meet the Fockers. These films all also contain a great deal of Jewish humour, Jewish references, et cetera. They're Jewish films through and through. Written by Jews, produced by Jews, starring Jews, it's about Judaism, it's an extremely Jewish film series.

It was mostly Meet the Fockers that they showed. As I said, this film got mixed to negative reviews. Why would they repeatedly show a film that got mixed to negative reviews?

Even if we're talking about a classic, say, Citizen Kane. What sane television producer is going to show Citizen Kane fifty times a year for something like five years? People would get bored with it. Nobody would watch it.

It surely costs more or less the same amount to show Meet the Fockers than it does any other film. I don't think that they get a discount to show Meet the Fockers in bulk. So why didn't they purchase the rights to show fifty DIFFERENT films. Is it simple laziness or is there something more to this decision?

Some guy on Quora suggests that it costs $1 million to broadcast a film on television. He's talking about the US and also talks about a "film package" and other stuff but let's say it's $500,000 to broadcast Meet the Fockers in the UK. That's for every time, of course.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-a-network-pay-to-a-studio-to-broadcast-a-movie

Slate suggests that the studio gets 90% of the money from these television broadcasts.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_hollywood_economist/2005/08/hollywoods_profits_demystified.html

So Dreamworks Pictures, who are the studio responsible for international distribution, is getting $450,000 per broadcast...times fifty a year...that's $22.5 million in a year.

Can this be right? I don't see why not. It looks reasonable.

I mean, there has to be something to this. They're not showing Meet the Fockers fifty times a year for no reason. Somebody is making a lot of money on this and we can't ignore that it's a very Jewish film made by Jews and about Jews. And nobody wants to watch a film, even a good film, 50 times a year. Nobody was watching this shit.

It might seem stupid. Meet the Fockers. Who cares? Just change the channel. But we're talking about the BBC and by extension the UK government funneling millions of pounds, your tax money, straight to Jewish billionaire entertainment mogels.

What is the BBC getting out of this? What is David Cohen getting out of this? What is the UK government getting out of this?