Posts Tagged ‘tv’

We make some pretty shocking television in Britain. For those who live elsewhere, they see what the US has sent them – shows like Friends, Scrubs and CSI, and think “yeah, that United States really make some kick ass television.” Then they look at the programmes we export and find such titles as X-Factor and Who Wants To Be a Millionaire.

Both those shows were created in the UK and both have been hugely successful in franchising to the rest of the world.

It’s therefore easy to look at the shows we have managed to export, while our true gems like The Office and Sherlock simply get re-made by the US, missing the genius of the people behind the original series which made it so great in the first place, not to mention the best television we put out, shows like Horizon and Human Planet being largely ignored, and become depressed about our success in selling our output to the rest of the world.

But there is one show which has successfully gone out into the big wide world and carved out an international relationship. Top Gear. And why not? It’s a fantastic TV show.

I don’t know anyone who doesn’t like Top Gear. Its reinvention in 2002 was a stroke of genius – time after time people say “I love Top Gear! I’m not interested in the cars, but the rest of it is brilliant.” That’s the genius, especially with the specials, it’s a really cool travel documentary about three friends that happen to be driving cars at the time.

Even those that do object to the show are usually only objecting to the fact that Jeremy Clarkson is one of the most offensive people on TV at the moment. Granted, he does say a lot of inappropriate things but then his TV personality is set up to be controversial – he is a man who is paid to have strong opinions.

As a result, the British version of the show is one of the most watched TV shows around the world. It has readily topped the list of most downloaded TV shows, indeed in 2007 it was the second most downloaded show of the entire year, beaten only be Heros and topping Lost, Prison Break, 24 and Family Guy, the most popular shows coming out of the US at the time.

Add to that the spin-off franchises which exist in Australia, the United States, Korea, China and Russia and you have one of the most popular TV shows currently produced in the UK.

Of course, for a rather differing opinion, you might want to check out Stewart Lee’s opinion.

I thought I would write to share what I consider to be quite a positive experience I have recently had with the Advertising Standards Authority. Last month, I complained to them about an advert by Boots which I consider sexist.

It’s updated to their YouTube channel with the caption “the girls can’t let the onset of man-flu slow them down.”

Just three days after I had made the complaint, they posted out a letter to me! While it said they wouldn’t be taking any further action, they did take the time to explain to me why they wouldn’t – in this case because they did not feel the advert caused sufficiently widespread offence for them to take action. However, given complaints so often disappear off and are never heard of again, I think the ASA deserve praise for their speedy and in depth response.

No, this isn’t another ridiculous situation at Sainsbury’s, I’m talking about the “please confirm you are ana adult” boxes that are constantly popping up on my iPhone, 4OD and BBC iPlayer.

I understand that such apps probably need to confirm that I am over 18 for legal reasons. The problem is that they ask me every time. I’m sure that my date of birth is somewhere in my profile, and even if it wasn’t, the app could prompt me to enter it once and then have done with it.

But it doesn’t, my 4OD app continues to prompt me to confirm I am old enough every time I open it.

Now, even if you accept the idea that a child could steal my iPad and decide the first thing they want to do is watch some video that isn’t appropriate for them on 4OD and hence they need to confirm it every single time, why can they broadcast such shows on TV without requiring such a mechanism.

The answer is the Watershed. After 9pm at night you can broadcast much more filth on TV. But if you’re going to argue down that line, given my device knows what time it is, why can the app not stop prompting me between 9pm and 5:30am?

Recently, I’ve been watching Nothing to Declare (aka Border Security: Australia’s Front Line). It’s about customs officers working at Australia’s airports and seaports. It’s pretty similar to UK Border Security, except that I actually find it interesting.

I use the term I because ultimately it’s trash TV. There is no real intellectual merit to either TV show but for some reason I find Nothing to Declare entertaining, while I find UK Border Security quite dull.

Indeed, we’ve been getting into it so much that last week I set a reminder in our calendars about it. Why is it so addictive?

The story gets stranger though. I randomly got an email from Gijsbert entitled “Nothing to Declare” with a message saying I’ve been watching loads of Nothing to Declare recently. Why do intelligent people, including myself, watch this rubbish?

It’s a fascinating question. It’s so predictable – it’s just people getting caught with cocaine on them and people trying to sneak into the country with the intention of working on their tourist visa, episode after episode. But we’re all addicted to it. Why?

It’s also interesting that both we, and Weili picked up on the fact that the show opens with the title caption “thousands of people dedicate their lives to protecting Australia’s border.” Not just work there – dedicate their lives.

I finally got round to watching the first episode of Secrets of the Superbrands which looks at technology.

I’ll be honest, the presenter, Alex Riley, really failed to endear himself to me with his surely attitude. I’m sure he’s an intelligent guy who on purposely plays the fool with comments like “iPhones, and iPads and 3gs and stuff like that.”

In fact, these go on and on with comments like “that’s a massive electromagnet, so if I brought in anything that was metal it would fly over there and rip Adam’s face off” or “is there any time when you think eww, it’s a brain, it’s horrible” to which the woman succinctly answers “no.”

Anyway, as we are all aware, marketing these days is brilliant. It’s amazing. Remember the last time you went round Tesco – did you buy something that wasn’t on your list? Buy an extra one because it was two for one? That isn’t an accident. You didn’t go out to buy that stuff, but you did, and it might sound like a simple thing, but millions of pounds of Tesco’s money goes into making sure it happens, every time you walk in that door.

Apple especially have some amazing marketing too. People hang off Steve’s every word.

But I really felt the show suggested that Apple were somehow tricking us into buying their products. Missing the point – that Apple produce really, really good products. So they should be – they are really expensive. But isn’t that just how the world works normally? You pay more, you get a better product? I don’t buy Apple products because it’s a cult, I buy them because I have enough disposable income to buy better products.

As for his treatment of Microsoft, there seemed to be disdain in his voice when he said they spend $5.5 billion on research and development. Of course R&D helps their profits in the long term, but it’s also giving back to the community (OpenOffice is great for example, because they just copied Microsoft Office which is great is because of all the money Microsoft spent making it great).

Also some of it was just factually incorrect. Microsoft’s income isn’t dwindling, they’re setting new quarterly records.

There is nothing wrong with his Nokia 6330 Classic but it’s just silly to take an attitude of “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” when new phones are adding some amazing new features bringing you better communication to those you care about and access to the sum of all human knowledge.

As for, us getting better software because they get our details to target ad at, surely that is actually a good thing? How many boring ads do you sit through on TV ad breaks? Most of them don’t target you, so there is no point you looking at them. What if you could just watch the one advert and then get back to your programme? That is what targeted ads offer.

And seriously the presenter was very, very annoying. No surprise he labels himself as an agnostic. And who asks the man behind Kinect if he was abused as a child? He’s like annoying, offensive, shit version of Louis Theroux.

Anyway, rant over lol.

I’ve turned into some kind of angry letter-obsessed old man! But to be fair I write these up pretty quickly and don’t bother checking them (there are several purposeful spelling and grammar errors in this – see if you can spot them).

But anyway, there was an advert on ITV1 tonight for Confused.com which claimed the internet was the most important invention of the 21^st century. I know, I know, it hurts on the inside. So I wrote to them about it.

To Whom It May Concern:

I have just been watching ITV1 (it is currently just before 8PM on Thursday 30 September) when I saw an advert for your website.

On the advert, the voice over woman described the internet as “the most important invention of the 21st century.”

As I am sure you will be aware, the internet was in fact not invented in the 21st century. Indeed, it was invented well before the 21st century with its foundations lying as long ago as the 1960’s.

Indeed not only does the internet date back this far but it’s wide spread adoption really occurred in the 1990’s and by the time we reached the end of 2000 the Dot-com bubble had already come and gone.

I therefore believe the claim made on the advert was erroneous.

While you could make the claim that although the internet was invented before the 21st century it is still the most important invention of the 21st century, I do not believe this makes any more sense because if you are opening it up to any invention ever then surely there are more important inventions that proceed the internet – for example the invention of computers to run the internet on, electricity to run the computers on or even the agricultural revolution which first gave us a surplus of time to expand beyond mere hunter gathers. Or going the other way, why not the world wide web which is arguably the real revolution that the internet has enabled?

I believe this kind of erroneous information is a problem for two reasons.
Firstly, it does not fill me with confidence in confused.com as I believe it looks unprofessional. Particularly a site yours, which holds large amounts of my personal data.

Secondly, I believe it could lead to a wide spead misunderstanding of history by the general population on a topic which, as your advert points out, is incredibly important.

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,
Chris

I decided against making a pun on the idea that they may have been confused. Oh well.

Myself and Ian Abbott from Lancashire Secular Humanists at the Ummah Channel studios where we were filming a debate.

Does anyone else remember the Jonathon Creek episode where Adam Klaus is doing that reality TV show in which he has to live like a pig?

It was called “Animal Farm” and appeared in the episode “Gorgons Wood”, originally broadcast in February 2004.

I don’t know about you but I found it very amusing. The parody of reality TV, imagining our television programming would ever stoop so low was simply hilarious. I mean who would even make, let alone watch, such a ridiculous and interlectually bankrupt programme?

Anyway, it starts next Thursday on BBC Three.

I was somewhat suprised the other day when my housemates and guests began discussing the Christmas special episode of Jonathan Creek. Namely because I had no idea such an episode had been made, after all the show has been gone for five years. Gone though not forgotten apparently, wiping out it’s competition to take a 36% market share and rightly so too!

Jonathan Creek is an amazing show and news of it’s report, albeit it for only one episode was most welcome indeed. Though having read over the news articles surrounding it, perhaps there will be further specials, though not a new series, based on the warm reception this special received.

As usual the mystery was a good one, though I will admit not to the standard of brilliance that the original episodes reached. I got as far as working out that the attic room they were looking at outside was not in fact the attic room they were in while inside but that is almost a given, given it’s JC and that is as far as I got.

Fingers crossed when that there will be more specials though in any case I think I am going to have to re-watch some of the original episodes and once again bask in the splendor that is Jonathan Creek’s mind at work, even if he is a fictional character.

As I previously mentioned, I am now fully caught up with the latest adventures of Doctor Who.

I originally had a rant about the series finale, which I stand by though having talked to Rich last Tuesday I think he nailed it when he said it’s just generally a celebration, especially given it is the last series to be masterminded by Russell T Davis and you just have to talk it with a pinch of salt, sit back and enjoy it.

It’s been a good return for the show. I think the first few series really nailed it as they had consistently good episodes which I was less true of the later series though they never the less featured some very good episodes.

End of the day, it’s good to see we still produce good cult television. Only two months to the Christmas special, that’s something to look forward to in the holiday season at least.