Gordon Ramsays magic touch !

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

To answer your question succinctly, there are two seperate but interrelated reasons for this.

1) Because the tv makers are lazy

if only this were more true. then i wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of 48 hour non stop edit shifts as an acceptable way to meet production deadlines.

i really hate the attitude that the viewing public is 'thick'.

shakespeare and dickens both wrote for a mass audience.

dumbed down television content has more to do with the flaws of the free market. again, we come down to the question of which has more power / responsibilty. individual agents or the system they operate in?

ninky_2

reduceditem wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that a cook should stick to what they are good at.

the world of formatted television is hungry for experts. how many shows (other than the news) do you see being fronted by actual reporters / journalists.

we are now in the world of the tv 'expert'. and it is left to producers to turn them into presenters with stylist, scriptwriters and strong direction.

gordon can't deliver lines into camera. that's why you always see him talking off lens to the anonymous director.

his punchy style is a production creation. the recipes delivered with monosyllabic testosterone aggression ("fish", "cheese", "chop", "fry"), again an invention from behind-the-scenes.

viewers don't see all the work that goes to create these mythological creatures of our time. it's the magic of telly. and by the time it goes out, we've started believing our own lies too.

bendix

I meant intellectually lazy ninky . . . not physically.

And by that I meant it's so easy to resort to the formulaic way of making tv evidenced by my synopsis of Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmare. Apart from the excellent idea the series is premised on - how could it NOT be good tv? - the rest of making a series of basically identical shows.

Shakespeare and Dickens? Oh please! To compare audiences in 16th Century London with today is stretching it. Yes, both were produced for the mainstream audiences but what you don't see is the thousands of other mass-audience productions made for audiences at that time because, basically, they were so bad that they haven't survived.

And for every Dickens, I'll trump you with a hundred penny broadsheets. And even Dickens knew the power of sentimentality to sell a few extra copies.

TV is dumbed down precisely because people want tat. In a tv culture obsessed by Jonathan Ross, crappy soaps, Big Brother and Jade Goody, arguing otherwise is like saying the moon is made of cheese.

Oh oh oh . . I forgot to mention Noel Edmonds and Mr effing Blobby.

I rest my case.

vivatifosi

ninky wrote: »

the world of formatted television is hungry for experts. how many shows (other than the news) do you see being fronted by actual reporters / journalists.

But part of the problem is that they choose the wrong experts. Take for example home improvement programmes. How many of the experts on those were real architects or interior designers before they started out? For the most part they weren't. Hairdressers and arts grads maybe, but not true experts.

The issue I have with the reality format is the whole "celebrity" thing. The same people regurgitated on ice, in the jungle, dancing, singing, in the BB house. Who cares?

ninky_2

true. it is intellectual laziness. but i disagree with where the source of this comes from.

my job requires me to be intellectually lazy. i don't think i am particularly intellectually lazy per se.

this is because my sector (apart from some areas of bbc) is profit driven.

a time consuming rigorous investigation in a one hour doc just wouldn't deliver the (financial) returns.

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

But part of the problem is that they choose the wrong experts. Take for example home improvement programmes. How many of the experts on those were real architects or interior designers before they started out? For the most part they weren't. Hairdressers and arts grads maybe, but not true experts.

there's a new property show soon to be launched where two advertising execs redesign interiors. you'll love that!

needless to say much hair pulling and sleight of hand required by the production team to make sense of the madness.

vivatifosi

Out of interest ninky, what do you think of Current TV?

ninky_2

i only saw a bit of it before cancelling my sky subscription but i thought some was very good.

however, i can't imagine the content / programme makers are making money from it. it's more to do with access and showcasing alternative voices.

it would be good if we could have cultural media where it was more possible to have quality content and make a living wage from it. the only people who can afford to make authored docs are those from fairly wealthy backgrounds or who are willing to live as impoverished artists.

just not going to happen in a free market economy. thank goodness we still have the bbc. with all its flaws i don't begrudge a single penny of my license fee.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

there's a new property show soon to be launched where two advertising execs redesign interiors. you'll love that!

Let me guess. They're both gay, and there's lots of campiness and arguing about which wallpaper to choose?

Meanwhile the owners are Mr and Mrs Little England, both of whom express reservations about the initial choices of the redesign. There will then be a manic rush to complete on time but, hey presto, the grand revealing will stun the happy couple and they'll puff: "Cor blimey, it look laverly, indeed it does."

Oh, and the wife will cry with happiness, as the smug advertising executives walk off into the distance with a cheeky goodbye.

*sigh*

Now where have I seen THAT before?

vivatifosi

I don't begrudge the BBC either ninky. I trained in media in the 80s, working in post-production, decided I didn't like it (too fluffy). When I worked with a friend of mine to try and get a TV idea off of the ground a couple of years ago I couldn't believe that you would be paid less per episode in a multi-channel environment than you would have done 20+ years before. With some channels wanting to pay less than £5k for a half hour of produced content, how the hell can you make anything decent for that? OK, we're talking the minor channels, but no wonder there's so much "carp" and repeats on.