Gordon Ramsays magic touch !

ninky_2

budgets are getting smaller. plus now we have the industry norm of commissioning broadcaster and independent production companies.

so the indie may get, say, 85k per commercial one hour. but a lot of this budget won't get onto the screen as it will be ferreted away by crafty production managers to fill the coffers of said indie. especially in uncertain times when new commissions are hard to come by.

minimum wages are also often ignored. i worked with a researcher recently who had just come from a job as a full time production company receptionist being paid £225 (before tax) for a full time position. unfortunately there are far more hungry young grads than jobs. she took this entry level job as a 'foot in the door' but had to get her parents to subsidise the costs of living in london. this has a big impact on the types of people who are able to enter the industry (ones with wealthy backgrounds).

and don't even start me on unpaid 'work experience' that has been known to go on for month at a time. unfortunately the so-called glamour aspect has allowed far too many working time and conditions abuses to go on for far too long.

the freelance contract nature of the workplace also means people are scared to speak up as so much of getting the next job relies on keeping companies sweet.

rant over.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

TV is dumbed down precisely because people want tat.

do you want tat? or are you part of some miraculous intellectual elite with superior powers to the ignorant masses? (actually, don't answer that!)

it's strange because almost every commissioning editors i come across thinks the public are stupid so let them watch c**p. of course, they have somehow escaped this mass stupidity themselves. yet seem very up-to-date with all the latest reality / celebrity shenanigans.

Zagu

ninky wrote: »

do you want tat? or are you part of some miraculous intellectual elite with superior powers to the ignorant masses? (actually, don't answer that!)

That's a disingenuous argument. People do want tat, and to recognise that does not mean that you are "some miraculous intellectual elite with superior powers to the ignorant masses", or anything anywhere near being so conceited.

Look at the viewing figures for the soaps. Are you suggesting that they are not tat? What about the redtops? I think the point you are missing is that, while people enjoy those type of entertainment, most know that what they enjoy actually is tat. Just because you don't enjoy the same tat, doesn't necessarily mean that you are of "intellectual elite with superior powers".

bendix

ninky wrote: »

do you want tat? or are you part of some miraculous intellectual elite with superior powers to the ignorant masses? (actually, don't answer that!)

I'm more than happy to answer it, ninky.

No to the first.

Yes to the second.

:rotfl:

ninky_2

you are so predictable.......:rolleyes:

Conrad

ninky wrote: »

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?

I understand this sentiment, but I have to say I do come accross a lot of people that claim documentaries, current affairs and quality dramas are boring. All they want is a Mums gone to Iceland frozen meal and sex in the city.
It's noticable to me as national Trust member that it tends to be pretty much middle class visitors in the main. If the masses were so hubgry for brain food I would have thought more would be NT members (£60 per year)

ninky_2

Conrad wrote: »

If the masses were so hubgry for brain food I would have thought more would be NT members (£60 per year)

okay, you lost me there. my gran liked pottering round a national trust garden and poking through the homes of the erstwhile rich. but she certainly wasn't in the running for mensa membership.

explain?

Conrad

Zagu wrote: »

Just because you don't enjoy the same tat, doesn't necessarily mean that you are of "intellectual elite with superior powers".

Chantel and freinds definitely do not want to watch My Beautiful Laundrette down at the Swindon multiplex, apart from in some anxst ridden middle class academics imagination.
Indeed, myself and my freinds, although we do enjoy a documentary, we would sooner watch I-Robot than Kes.

Zagu

Conrad wrote: »

Chantel and freinds definitely do not want to watch My Beautiful Laundrette down at the Swindon multiplex, apart from in some anxst ridden middle class academics imagination.
Indeed, myself and my freinds, although we do enjoy a documentary, we would sooner watch I-Robot than Kes.

I don't understand your point. ninky claimed that you had to be of the "intellectual elite" to be able to recognise that tat exists. It's like saying that you have to regard yourself as being in the same class as Bronte to recognise that JK Rowling is a bit crap, or equal to Bach because you think Westlife should be banned from making another record, which seems like nonsense to me.

Soubrette

Zagu wrote: »

I don't understand your point. ninky claimed that you had to be of the "intellectual elite" to be able to recognise that tat exists. It's like saying that you have to regard yourself as being in the same class as Bronte to recognise that JK Rowling is a bit crap, or equal to Bach because you think Westlife should be banned from making another record, which seems like nonsense to me.

I thought ninky was claiming that everyone claims to be intellectually elite and declaims all the tat that's on tv.

but then says it's the rest of the viewers that like the tat.

In effect - everyone wants quality tv but unfortunately everyone else prevents it

ninky's argument was that this is shows that good quality tv would work if given a chance (I think) although it equally shows that no one likes to admit to watching tat

Correct me if I've misunderstood ninky

Sou