I've been looking forward to watching The TV Show since missing the first one, so I actually remembered to record yesterday's programme.
Very strange! I expected a highly charged debate about lots of subjects but, today, I can only remember one, and that was a limp discussion about Supersized fats and thins -- Oh yes; and the Maddie sketch.
Poor old Krishnan had a hard time trying to drum up some enthusiasm from the audience and guests. Considering they had a month to set this show up it was hardly worth the wait!
A pale imitation of the original with Roger Bolton!
The good thing is that SOMETHING of this nature is being attempted - and feedback is being sought. So congrats for that. I just think it needs a better slot in the schedules - really push it, with a high profile evening slot, a tighter structure and some 'meatier' topics. I'd also like to see a regular, brief, 'historical perspective' feature that considers how certain formats/habits/conventions have evolved, or regressed, over the past thirty or so years (e.g. newsreading - does any viewer REALLY sit there thinking, 'I do wish they'd get up and walk around for a bit!'??; weather forecasting - why do so many of them 'editorialise' these days, telling us what is good, bad or exciting instead of just saying what may happen?; plugging other programmes; idents; daytime TV; public service broadcasting; etc etc). Another topic I'd like to see covered at some stage is a 'review of the reviewers': something that actually takes case studies and assesses how useful or not a TV review really is: does it just use the show as an excuse for some bad and lazy jokes, or ad hominem attacks, or does it try to suggest how a programme maker might improve things? Back in the 1960s and 70s, TV critics had to act like theatre critics, watching something and then 'phoning in a hastily written response. Since then we've had previews, preview tapes and DVDs, sent out earlier and earlier, so critical responses SHOULD have grown more considered. Have they?
Originally posted by diggettydawg: The good thing is that SOMETHING of this nature is being attempted - and feedback is being sought. So congrats for that. I just think it needs a better slot in the schedules - really push it, with a high profile evening slot, a tighter structure and some 'meatier' topics. I'd also like to see a regular, brief, 'historical perspective' feature that considers how certain formats/habits/conventions have evolved, or regressed, over the past thirty or so years (e.g. newsreading - does any viewer REALLY sit there thinking, 'I do wish they'd get up and walk around for a bit!'??; weather forecasting - why do so many of them 'editorialise' these days, telling us what is good, bad or exciting instead of just saying what may happen?; plugging other programmes; idents; daytime TV; public service broadcasting; etc etc). Another topic I'd like to see covered at some stage is a 'review of the reviewers': something that actually takes case studies and assesses how useful or not a TV review really is: does it just use the show as an excuse for some bad and lazy jokes, or ad hominem attacks, or does it try to suggest how a programme maker might improve things? Back in the 1960s and 70s, TV critics had to act like theatre critics, watching something and then 'phoning in a hastily written response. Since then we've had previews, preview tapes and DVDs, sent out earlier and earlier, so critical responses SHOULD have grown more considered. Have they?
