30 July 2006
AFTER VIEWERS, MORE LIKE
ITV1's immediate axing of Saturday night series It's Now or Never attracted a fair amount of headlines this week, such is the embarrassment, but not many people seem to have noticed that they've also yanked off another series after one episode - the repeat of Afterlife that was on at 9pm last Sunday and was supposed to be there for the next five weeks.
Really, though, who didn’t see this one coming? Afterlife wasn’t much of a hit first time round, pulling in defiantly mediocre audiences, so how did ITV ever think that it might do any better this time? In fact, it got two million viewers and was beaten by all four other analogue channels.
I recall William Phillips, writing in Broadcast a decade or so ago, saying that repeats of drama series simply do not work, and that remains the case. There he was talking about a repeat run of Soldier Soldier being hauled off halfway through, and aside from self-contained mysteries like a Frost or a Morse, I can't think of one drama rerun that has ever proven successful on the main channels. This is presumably why Doctor Who, which was certainly hugely successful, hasn't been repeated on BBC1.
It's not just that ITV thought an Afterlife rerun might work at any time, but that they thought it might work for six weeks on Sundays at 9pm - what has perhaps been the flagship slot for ITV1. This is where all the big guns have gone in the past, the showcase for all the commercial channel's biggest drama hits. Now it’s being filled by 15-year old episodes of Poirot! Even in July, this is dreadful.
As recently as maybe five years ago, ITV was walking all over the Beeb in terms of popular drama. Now look at it - this week, aside from the soaps and The Bill, there are just three dramas on ITV1, and only Where the Heart Is could be considered a hit, and even that was at its peak in the '90s. Bad Girls is surely on its last legs, and the other one, Jane Hall, has been on the shelf for two years. Meanwhile BBC1, with the likes of Sorted and Inspector Lynley, are, to use the words of Greg Dyke, out ITV-ing ITV when it comes to popular shows.
I’ve asked it before and I’ll keep on asking it - how on earth can ITV1 think the way to increase ratings is to spend no money on programmes?
Really, though, who didn’t see this one coming? Afterlife wasn’t much of a hit first time round, pulling in defiantly mediocre audiences, so how did ITV ever think that it might do any better this time? In fact, it got two million viewers and was beaten by all four other analogue channels.
I recall William Phillips, writing in Broadcast a decade or so ago, saying that repeats of drama series simply do not work, and that remains the case. There he was talking about a repeat run of Soldier Soldier being hauled off halfway through, and aside from self-contained mysteries like a Frost or a Morse, I can't think of one drama rerun that has ever proven successful on the main channels. This is presumably why Doctor Who, which was certainly hugely successful, hasn't been repeated on BBC1.
It's not just that ITV thought an Afterlife rerun might work at any time, but that they thought it might work for six weeks on Sundays at 9pm - what has perhaps been the flagship slot for ITV1. This is where all the big guns have gone in the past, the showcase for all the commercial channel's biggest drama hits. Now it’s being filled by 15-year old episodes of Poirot! Even in July, this is dreadful.
As recently as maybe five years ago, ITV was walking all over the Beeb in terms of popular drama. Now look at it - this week, aside from the soaps and The Bill, there are just three dramas on ITV1, and only Where the Heart Is could be considered a hit, and even that was at its peak in the '90s. Bad Girls is surely on its last legs, and the other one, Jane Hall, has been on the shelf for two years. Meanwhile BBC1, with the likes of Sorted and Inspector Lynley, are, to use the words of Greg Dyke, out ITV-ing ITV when it comes to popular shows.
I’ve asked it before and I’ll keep on asking it - how on earth can ITV1 think the way to increase ratings is to spend no money on programmes?
27 July 2006
BBCITVBBC
MediaGuardian today reports that in yet another example of looking backwards for drama inspiration, the BBC is preparing a new version of that grand old classic Dracula to be broadcast this Christmas. Apparently Hustle star Marc Warren will be playing the count, but more interestingly, the BBC has commissioned ITV Productions to make it, with Poirot producer Trevor Hopkins in charge. Bizarre or what? Although Granada is responsible for the production of University Challenge for BBC2, this kind of major production seems a strange thing for the BBC's rival to be prepared to do. ITV could have easily made such a production for themselves, but instead they are taking the BBC shilling. Perhaps there is likely to be more of this kind of cross-pollination going on in the multi-channel environment. For all its faults, it would not be desirable to see a once-mighty broadcaster reduced to the status of merely a content provider.
Given that ITV can't manage to fill its own schedules it seems quite odd that they are going to make something to show on a rival channel during the most sought-after period ratings-wise of the year.
Given that ITV can't manage to fill its own schedules it seems quite odd that they are going to make something to show on a rival channel during the most sought-after period ratings-wise of the year.
24 July 2006
THIS IS YOUR GOLDEN DAY
With news that ITV are bringing back Mr and Mrs (one hopes that this time they will at least do it straight rather than try and post-modernise it ala the ill-fated Julian Clary relaunch), I am left scratching my head as to when these TV execs will finally get round to relaunching The Golden Shot. This was without a doubt the highlight of Ant and Dec's Gameshow Marathon, and was to my mind the most obvious contender out of all the shows featured for a new series.
But instead we got Joe Pasquale's The Price is Right and supposedly coming soon, Vernon Kay at the helm of a new Family Fortunes. The Golden Shot provides spectacle, variety, viewer interactivity and most crucially that great frisson of live telly - danger. So what's the problem? Is the "left a bit, right a bit" premise deemed out dated? Are crossbows a no-no in modern-day light entertainment? Or is there simply no presenter willing to take on what was reputedly one of the most difficult game shows to host?
But instead we got Joe Pasquale's The Price is Right and supposedly coming soon, Vernon Kay at the helm of a new Family Fortunes. The Golden Shot provides spectacle, variety, viewer interactivity and most crucially that great frisson of live telly - danger. So what's the problem? Is the "left a bit, right a bit" premise deemed out dated? Are crossbows a no-no in modern-day light entertainment? Or is there simply no presenter willing to take on what was reputedly one of the most difficult game shows to host?
19 July 2006
"WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO TELL THE PANORAMA AUDIENCE?"
Hooray - Panorama is going back to peak-time. I'm not celebrating due to any great love of the programme, to be honest, but because I was heartily sick of the endless complaints about its previous slot and the fact the BBC couldn't be bothered doing anything about it.
Inevitably there are already moans that the programme's running time is now 30, rather than 40 minutes, but that's a non-argument. No other programme is 40 minutes long, and the only reason Panorama was is because that's how long it used to be. Most of the recent episodes I've seen have suffered from relentless padding anyway. Note also, in that article, the disingenuous comment from the Head of Current Affairs of Channel 4 complaining that it's now opposite Dispatches, despite the fact the same is also true of Tonight With Trevor McDonald. And indeed until last year, Dispatches was on a Thursday.
The other great news is that the programme now runs 48 weeks a year. This is fantastic as currently the series has been on for 10 weeks or so, off for another six, and so on, and you can't have a flagship news analysis programme that isn't on half the time. Add to this the fact that it'll now be between two programmes people actually want to watch - the old slot after 10o'clock on Sunday was the worst possible option, not just because it was at the end of the evening so nobody would stumble across it, but also because on a Sunday night nobody wants to think about the news; they all want to put the real world off as long as possible with Monday morning looming.
So this is probably the best idea the Beeb have had for ages. In fact, it's only a shame they didn't go the whole hog and change the name as well - who under the age of 40 even knows what a Panorama is?
Inevitably there are already moans that the programme's running time is now 30, rather than 40 minutes, but that's a non-argument. No other programme is 40 minutes long, and the only reason Panorama was is because that's how long it used to be. Most of the recent episodes I've seen have suffered from relentless padding anyway. Note also, in that article, the disingenuous comment from the Head of Current Affairs of Channel 4 complaining that it's now opposite Dispatches, despite the fact the same is also true of Tonight With Trevor McDonald. And indeed until last year, Dispatches was on a Thursday.
The other great news is that the programme now runs 48 weeks a year. This is fantastic as currently the series has been on for 10 weeks or so, off for another six, and so on, and you can't have a flagship news analysis programme that isn't on half the time. Add to this the fact that it'll now be between two programmes people actually want to watch - the old slot after 10o'clock on Sunday was the worst possible option, not just because it was at the end of the evening so nobody would stumble across it, but also because on a Sunday night nobody wants to think about the news; they all want to put the real world off as long as possible with Monday morning looming.
So this is probably the best idea the Beeb have had for ages. In fact, it's only a shame they didn't go the whole hog and change the name as well - who under the age of 40 even knows what a Panorama is?
15 July 2006
LOWE AND BEHOLD
On last night's episode of The West Wing there was a real, genuine, bona fide "yes!" moment of the kind the show used to do as a matter of course, but which hasn't bothered with for ages.
It happened in the pre-credits sequence, when the camera slowly pulled back to reveal that the back of the head we'd seen in shot was actually that of none other than Rob Lowe, not seen in the series for almost four years. He turned round, muttered one line, then bang: into the titles. Wow.
Of course Lowe has only returned to The West Wing because the show is about to end for good, and was shamelessly coaxed back to give the thing something resembling a bit of dignity in its desperate dying moments. Yet even though he was only in a few scenes, it worked. Suddenly the whole programme felt far more substantial, robust, earthy. The West Wing had credibility again. It didn't have a load of people acting out of character, alternately shouting at and sleeping with each other. Well, it did, but they weren't the only ones in it.
Three episodes remain. Will the show exploit the goodwill of its former star and serve up a trio of memorably above average escapades? It's rare to be in at end of a long-running American drama series, even more of a thrill when you were also in at the start. Even so, The West Wing's departure is worth watching whether or not you ever followed the show in depth. Once it's gone, Radio Times for one will have to find another series to continually print spoilers about.
It happened in the pre-credits sequence, when the camera slowly pulled back to reveal that the back of the head we'd seen in shot was actually that of none other than Rob Lowe, not seen in the series for almost four years. He turned round, muttered one line, then bang: into the titles. Wow.
Of course Lowe has only returned to The West Wing because the show is about to end for good, and was shamelessly coaxed back to give the thing something resembling a bit of dignity in its desperate dying moments. Yet even though he was only in a few scenes, it worked. Suddenly the whole programme felt far more substantial, robust, earthy. The West Wing had credibility again. It didn't have a load of people acting out of character, alternately shouting at and sleeping with each other. Well, it did, but they weren't the only ones in it.
Three episodes remain. Will the show exploit the goodwill of its former star and serve up a trio of memorably above average escapades? It's rare to be in at end of a long-running American drama series, even more of a thrill when you were also in at the start. Even so, The West Wing's departure is worth watching whether or not you ever followed the show in depth. Once it's gone, Radio Times for one will have to find another series to continually print spoilers about.
14 July 2006
TV WITH CONVICTION
Obviously, the thought of Nick Knowles and Nadia Sawalha going to jail is full of comedic potential. Hence, I couldn't resist but look in yesterday morning on Behind Bars, a BBC1 morning show in which the duo: "talk to convicts and staff about life in Cardiff Men's Prison and Drake Hall Women's Prison, Stafford".
Broadcast live, as is the law for these type of shows, it proved that an inmate who's taken on the role of barber-behind-bars for 20p a haircut is never going to make the most verbose interviewee. "What do you spend the money on?" indeed.
But, I post here not to lambast this aspect of the show, or say all that much about it, really. Instead, I just want to record the fact that on this edition, all hell suddenly broke loose when a prisoner assaulted a guard. As alarms rang out, Nick and Nadia clearly wished they could be anywhere else, but pressed on regardless with their cheery links to camera: "Now here's a woman who thinks the short, sharp, shock treatment doesn't work, and wishes that she'd been given a longer sentence from the start!".
And then, later, as Nick cosied up to the staff for a chat, you could still plainly hear the prisoners shouting abuse in the background.
Broadcast live, as is the law for these type of shows, it proved that an inmate who's taken on the role of barber-behind-bars for 20p a haircut is never going to make the most verbose interviewee. "What do you spend the money on?" indeed.
But, I post here not to lambast this aspect of the show, or say all that much about it, really. Instead, I just want to record the fact that on this edition, all hell suddenly broke loose when a prisoner assaulted a guard. As alarms rang out, Nick and Nadia clearly wished they could be anywhere else, but pressed on regardless with their cheery links to camera: "Now here's a woman who thinks the short, sharp, shock treatment doesn't work, and wishes that she'd been given a longer sentence from the start!".
And then, later, as Nick cosied up to the staff for a chat, you could still plainly hear the prisoners shouting abuse in the background.
11 July 2006
"YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CHEER, Y'KNOW!"
There shouldn't be anything about Big Brother which should surprise us any more, really. In carefully tracking as much of it as I can for the weekly OTT reviews, the one thing that has irked me is the seeming lack of desire on behalf of the show's paymasters to allow evicted housemates any benefit of doubt. In past Big Brother series, it was an exception rather than a rule for a departing housemate to be greeted unfavourably by the gathered crowd, no matter what they had got up to in the house. In BB3, for example, only Adele and Tim picked up a poor welcome as they pushed the door open.
Now it's commonplace. Of all the housemates dumped, only the latest one, Lea, managed to achieve anything resembling an appreciative audience when she left, and even then the most flattering word one can use to describe her reception is "mixed". Bonnie, the first evictee, got horribly booed on the strength of an accent and the not unreasonable stink she caused when she wasn't give her suitcase; Sezer was controversial but hardly dangerous, and certainly not boring; Sam barely got a chance to speak before the housemates allowed the crowd to get at her; Grace had cause for concern but ultimately was destroyed outside for having a relationship with the alpha male; and Lisa collected baying noises for little more than a prolifically sweary trap.
Voting folk out is one thing, but who are these people arriving at Borehamwood for little more than a shouting match and to laugh at Davina's comic asides? Females, predominantly, aged 16 to 26, at a guess, and therefore the very, very jealous types. I want housemates to come out to cheers. They may have gone in to serve their own purposes, but they garner an audience and prompt folk to turn up at their ejection ceremony. Most deserve to be returned to their monosyllabic, eventless existences after doing the BB thing, but at least they deserve some mild appreciation for going through it in the first place. I remember when BB4's Jon Tickle came out of the house the first time (then went back in, then came out again) - now that was how to treat a housemate.
The only consolation is the knowledge that when Pete, Nikki, Glyn and - hopefully - Richard come out on the last day (in reverse of that order), the crowd will take the sky out with their noises of appreciation. I'm sure one of these days the reaction - be it booing or cheering - is going to prompt Davina's growing baby to make a live entrance. Now that would be voyeuristic telly.
Now it's commonplace. Of all the housemates dumped, only the latest one, Lea, managed to achieve anything resembling an appreciative audience when she left, and even then the most flattering word one can use to describe her reception is "mixed". Bonnie, the first evictee, got horribly booed on the strength of an accent and the not unreasonable stink she caused when she wasn't give her suitcase; Sezer was controversial but hardly dangerous, and certainly not boring; Sam barely got a chance to speak before the housemates allowed the crowd to get at her; Grace had cause for concern but ultimately was destroyed outside for having a relationship with the alpha male; and Lisa collected baying noises for little more than a prolifically sweary trap.
Voting folk out is one thing, but who are these people arriving at Borehamwood for little more than a shouting match and to laugh at Davina's comic asides? Females, predominantly, aged 16 to 26, at a guess, and therefore the very, very jealous types. I want housemates to come out to cheers. They may have gone in to serve their own purposes, but they garner an audience and prompt folk to turn up at their ejection ceremony. Most deserve to be returned to their monosyllabic, eventless existences after doing the BB thing, but at least they deserve some mild appreciation for going through it in the first place. I remember when BB4's Jon Tickle came out of the house the first time (then went back in, then came out again) - now that was how to treat a housemate.
The only consolation is the knowledge that when Pete, Nikki, Glyn and - hopefully - Richard come out on the last day (in reverse of that order), the crowd will take the sky out with their noises of appreciation. I'm sure one of these days the reaction - be it booing or cheering - is going to prompt Davina's growing baby to make a live entrance. Now that would be voyeuristic telly.
"THINK QI ... IT'S NOT 8 OUT OF 10 CATS"
I've been watching the first episode of Rob Brydon's new BBC3 endeavour Annually Retentive, which is now available on broadband. And, well, it's pretty good.
The chief problem is that the real Brydon is so bloomin' likeable and talented that the notion of him as a paranoid Larry Sandersesque egomaniac being reduced to fronting a deriviative HIGNFY rip-off doesn't exactly wash. And, at times, Rob has his foot down on the insult accelerator a little too hard, so when Gail Porter is suggested as a guest, Brydon shamelessly lays into her baldness. Nobody who does an impression of Ken Bruce could possibly be this nasty, surely?
There's also a slightly odd running gag about panellist David Mitchell not wanting his Peep Show schtick to be referenced, which doesn't really ring true, though it does give Rob the opportunity to "do" his Dave, which is fun. Jonathan Ross turns up in a cameo, gleefully playing himself as the terrifying showbiz monster he has surely become.
But the really brilliant thing, as with all Brydon's projects, is in his eye for the detail. The actual panel game itself is an excruciating fascimile of the real thing, complete with all the lazy tics and riffs. Meanwhile, in one behind-the-scenes vignette, Brydon doubts that Gordon Ramsay might be willing to appear on the show, first suggesting Ainsley Harriott as a possible replacement, before readjusting his expectations even lower and mooting Phil Vickery ...
The chief problem is that the real Brydon is so bloomin' likeable and talented that the notion of him as a paranoid Larry Sandersesque egomaniac being reduced to fronting a deriviative HIGNFY rip-off doesn't exactly wash. And, at times, Rob has his foot down on the insult accelerator a little too hard, so when Gail Porter is suggested as a guest, Brydon shamelessly lays into her baldness. Nobody who does an impression of Ken Bruce could possibly be this nasty, surely?
There's also a slightly odd running gag about panellist David Mitchell not wanting his Peep Show schtick to be referenced, which doesn't really ring true, though it does give Rob the opportunity to "do" his Dave, which is fun. Jonathan Ross turns up in a cameo, gleefully playing himself as the terrifying showbiz monster he has surely become.
But the really brilliant thing, as with all Brydon's projects, is in his eye for the detail. The actual panel game itself is an excruciating fascimile of the real thing, complete with all the lazy tics and riffs. Meanwhile, in one behind-the-scenes vignette, Brydon doubts that Gordon Ramsay might be willing to appear on the show, first suggesting Ainsley Harriott as a possible replacement, before readjusting his expectations even lower and mooting Phil Vickery ...
THE STRIP CLUB
It's possible every night this week to sit in front of the terrestrial channels and watch the same programmes as the night before. With the World Cup over, everyone seems to be attempting to fill the chasm with just one or two shows.
At least on BBC1 the stripping only affects this week, with Big Cat Week and Only Fools on Horses (which on the plus side, is making Matt Baker a peaktime light entertainment star, but on the minus side is confirming yet again how completely crap Angus Deayton is at live telly). And of course on C4 there's Big Brother.
But it's ITV1 who are stripping with the most gusto, and bar the hour 9-10pm, they have a virtually identical schedule from 6am to 11pm every day this week. There's Love Island each night, and also PokerFace. I'm not sure this really benefits from stripping, though - alright, so the winners of each night go through to the final, but given each heat is self-contained, they may as well have run it weekly. Millionaire benefitted from stripping as the contestants and rounds spilled over into each episode, whereas here it's all done and dusted by the end of the show.
If anything, stripping it will be to the show's detriment, I feel, making it seem repetitive and boring (it could also do with being half an hour shorter, but that's by the by). The idea of showing it every day seems to be making it some kind of event, and perhaps more exciting than it actually is - they could easily have run this on Saturday teatimes and it would be as traditional as Bob's Full House.
Stripping in peaktime is certainly something that's only become common in recent years, and for a new show even five years ago it would have been unheard of. Even Big Brother, when it began, wasn't a seven-day operation. Maybe it does help garner the show more interest, but if it's a flop, it can be an even more excrutiating one.
At least on BBC1 the stripping only affects this week, with Big Cat Week and Only Fools on Horses (which on the plus side, is making Matt Baker a peaktime light entertainment star, but on the minus side is confirming yet again how completely crap Angus Deayton is at live telly). And of course on C4 there's Big Brother.
But it's ITV1 who are stripping with the most gusto, and bar the hour 9-10pm, they have a virtually identical schedule from 6am to 11pm every day this week. There's Love Island each night, and also PokerFace. I'm not sure this really benefits from stripping, though - alright, so the winners of each night go through to the final, but given each heat is self-contained, they may as well have run it weekly. Millionaire benefitted from stripping as the contestants and rounds spilled over into each episode, whereas here it's all done and dusted by the end of the show.
If anything, stripping it will be to the show's detriment, I feel, making it seem repetitive and boring (it could also do with being half an hour shorter, but that's by the by). The idea of showing it every day seems to be making it some kind of event, and perhaps more exciting than it actually is - they could easily have run this on Saturday teatimes and it would be as traditional as Bob's Full House.
Stripping in peaktime is certainly something that's only become common in recent years, and for a new show even five years ago it would have been unheard of. Even Big Brother, when it began, wasn't a seven-day operation. Maybe it does help garner the show more interest, but if it's a flop, it can be an even more excrutiating one.
10 July 2006
SOAP SURVIVORS
In recent years there haven't been any truly innovative soap formats. The failure of Night and Day and Family Affairs can probably be traced to the fact that they simply re-iterated the old, worn formats of a central locale and group of families in a contemporary settings. Whilst I wouldn't for a minute suggest that the space station of Jupitor Moon would be the place to go, the success of Bleak House suggests that the auidence is capable of enjoying something "a bit different". Perhaps Chris's post suggests another option - why not rearrange the premise of Survivors into a twice weekly half-hour soap format? A post apocalytic world has the Eastenders grim factor built in, and there is still the potentiality for the usual comings and goings from the make-shift village, as new survivors are found and the existing characters die of radiation poisoning or starvation. Suddenly the original becomes innovative within a new format, which seems to be how most television works anyway.
LEFT HAND/RIGHT HAND?
MediaGuardian today reports that the BBC is considering plundering ideas from times past yet again to revive another show from days of old. This time, the programme in question is Survivors, or rather Terry Nation's Survivors as the Nation Estate would probably prefer it to be known this time around. One of the stars of the original version of Survivors, Ian McCulloch, has often attempted to revive the series but never quite managed to do so, so he might be feeling a little peeved that a new series could be about to go ahead after he had his ideas turned down.
This sounds like fantastic news for fans of telefantasy, but according to the report they are only talking about a six-part series, consisting of 60-minutes episodes - surely too brief to create memorable characters and tell a decent continuing story? The idea of the post-apocalyptic story is hardly original and the last attempt at this kind of theme was ITV's The Last Train which was only six parts and felt slightly aimless. It is tricky to remember any of the character names from that show, but the longer run that the original Survivors had resulted in even some of the minor cast sticking in the memory.
In the wake of Doctor Who's success and the forthcoming Robin Hood, the BBC are clearly attempting to change direction slightly in terms of drama despite their earlier statement that they were planning to make lengthier runs of existing programmes. Could it be that there are two competing drama camps operating at the BBC with two different agendas? Does the left hand of the BBC know what the right hand is doing?
This sounds like fantastic news for fans of telefantasy, but according to the report they are only talking about a six-part series, consisting of 60-minutes episodes - surely too brief to create memorable characters and tell a decent continuing story? The idea of the post-apocalyptic story is hardly original and the last attempt at this kind of theme was ITV's The Last Train which was only six parts and felt slightly aimless. It is tricky to remember any of the character names from that show, but the longer run that the original Survivors had resulted in even some of the minor cast sticking in the memory.
In the wake of Doctor Who's success and the forthcoming Robin Hood, the BBC are clearly attempting to change direction slightly in terms of drama despite their earlier statement that they were planning to make lengthier runs of existing programmes. Could it be that there are two competing drama camps operating at the BBC with two different agendas? Does the left hand of the BBC know what the right hand is doing?
07 July 2006
POKER? I HARDLY EVEN KNOW HER!
On Wednesday 14 June, I spent the afternoon being a right knob - but the details of this event were embargoed until today. I was taking part in a journos-only edition of Ant and Dec's new ITV1 game show, Pokerface (formerly, The Con Test).
So there I was, courtesy of ITV publicity, facing off against Natalie Jamieson from Radio 1, Beth Neil (the Mirror), Benji Wilson (Radio Times), Neil Midgley (Daily Telegraph) and Rachel Richardson (News of the World). (The latter was the NOTW golden ticket-sporting journalist who was trying to get into the Big Brother house, fact fans).
Taking place at Fountain Studios, near Wembley, first up we were briefed on how the game works. So: Six players answer multiple-choice questions on a computer screen, each correct answer equating to moneyin your pot (with the amount per question going up each round, natch). You know how well you're doing, but you don't know how anyone else is getting on.
At the end of the round, Ant and Dec quiz everyone on how well they've done. The aim of the game is to talk up your performance, banging on about how easy it was, and how much money you've accumulated. You're also invited to poor scorn on your fellow players and punch holes in their testimonies. Backbiting done, you then leave your consoles and walk up to a podium (which rises out of the ground, again, natch) upon which is a huge red button.
At this point in the game, you have the option to whack the button and "fold", walking away with what you've accumulated thus far. If no-one does so within a 10 second period, then the person with the lowest total is disqualified, and - of course - they lose everything.
So, that's the game. In practise on the day, though, with the cash totals substituted for scented candles, not one of us ever felt the urge to fold, meaning the thing progressed as pretty much a straight general knowledge competition. We still did the bitchy comments though ("I just thing Benji's trying too hard ...") and acted like idiots.
Throughout, Ant and Dec were - well - Ant and Dec. Matey, a little bit giggly, gossipy ... they laughed at our jokes. As for how I got on, well, I made it to the final "face off" with Natalie off of Radio 1 (Telegraph bloke was the first to fall, which was heartening). Emboldened by the fact I'd seen off Benji Wilson, who was bluffing with tremendous panache (in Spanish!), I could sense victory. Alas, come the reveal, Natalie had a good five grand or so more than me in the bank and I went home ... with nothing. Well, I've kept the name badge.
TV’s controller of entertainment, Duncan Gray, is happy to admit the channel is staking a lot on the format. “The show is a very important part of our summer jigsaw,” he says.“It’s very unpredictable, and it takes the game show genre on from Deal or No Deal?”.
06 July 2006
OTT - A SLIGHT RETURN
On another note, I'm getting the occasional mail asking why OTT hasn't been updated since May. Well, I refer you to this previous blog entry ... although, why, I don't know - those who mailed me clearly don't read this thing anyway.
Anyway, here's the news: Updates on the site are due to recommence shortly. There are about a dozen reviews waiting in the wings, so once they've been HTML'd up, they can go up online. Give it a week or so.
Anyway, here's the news: Updates on the site are due to recommence shortly. There are about a dozen reviews waiting in the wings, so once they've been HTML'd up, they can go up online. Give it a week or so.
WATCH IT!
OTT's pick of the day? Why not?
Tonight on five sees the start of the second series of The Hotel Inspector. Cruelly under-promoted last time out, it really is a cracking show. Shamelessly following in the footsteps of Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares the format sees award-winning hotelier and dispenser of plain-good-old-fashioned-common-sense Ruth Watson visit the armpit of the UK's hospitality industry.
In this first episode she descend upon the disturbingly twee Saxonia, a three Diamond, eight-bed guesthouse in Weston Super Mare run by Jon and Sandie Harrap. There she locks horns with the former, in what he describes as a series of intellectual discussions - and it's great.
Tellingly, there's one moment where Ruth totally drops the TV presenter veneer and barks at the couple to just get on and buy a new canopy, instead of dithering about paint colours. It's a total loss of composure situation, and Jon even has to tell her to calm down. Better yet is the sudden slew of "fucks" she unleashes when things go tits up in the kitchen towards the end of the episode. And she seemed so prim.
Yeah, okay, the commentary is a little too arch, but it makes up for it with a fantastic joke at the expence of Jon's party attire. So, that's The Hotel Inspector tonight on five at 9pm.
Tonight on five sees the start of the second series of The Hotel Inspector. Cruelly under-promoted last time out, it really is a cracking show. Shamelessly following in the footsteps of Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares the format sees award-winning hotelier and dispenser of plain-good-old-fashioned-common-sense Ruth Watson visit the armpit of the UK's hospitality industry.
In this first episode she descend upon the disturbingly twee Saxonia, a three Diamond, eight-bed guesthouse in Weston Super Mare run by Jon and Sandie Harrap. There she locks horns with the former, in what he describes as a series of intellectual discussions - and it's great.
Tellingly, there's one moment where Ruth totally drops the TV presenter veneer and barks at the couple to just get on and buy a new canopy, instead of dithering about paint colours. It's a total loss of composure situation, and Jon even has to tell her to calm down. Better yet is the sudden slew of "fucks" she unleashes when things go tits up in the kitchen towards the end of the episode. And she seemed so prim.
Yeah, okay, the commentary is a little too arch, but it makes up for it with a fantastic joke at the expence of Jon's party attire. So, that's The Hotel Inspector tonight on five at 9pm.