28 June 2007
PUNCTUATIONISM
Nice of ITV1 to show Die Hard the other night, a film I never get tired of seeing (and, considering I haven't been to a cinema since a date with Sue Cain to watch Kingpin in 1996, that's saying something), under the Action Heroes motif.
Sadly, they labelled it as Action Hero's, prior to and at the end of every commercial break.
Who the hell has been allowed to get away with such a mistake? How did they get their job?
It almost ruined the whole movie for me ... but not quite. However, I hope ITV1 noticed the error, located the perpetrator and shot him in the head as he drank a can of Coke.
Sadly, they labelled it as Action Hero's, prior to and at the end of every commercial break.
Who the hell has been allowed to get away with such a mistake? How did they get their job?
It almost ruined the whole movie for me ... but not quite. However, I hope ITV1 noticed the error, located the perpetrator and shot him in the head as he drank a can of Coke.
27 June 2007
PETER MISSES!
From Broadcast: "ITV1's struggling business-reality show Tycoon has been pulled from its 9pm slot on a Tuesday night. It will return on Monday 9 July at 10pm as a 30-minute format. Tough Gig has also been pulled."
THE BEST BIT ABOUT LAST NIGHT'S TYCOON ...
... Peter Jones, in the back of his limo, fist clenched in glee, declaring: "Peter scores!"
25 June 2007
THE NEXT MILLIONAIRE, LINK, DEAL OR NO DEAL?
With the news that Who Wants to be a Millionaire? is going to be scrapped, plus Deal or No Deal having recently celebrated its 500th show, I accidentally tuned into ITV's new daytime quiz show Goldenballs and found myself watching what may well be the next big quiz show. Maintaining the tradition of bringing back entertainers who've been off our screens for a while, Jasper Carrott is the man at the helm. I didn't check to see if this is because Goldenballs is a Celador production or not, but he does seem to be a pretty good choice. Far better certainly, than Les Dennis on that five quiz show shown earlier in the year.
Goldenballs isn't really anything new, relying as it does on contestants bluffing and double bluffing each other, but it's an absorbing show when you get into it. Perhaps its biggest problem is that it's not very self-evident what's actually going on, and it took at least 10 minutes or so to get my head round the mechanics of the thing.
The final round too, is a bit of a disappointment, relying as it does on a very straight interpretation of the prisoner's dilemma. In this instance the final two players can elect to share the prize money 50-50 or one can try and take the lot by electing "steal" when the other player has elected to "share". Of course neither player gets anything if both elect to "steal".
But, wouldn't it be great if one contestant told the other, they were going to elect to "steal" but would offer them a third of the prize fund if they selected "share" as their option? You sense the programme makers wouldn't let them do this though. Mind you, if Deal or No Deal has shown us anything, it's that allowing flexibility within what were once rigidly adhered to formats is a great way of extending the shelf life of a game show.
Anyway, I am tentatively predicting good things for Goldenballs.
Goldenballs isn't really anything new, relying as it does on contestants bluffing and double bluffing each other, but it's an absorbing show when you get into it. Perhaps its biggest problem is that it's not very self-evident what's actually going on, and it took at least 10 minutes or so to get my head round the mechanics of the thing.
The final round too, is a bit of a disappointment, relying as it does on a very straight interpretation of the prisoner's dilemma. In this instance the final two players can elect to share the prize money 50-50 or one can try and take the lot by electing "steal" when the other player has elected to "share". Of course neither player gets anything if both elect to "steal".
But, wouldn't it be great if one contestant told the other, they were going to elect to "steal" but would offer them a third of the prize fund if they selected "share" as their option? You sense the programme makers wouldn't let them do this though. Mind you, if Deal or No Deal has shown us anything, it's that allowing flexibility within what were once rigidly adhered to formats is a great way of extending the shelf life of a game show.
Anyway, I am tentatively predicting good things for Goldenballs.
22 June 2007
"IT MAY BE ON A LOUSY CHANNEL ..."
18 months ago, I posted about how Channel 4, despite spending what seemed to be the entire GDP of a small country on The Simpsons, didn't seem all that fussed about actually, you know, showing any new episodes.
After that, the series did return - but not until August 2006, when it was shoved at 8.30pm opposite Coronation Street most weeks to make way for the appalling Unanimous. Unfortunately the run also featured some of the worst episodes of the entire series including the truly dreadful "Weekend at Burnsie's" and "Blame It On Lisa". The run ended at Christmas, before the Friday night slot was booked up for six months by Ugly Betty, and it's been the same old teatime repeats since then.
But now, it's back! But ... at four o'clock on Sunday afternoons! And with absolutely no publicity, so much so that I didn't even realise they were back on. What was the point of C4 buying this series? You never saw them bugger around this much with Friends. It means the repeats have a substantially higher profile than the brand new episodes.
But if, like me, you've missed the start of this run (which fortunately I saw most of on Sky One before they fell out with Virgin Media), don't worry, because the series one repeats start again at teatime next week. So the much-hyped 400th episode will seemingly be flung out on T4 in four years time while the 400th repeat of "Call of the Simpsons" gets a prime-time outing.
After that, the series did return - but not until August 2006, when it was shoved at 8.30pm opposite Coronation Street most weeks to make way for the appalling Unanimous. Unfortunately the run also featured some of the worst episodes of the entire series including the truly dreadful "Weekend at Burnsie's" and "Blame It On Lisa". The run ended at Christmas, before the Friday night slot was booked up for six months by Ugly Betty, and it's been the same old teatime repeats since then.
But now, it's back! But ... at four o'clock on Sunday afternoons! And with absolutely no publicity, so much so that I didn't even realise they were back on. What was the point of C4 buying this series? You never saw them bugger around this much with Friends. It means the repeats have a substantially higher profile than the brand new episodes.
But if, like me, you've missed the start of this run (which fortunately I saw most of on Sky One before they fell out with Virgin Media), don't worry, because the series one repeats start again at teatime next week. So the much-hyped 400th episode will seemingly be flung out on T4 in four years time while the 400th repeat of "Call of the Simpsons" gets a prime-time outing.
THE EX-EX X FACTOR JUDGE
Here's a turn up. Just released by ITV's press office ...
LOUIS RETURNS TO THE X FACTOR
Louis Walsh is to make a sensational return to The X Factor.
The move comes after Brian Friedman, in consultation with Simon Cowell, the show producers and ITV said he’d be changing roles to become creative director on the show.
Louis Walsh is delighted to be back on the show: “In spite of all the bantering, I have continued to have a good working relationship with Simon, ITV and the show’s producers and I am thrilled to be asked back on the show.
"Working on The X Factor has been such a big part of my life over the last three years and I was genuinely really missing it. I cannot wait to start work again on Monday and be back with Simon and Sharon (Osbourne), and I’m really looking forward to working with Dannii Minogue."
Brian will now be using his vast experience as a dancer and choreographer working with the contestants from boot camp stages and into the live shows as well as using his extensive fashion knowledge to style the contestants at the studio shows.
He said: "I'm ecstatic to finally put my true skills to the test. The British public has only seen what I've been able to do from afar through the music videos and stage shows I have worked on. Now the public will be able to see direct in their homes what I can do and I couldn't be more pleased."
He added: "I am an artistic person used to being creative, I spoke to Simon and said I wanted a more hands on role and he subsequently offered me the new position of Creative Director".
Paul Jackson, ITV’s Director of Entertainment and Comedy said, "We are thrilled to have Louis back to The X Factor – and look forward to working with Brian in his new capacity. We, with producers talkbackTHAMES and Syco TV are determined to make series four even better than ever before. Viewers will see the story unfold on screen when the series returns later in the year.”
20 June 2007
"DO YOU WANT TO FRUKA?"
Sadly, knee-deep in various Other Commitments [shudder!], I don't have the time to write a properly-thought-out-with-actual-arguments-and-that review of last night's Tycoon, but I feel I must share some thoughts about this first effort from Peter Jones' production company ... starring Peter Jones.
The obvious things, first, then - ITV just shouldn't go toe-to-toe with the BBC in this fashion. Aluminium-hued shots of the City prompt comparisons to (let's get it over with now) The Apprentice, but then we get "Tycoon Tower", a squat, anonymous building on London's South Bank. Okay, it's got a "Tycoon" sign outside, but it's hardly a tower.
Inside - and here's the real pisser - nothing at all looks bespoke. This is just a fairly generic working space, hired out for the show. And why does Peter take most of his meetings in the carpark, or the communal coffee-sipping areas with kids loitering in the background? It all just looks so ... cheap.
Peter, himself, is a weird sort of TV character. Nothing he says feels spontaneous, particularly in those candid moments it's just him rattling away to someone off camera. He's also hugely hung-up on names - his counsel to each of the contestants consisting solely of coming up with new monikers for their products. You can imagine him brainstorming programme titles - "What's better than being an apprentice. I know, being a tycoon!"
And yet, by the end, I was rather enjoying it. It's like a lowkey sitcom - and how can you not enjoy Elizabeth "I can move mountains. I CAN move mountains" Hackford, who looks like she's dropped in direct from a meeting with Simon Harrap at Eyecatchers? Her attempts to get passers-by to name her product. Her pitch for investment money ("That's not like my product - it's a concentrate"). Her hackles rising as the Sod girls whirled the klaxon.
Yes, it's aimless. Yes, it's unglamorous. No, the "pier of fear" (as it'll surely be dubbed) is never going to become an iconic element of the show. But people trumpeting their own ideas and talking rubbish - that'll do me.
Best of all, you can watch the whole thing again courtesy of ITV1's BBC baiting watch-on-demand service (which is really great) at: www.tycoon.com.
Do tell me what you thought of the show. Meantime, I'm off to see if anyone wants to Fruka.
The obvious things, first, then - ITV just shouldn't go toe-to-toe with the BBC in this fashion. Aluminium-hued shots of the City prompt comparisons to (let's get it over with now) The Apprentice, but then we get "Tycoon Tower", a squat, anonymous building on London's South Bank. Okay, it's got a "Tycoon" sign outside, but it's hardly a tower.
Inside - and here's the real pisser - nothing at all looks bespoke. This is just a fairly generic working space, hired out for the show. And why does Peter take most of his meetings in the carpark, or the communal coffee-sipping areas with kids loitering in the background? It all just looks so ... cheap.
Peter, himself, is a weird sort of TV character. Nothing he says feels spontaneous, particularly in those candid moments it's just him rattling away to someone off camera. He's also hugely hung-up on names - his counsel to each of the contestants consisting solely of coming up with new monikers for their products. You can imagine him brainstorming programme titles - "What's better than being an apprentice. I know, being a tycoon!"
And yet, by the end, I was rather enjoying it. It's like a lowkey sitcom - and how can you not enjoy Elizabeth "I can move mountains. I CAN move mountains" Hackford, who looks like she's dropped in direct from a meeting with Simon Harrap at Eyecatchers? Her attempts to get passers-by to name her product. Her pitch for investment money ("That's not like my product - it's a concentrate"). Her hackles rising as the Sod girls whirled the klaxon.
Yes, it's aimless. Yes, it's unglamorous. No, the "pier of fear" (as it'll surely be dubbed) is never going to become an iconic element of the show. But people trumpeting their own ideas and talking rubbish - that'll do me.
Best of all, you can watch the whole thing again courtesy of ITV1's BBC baiting watch-on-demand service (which is really great) at: www.tycoon.com.
Do tell me what you thought of the show. Meantime, I'm off to see if anyone wants to Fruka.
18 June 2007
KING DAVID
When it comes to panel games, it doesn't really matter as to the format or the questions - probably about 95% of the appeal is down to the participants. So nobody really cares that 8 out of 10 Cats is about opinion polls - all that matters is that Sean Lock is there being funny. Hence, BBC1's new panel game Would I Lie To You is likely to prove enjoyable due to the masterstroke of hiring David Mitchell as a team captain.
David is already a first-rate comic writer and actor but in the past year or so he's proven to be a brilliant participant in panel games. Not since Paul Merton has someone seemed so at home behind a desk. He's fantastically quick-witted and has a wonderful delivery, and better yet he does it all without overshadowing the game, taking advantage of his fellow guests - indeed, he's generous in his laughter at the others - and using bad language.
On Would I Lie To You he demonstrated these talents again. He was able to take issue with Duncan Bannantyne's claim that anyone reading his book could make a hundred million pounds - "If everyone had a hundred million pounds, won't that be terribly inflationary?" - and brilliantly went off at a tangent when asked to guess whether Jodie Marsh's claim to have won "nearly six pounds" on a quiz machine was true, saying "These things only pay out in quids, so the nearest thing to six pounds is five pounds! What sort of accountancy is it when five pounds is described as 'nearly six pounds'?"
He's also able to get laughs from his posh persona. There was a great moment when David admitted that, at the age of five, he wrote to the BBC with regards to the industrial dispute that had silenced the Play School clock ("I was a formal little thing!"), while at the end the opposition correctly guessed that David had not, as claimed, fainted in the cinema while watching Kill Bill. Brilliantly, this wasn't because they didn't think he'd faint in the cinema, but because they didn't think he'd see Kill Bill, which amused David no end - "He only goes and sees silent films! He doesn't know how to buy a ticket, the love!"
David was the best thing about Channel4's Best of the Worst last year and he'll be the best thing about Would I Lie To You. I hope for further success from the great man - especially as it might give him less time to do those Mac adverts.
David is already a first-rate comic writer and actor but in the past year or so he's proven to be a brilliant participant in panel games. Not since Paul Merton has someone seemed so at home behind a desk. He's fantastically quick-witted and has a wonderful delivery, and better yet he does it all without overshadowing the game, taking advantage of his fellow guests - indeed, he's generous in his laughter at the others - and using bad language.
On Would I Lie To You he demonstrated these talents again. He was able to take issue with Duncan Bannantyne's claim that anyone reading his book could make a hundred million pounds - "If everyone had a hundred million pounds, won't that be terribly inflationary?" - and brilliantly went off at a tangent when asked to guess whether Jodie Marsh's claim to have won "nearly six pounds" on a quiz machine was true, saying "These things only pay out in quids, so the nearest thing to six pounds is five pounds! What sort of accountancy is it when five pounds is described as 'nearly six pounds'?"
He's also able to get laughs from his posh persona. There was a great moment when David admitted that, at the age of five, he wrote to the BBC with regards to the industrial dispute that had silenced the Play School clock ("I was a formal little thing!"), while at the end the opposition correctly guessed that David had not, as claimed, fainted in the cinema while watching Kill Bill. Brilliantly, this wasn't because they didn't think he'd faint in the cinema, but because they didn't think he'd see Kill Bill, which amused David no end - "He only goes and sees silent films! He doesn't know how to buy a ticket, the love!"
David was the best thing about Channel4's Best of the Worst last year and he'll be the best thing about Would I Lie To You. I hope for further success from the great man - especially as it might give him less time to do those Mac adverts.
15 June 2007
CORPORATE RESHUFFLE
Well, I'd made the assumption Peter Jones was "out" when it came to the next series of Dragon's Den but, as per today's press release from the Beeb, the self-styled tycoon is still on board.
That new series line-up in full, then (to save you clicking the hyperlink): Peter Jones, Deborah Meaden, Theo Paphitis, Duncan Bannatyne and new boy James Cann - founder and CEO of private equity firm Hamilton Bradshaw, should that mean anything to you - who's replacing outgoing Australian "super" investor Richard Farleigh.
Over the last couple of years, I've brushed up against a few folk from DD's BAFTA-nabbing rival, The Apprentice. On each occasion - for some wilful reason - I've asked them what they think of the show.
"I'm not a fan of Dragon's Den. I can't see where the business element is, because you can go to the bank and get £100 grand without giving away part of your equity. I think it's a very good PR exercise for people, though." 2006 Runner-up Ruth "The" Badger, there.
And, ho! Who's this? Why, it's business bad boy and fellow ejectee Syed Ahmed: "I hate Dragons' Den. The whole thing is flawed. You get people on there with fantastic ideas, and even if the product's good, the Dragons take the Mickey out of it. They don't treat people with respect. All the Dragons are just wannabe TV stars. Duncan Bannatyne - his teeth! They can't be real!"
Thankfully, the boss has a different point-of-view. "I love Dragons’ Den," says Sir Alan Sugar. "I think it’s wonderful. Wonderful! Great programme, Dragons’ Den, really do enjoy it. I’ve watched every single one of them. It’s another reality programme, if you like, but there’s a real meaning to it. You do see some real-life business experiences. I think it’s fantastic. Really brilliant."
Drop dead shrewd, that man.
That new series line-up in full, then (to save you clicking the hyperlink): Peter Jones, Deborah Meaden, Theo Paphitis, Duncan Bannatyne and new boy James Cann - founder and CEO of private equity firm Hamilton Bradshaw, should that mean anything to you - who's replacing outgoing Australian "super" investor Richard Farleigh.
Over the last couple of years, I've brushed up against a few folk from DD's BAFTA-nabbing rival, The Apprentice. On each occasion - for some wilful reason - I've asked them what they think of the show.
"I'm not a fan of Dragon's Den. I can't see where the business element is, because you can go to the bank and get £100 grand without giving away part of your equity. I think it's a very good PR exercise for people, though." 2006 Runner-up Ruth "The" Badger, there.
And, ho! Who's this? Why, it's business bad boy and fellow ejectee Syed Ahmed: "I hate Dragons' Den. The whole thing is flawed. You get people on there with fantastic ideas, and even if the product's good, the Dragons take the Mickey out of it. They don't treat people with respect. All the Dragons are just wannabe TV stars. Duncan Bannatyne - his teeth! They can't be real!"
Thankfully, the boss has a different point-of-view. "I love Dragons’ Den," says Sir Alan Sugar. "I think it’s wonderful. Wonderful! Great programme, Dragons’ Den, really do enjoy it. I’ve watched every single one of them. It’s another reality programme, if you like, but there’s a real meaning to it. You do see some real-life business experiences. I think it’s fantastic. Really brilliant."
Drop dead shrewd, that man.
05 June 2007
HYDE BOUND
It's the press launch for Steven Moffat's Jekyll tonight, but I shan't be going as I've got a prior engagement ... with my wedding anniversary. Nonetheless, I've ensured I'm not missing out on too much. Last December I was lucky enough to visit the production on set (they filmed at an MOD base in Chertsey, Surrey - where, at the same time, another unit was shooting Holby Blue).
It was a fantastic experience, five or six of us chatting to Moffat and the show's producer Elaine Cameron in a grimly furnished office, before having some time with stars Michelle Ryan, Gina Bellman and the two-faced bastard himself, Jekyll (Jackman as he is here)/Hyde - James Nesbitt. The result of this beano appears in the latest issue of SFX, I believe. Haven't seen it yet.
Anyway, here's Steven Moffat from the day:
"It's grown-up show. It's not really meant for children. It's a thriller, it's a bit of a love story. And it's ... Jekyll and Hyde has never been the wolfman. The original story isn't about that. And even most of the movies aren't the wolfman. It's about a man who's got two sides to him. And that metaphor is sort of ... It's too rich just to turn into a ghost story. Especially if you do it over any length of time. You can have a certain amount of fun with him turning into a black-hearted villain, but that goes off quite quickly. In this version of the story, Hyde develops too. So he's a man who is two people and two different kinds of people. But he's not a monster. Jimmy looks very similar in both roles. The difference is largely in performance. You can tell the difference if you look - there are darker eyes and darker hair. But that's about it."
This weekend just gone, I gorged on all six episodes, and it's a fabulous show. I'd say that even if episode one doesn't grab you, come back the following week and that'll probably change. Each edition does something new and unexpected. It's a real roller coaster.
That's Jekyll, then. From Saturday June 16 at 9pm, on BBC1.
It was a fantastic experience, five or six of us chatting to Moffat and the show's producer Elaine Cameron in a grimly furnished office, before having some time with stars Michelle Ryan, Gina Bellman and the two-faced bastard himself, Jekyll (Jackman as he is here)/Hyde - James Nesbitt. The result of this beano appears in the latest issue of SFX, I believe. Haven't seen it yet.
Anyway, here's Steven Moffat from the day:
"It's grown-up show. It's not really meant for children. It's a thriller, it's a bit of a love story. And it's ... Jekyll and Hyde has never been the wolfman. The original story isn't about that. And even most of the movies aren't the wolfman. It's about a man who's got two sides to him. And that metaphor is sort of ... It's too rich just to turn into a ghost story. Especially if you do it over any length of time. You can have a certain amount of fun with him turning into a black-hearted villain, but that goes off quite quickly. In this version of the story, Hyde develops too. So he's a man who is two people and two different kinds of people. But he's not a monster. Jimmy looks very similar in both roles. The difference is largely in performance. You can tell the difference if you look - there are darker eyes and darker hair. But that's about it."
This weekend just gone, I gorged on all six episodes, and it's a fabulous show. I'd say that even if episode one doesn't grab you, come back the following week and that'll probably change. Each edition does something new and unexpected. It's a real roller coaster.
That's Jekyll, then. From Saturday June 16 at 9pm, on BBC1.