TV Home Forum

Sport Relief/Only Fools on Horses

(May 2006)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
TV
tvarksouthwest
marksi posted:
The views of one person are no more valid than the views of another, though I realise this is an alien concept to you, given your penchent for the banning or uber-regulation of everything you don't like.

But many viewers feel they either don't have a voice or their views aren't being listened to in relation to a particular subject. For example, a large section of the audience dislikes reality TV, yet these shows keep on coming. The same could be said about soaps.
MA
marksi
tvarksouthwest posted:
marksi posted:
The views of one person are no more valid than the views of another, though I realise this is an alien concept to you, given your penchent for the banning or uber-regulation of everything you don't like.

But many viewers feel they either don't have a voice or their views aren't being listened to in relation to a particular subject. For example, a large section of the audience dislikes reality TV, yet these shows keep on coming. The same could be said about soaps.


A large section of the audience likes reality TV. And soaps. That's what makes them popular and successful.
PC
Paul Clark
It's for charity, and the concept will probably be somewhat more entertaining than what BB will have to offer. I'm not sure how much I'll be watching it when it gets here, though.
TV
tvarksouthwest
marksi posted:
A large section of the audience likes reality TV.

Don't suppose it has anything to do with it being cheap and convenient for the channel...saves E4 a lot of scheduling!
AN
all new Phil
Lux ton you aren't half a dullard. I mock your values.

I'm usually the first to condemn the BBC but on this occasion, you've gotta admit there's nothing wrong with this sort of thing for a good cause. Do you expect it would work without celebrities and this "reality" format you keep saying but never explaining? What do you propose they do? Scripted showjumping by unknowns?
PE
Pete Founding member
tvarksouthwest posted:
marksi posted:
A large section of the audience likes reality TV.

Don't suppose it has anything to do with it being cheap and convenient for the channel


oooh, the ideal type of show to knock together for a charity telethon
TV
tvarksouthwest
OK, all new Phool , my definition of a "reality" format: aside from Big Brother and its derivatives, a series featuring a competition of some description, usually sport or performance ie. The Games, Strictly Come Dancing.

That itself is not a reality format, pro-celebrity golf has been around for years. But it becomes one when you add backstage reports, tears & tantrums, judges who make personal attacks on the participants, then allow the public to vote off competitors and announce the results with long pauses and mind games from the presenter.

And even if you don't watch the programme, every last detail appears in the press!
BA
Bail Moderator
tvarksouthwest posted:
And even if you don't watch the programme, every last detail appears in the press!

Exactly. Because the press, or newspapers are driven by sales and money. If a story/item is popular, they will write about it, and people therefore will buy and read it.

Basic commerce, supply and demand. TV companies will contiune making something as long as their is a demand for it. Your "argument" that "lots" of the populaton like/dislikes is flawed because you will only ever discuss this type of topic with people of a same mindset as yourself, so the overall picture will always be distorted.

Where I live is pretty much full of old people, it's a small community with a local rag with loves storys about any type of change at all, because the community automatically objects to everything. Yet from an outsiders point of view you can see how petty they are being as a whole.

Comments such as "OK, all new Phool" only work against you. Giving the impression you are unable to fight your side of a discussion and have to resort to what is essentially name calling.
BB
BBC LDN
tvarksouthwest posted:
OK, all new Phool


That's witty - I must remember that one.

Seriously though, get over it.
TV
tvarksouthwest
Bail posted:
Comments such as "OK, all new Phool" only work against you. Giving the impression you are unable to fight your side of a discussion and have to resort to what is essentially name calling.

Name-calling is not an admirable quality by any means. But it's sometimes necessary to communicate with someone in their native tongue...

Quote:
Where I live is pretty much full of old people, it's a small community with a local rag with loves storys about any type of change at all, because the community automatically objects to everything. Yet from an outsiders point of view you can see how petty they are being as a whole.

It's so easy for outsiders to think as they do - we're all guilty of it. If that outsider spent time in your community though, he might see why the locals seemingly object to everything.
GI
gilsta
Something tells me Only Fools on Horses will be more of an antidote to reality TV, I would be very surprised if anyone took it that serious.

And remember, fundraisers gave birth to these celebrity reality shows. Without them comic relief would be like Crimewatch.
SE
Square Eyes Founding member
tvarksouthwest posted:

That itself is not a reality format, pro-celebrity golf has been around for years. But it becomes one when you add backstage reports, tears & tantrums, judges who make personal attacks on the participants, then allow the public to vote off competitors and announce the results with long pauses and mind games from the presenter.


So New Faces and Opportunity Knocks then. Lets not pretend the concept is something new, and it's likely to be around for years ahead.

Newer posts