That’s David Caruso in Monday night’s episode of CSI: Miami on CBS. He’s just been asked out and is trying to look happy. Doesn’t quite work, does it? Looks more like he’s found an extra pot of Ovaltine at the back of one of his cupboards, doesn’t it?
Considering the fuss around the decimation of our Winnie the Pooh heritage by Disney, how will the world take the news that Rupert the Bear is to return to Channel Five with a set of new pals including Ming and Miranda the Mermaid?
Given Rupert isn’t quite as well regarded as Winnie and he’s now associated with Richard Desmond through no fault of his own, I imagine the outcry won’t be as big. After all, he was really just a cartoon for increasing newspaper sales, not tales told to a small boy at a bedtime.
Personally, I’m hoping this new series will take Rupert in a completely different direction, assuming that’s Ming the Merciless joining the cast list.
Imagine the possibilities.
PS The Media Guardian says Ping Pong is a new character. But he’s not. Naughty Media Guardian.
- ITV1: “emotional moments we all share”.
- ITV2: “must-have TV”
- ITV3: “drama that draws you in”
- ITV4: “collision of opposites” (WTF?)
Pure and utter cobblers, of course. I mean, can you imagine the controllers of each of the channels actually doing anything with those?
“Hmm. Must have more shows that are a ‘collision of opposites’.”
“How can I get more shows that will share emotional moments?”
Here’s a more truthful branding that is also more practical:
- ITV1: “God-awful programmes for people who found Armageddon too intellectually challenging”
- ITV2: “Programmes that couldn’t pass ITV1’s quality threshold ”
- ITV3: “Re-runs of programmes we made in the 80s, together with some decent US imports”
- ITV4: “Re-runs of programmes we made in the 60s and 70s, together with some decent US imports”
See? Immediately useful:
“Must commission another series of X-Factor….”
“Must commission a programme to go with X-Factor, hosted by people less talented than those on ITV1”
“Ah. Poirot. Now that was a show.”
“I must call CBS and the USA Network and ask them what they’ve planned for next season. But first, The Avengers!”
No great mental treks required. No communing with the inner self. Just good practical guidance. And isn’t that what any mission statement should be? Email ITV if you think my ideas should be adopted.
PC-TV convergence is something that people have been gassing on about for years and years. Rather than have me repeat the arguments, why not nip over to this article on WebProNews about what Intel plans for us all via broadband and see if you’d be interested? Me? My tele is not a PC and my PC (Mac) is not a tele and that’s the way it’s going to stay.
In case you missed it (ratings 1 million), Who Killed the British Sitcom? was a rather well researched look at trends in British television comedy over the last 30 years.
Presented by David Liddiment, the former director of ITV programmes, the show examined two questions: why British TV schedules are no longer as packed with sitcoms as they were in the 70s; and why there have been so few home-grown ‘classics’ of the genre of late. It came up with five ‘suspects’, including alternative comedy, digital TV and reality TV, and asked whether their arrival had killed off the traditional British sitcom.
It’s always interesting when someone like Liddiment or Greg Dyke makes a programme: they commissioned programmes based on their opinions of what makes a good show, so what happens when they get given a chance to make one themselves? Can they walk the walk? Liddiment, a former investigative journalist and director, clearly knows how to put together a programme and the whole thing gripped from start to finish (unlike Dyke’s last effort).
Most of the show was fascinating, with interviews from most of the major TV comedy writers of British TV history, including John Sullivan, Galton and Simpson, Ben Elton and Carla Lane, exposing how much the commissioning system for comedy had changed since the 50s. Lane appeared particularly galled that no one would commission her to write a 13-part sitcom simply for passing their door – even though she lost her ability to generate decent original content years ago.
The most eye-opening comments came from Victoria Wood, whose unremarkable Dinnerladies, much beloved by older folk, I’d regarded as archaic and dull. She revealed she’d originally intended it as an ER-style show, with multiple cameras swooping in and out of the cast as characters went about their work. Instead, what could have been her crowning achievement, was turned into a standard 70s-style studio piece that she herself was embarrassed by.
Who Killed the British Sitcom?‘s problems stemmed from a certain flabbiness of argument. There were obvious gaps in Liddiment’s coverage of sitcom history, whether for personal or political reasons. For instance, none of the shockingly bad sitcoms that have graced our airwaves over the years, such as ITV’s Babes in the Wood, were mentioned as potential devaluers of the sitcom currency.
Indeed, the idea that anyone in charge of the networks (such as Liddiment) may have been responsible for the demise of the sitcom was entirely overlooked, even though the comments of Wood and others highlighted these failings. Liddiment also ignored certain facts that didn’t gel with his thesis: the high-quality, team-written US sitcoms that Liddiment says undermined the British approach and which he hints should be the model for British sitcom production are actually in trouble in the US, with most of the networks struggling to find shows that last longer than six episodes. Most long-running US sitcoms also suffer from a gradual ‘blanding’ and simplifying of characters to make it easier for ever-changing teams to fit gags to stories, as the inconsistencies of Friends‘ characterisations over the years demonstrated. It seems odd, therefore, for him to suggest this as a solution for generating new classics.
Liddiment’s failure to actively attach blame anywhere even extends to the ‘suspects’ he identifies. None of them is ever fingered as the cause, merely listed as a potential subverter of the genre without much evidence given for its alleged effects. Despite this, Liddiment then goes on to conclude his case proven, without having said what his case was. He then goes on to suggest that maybe everything is all right and that the sitcom is just changing, again without much supporting evidence.
As a polemic, Who Killed the British Sitcom? was fascinating, and with a little tightening up in the narration, it could have been an outstanding piece of television. In its present state, it is at least an interesting examination of British television comedy history. Catch it in repeats if you can.