Can TV Entertainment Sink Any Lower?

I mean, who wants to look at the last partridge on the shelf?




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3709744/Can-TV-sink-lower-claims-progressive-truthful-fact-Channel-4-s-new-naked-dating-stupid-degrading-voyeurism-s-meant-public-service-broadcaster.html

This one's clearly attention seeking by shaving her bush and glueing to her head!

What woman could resist her own Personal Jesus!

How classy.   Somebody throw him a sticky bun.

Woman 1 'Mmmm...there's not many of them to the pound.'

Woman 2 'You wouldn't want it on the end of your nose as a wart though!'

Woman 1  'More than a mouthful's a waste!'

Woman 2 'That reminds me, I'm clean out of chipolatas.'

well this has been asked many times...and each time...just when you think it couldnt....it does.......

This is what happens when people whose sole purpose in life is to make money get control over your airwaves.

Capitalists can't be entrusted with maintaining any lofty standard -- they create entertainment to distract our kids from their education, they stamp out unique businesses with character to erect yet another franchise or cloned retail outlet.

In the U.S. we used to have all manner of unique radio stations -- I grew up listening to an indie rock station where the DJ would just play the entire B side of an album for the hell of it -- but then it dawned on somebody that more money could be made turning the station into a clone of stations all around the country, so now that station mainly plays old hits by Green Day.

The right is the patsy of soul-destroying capitalists, never forget it.

Fuck me! Always makes me laugh when someone turns a whole thread into a left/right issue

Now if I'd said that there's a "somebodies" that like to make us listen to what they want us to hear, I'd have been called a conspiracist.
Call the "somebodies" a name like "right wing" and everyone nods in agreement.


Anyway, as to the OP - there is a large section of society that will happily watch that shit, and TOWIE and Saturday night entertainment shows where people are lined up like fat little pigs waiting eagerly to be thrown a mate to date, and if we are lucky, we may see them copulating like two sweaty desperate nobodies for the camera.

PERSONALLY, I  blame Photoshop   !!!

eddie wrote:Fuck me! Always makes me laugh when someone turns  a whole thread into a left/right issue

Now if I'd said that there's a "somebodies" that like to make us listen to what they want us to hear, I'd have been called a conspiracist.
Call the "somebodies" a name like "right wing" and everyone nods in agreement.


Anyway, as to the OP - there is a large section of society that will happily watch that shit, and TOWIE and Saturday night entertainment shows where people are lined up like fat little  pigs waiting eagerly to be thrown a mate to date, and if we are lucky, we may see them copulating like two sweaty desperate nobodies for the camera.

Except I didn't accuse anybody of making us listen to what they want us to hear. I pointed out the truth that corporate managers don't care about uniqueness or the culture in which they were brought up. At least not enough to stop copy-pasting McDonald's franchises and Wal-Marts across the landscape, which price out anybody trying to do something different. And this is going on in every industry you can think of.

Way back in 2001 when I interviewed John Cleese, he said the biggest threat to television was reality programming, which appeals to the lowest common denominator and is far cheaper to produce than that stupid scripted stuff that makes you think occasionally. They don't care whether it's good for us as individuals or societies or not, that's my point in a nutshell.

Just to underscore my point about how little they care, look at how readily they transplant to a country where they'll never fit in, simply because it has lower taxes!

I agree with Mr Cleese, reality TV has kind of killed the "entertainment" category. Stephen King said it with Running Man (he did write that, right?)

But you did mention wings: right, mainly.

eddie wrote:I agree with Mr Cleese, reality TV has kind of killed the "entertainment" category.  Stephen King said it with Running Man (he did write that, right?)

But you did mention wings: right, mainly.

I did, because if you look into the issue, the right wing is all over it -- particularly in the U.S.

The Federal Communications Commission narrowly approved new media ownership rules Monday, allowing television broadcasters to expand their reach, despite fears the move may reduce the variety of viewpoints available to consumers.

The Republican-led government agency voted 3-2 to allow the broadcast networks to own television stations that reach a combined 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent.

Citing a need to update the decades-old rules to reflect new sources of entertainment, information and news, the FCC also voted to lift a ban that prevents a company from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station -- except in the smallest markets.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/02/news/companies/fcc_rules/

To go broad, having a multicultural society means there must be many cultures, right? Cultures need touchstones, but the paving-over of things that make subcultures unique is favored by right-wingers who proudly proclaim that they want to live in a monoculture:

No conservative has ever been a multiculturalist, nor can he ever be without ceasing to be conservative.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/conservative-multiculturalism/

Conservatives tend to favor bland sameness in all things. Here's Southlake, Texas, very conservative:



How do they even tell their houses apart?

Hmmmm, I agree with the broader aspect of what you're saying because remember, I'm nuts and I believe in a "greater power" who are trying to do exactly what you've just said.
Are they right wing? Never thought about it tbh, but when I try to imagine this "power" as left wing or liberal it doesn't make sense.

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, I agree with the broader aspect of what you're saying because remember, I'm nuts and I believe in a "greater power" who are trying to do exactly what you've just said.
Are they right wing? Never thought about it tbh, but when I try to imagine this "power" as left wing or liberal it doesn't make sense.

Well yeah, because when you look at the kind of things liberals stand for -- easier immigration, protection of small business, regulation of corporations -- it would tend to foster a more varied culture. Not to mention that the Democratic Party favors improving education and making it available to more people, and more educated people are more likely to feel like their souls are being crushed when the day includes dinner at Burger King and shopping at Walmart

I think that's the first time you've ever outsmarted me

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, I agree with the broader aspect of what you're saying because remember, I'm nuts and I believe in a "greater power" who are trying to do exactly what you've just said.
Are they right wing? Never thought about it tbh, but when I try to imagine this "power" as left wing or liberal it doesn't make sense.

From a european perspetive

Well yeah, because when you look at the kind of things liberals stand for -- easier immigration,(the slaughter of its own population ) protection destruction of small business (by mindless compliance with eu policies), regulation of corporations --the slow but relentlees breakdown of society by the dilution of law and order and removal of all and any effective deterrent it would tend to foster a more varied (read fractured) culture. Not to mention that the Democratic Party favors improving educational infrastructure but disimproving education per see and making it available to more people, and more educated people are more likely to feel like their souls are being crushed when the day includes dinner at Burger King and shopping at Walmart

there ...fixed it for the european perspective......

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm, I agree with the broader aspect of what you're saying because remember, I'm nuts and I believe in a "greater power" who are trying to do exactly what you've just said.
Are they right wing? Never thought about it tbh, but when I try to imagine this "power" as left wing or liberal it doesn't make sense.

From a european perspetive

Well yeah, because when you look at the kind of things liberals stand for -- easier immigration,(the slaughter of its own population ) protection destruction of small business (by mindless compliance with eu policies), regulation of corporations --the slow but relentlees breakdown of society by the dilution of law and order and removal of all and any effective deterrent it would tend to foster a more varied (read fractured) culture. Not to mention that the Democratic Party favors improving educational infrastructure but disimproving education per see and making it available to more people, and more educated people are more likely to feel like their souls are being crushed when the day includes dinner at Burger King and shopping at Walmart

there ...fixed it for the european perspective......

Funny the European Perspective is what old people said down here 20 years ago

Have a night out at the movies instead, Horatio. We've been to see Bridget Jones new movie.  Quite funny and they deliberately left it open for her to do more sequels. She appears to have several men in her life, all laying a claim to her, which is what keeps the story going.

Bridget Jones' films are everything that's wrong with films.
And she has a shit British accent to make matters worse.

Jules wrote:Have a night out at the movies instead, Horatio.    We've been to see Bridget Jones new movie.  Quite funny and they deliberately left it open for her to do more sequels. She appears to have several men in her life, all laying a claim to her, which is what keeps the story going.

I don't do 'girlie' movies. I tend to like war films, SciFi and historical.

Channel 4 is a British public-service television broadcaster that began transmission on 2 November 1982. Although largely commercially self-funded, it is ultimately publicly owned; originally a subsidiary of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA),[1] the station is now owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation, a public corporation of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport,[2] which was established in 1990 and came into operation in 1993. With the conversion of the Wenvoe transmitter group in Wales to digital on 31 March 2010, Channel 4 became a UK-wide TV channel for the first time.

The channel was established to provide a fourth television service to the United Kingdom in addition to the licence-funded BBC's two services and the single commercial broadcasting network, ITV.




And this 'programme' is part of the insidious left wing agenda that permeates through public services like the writing through a stick of rock...

Channel 4 public service remit...



Channel 4 was established with, and continues to hold, a remit of public service obligations which it must fulfil. The remit changes periodically, as dictated by various broadcasting and communications acts, and is regulated by the various authorities Channel 4 has been answerable to; originally the IBA, then the ITC and now Ofcom.

The preamble of the remit as per the Communications Act 2003 states that:

"The public service remit for Channel 4 is the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular:

demonstrates innovation, experiment and creativity in the form and content of programmes;
appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society;
makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to include programmes of an educational nature and other programmes of educative value; and
exhibits a distinctive character."[7][20]
The remit also involves an obligation to provide programming for schools,[21] and a substantial amount of programming produced outside of Greater London.[22]

Jules wrote:Have a night out at the movies instead, Horatio.    We've been to see Bridget Jones new movie.  Quite funny and they deliberately left it open for her to do more sequels. She appears to have several men in her life, all laying a claim to her, which is what keeps the story going.

I heard the next film is going to be called...


'Bridget Jones : The benefit years'


It's about a big Jeremy kyle show where she's told several blokes that they are the fathers to her multicultural brood... only to find out that none of them are a father to any of them... as they are results of other one night stands she had with random blokes who she couldn't even remember the names of...

eddie wrote:Bridget Jones' films are everything that's wrong with films.
And she has a shit British accent to make matters worse.

Ah well questionable accents are a prominent feature of most movies. They don't bother me.
All the James Bond movies have baddies (and goodies) from continental europe and russia, with questionable accents.
There are loads of brit actors in the US trying to pull off yank accents and not quite hitting the spot. C'est la vie.



--------------------------------------

HoratioTarr wrote:

Jules wrote:Have a night out at the movies instead, Horatio.    We've been to see Bridget Jones new movie.  Quite funny and they deliberately left it open for her to do more sequels. She appears to have several men in her life, all laying a claim to her, which is what keeps the story going.

I don't do 'girlie' movies.   I tend to like war films, SciFi and historical.

Fair enough. I just felt that a night out at the flicks is a step up from the unspeakable horrors that you posted in your OP, that's all. Doesn't have to be a girlie flick. Plenty of genres to choose from and there are usually restaurants nearby, you can make a proper night of it...  
I never, ever watch tv, no time!
I watch selected YT stuff, and cinema movies only.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:Have a night out at the movies instead, Horatio. We've been to see Bridget Jones new movie. Quite funny and they deliberately left it open for her to do more sequels. She appears to have several men in her life, all laying a claim to her, which is what keeps the story going.

I heard the next film is going to be called...


'Bridget Jones : The benefit years'


It's about a big Jeremy kyle show where she's told several blokes that they are the fathers to her multicultural brood... only to find out that none of them are a father to any of them... as they are results of other one night stands she had with random blokes who she couldn't even remember the names of...

No, she won't give birth to any ''multicultural'' babies cos I did not see any brown or black people in this movie at all. The 3 men in her life were white, same as her. And she is resolutely middle class, far, far removed from the Jeremy Kyle fodder and chavy types you look down your nose at.

All the people in the movie are from the Nottinghill set (or equivalent). Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, Celia Imrie etc, , they are all super wealthy public school educated thespians and they always play upper class or hard working middle class people in films.

You don't have to bring your political prejudices into every conversation, TM, even threads about films, . chill!!

It's a pile of cack and she's a bad actress and the first book was something I actually read out loud to friends as an example of really poor writing (the Mr Grey books blew that out of the water!). I had no choice when I read the BRidget Jones book as I was stuck on an island literally desperate for reading material

If I watch a film and I stop believing in the actor or actress, that's it, I'm done. I can't watch it.

eddie wrote:
It's a pile of cack and she's a bad actress and the first book was something I actually read out loud to friends as an example of really poor writing (the Mr Grey books blew that out of the water!). I had no choice when I read the BRidget Jones book as I was stuck on an island literally desperate for reading material

If I watch a film and I stop believing in the actor or actress, that's it, I'm done. I can't watch it.

AND...

Those Bridget Jones flicks simply aren't that funny, either..

Pretty poor effort, calling itself 'comedy'.

It's mind-numbing stuff that's for sure.

Jules wrote:

eddie wrote:Bridget Jones' films are everything that's wrong with films.
And she has a shit British accent to make matters worse.

Ah well questionable accents are a prominent feature of most movies. They don't bother me.
All the James Bond movies have baddies (and goodies) from continental europe and russia, with questionable accents.
There are loads of brit actors in the US trying to pull off yank accents and not quite hitting the spot. C'est la vie.



--------------------------------------

HoratioTarr wrote:

I don't do 'girlie' movies.   I tend to like war films, SciFi and historical.

Fair enough. I just felt that a night out at the flicks is a step up from the unspeakable horrors that you posted in your OP, that's all. Doesn't have to be a girlie flick. Plenty of genres to choose from and there are usually restaurants nearby, you can make a proper night of it...  
I never, ever watch tv, no time!
I watch selected YT stuff,  and cinema movies only.

I watch a fair amount of TV at night and during the day as I tend to do this whilst creating my plethora of creations. One thing I rarely do though is watch TV doing nothing.

I'm often online whilst doing other things too (filing out applications for jobs and colleges lately).

TV is something I do when I'm tired of reading.

eddie wrote:It's a pile of cack and she's a bad actress and the first book was something I actually read out loud to friends as an example of really poor writing (the Mr Grey books blew that out of the water!). I had no choice when I read the BRidget Jones book as I was stuck on an island literally desperate for reading material

If I watch a film and I stop believing in the actor or actress, that's it, I'm done. I can't watch it.

Thing is, there are so many genres I actively dislike, there isn't much left to choose from.
I cannot abide reality shows. None of them!
I hate X rated movies and could never sit through 50 shades of grey or owt like that.
I hate extreme debauchery so Trainspotting and anything of that ilk is a no-no.
CGI and special effects bore me rigid, there is a serious credibility problem that I cannot get past, so that rules out loads of movies.
I hate violent stuff - - unless it's got a cracking good plot.
Could never sit through any of Guy Ritchie and Vinnie Jones's gangster movies.
That doesn't leave me with much to choose from, does it?  




I do like James Bond movies, we attend all the premiers.
And comedy-dramas - I set the bar low for them - I  don't walk in expecting a literary masterpiece ffs!
I also love specific actors/actresses and will watch whatever they star in.
That's all, really.

Jules I'm with you on a lot of what you say. I like boxsets as I like to plough through episodes one after the other - which is like a really long and detailed film.

You don't like violence but you like Bond films?

Mind you, it's all "tongue in cheek"

Did you ever watch Incredible Journey" ?
I had misty eyes at the end.

I did say if the plot is excellent I would overlook the violence.

I also said that if I like certain actors I will watch anything they star in.

Daniel Craig's likeability  and the powerful cult status of the James Bond series, all these factors sway me.


"The Incredible Journey" ?? No, never seen it. I will seek it out nicko. I like a weepie.

Tom Hanks, Morgan Freeman, Leonardo Decaprio and Denzil....I would watch anything they're in.

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:




I heard the next film is going to be called...


'Bridget Jones : The benefit years'


It's about a big Jeremy kyle show where she's told several blokes that they are the fathers to her multicultural brood... only to find out that none of them are a father to any of them... as they are results of other one night stands she had with random blokes who she couldn't even remember the names of...

No, she won't give birth to any ''multicultural'' babies cos I did not see any brown or black people in this movie at all. The 3 men in her life were white, same as her. And she is resolutely middle class, far, far removed from the Jeremy Kyle fodder and chavy types you look down your nose at.

All the people in the movie are from the Nottinghill set (or equivalent). Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, Celia Imrie etc, , they are all super wealthy public school educated thespians and they always play upper class or hard working middle class people in films.

You don't have to bring your political prejudices into every conversation, TM, even threads about films, . chill!!

Give it time...

Speaking of Colin Firth...watched a cracking film with him in last night, based on a true life story, It's worth a watch.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804463/

Jules, it's 2 dogs and a cat left behind when owners move hundred or more miles away,they find their way home after many adventures.

got to be an Animal lover to like it!

I'm a softie with animals, nicko. But I keep my head and a sense of perspective. When we were growing up it was always my shoulders that my sisters came to weep on, when their fave pets died.

Jules wrote:I'm a softie with animals, nicko. But I keep my head and  a sense of perspective. When we were growing up it was always my shoulders that my sisters came to weep on, when their fave pets died.

Do you like canariz?

Major, what is the relevance of your question?
You're starting to make me very suspicious of your motives.

eddie wrote:Major, what is the relevance of your question?
You're starting to make me very suspicious of your motives.

He's a tosser.

I like canaries, but there's not enough on 'em to make a good meal!

I think he's talking about the dog.

HoratioTarr wrote:This one's clearly attention seeking by shaving her bush and glueing to her head!

Welcome to the ugly bugs ball HT.
Not one decent looking person of either sex