American TV vs UK TV

[Orang Utan]

Just because they aren't the very best shows, doesn't make them bad shows.

Also, Daily Show relies on parody and wit, and is unlikely to be even seeking the sidesplitting guffaw that comes with slapstick-oriented humour. Similarly, Earl is a bit more subtle.

ie not as funny

 

[Orang Utan]

I hate The Daily Show but that's only cos I can't get past the presentation of it

 

[Orang Utan]

Doesn't exist in the UK, but we've got loads of alternatives (Sky boxes, PVRs, iPlayer etc etc),

I'm sure it does - I'm pretty sure a technophile friend of mine showed it off to me a few years ago

 

[Orang Utan]

Skill, my arse. It's a fucking irritation. Unless you're the kind of person that likes to have a book grabbed out of your hands every ten minutes to have an advert for soap powder or piles rammed down your throat.

Get a PVR and this will never need to bother you again!

 

[jæd]

Now the BBC also have no adverts, but they seem less willing to take genuine risks and seem to want to compete for the populist vote with ITV, C4 and Sky. You do wonder whether the likes of Monty Python, The Day Today or HIGNFY would get commissioned as new programmes now.

The remit of BBC2 was for "alternative" programming. You'd still get the above commissioned today, except they would be on BBC3/4...

 

[Orang Utan]

That's kind of the remit of C4 too - it's a shame that they've been wriggling out of it recently, but I guess they need to make money too

 

[jæd]

Sure it's a fair point that a fair bit of comedy is cultural and doesn't translate, but we still seem to export more to the US than we import.

The majority of exports seem to be in the form of show concepts (eg. The Office). These are usually very hit'n'miss. For actual shows my experience is that we import far more than we export, but that's probably because of the sheer volume of tv shows being made in the US.

I think the trouble is that the US and the UK have very different cultures and sense-of-humours. What Yank viewers find "good" tv isn't automatically the same as the UK viewer...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I hate The Daily Show but that's only cos I can't get past the presentation of it

Re: Earl and The Daily Show. There is obviously a huge cultural gap.

 

[editor]

Get a PVR and this will never need to bother you again!

I've got a PVR thanks, but you've still got to negotiate past the adverts and have the remote handy.

 

[Orang Utan]

I've got a PVR thanks, but you've still got to negotiate past the adverts and have the remote handy.

I meant that you can fast forward the ads, which is better than sitting through them

 

[Orang Utan]

Re: The Daily Show. There is obviously a huge cultural gap.

Yeah, the US's culture of using NTSC and awful on-screen graphics

 

[isvicthere?]

let's not forget that some of the better US shows are based upon their UK counterparts....The Office is one that comes to mind. Back in the '70's the show Sanford & Son was based upon Steptoe & Son, etc...

there are many other examples

Archie Bunker was a copy of Alf Garnett.

 

[Orang Utan]

I've been having to watch loads of Desperate Housewives for my job - now that is awful - how can people watch this shit?

 

[isvicthere?]

Well the US has a population 5 times higher than ours, is very advert heavy and probably has a high rate of subscription to TV services (last one's just a guess) so the cash going into the studios is clearly going to be a fair bit larger. What really irritates me this side of the Atlantic is the debacle that is BBC programming and their absolutely terrible management of finances. It's so depressing to see stuff like Little Miss Jocelyn, Tittybangbang etc being made when the directors are talking about funding cuts to fucking News and factual which has always been their strong point.

Agreed! Little Miss Jocelyn's trailer was so gobsmackingly, belief-beggaringly appalling that I refused to watch it, knowing how awful it would be. It was tick-box programming slapping itself on the back for "covering" a "minority" if you ask me. (Btw I did put a thread up on urban to ask if it really was as bad as the trailer suggested, to a unanimous affirmative).

 

[isvicthere?]

What I've seen of US imports are mostly shite too. They might look more expensive but the writing is usually pretty dull and unoriginal (especially their comedy). 'The Simpsons', 'The Wire' and 'Mad Men' are the only ones I can think of which have been better than the average British crap

I'd have to add two to that list. Even though it finished 4 years ago, "Frasier" is repeated virtually daily on Paramount, and it still stands up. For me it's right up there with Hancock.

Also, I'm a bit of a sucker for "Two and a half men" which is on endlessly as well.

 

[isvicthere?]

Also, isn't it true that TV is virtually unwatchable in the US due to the excessive advertising - 17 minutes out of every 30, or something like that?

 

[Melinda]

Also, I'm a bit of a sucker for "Two and a half men" which is on endlessly as well.

Some arbiter of 'what's funny' you are! Two and a Half Men is irredeemably dire! Do you like King of Queens too?

It was tick-box programming slapping itself on the back for "covering" a "minority" if you ask me.

Oh really?
"She got the show because she's black and we have a quota to fill" only covers Little Miss Jocelyn.
How do you explain most of the rest of BBC3's comedy output?

I'm Karen Taylor
2 Pints
Titty Bang Bang
Lead Balloon
Adam and shelley
The Mighty Boosh

There are a few exceptions (Thieves Like Us, Pullling, Gavin and Stacey) but BBC3 commissions quite a bit of comedy that doesnt quite work, so I find your explanation lazy.

 

[Iguana]

I've been having to watch loads of Desperate Housewives for my job -

What sort of shitty job have you?

 

[Orang Utan]

What sort of shitty job have you?

A librarian!

 

[isvicthere?]

Some arbiter of 'what's funny' you are! Two and a Half Men is irredeemably dire! Do you like King of Queens too?

.

a) I've never claimed to be the "arbiter" of anything. I merely like a TV show you do not.

b) No, I don't like "King of Queens". But, unlike you, I don't consider this to give me the smug-high-ground on someone who does like it.

 

[Iguana]

A librarian!

And that requires you to watch Desperate Housewives?

 

[Melinda]

a) I've never claimed to be the "arbiter" of anything. I merely like a TV show you do not.

b) No, I don't like "King of Queens". But, unlike you, I don't consider this to give me the smug-high-ground on someone who does like it.

Hackshully, it was your dismissal of Little Miss Jocelyn as 'tick-box programming slapping itself on the back for "covering" a "minority" ' that I took issue with.

As I said, BBC3 churns out lots of new comedy rather more miss than hit. If race explains why Jocelyn Jee got the commission- what explains the rest?
That was my point.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've been having to watch loads of Desperate Housewives for my job - now that is awful - how can people watch this shit?

The people who watch 'Eastenders' in your country, would be watching Desperate Housewives here.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Also, isn't it true that TV is virtually unwatchable in the US due to the excessive advertising - 17 minutes out of every 30, or something like that?

It's true: no one actually watches broadcast tv in NA. They use the screens for their DVDs.

 

[Detroit City]

Archie Bunker was a copy of Alf Garnett.

yea

 

[Orang Utan]

And that requires you to watch Desperate Housewives?

It's a small part of the job - my job has a large remit!

 

[isvicthere?]

Hackshully, it was your dismissal of Little Miss Jocelyn as 'tick-box programming slapping itself on the back for "covering" a "minority" ' that I took issue with.

As I said, BBC3 churns out lots of new comedy rather more miss than hit. If race explains why Jocelyn Jee got the commission- what explains the rest?
That was my point.

"What explains the rest?" I've no idea. Why should I have a minutely fomulated explanation as to why numerous crap comedy shows, none of which I've even watched, get commissioned?

 

[ymu]

i assumed that was because of the ubiquity of private healthcare in the USA - you go to your doctor and you have a say in what s/he prescribes, because you or your insurance anre footing the bill. Tis no skin off the doc's nose.

It's because they're allowed to advertise prescription-only medicines direct to the public. It's a big problem over there. It's hard enough for doctors to see through the glossy advertising to the actual data (and plenty of them are happy to just take the backhanders from industry and write the prescriptions anyway). Plus in the US medico-legal issues trump clinical considerations. If a patient is demanding a treatment that is technically available to them, it can be very difficult for a doctor to refuse even if they know it's likely to do more harm than good. And doctors get paid by the treatment, so they don't have much of an incentive to follow best practice. In effect, the system forces doctors to collude with drug companies and HMOs to make money by poisoning people for no good purpose. Hence, the US spends 3x as much on healthcare as other Western countries for the worst health outcomes of any Western country.

I think, commercials do work, even if you don't really notice them.

They don't really need to work on the individual. The real "value" advertising is in getting the shops to stock it, getting good spots on the shelves, attracting dealerships etc etc. In effect, they're trying to convince Tesco or whoever that it'll sell. You buy it because that's what's available when you go shopping.

According to the theory, advertising means increased sales, which means increased profit, which means money to pay for the advertising, and to enable lower prices.

The vast majority of advertising is not about creating or expanding markets - it's about maintaining existing market share. No amount of advertising is going to make me need more soap or toothpaste or clothes - it's just going to make it more expensive for me to buy them. And because so many people get sucked into working in the advertising industry, the rest of us have to work harder to support them.

It's like an arms race - they keep spending more and more and more for no tangible benefit and we pay for it.

I'm sure it does - I'm pretty sure a technophile friend of mine showed it off to me a few years ago

Yeah, mate of mine has got it too. MythTV is a free TIVO-esque program - cuts out the ads etc.