PC Pals Forum
General Discussion => The Buzz => Topic started by: Clive on January 18, 2008, 12:59
-
The EastEnders Christmas episode was the most watched TV programme of 2007 with 14.38 million viewers.
FULL STORY (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7195761.stm)
-
I bet Corrie will top the bill tonight. ;)
-
Luckily, there's rugby on, so I don't have to watch either. :)
-
What a sad reflection on either the quality of todays TV programmes or of the viewers ::)
-
Absolutely Sandra! The only programmes that I watched were the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures on Channel 5.
-
What a sad reflection on either the quality of todays TV programmes or of the viewers ::)
It could be worse, Sandra, it could have been Strictly or Big Brother... :devil:
-
Oy - leave Strictly alone :P . I was in complete agreement with all the contributions to this thread until I read that.
-
Just because you don't like some programmes, Sandra, it doesn't make people who do enjoy them inferior members of society.
-
Just because you don't like some programmes, Sandra, it doesn't make people who do enjoy them inferior members of society.
Not always Simon but it shows that they have too much time on their hands and will put up with poor quality programmes.
I didnt see all of them this year Clive but I saw the one showing how the human body adapts to the lack of oxygen at altitude by growing extra blood vessels, very interesting and well worth watching :)
-
Not always Simon but it shows that they have too much time on their hands and will put up with poor quality programmes.
In your opinion. Many people find them enjoyable. Just because you don't, doesn't make them poor quality. :)
-
Surely wooden has been or wannabe actors and actresses, poor scripts and crappy storylines, has by definition, got to mean that they are poor quality hasnt it Simon :dunno:
Werent all soaps originally made as cheaply as possible, just to fill in the gaps between the adverts, I doubt that they have improved since their conception :(
-
+ 1, I find all "soap operas" dull & boring i prefer my viewing more interesting than watching a B grade actor overacting from a lame script :ack:
Thank god for the internet :thumbs:
-
Although I'm not of a fan of soaps for reasons Sandra and gmax have already given, plus the facts that the stories never seem to be resolved and they give the characters totally unbelievable lives, they do have a place on television. After all, the 11 million or so who regularly tune in to Eastenders, Corrie, The Bill and the rest all pay their television licence and are entitled to get something out of it.
What saddens me is that the remainder of the TV licence payers don't get their fair share. All the other programmes are dominated by celebrity and talent shows, having gaps filled by vox pop programmes. A few years ago all the dramas seemed to feature James Nesbitt, now it's Marc Warren. There are very few programmes which address culture vultures other than cheap, boring, panel discussions which appear to be designed to fill a hole in the schedules late at night. ITV's South Bank Show is the closest we get to a quality culture programme on terrestrial TV, but even that fails to measure up to Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time on Radio 4. The only nod from BBC1 is Film 200X fronted by the ubiquitous Jonafon Woss who knows nothing about the arts from what I can make out. How sad that Barry Norman was put out to pasture. How sad that the format of Film 200X has remained unchanged since his days. If I want to get a decent film review, I download the Mark Kermode podcast from Radio 5's Simon Mayo. It's the same if I want a book review. Whoever would have thought that Simon Mayo would be leading the BBCs cultural output? Nevertheless, that seems to be the sad state of affairs nowadays.
-
Surely wooden has been or wannabe actors and actresses, poor scripts and crappy storylines, has by definition, got to mean that they are poor quality hasnt it Simon :dunno:
Of some soaps, such as Neighbours, Home and Away, Hollyoaks, etc, I would agree, but you're making a sweeping generalisation, Sandra, that all soaps are the same, and that people who watch them are somehow inadequate human beings. You are entitled to your opinion, and further entitled to choose not to watch soaps, but as Gill said, there is a place for them on television, and millions of people enjoy them, so they can't all be that bad. Corrie has excellent scripts, a professional cast of actors and a wide spectrum of storylines, although, admittedly, some of them can drag on a bit. I really can't see how it could have survived for 47 years by being 'crappy'!
-
people who watch them are somehow inadequate human beings.
I really can't see how it could have survived for 47 years by being 'crappy'!
I never said that people who watch them are inadequate Simon, although now you mention it then it does make me wonder ;D
If something is cheap to make, brings in a lot of money from advertising revenues and people dont demand more then of course something crappy can and will run for 47 years and longer ::)
As Gill has said, while they fill the screens with such TV shows, "reality" ones, celebrity this and that, people of limited talent shows plus countless quiz shows and other incredibly cheap to make shows then we will never get a good mix of TV worth watching :(
-
I have to agree with Simon on this one. I have watched corrie from the very first episode and it's the only soap I have ever followed.
I agree some of the storylines have been bad over the years but the standard of acting has been exceptionally high.
For Sandra to criticise this soap, I would suggest she does her research first, as how can you criticise something you have never watched at length.
Factual programmes are fine and I also enjoy watching them but you have to have a mix and it's nice to be entertained by Corrie to escape the realities of life sometimes.
So lighten up Sandra and leave Simon and I to our inadequencies.
(https://www.pc-pals.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flivinonaprayer.superforos.com%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Fnana.gif&hash=d728d7d09bb604a081583dbf486d574999a8514e)(https://www.pc-pals.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flivinonaprayer.superforos.com%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Fnana.gif&hash=d728d7d09bb604a081583dbf486d574999a8514e)(https://www.pc-pals.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flivinonaprayer.superforos.com%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Fnana.gif&hash=d728d7d09bb604a081583dbf486d574999a8514e)
-
I have been unfortunate to have been subjected to parts of the afore mentioned TV programmes, when visiting friends houses, who seem to be addicted to such things Lona.
This has reinforced all my previously reported observations of such TV shows ::)
If they were confined to one channel, not on as frequently or repeated so often then they wouldnt be as irritating for me and others like me, who would like some more varied forms of quality entertainment.
We have to pay the TV licence fee as well as most other people who are younger than you Lona but we get very little benefit from it ::)
-
For someone with more satellite dishes than NASA, I can't believe you can't find something else to watch, Sandra. ::)
-
Thats why I had to get the sat systems set up Simon.
If terrestrial TV was more diversified then I could have saved myself a few hundred pounds ::)
-
For someone with more satellite dishes than NASA, I can't believe you can't find something else to watch, Sandra. ::)
And guess what Simon, she calls Lost and Prison Break quality programmes. I rest my case. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Great actors giving quality performances with good complex and varied storylines.
Jericho on ITV 4 is quite good and although I have only seen one episode so far, Damages on BBC 1 is looking promising.
What a contrast to the wooden acting, lots of shouting and predictable storylines in soaps ::)
-
Which, as I like none of the listed programmes, just goes to demonstrate what are wide range of tastes we have. ;)
-
Well some of us have more and wider ranges of tastes than others Rik ;)
-
I'm definitely in the broad category - sadly though, that's more to do with my weight than my watching habits. :)
-
Well some of us have more and wider ranges of tastes than others Rik ;)
Oh what, so now you're insinuating people who watch soaps are narrow minded? Just how many episodes / series of the likes of Lost, Prison Break, and now Heroes, is it going to take to tell one story? Heroes could have been good had it been done in 6 or maybe 12 episodes, but to drag out what turned out to be a total anti-climax for 6 months was simply ludicrous. At least the terrestrial channels have the sense to dump this rubbish after the first series, and leave it to the Sky channels to broadcast with the rest of their crap. The only reason some people watch Sky channels is because they've been daft enough to pay for the services and hardware, and won't admit that it's all repeats and drivel.
-
Even with the hundreds of channels available to me on Sky, Simon, it's not uncommon to find nothing I want to watch. My prime motivation for having Sky is that they have the rugby...
-
Great actors giving quality performances with good complex and varied storylines.
You call lost great acting and complex storylines!!!!!!!
Awa yi go, Sandra. I've never watched such rubbish in years. These programmes even make Corrie look believable. :P
-
Seconds out - Round Two. ;)
-
I wouldnt pay for any services Simon, only the hardware which allows me to watch more than terrestrial limits me to :)
My new satellite box is another type of pc so its probably extending my hobby, especially as its Linux based, more than enabling me to watch TV as I dont really have much spare time to watch TV.
@Lona, I think you are missing the point, soap stars arent real life people, they are poor actors who act out poorly written scripts.
I know that people send babyclothes to the TV studios when the plot has someone in who is pregnant and when I lived in Washinton my MP was the idiot who stood up in the house of commons and demanded that Deirde should be freed :o
Such people realy do think they are watching real life as its happening ::)
Programs such as Lost, Jericho and Prison Break are not trying to reflect real life but are well written fantasy and fictional stories that because of the standards of acting and the quality of the writers can make you believe that what you are watching is indeed plausible even if it is not real :)
-
This is the problem television stations have, trying to buy programmes that the majority will watch. Which ones will give them the greatest returns in ratings and advertising revenue, plus having to balance that with programmes that are cost effective. I'm not sure what the laws are in the UK, but having to satisfy local content regulations as well.
Peoples personal tastes isn't a reflection on anything other than their personal tastes.
-
I'd like to think that television was about educating and bringing us new ideas as well as entertainment. Sadly, entertainment seems to be the priority, and it's not very good entertainment at that. If only the executives would put the same resources into more stimulating and informative programmes. It seems as if Open University-type broadcasts are the only sort of television I like nowadays.
Except for Strictly Come Dancing, but we all have our weaknesses :) .
-
Bring back 'The Ascent of Man' - it's what television was invented for!
-
soap stars arent real life people, they are poor actors who act out poorly written scripts.
I know that people send babyclothes to the TV studios when the plot has someone in who is pregnant and when I lived in Washinton my MP was the idiot who stood up in the house of commons and demanded that Deirde should be freed.
Ofcourse Soap stars aren't real life people and anyone who thinks they are are truly simple minded but as regards poor actors and poorly written scripts you are in the minority here, Sandra.
Not every episode is great but there are some really fine actors and there have been exceptionally well written scripts down through the years. You have to take it as what it's meant to be and enjoy it for what it is.
As for Lost, and prisonbreak, they started off being interesting then ended up so farcical, even the actors can't believe just where Lost is going. I haven't watched Jericho so can't comment.
Your taste in television and mine strongly differ as I would never sit all morning watching little cars going round and round a race track. Now that's what I really call BORING. :P
-
I would never sit all morning watching little cars going round and round a race track. Now that's what I really call BORING. :P
Watch rugby, Lona, 30 men piling into each other is much more fun. ;)
-
Watch rugby, Lona, 30 men piling into each other is much more fun. ;)
Only sport I watch is Wimbledon, snooker and I like a good boxing match, especially if it's Ricky Hatton.
-
If you watched rugby, you'd get it all in one sitting. ;)
-
Yes, even new balls in the interval! :o ;D
-
That was very nearly true in one France v England match - a player had to be take to hospital to have his scrotum re-attached... :nerves:
-
:eeek:
-
It made my eyes water! :o
-
It made my eyes water! :o
Are you sure it was your eyes. ::) ::) ::)
-
Your taste in television and mine strongly differ as I would never sit all morning watching little cars going round and round a race track. Now that's what I really call BORING. :P
If I was watching the same people in the same cars at the same track for as many hours a week, each week, for all year and every year like the soaps are shown, plus the omnibus editions and the specials showing the funerals and weddings etc from years gone by, then I would probably have got fed up with them by now too Lona.
A maximum of around 40 hours viewing per year of racing, approximately 17 races of around 2 hours each, a year doesnt get the chance to be repetative or unexciting, apart from the Monaco GP of course ;D
-
Wee cars running round a track is very repetative. Exciting to some but Boring to others. :devil: