PDA

View Full Version : I'm a non-entity get me out of here! (beware of rant)



RavenMorpheus
18-11-2007, 00:24
So I see I'm a celebrity... is back on ITV.

What does everyone here think of it?

I personally think it's just mindless rubbish aimed at the sycophantic media obsessed parts of society (women, mainly imo) who can't be bothered watching something with a bit more intelligence, not only that it's also used as a vehicle for non-entity "celebs", most of whom are famous for doing nothing whatsoever to further their careers, and imo the media coverage of such non-entities detracts from the coverage of people with some actual talent.

Not only that but it's television on the cheap and I for one would rather watch a quality program that's had a bit of money spent on it and has credible actors/people in than watch a bunch of non-entities eating/crawling through bugs.

I wish that programs such as this and big brother were dropped by the tv companies but whilst there is a large section of the society we have today that will fawn and drool over the "celebs" in such programs I fear we may have to suffer such rubbish for a long time to come - I wouldn't mind their existance if they weren't constantly in the media and treated as though the phrase "YOU MUST WATCH THIS OR DIE" applies to them.

Of course I'm just generalising here, some of the people who take part in such shows aren't all non-entities (Mylene Klass for example, very talented in many ways ;)) but on the whole I struggle to find any reason to watch anybody in such a show - I might as well watch a bunch of children playing with worms, or my mum and dad sitting in our living room if I'm thinking of watching big brother!

Ozorik
18-11-2007, 01:05
The quality of TV programmes is the main reason I dont have a TV as I dont think its worth the liscence fee (as ITV is effectively free this says it all).

One of the low points of the bits I have seen of this particualr effort was when they got Paul Burrell (sp?), ex royal minon or whatever he was, to eat a raw Kangaroo testicle. It was to big to swallow so he had to chew it, the sight of which will haunt me forever. What kind of sick mind dreams up this effluent?

Nephilim of Sin
18-11-2007, 01:40
The reality scene has gotten old and stale. I will admit, I still watch cops, or some of the "extreme criminal videos" on court tv, simply because they are entertaining, and I can paint with them on. I think I like the aspect of watching random stupid people getting in trouble for being idiots though more than anything. Makes me feel better.

On the whole, though, I feel that this helps to "dumb down" a lot of people. Instead of shows with witty reparte, intellectual undertones, or dumb mindless violence, we are being sedated with programs that take the mad-lib approach to writing, and the "big scenes" that are in the commercials are totally coerced, and really not that "big". It is one of the reasons I loved Drawn Together, because initially it showed this 'genre' for what it is. Now we have spin-off shows of REALITY, like "I love New York" and such. It is horrible. I like to be entertained, suspend disbelief, intrigued. I do not like dribble that makes you feel like you should have to take a shower after watching it.

So, I do not watch it. But I have to SEE it, and that is what I hate. It is everywhere, through redundant advertisements and commercials. Maybe that is the reason everyone gets so angry these days; violent shows do not cause violence, but badly written psuedo-reality shows make people want to kill each other.

RavenMorpheus
18-11-2007, 01:54
if you dont like ITV or C4 then watch BBC... and now that it's Xmas some topqaulity stuff is gonna be onn there!

What like strictly come dancing :rolleyes: The BBC is just as bad, the majority of the time TV whether it's on the channels you pay for or not is dumbed down and aimed at the growing majority of people who'd rather sit and be treated like an idiot by the TV programs than watch something challenging/intelligent.

RavenMorpheus
18-11-2007, 02:04
OMG... please say your not (gulp) that you dont like (shudder) COUNTDOWn... or university challenge. SNORE boring zzz!

Err no not really. That's the other end of the scale, totally boring, often far too head in anus programming.

RavenMorpheus
18-11-2007, 02:25
lol i like you.... your fun! so wat do you like?

CSI, bit of "factual" programming such as Time Team, motorsports, NFL, programmes such as Fifth Gear and Top Gear, the gadget show on Five stuff like that basically. I also often watch Star Trek repeats on Freeview channel Virgin 1. Most of the time though I pick and choose what I want, record it and play it back so I can chop out the ads.

RavenMorpheus
18-11-2007, 03:05
wow no wonder rubish TV annoys you.... alll that hi tech stuff u would start to wonder 'why am i paying for stuff i dont like?' LOVE top gear and gadget show... both crazy but kwl!

Yeah, I also like House MD. For some reason I find it quite humourus, even though it's supposed to be a drama afaik.

whiteshields1830
18-11-2007, 03:05
CSI, bit of "factual" programming such as Time Team, motorsports, NFL, programmes such as Fifth Gear and Top Gear, the gadget show on Five stuff like that basically. I also often watch Star Trek repeats on Freeview channel Virgin 1. Most of the time though I pick and choose what I want, record it and play it back so I can chop out the ads.


now you see, we cant all rant at reality tv. I personally find some reality tv works, others done. BB, i watched the first season, not bad..., the afterwards were just boring (same thing).

Another reality tv i like is "so you think you can dance" - mainly cause i wished i could do hip hop or some popping - but its a show ive followed closely.

It is not to say your choices arent bad, but we have different opinions on tv program - persoanlly i find that NFL and star trek (OMG...Yawn) to be very bland...and like your stereo typing of woman watching these programs, i can say the same that star trek is watched by nerds.

RavenMorpheus
18-11-2007, 03:11
and like your stereo typing of woman watching these programs, i can say the same that star trek is watched by nerds.

This is probably true, hence the reason they're known as Trekkies, but there are those of us that watch Star Trek who are not your average "nerd", same goes for reality TV shows, I accept that not only women watch them but on the whole they are aimed at women imo and watched by women in the majority.

The same can be said for a lot of the TV programmes these days, especially daytime TV.

It's not like you get football reality TV shows by the dozen, and if there are or have been any they don't get the media attention like I'm a celeb..., big brother, strictly come dancing etc. do - which for me is great because I don't really want to wake up in the morning turn on BBC news to see whose been booted off what show!

dr.oetk3r
18-11-2007, 03:49
The real question is...

Why would you watch ITV in the first place?

Nephilim of Sin
18-11-2007, 04:16
Um. Not trying to sound dumb, but what is "ITV"?. Is it a specific channel, or a genre? The reason I was ranting about these programs is because they are everywhere in the states. Everywhere. I too like CSI, Nip/Tuck, ST:TNG, Dead Like Me (sadly cancelled), etc. Instead, good shows get cancelled, while the reality of the minute show pops up.

However, there is one reality show that my girlfriend wanted me to watch, and... I am hooked....sadly. It is "Kid Nation". If no one has seen it, they take a bunch of kids and throw them into an old Wild West style town. However, it is a lot different than other types of reality tv. They have to run the town, on their own; you have kids ranging from 7 to 15 cleaning latrines, cooking food, etc. It shows the intellegence of the wee folk, which is a lot of times taken for granted, but also show the impact of society upon the children, and how it affects their decisions. I recommend it.

RavenMorpheus
18-11-2007, 04:40
Um. Not trying to sound dumb, but what is "ITV"?. Is it a specific channel, or a genre? The reason I was ranting about these programs is because they are everywhere in the states. Everywhere. I too like CSI, Nip/Tuck, ST:TNG, Dead Like Me (sadly cancelled), etc. Instead, good shows get cancelled, while the reality of the minute show pops up.

However, there is one reality show that my girlfriend wanted me to watch, and... I am hooked....sadly. It is "Kid Nation". If no one has seen it, they take a bunch of kids and throw them into an old Wild West style town. However, it is a lot different than other types of reality tv. They have to run the town, on their own; you have kids ranging from 7 to 15 cleaning latrines, cooking food, etc. It shows the intellegence of the wee folk, which is a lot of times taken for granted, but also show the impact of society upon the children, and how it affects their decisions. I recommend it.

ITV - Independent Television, it's one of the UK national commercial channels.

I believe it's kind of like NBC/CBS/ABC etc. but I'm not entirely sure.

pwrgmrguard
18-11-2007, 05:06
NBC, ABC and CBS are all national stations you have to pay to get. while you do not pay them specifically you pay your TV service provider, so a cable company or satellite network, and these channels are usually in the base package. The difference is they generally don't have absolute crap like Fox.

House is awesome. He's such an assshole you have to love him.

kortholaxthedamned
18-11-2007, 09:30
My girlfriend loves Cerys Matthews, and she was going to see her in February, but now she's on I'm a Celebrity...she's considering selling the tickets, she's that disgusted at her for 'selling her integrity'.

Damien 1427
18-11-2007, 09:48
The real question is...

Why would you watch ITV in the first place?

It's all about Midsommer Murders.

Barnaby doesn't take your ****.

Bran Dawri
18-11-2007, 10:28
Oh yeah, that's right! TV exists.
I had nearly happily forgotten all about it and its general lowest-common-denominatorianism (is that a word?), and now you have to go and remind of it :cries: .
Damn you!

Fenriz
18-11-2007, 11:22
Top Gear is worth the license fee on its own.

BBC3 has some top drawer stuff on sometimes, as does C4.

The Sopranos, Rome, and Shameless are all amazing shows.

Sure theres a glut of bad tv out there, but youll find that kind of mindless drivel pays for the decent programming those with two brain cells to rub together can enjoy.

The pestilent 1
18-11-2007, 11:27
House is awesome. He's such an assshole you have to love him.

If I hear "I bet it's Lupus" One more time, I'm going to hit someone. :mad:
I hate House.
And Lost.
And Heroes.

scarletsquig
18-11-2007, 12:21
I don't own a TV. The internet is a much more interactive and interesting waste of time. :)

I watch Lost, Stargate: Atlantis, and Family Guy. I also have a lot of cheap dvds.


As for the whole celebrity thing, I pity people who are interested in them.

Angelwing
18-11-2007, 13:35
I've seriously considered getting rid of the television. I don't really watch anything. I'll watch top gear, QI and such if I have the time, but I wouldn't miss them too much.

swordwind
18-11-2007, 13:49
Robin Hood has turned me off the BBC forever

ArtificerArmour
18-11-2007, 14:15
When was the last time ITV ever had a Sci Fi on?

I'd be hard pushed to think of anything after Millenium...except for Lavender Castle and Reboot on CITV :p

Seriously, would anyone watch battlestar galactica if it was put on that time on ITV?

No...that's what Sky One's for :p

theunwantedbeing
18-11-2007, 15:07
Reality tv, the x-factor type stuff and soaps really need to be removed from tv.
You'de see a noticable increase in the intelligence level of the average child if that happened.

Too many middle class parents loving that stuff and getting their kids to love it too.....you dont learn anything ecept that if you are worthless at life and nobody likes you, there's what seems to be a bloody good chance of being famous.
Yeah brilliant thing for kids to learn.

The only reason I dont watch lost and such is beacuse its on sky1 and I dont have sky1 since sky decided they dont want to be on the freeview package anymore....

simonjedi
18-11-2007, 15:25
I only watch the opening stages, the auditions to see the really bad ones,

the only "reality tv show" i like is the jeremy kyle show

The pestilent 1
18-11-2007, 15:27
The only reason I dont watch lost and such is beacuse its on sky1 and I dont have sky1 since sky decided they dont want to be on the freeview package anymore....

You mean you'd sit through an hour (ish) of utter crap disguised as something intelligent?
Lost isn't smart TV. Lost is "Not actually going to tell you anything and when we do we're gonna throw some irrelevant Ballistic skill in to confuse even the brighest in the world".




Yes, my personal campaign of hate has moved onto Lost.

Suoli
18-11-2007, 15:40
You mean you'd sit through an hour (ish) of utter crap disguised as something intelligent?
Lost isn't smart TV. Lost is "Not actually going to tell you anything and when we do we're gonna throw some irrelevant Ballistic skill in to confuse even the brighest in the world".

I didn't notice anyone calling Lost smart. The only reason I watch it is to see how far the writers are willing to go. Try playing chess or something if you want entertainment that challenges you intellectually.

feeder
18-11-2007, 15:57
I didn't notice anyone calling Lost smart. The only reason I watch it is to see how far the writers are willing to go.
That and Kate's gotta go swimming in a tight white t-shirt at some point, right?

The pestilent 1
18-11-2007, 16:05
I didn't notice anyone calling Lost smart. The only reason I watch it is to see how far the writers are willing to go. Try playing chess or something if you want entertainment that challenges you intellectually.

In a thread panning "Dumb" entertainment and instead condoning Lost, I took it to mean it was smart ;) :p

And I would play Chess had I not lost it.

theunwantedbeing
18-11-2007, 16:20
The only reason I can recall for actually watching lost is that Kate is the spitting image of my ex......that and I was wondering what was going to happen as a bunch of people being stuck on an island seemed far too thin a plot to carry a full series.

I still watch CSI and such, and things like police car chase video's as they may well be basically the same thing but in the police ones the bad guy gets crippled/shot/put in jail as opposed to being worshipped as a celeb and being given loads of money.
Did use to watch the new battlestar galactica as well, untill sky went.....nice to compare it to the old series(yes I watched the lot, I am that awesome).

Some guy (UK)
18-11-2007, 18:07
Lost from the first series ( by which time I had started watching it every other week, before giving up on it), boiled down to:

20 minutes of flashbacks
20 minutes of adverts
5 minute catch up for each episode
15 minutes of actual goings on.

I suspect it hasn't changed :eyebrows:

It really got exceptionally dull when it turned out the monster wasn't the start of supernatural goings-on on the island. Just a bunker and some odd people.

vcassano
18-11-2007, 18:28
Lost from the first series ( by which time I had started watching it every other week, before giving up on it), boiled down to:

20 minutes of flashbacks
20 minutes of adverts
5 minute catch up for each episode
15 minutes of actual goings on.

I suspect it hasn't changed :eyebrows:

It really got exceptionally dull when it turned out the monster wasn't the start of supernatural goings-on on the island. Just a bunker and some odd people.

There was a real dip in quality in the second series and the start of the third but from the middle of the third onwards it was utter gold. The last two episodes of that series are brilliant and a great culmination of all the effort put into developing characters.

Reabe
18-11-2007, 23:26
OMG... please say your not (gulp) that you dont like (shudder) COUNTDOWn... or university challenge. SNORE boring zzz!

*Eye twitches*


It's all about Midsommer Murders.

I, for one, would move away from a so-called quiet village if murders were so frequent that you could set your watch by them.

der_lex
19-11-2007, 00:56
There was a real dip in quality in the second series and the start of the third but from the middle of the third onwards it was utter gold. The last two episodes of that series are brilliant and a great culmination of all the effort put into developing characters.

I have to agree with you there. Along with Heroes, Battlestar Galactica and just about every HBO series out there (Oz, Rome, Carnivale and Deadwood were absolutely stellar, and examples of how good television can be without censorship and normal network tv standards weighing it down) it's one of the few shows that manage to keep me entertained these days. I agree that there was a bit of a slump in the episodes you mentioned, where they seemed to throw some random ideas in there with no other intention than to confuse viewers and keep them guessing, but the fact that the characters are generally well-written kept me interested anyway. The second half of season three has sufficiently convinced me that the writers know where they're going with the series, so I'm looking forward to season four.

What always confuses me is why people bash Lost for being formulaic in nature. Yes, it is, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Some of what I personally consider to be good (or at least entertaining) tv shows, like Star Trek, Quantum Leap, Futurama and Frasier, were formulaic as well. A set formula can be both a tool for writers and for viewers (not everyone's as bright as us esteemed Warseers (;)), and some people just like having a dependable structure), and it's only bad when it becomes a crutch instead.

I don't know if Lost is 'smart' television, then again, what show ? CSI, for example, is pretty entertaining (especially watching David Caruso hamming it up on CSI Miami), but I consider it to be a lot 'dumber' than Lost... the way the job of a forensic investigator portrayed is ridiculous, the 'science' is only there for the pretty CG, and the show as at least as formulaic as Lost, and often pretty preachy to boot. Again, I think it's fun, but I wouldn't call it smart, and the writing is often pretty meh.

What I do consider Lost to be, however, is a well-written show.
And you have to remember that this is coming from someone who subtitles movies and most notably tv series for a living. When there's a European dvd release of a tv series, there's about a 75% chance that I've subtitled at least one episode or a commentary track on there. This doesn't give me any special authority on the subject, but it does mean that I have a lot of material to compare Lost with, including many things of which I have a hard time believing anyone would watch voluntarily. And compared to a lot of the current and especially the older tv shows out there (because if you think shows are generally formulaic and poorly written now, try watching the majority of the pre-90's stuff out there...*shudder*), I think that the quality of the writing on Lost is pretty high. It goes out of its way to create three-dimensional characters, it doesn't go for instant viewer gratification by providing quick answers (although it risks giving the impression that it's going nowhere by doing so), it's not afraid to poke fun at itself (the whole Artzt character and his untimely demise were a good example of this) and I like the way it keeps you guessing as to which events are relevant or not (the way the blue van was interwoven in season 3, for example, was something I really liked).

Finally, I have to say something about the whole 'dumb/reality tv is aimed at women' thing. First of all, tv is mass entertainment. Ratings/advertising revenues are what really count on commercial tv, and even on public television to a certain extent, so a lot of television will therefore be 'dumbed down' to fit a general audience, and draw a lot of viewers. This is all right, since a lot of good tv is still made for those who enjoy it, and to be honest, I think from the 90's onward there has been an increase rather than a decrease in the quality of the writing in tv fiction.
DVD box sets have made the situation even better, since it's mad it even easier to avoid 'brainless' tv. You can now not only enjoy a show you like without being 'stuck' behind your tv on set nights, but you can also watch it without those annoying commercial breaks. Even better, good DVD sales can encourage networks to give a canceled 'niche' tv show another go (Futurama is a good example). I'm not defending or enjoying reality shows by any means, but I do realise they're a fact of life.

Back to the point about women (yes, I do have one, even though I do meander on a bit :D). Why is most of the 'brainless' reality (and soap, let's not forget that) rubbish aimed at women? The answer is rather simple... because men have had their own brand of 'brainless' television for years: sports.
Whether you enjoy watching sports or not, it's not intelligently crafted television by any means: it's simply a few cameras put next to a playing field, and a guy commenting on what happens. From a tv perspective, it's just as unscripted, and therefore 'brainless' as reality tv. Laying the blame for 'brainless' tv squarely at the feet of women is therefore, in my opinion, rubbish.

Jedi152
19-11-2007, 07:41
Yes, my personal campaign of hate has moved onto Lost.
:rolleyes:
What is it next week?

I'm just bored of people having a go at reality TV. These threads have almost become cliche - everytime a new show appears we get them with the usual "z listers should be killed LOL!" comments.

People must like the shows, 'cos they keep making them, and people are always talking about them.

I find it hard to hate anything nowadays. I'm just bored of the angsty youngster thing.

RavenMorpheus
19-11-2007, 08:00
Just to clarify on the point about reality tv being aimed at women - I'm not putting the blame entirely at the feet of women but they do seem to be in the majority of those who watch such rubbish and you only have to look at the schedules here in the UK (on terrestrial TV anyway) to see that reality TV/soaps and other similar programs currently dominate the schedules, there imo is very little on terrestrial TV for aimed specifically at people who enjoy watching something challenging/intellectual or just above the puerile/mindlessness of the usual output and material supposedly aimed at everyone always seems to be slanted to the female side of things imo. (And before anyone mentions it - I do not hate women.)

I for one don't like paying my licence fee just to have an "entertainment" source where out of 168 hours of "entertainment" a week there is about 12 hours (figure off the top of my head, could be more could be less?) of "entertainment" aimed at people who don't enjoy the normal output! And even though ITV/Channel 4/Channel 5 etc are not directly paid for we are still paying for them in part by having to pay a licence fee.

And from what I've seen satellite TV here in the UK isn't much better, more channels yes but it's more of the same imo.

So it comes down to choice and where TV is concerned I feel I don't have much of a choice over what I wish to watch.

The fact that the common denominator in TV scheduling is the dumbass/woman just proves how our increasingly media drive society is becoming retarded/one-sided imo.

It's all very well saying that you can by DVD's but that means I've got to go to a shop and buy something that I'll invariably watch once and then put in the cupboard - TV on the other hand should be a way of finding and watching new material without the need to buy in DVD's but instead we're being spoonfed the same carp year on year, if not every six months and when it's not actually on there's always someone from the shows on another show trying to plug their careers or the shows they are/were in!

I'm sick of looking at the schedules, seeing there is nothing worth watching and having to turn to my 360 (or whatever console/gaming device I own at the time) to entertain myself, I complete games far too quickly these days and I'm starting to run out of games I want to buy/play, not to mention funding for such games! :mad:

And just a small point on Lost seeing as everyone else seems to have made one - never saw the point of it, I watched a couple of the first few episodes round my mates house and I just yawned.

I think the only choice I have is turn to books, but what if I don't feel like reading?

Nephilim of Sin
19-11-2007, 10:26
Ah, but you do have a choice. And it is Tivo. Or the cable equivilant, which costs an arm and a leg. I agree with you though, tv is crap. I just hope I don't sound like a grandparent (Back in my day, there was good stuff on tv. We had to walk five miles in the snow, both ways, to watch it..etc....)

This is why I buy the shows I want to watch on DVD. To me, if it is "worth" watching, then it is worth buying. Otherwise, it is crap, and I wouldn't waste my time on free cable to watch it. If it cannot entertain me worth it's money (i.e. repeatedly), then I do not care for it. For example, I own Fraiser on DVD. Same with other tv shows (C.S.I., Shield, Smallville). I cannot be bothered with the advetisements, or the having to wait. It is the cost of convienience, I suppose. Yet, then again, the cost of our hobby is that it is something that caters to our "higher senses" as well.....

Ozorik
19-11-2007, 13:46
Thats exactly what I do. If I like a series I will buy the DVD, though I have currently run out of shelf space. More expensive certainly but more convenient and as I dont pay a licence fee Im not funding the reams fo crap that fill up the schedules.

der_lex
19-11-2007, 16:25
there imo is very little on terrestrial TV for aimed specifically at people who enjoy watching something challenging/intellectual or just above the puerile/mindlessness of the usual output and material supposedly aimed at everyone always seems to be slanted to the female side of things imo.

What about channels like Discovery channel or National Geographic? We have at least one or usually both on basic cable over here, depending on where you are.
Also, I have to say that for someone who's ranting about his need for 'intellectual television', the show you listed earlier as things you enjoy are pretty general, relatively low-brow fare (CSI, sports, car shows, tech gizmo shows) targeted at 'average' males. Star Trek is about the only thing in there that I could classify as an 'intellectual' show, and even that's debatable for the post-DS9 era. Not slamming your choice of programs, just pointing out a bit of a fallacy in your argument there.


(And before anyone mentions it - I do not hate women.)

With quotes like this one:


The fact that the common denominator in TV scheduling is the dumbass/woman just proves how our increasingly media drive society is becoming retarded/one-sided imo.

and other quotes in several other threads, you certainly could've fooled me. I also have to say that I find your use of the term 'retard' in both this quote and your sig rather offensive, and I think its use in this manner goes against Warseer posting policies as well, like offensive uses of the word 'gay' (another pet peeve of mine).


I for one don't like paying my licence fee just to have an "entertainment" source where out of 168 hours of "entertainment" a week there is about 12 hours (figure off the top of my head, could be more could be less?) of "entertainment" aimed at people who don't enjoy the normal output! And even though ITV/Channel 4/Channel 5 etc are not directly paid for we are still paying for them in part by having to pay a licence fee.

Then start a petition or a similar initiative to get rid of licence fees. There's already plenty of countries that have done so. Be prepared for commercial breaks on public television if they do, though, because they need to get the money from somewhere. Either that, or treat it as any other product: if you don't like it, don't pay for it and don't get it.


So it comes down to choice and where TV is concerned I feel I don't have much of a choice over what I wish to watch.

You're right, you don't have a choice. TV is primarily mass entertainment, so the masses decide what comes on. If you're in the minority that doesn't like it, tough. It might not be fair, but that's the way the world works. Spending your days complaining on how unfair it all is certainly isn't going to make you any happier.


I think the only choice I have is turn to books, but what if I don't feel like reading?

Pick up a hobby. Hang out with friends and have a good (pseudo-) intellectual conversation. Go to a museum. If you're that dependent on television for intellectual stimulation, you're doing something wrong.

Bombot
19-11-2007, 17:01
I’m a little torn on the licence fee. On the one hand, America produces far more decent shows (comedy aside) than the UK, and they come from commercially funded channels. On the other hand, the ITV produces a stream of crap. Watchable crap sometimes, but crap nonetheless. At least BBC4 has some good stuff, and the Beeb’s comedy shows and Spooks are ok. So on balance, I think we should keep the fee. The BBC News 24 studio should be razed to the ground though.

Btw, Channel 4 gets some public money.

Damien 1427
19-11-2007, 19:19
I, for one, would move away from a so-called quiet village if murders were so frequent that you could set your watch by them.

I think people stay because it's actually rather scenic. That or the whole thing may just be kinda like Silent Hill, and it's Barnabys personal purgatory. Since You see him leave, like, twice.

RavenMorpheus
22-11-2007, 20:06
I also have to say that I find your use of the term 'retard' in both this quote and your sig rather offensive, and I think its use in this manner goes against Warseer posting policies as well, like offensive uses of the word 'gay' (another pet peeve of mine).

Well I'll alter my sig so it says stupid people then - it's just a word and it is supposed to be a humourus one-liner not an offensive statement :rolleyes:

As for my use of the word in posting - I'm certainly not attempting to be offensive. I'm just summing up the way society over here in the UK is going, I think you'll find I have never used the word in any other context and I certainly don't blatantly say things such as "you retard" when posting.

On your point about National Geographic and other such channels, on satellite which we pay an extortionate amount for here in the UK there are such channels, on our "free to air" digital service there is one, it's called UK TV History and it broadcasts the same programs day in day out for weeks on end...

And on the analogue service we have we only have 5 channels and they're full of stuff that I and a couple of other posters in this thread have been discussing.

And yeah CSI, Top Gear and the Gadget Show may not be "high-brow" but they do require some degree of concentration and attention span - whereas stuff like I'm a celeb... and Big Brother are basically there so that the viewer can switch his/her mind off and just sit like a vegetable watching them.

And whether we have to pay for the channels shouldn't matter (even though I raised the point), what does matter is that the increasing amount of such shows and the way they are received by viewers is turning our society here in the UK into a shallow, moronic society, obviously there is an "intelligent" section of our society but it's getting rapidly smaller imo, of course I am generalising and TV isn't the only reason for the "dumbing down" of society here in the UK but if I say anymore it'll be P&R. ;)

*cough* jamelia heading new "music for schools" initiative *cough* money being spent on "music" lessons *cough* rather than academic studies that'll get kids jobs *cough*

Everett
22-11-2007, 20:11
Gemma Atkinson.. say no more :angel::D

superknijn
22-11-2007, 20:40
Acting representative for my nation, I would like to apologize to the rest of the world for the creation of Big Brother. We have spread around idiotic concepts that have become just simply gross, and that's just the stuff that has left the country. I apologize most sincerely, and hope that this dark page in our history gets forgetten quickly, and that those shows die a quick but painful death.

Inquisitor_Matt
22-11-2007, 21:03
If I hear "I bet it's Lupus" One more time, I'm going to hit someone. :mad:
I hate House.
And Lost.
And Heroes.



:eek: WHAT!?!?!?! You are the ONLY person that I know of that hates Heroes... Which must mean.... You aren't really human at all... You must be smothered. *Gets pillow*



I do agree that most shows, and 99.99999998% of reality shows, are trash. Occasionally they hit gold (The Office, My Name is Earl, Journeyman, and most anything on History, Discovery, Science, or Military (I don't have cable/satilight but I work at a department store and I set the TV displays to those 4 channels)) but they need to get rid of a lot of the rubbish that is considered "family programing" even.

TheBigBadWolf
22-11-2007, 21:03
Then start a petition or a similar initiative to get rid of licence fees. There's already plenty of countries that have done so. Be prepared for commercial breaks on public television if they do, though, because they need to get the money from somewhere. Either that, or treat it as any other product: if you don't like it, don't pay for it and don't get it.

I take it as your not from the UK you dont know that it is a 1000 pound fine for not having a t.v. liscence and the back pay that should have been payed and you have to have one if you own a tv. There should definatley be a return to quality programming, did you know that when babylon 5 aired on channel 4 (free channel), the ratings surpassed coronation street, that shows you that sci fi programmes can pull the ratings on analoge tv

der_lex
22-11-2007, 23:07
I'm not from the UK, but we used to have a similar tv license fee system in Holland. The thing is, even in the UK you don't have to pay a licence fee for your TV under the following circumstances:

* televisions installed and used solely for some other purpose e.g. a closed-circuit monitor
* televisions used solely as a video/DVD player
* televisions used solely as a games console monitor
* televisions used solely as a PC monitor

So if you don't have cable, a satellite dish, or an old-fashioned antenna on your roof or TV set, you're basically exempt from paying license fees.

Voleron
22-11-2007, 23:14
...Times like this i'm glad I live in Australia. We don't have a licensing fee of any sort, and our non-cable/satelite TV is actually rather good.

Although, I only have a TV for the puropses of watching DVD's nowadays, My parents have cable so catching Discovery, National geographic and the History channel is pretty worhthwile, when i'm there.

RavenMorpheus
22-11-2007, 23:16
I'm not from the UK, but we used to have a similar tv license fee system in Holland. The thing is, even in the UK you don't have to pay a licence fee for your TV under the following circumstances:

* televisions installed and used solely for some other purpose e.g. a closed-circuit monitor
* televisions used solely as a video/DVD player
* televisions used solely as a games console monitor
* televisions used solely as a PC monitor

So if you don't have cable, a satellite dish, or an old-fashioned antenna on your roof or TV set, you're basically exempt from paying license fees.

Quite true but...

...where do people get the latest NFL season dvd's from then, or the latest Top Gear season dvd's, or the latest season of the BBC's latest "natural world" documentary type of program?...

The whole "if you don't like it don't pay for it" argument doesn't hold water when you consider that programmes that are challenging/intelligent are quite often never released on dvd and therefore in order to watch them you have to pay the license fee.


Gemma Atkinson.. say no more :angel::D

Who? Oh yeah that bit of tottie from hollyoaks that can't act so she's decided to fool us into thinking she can by getting her *its out :rolleyes:

der_lex
22-11-2007, 23:32
You have to take the good with the bad. Either pay your licence fee and accept that you won't enjoy a large part of the programming, but that you will be able to watch those few shows that you do like, or step away from it completely.
Things are not going to change. Intelligent shows are in the minority because, relatively speaking, intelligent people are a minority (which is not something new, nor necessarily a bad thing). As I said before, you can complain about it all you like, but you're tilting at windmills by doing so.

The internet is also a viable alternative means for finding those programs that you do like, since the TV licensing don't apply to internet broadcasts and downloads yet (they do apply to 'TV cards' for PC's, though). A lot of older stuff can be legally found online, and if you have no moral qualms about it, you can find torrents or streams of just about any other TV program as well.

RavenMorpheus
22-11-2007, 23:41
Well I wouldn't mind it so much if the good was given as much coverage in the media as the bad...

I'd like to wake up one morning and actually see some factual news dominating the breakfast news rather than "x got booted out of the house, we're going live to find out what her not-so closely related relatives reaction is to it"

der_lex
22-11-2007, 23:53
You know, I actually agree with you on that one: the quality and, more importantly, the impartiality of television news has decreased a lot in the past ten years. Then again, if you look at the newspaper industry, I guess such a thing is inevitable: sensationalism and partisanism/jingoism will always sell better than factual, neutral news. Good thing there's still the internet, where you can usually find all sides to a story if you look hard enough.

Stella Cadente
23-11-2007, 05:40
What does everyone here think of it?
I think its utter utter tripe, easily one of the worst things on television right next to every other reality TV program