Tuesday, March 29, 2011

IS THAT YOUR FINAL ANSWER?




I’ve noticed something happening over the last few years – something that saddens me greatly. It’s been slow, infrequent and unsteady to begin with but the decline is gathering ever more strength – the decline of the quiz show.

I’m not talking about the game show - I’m talking about the quiz show. The straight up and down, how-much-do-you-know trivia extravaganza – never done better than the all time seven o’clock classic and one of my favourite shows – Sale of the Century. So why are we seeing the quiz show being mangled into something unrecognizable if not disappearing altogether? Are we getting stupider or is all this information that was once in our heads now in our phones? Why won’t anyone give Jeopardy another crack?

At the moment, Deal or No Deal is the most popular, successful game show in Australia – a grand-scale shell game where contestants essentially succeed or fail based on how ‘lucky’ they’re feeling at any given moment. There is no skill involved in Deal or no Deal – anyone can play. Which is not to say that’s why the show is so popular – the format would be tired by now if it didn’t have love-him-or-hate-him host Andrew O’Keefe reinvigorating the show on a regular basis with so many puns and clever turns of phrase even the contestants look confused. It’s bright lights, high concept, low skill, bells-and-whistles entertainment.

A monkey could play it. Monkeys aren’t necessarily naturally greedy creatures either, so a monkey could conceivably do quite well. While Millionaire Hot Seat intermittently challenged Deal or no Deal for supremacy in its 5:30 time slot, it has never really come close to happening. Nowadays, if you want a trivia game to succeed on television, you have to have one of three things:
1.) Celebrities. It seems we would rather watch celebrities (Spicks and Specks, Rockwiz, The Trophy Room) in our trivia games than average people we could compete against.
2.) Gambling/High stakes. Million Dollar Drop – the second in Eddie McGuire’s Fistful of Million Dollars trilogy of game shows – faded drastically after its first episode, and only got green-lighted because it had SO MUCH money and SUCH HIGH stakes and a BLOODY HUGE SET.
3.) Laughs. You can’t have a straight ahead trivia game these days – everything needs to be funny – and while that can be a good thing what I loved so much about Sale of the Century is that it found the right balance between light hearted fun and serious stakes. Look, I really miss having that show on at seven o’clock every evening. I can’t help it. I don’t like Two and a Half Men all that much.

So I have to wonder why we aren’t getting a franchise trivia game off the ground in 2011 – and as far as I can see there are two possible reasons.

1). Technology. If you frequent quiz nights you’ll notice that quizmasters have had to start banning smartphones from tables in fear that we might be googling the answers. I completely agree with this approach – god forbid the quiz night goes the way of the dodo – but it does make me wonder if the fact everything can be in our pocket makes us less likely to keep it in our heads. Personally, I use my phone to improve my general knowledge – I’m constantly reading, memorising, checking facts, playing trivia games and so on – and it would never damage my interest in a quiz show - but I’m a nerd. I can totally understand the approach that there’s no point in remembering trivial things because they’re a few clicks away. Like all technologies, it’s not the fact that it’s there, it’s how we use it that really counts. Which leads me to:

2). We’re becoming dumber. If you pay attention to most news reporting (and you probably shouldn’t – too much) you would have seen a huge outcry about the show Wipeout. According to snarky critics, this show – which featured people attempting to run an obstacle course primarily designed to hit them in the head or crotch, if not both – heralded that we had gone over the threshold of our collective national stupidity. If they’d actually watched the show, they would know it’s actually quite clever – the commentators inject a completely unreasonable amount of wit into proceedings. For me, the fact the show existed was not a concern. The fact more people I knew wanted to be on Wipeout than on Millionaire was the concern. The problem is not just that no one wants to watch Sale of the Century, it’s more that no one wants to be on Sale of the Century, much less win Sale of the Century. That, to me, is the biggest shame.

I hope it’s just a phase. I hope that there comes a time on our TV screens where we have a society that can support the return of Sale of the Century as heavily as we can support the return of It’s a Knockout.

Because I really don’t want to have to choose.

WINNERS AND LOSERS EPISODE TWO REVIEW



Spoiler-related thoughts on episode two of Winners and Losers after the jump...

I said in my review of the first episode of Winners and Losers that I had massive qualms over the late-episode plot development where the four friends become lottery winners. The reason for this is that it is incredibly difficult for us to become invested with people who are so rich we will soon have nothing in common with them. Every show I’ve ever seen feature a lottery winner has fallen away soon afterwards (Roseanne comes to mind) because the money that person won came to define them.

What W&L needed to do in its second and third episode was make sure that the problems the characters were having were universal and not solved or created by the money they had come into. Sadly, what we got instead was every single main character using their lottery win to improve their lives – Frances uses her money to advance her business career, Sophie buys an apartment, Bec’s fiancé uses money to set a date, buy a ring and does it all on a boat and Jenny buys herself a car and quits her job. None of this involved actual character development – it was just the use of money to paper over each character’s flaws and also handily erased any conflict the first three episodes had set up. It was a little bit galling towards the end – maybe I’m just bitter but I have flaws and problems I can’t fix through a Lotto win. It's a happy show, for the most part, but Parks and Recreation is one of the happiest shows I've ever seen, but it has more wit, charm and character development in five minutes than I've seen so far here - and the characters on that show aren't rich. If the characters here are going to be wealthy without actually earning it, they have to earn their emotional wealth instead. They don’t even go close here.

The lottery win also had me cringing at the beginning of the episode where Jenny whines constantly about how unfair it is she isn’t getting any money. Maybe I just fall in the category of if you don’t invest, you don’t get the rewards, but it seemed incredibly selfish that she would even think about asking for some. Her persistence proceeded to make me dislike all the characters bar Bec as they tussled over a problem only 0.00001% of us will ever have to deal with, especially on that scale.

Enough of my ranting about the plot – the performances are coming through from the four main girls with Virginia Gay still being the standout and Melanie Vallejo still being the weakest link – mainly thanks to having the weakest character. On the flipside, the periphery characters are getting worse. The one I have the biggest issue with is Frances’ gay best friend Jonathan. Damien Bodie’s line readings aren’t great but worse is the character plays into every single stereotype you would expect. Why does the show’s primary gay character have to play into every single stereotype we would expect? I’m sure every gay man on the planet isn’t like this. It’s like every straight young male character on the show has an aversion to shirts, drinks beer and looks like he stepped out of a GQ cata-…oh.

You may have guessed by now that I’m losing interest in Winners and Losers, so if you’re out there, I would love to hear from people that are enjoying it. What am I missing? Is there more to this show than Rafters meets Sex and the City (meets last season Roseanne). Help?

I actually wanted Michala Banas back.

Monday, March 28, 2011

The Interchange Bench Round One

The Interchange Bench has been sitting in the green vest all pre-season, waiting desperately to get on the field and participate in some REAL football. Here's our wrap of Round One, including three things we learnt this week, stats, a review of the round, rants, jokes, analysis, tips and a discussion of the big issues. This week regulars Andrew Williams and Steve Allen are joined by 'Magic' Michael Genovese. You can e-mail us at theinterchangebench@gmail.com with a question, comment, discussion point or decent Dream Team tipoff. Enjoy!
SEARCH 'THE INTERCHANGE BENCH' IN THE ITUNES STORE OR LISTEN HERE:


Tuesday, March 22, 2011

TV REVIEW - WINNERS AND LOSERS


Winners and Losers is a show for women.

That’s not to say it’s a bad show, or an unworthy show – but it’s just not a guy’s show.

This is Sex and the City (there’s even two blondes, a brunette and a redhead) meets Packed to the Rafters – and it’s Channel Seven’s attempt to double down on the Rafters audience, whisking that incredibly popular program off the air to make way for this – and in the process they’ll be hoping that they get two massive dramedy franchises off the ground.

Of course, they might risk alienating the Rafters audience, a casually diehard fan base that has forged a deep connection over the last four years to this particular family.

My question is simply this - by aiming the show squarely at half the country are they not giving it a chance to get out of the blocks?

The show itself tells the story of four friends – Bec (Zoe Tuckwell-Smith), Frances (Virginia Gay), Sophie (Melanie Vallejo) and Jenny (Melissa Bergland). They are, to unfairly reduce each character to a single adjective, the nice girl, the career woman, the party girl and the homely girl. One by one, they are invited to their 10-year high school reunion by Tiffany Turner (Michala Banas), the girl who tormented them in high school.

But that’s not really what the show is about. Like Rafters, which began life as a show about what happens when adult children move back into their family home and eventually became a show that told stories about family, this is a show that will eventually tell stories about friendship. The most crucial part of any of this is whether the characters themselves are worth hanging out with.

On that score, Winners and Losers had a 50% strike rate with me. Virginia Gay is always a welcome presence on my TV screen, never overplaying her clichéd ‘career woman’ role and always charming even without decent material. Zoe Tuckwell-Smith is equally luminous – playing a nice girl with enough depth behind her eyes to keep her interesting, rather than vacuous.

Melissa Bergland as Jenny and Melanie Vallejo as Sophie fare less well for varying reasons. Both characters are clichéd ‘types’, just like their friends, but neither the actresses nor the writers give me any hope that they’ll add depth and become more likeable as the series progresses. Having said that, this is a character drama – so time must be allowed for the characters to flourish – but having watched the second episode and liking those two characters even less, I’m rapidly losing confidence.

The supporting characters are tracksuit-pants comfortable – familiar enough to never threaten to overtake the driving force of the show in our main four characters. We have the doting but commitment-shy fiancé, the adoring gay best friend, the adoring straight best friend, the comforting, quirky family – and they are all serviceable.  The weakest link is Damien Bodie, who gets one note and one note only to play as the gay best friend. I know there must be some low-key gay men out there somewhere, but you wouldn’t know it from watching TV…

I’ve seen two episodes so far and the pilot was far superior to the episode that follows it. Unfortunately, the pilot ends on a plot development that I have never seen end well for any show I’ve ever watched. I won’t spoil it for you, but I think it is extremely difficult to have a show about characters that go through this particular situation. On top of that, this particular plot development is clumsily inserted and painfully telegraphed.

In the end, though, I will not be the harbinger of doom and glory for this particular show. That will be the female audience, who will either take to this with Sex and the City-like abandon, or shun it like they did the Cashmere Mafia.

In the end, the deciding factor will be how much we want to hang out with these four friends. I don’t, but you might.

All in all, a nil-all draw.
__

So weigh in, if you like! Did you like the characters? Do you think this show plays as strongly to gender roles as I do? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.

The Podcasting Couch Episode Nine - Rango/Top Four Voiceover performances

For the latest ep of the Podcasting Couch, search for 'The Podcasting Couch' in the itunes store, or click the links below -

http://boxseattv.podbean.com/


Sunday, March 13, 2011

The Interchange Bench - Carlton Blues

This week, special guest Adam Papalia joins Beau Mitchem, Steve Allen and myself to chat about the chances of the Carlton Blues for AFL Season 2011. Features a pretty sordid introduction from myself and more genius analysis from the AFL Record.

Download from iTunes here:
http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-interchange-bench-carlton/id421335695?i=92052275

Sunday, March 6, 2011

The Interchange Bench - Port Adelaide/North Melbourne/Gold Coast

The New AFL podcast 'The Interchange Bench' is previewing every AFL team's prospects for the AFL Season - and a new batch of episodes is up! Featuring Steve Allen, Beau Mitchem, Chris Robinson and myself - we chat about three teams with interesting prospects. I can particularly recommend the Gold Coast podcast - it's a lot of fun.

Check it out here
http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-interchange-bench-port/id421335695?i=91884653
http://theinterchangebench.podbean.com/

Or listen here





Subscribe and rate in iTunes, if you feel so inclined! Enjoy

The Podcasting Couch - Episode Six

The Podcasting Couch is continuing on its merry way and this week Shannon Harvey, Simon Miraudo, Laura Hewison and myself discuss the James Franco/Danny Boyle survival pic 127 Hours and have an entertaining discussion about our Feature Four films with numbers in the title. Check it out at either of the links below!

http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-podcasting-couch-episode/id417367280?i=91867625

http://boxseattv.podbean.com/

Or listen here