For those of you that don’t know of it. It is a BBC children’s 
educational programme. (So it does not shy away from poo jokes) My 
favourite sketch (song) shows the Great British respect for our monarchy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtYmq5qFVA&feature=related

Or is it this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qSkaAwKMD4

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:07:46 -0000, Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  
did spake thusly:

> For those of you that don’t know of it. It is a BBC children’s  
> educational programme. (So it does not shy away from poo jokes) My  
> favourite sketch (song) shows the Great British respect for our monarchy.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtYmq5qFVA&feature=related
>
> Or is it this one
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qSkaAwKMD4

or possibly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2kyNbZc7oc ?

"Married Catherine Braganza she was a love so true
There would never be another
Well maybe one or two."

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 26/01/2011 2:23 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
> or possibly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2kyNbZc7oc ?
>
> "Married Catherine Braganza she was a love so true
> There would never be another
> Well maybe one or two."

Or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51aHb_U8Zr0

Maybe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LhT7rCC6O8&feature=related


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:46:54 -0000, Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  
did spake thusly:

> On 26/01/2011 2:23 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>>
>> or possibly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2kyNbZc7oc ?
>>
>> "Married Catherine Braganza she was a love so true
>> There would never be another
>> Well maybe one or two."
>
> Or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51aHb_U8Zr0
>
> Maybe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LhT7rCC6O8&feature=related

Not a song but oh boy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjeqRHdBwkY

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 27/01/2011 12:18 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Not a song but oh boy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjeqRHdBwkY

LOL.

I actually liked them so much I got series 1 & 2 out from Lovefilm.

Good to see you back Phil.

What second childhood?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:32:03 -0000, Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  
did spake thusly:

> On 27/01/2011 12:18 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> Not a song but oh boy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjeqRHdBwkY
>
> LOL.
>
> I actually liked them so much I got series 1 & 2 out from Lovefilm.
>
> Good to see you back Phil.

Nice to be back, just time, work  and blogging. Amazing how much of a  
time-sink that latter can be if you want to pepper your entries with  
something more filling than expanded tweets. Oh that and Minecraft :-)

> What second childhood?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - children's TV programming  
often excels compared to that targeted at adults. Then again are we just  
getting a large amount of rubbish these days? "Have I Got News for You",  
"Never Mind the Buzzcocks", and "Mock the Week" in the short bursts they  
do. "Misfits" which has been simply outstanding. "Being Human" which just  
gets better. "Doctor Who" of course and... hmm that's about it. I've ended  
up setting the box to record the re-runs of "Malcolm in the Middle" on  
Fiver for a half-hour 'fix' of something decent. Everything else is Soap  
or soap-like - real-life turned to 11 and painted in day-glo fluorescent  
colours; or reality shows that aren't. Just nothing worth watching for  
most of the week.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 11:44 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> I've said it before and I'll say it again - children's TV programming
> often excels compared to that targeted at adults.

I can barely stand most of it.

Currently my mum is obsessed with Shawn the Sheep. It disturbs me how 
"into it" she gets whenever she hears the theme tune. (Does she sound 
like she has dementia yet?)

> Then again are we just getting a large amount of rubbish these days?

Otherwise known as "you're getting old". Apparently I share this 
affliction. :-(

> Everything
> else is Soap or soap-like - real-life turned to 11 and painted in
> day-glo fluorescent colours; or reality shows that aren't. Just nothing
> worth watching for most of the week.

Do you remember when "soaps" were just a few nosey old women standing 
around having a bit of a gossip? These days they have murders and 
stabbings... I used to quite like watching Heartbeat until it turned 
into a murder mystery / medical drama.

I still contend that the intersection of Big Brother and "reality" is 
the empty set. :-P

Then again, maybe I'm just bitter because you can't turn on your TV any 
more and watch science or nature programs. They just don't seem to make 
'em any more.

Still, the other night we sat and watched Quest, and I little thing 
called "How It's Made". Still not *quite* sure how you can have a 
production line with stages that operate at vastly different speeds, but 
I'm sure the designers know what they're doing...

And I guess there's always Dave.

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 11:44 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> Nice to be back, just time, work and blogging. Amazing how much of a
> time-sink that latter can be if you want to pepper your entries with
> something more filling than expanded tweets.

Isn't it just? >_<

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:29:45 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake thusly:

> On 31/01/2011 11:44 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> Then again are we just getting a large amount of rubbish these days?
>
> Otherwise known as "you're getting old". Apparently I share this  
> affliction. :-(

It's a glib answer, but is it true? I honestly don't think so - consider I
was raised with three channels BBC1 & 2 and ITV; to split into stereotypes
worthy, minority, and popular. Then the BBC needed to become 'relevant'
i.e. popular and the forgotten BBC2 used its minority status to take risks
on shows its elder sister would baulk at and ITV wouldn't want to pay for
unless they thought it a definite winner.

Then Channel 4 came along and tried to be all edgy and youth-orientated; a
combination of 2 and ITV. Then it started to mature just as Five appeared
and supped from the dregs that were left; and now the BBC is spread over
two more channels and two kids ones (discounting the news and parliament);
ITV's gained three plus a children's; Four's got at least two more as has
Five; plus all the other non-affiliated stuff. There's no extra content so
it's just being spread paper-thin over all these new channels.

> Do you remember when "soaps" were just a few nosey old women standing  
> around having a bit of a gossip? These days they have murders and  
> stabbings... I used to quite like watching Heartbeat until it turned  
> into a murder mystery / medical drama.

I have never, NEVER enjoyed soaps; they make my brain itch; fake  
purporting to be reality while obviously being fake. It's a level of  
self-deception I can't follow.

> I still contend that the intersection of Big Brother and "reality" is  
> the empty set. :-P

*rimshot*

> Then again, maybe I'm just bitter because you can't turn on your TV any  
> more and watch science or nature programs. They just don't seem to make  
> 'em any more.

Couple of Horizon's on the BBC, the odd Attenborough, but no other than  
that it's fairly bleak.

> And I guess there's always Dave.

There's always Dave.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> Then again are we just getting a large amount of rubbish these days?
>>
>> Otherwise known as "you're getting old". Apparently I share this
>> affliction. :-(
>
> It's a glib answer, but is it true? I honestly don't think so.

I don't have enough data to say with any certainty.

(Also, the only "glib" I know of is the GNOME Foundation utilities 
library...)

> and now the BBC is spread over
> two more channels and two kids ones (discounting the news and parliament);
> ITV's gained three plus a children's; Four's got at least two more as has
> Five; plus all the other non-affiliated stuff. There's no extra content so
> it's just being spread paper-thin over all these new channels.

In other words, instead of having four or five quality channels, we have 
400 or 500 channels of filler. How sad.

> I have never, NEVER enjoyed soaps; they make my brain itch; fake
> purporting to be reality while obviously being fake. It's a level of
> self-deception I can't follow.

I hate soaps too. And yet, we seem to be drowning in them today.

>> Then again, maybe I'm just bitter because you can't turn on your TV
>> any more and watch science or nature programs. They just don't seem to
>> make 'em any more.
>
> Couple of Horizon's on the BBC, the odd Attenborough, but no other than
> that it's fairly bleak.

Hell, Horizon used to be good stuff. Now it seems to be "hey, look at 
this freak boy born without eyebrows, and watch the incredible reality 
story of how doctors perform ground-breaking surgery to make him normal 
again". To suffice, even Horizon is a reality TV show now.

> There's always Dave.

Dave. What are you doing Dave? This is highly irregular...

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:11:31 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

>>>> Then again are we just getting a large amount of rubbish these days?
>>>
>>> Otherwise known as "you're getting old". Apparently I share this
>>> affliction. :-(
>>
>> It's a glib answer, but is it true? I honestly don't think so.
>
> I don't have enough data to say with any certainty.
>
> (Also, the only "glib" I know of is the GNOME Foundation utilities  
> library...)

See this is why you need the Sony eReader with built-in dictionary (been  
slowly reading the "Kindling" thread)

>> and now the BBC is spread over
>> two more channels and two kids ones (discounting the news and  
>> parliament);
>> ITV's gained three plus a children's; Four's got at least two more as  
>> has
>> Five; plus all the other non-affiliated stuff. There's no extra content  
>> so
>> it's just being spread paper-thin over all these new channels.
>
> In other words, instead of having four or five quality channels, we have  
> 400 or 500 channels of filler. How sad.

Yup - well 20 channels anyway not counting the ones trying to overtly sell  
you something. Discounting Sky (which I hear so many say "I just bought it  
for the football/movies and there's nothing else on") and consider the  
jump to Freeview from five channels to over twenty. With no increase in  
budget how can there not be a hit in quality?

>> I have never, NEVER enjoyed soaps; they make my brain itch; fake
>> purporting to be reality while obviously being fake. It's a level of
>> self-deception I can't follow.
>
> I hate soaps too. And yet, we seem to be drowning in them today.

I can't even argue them as cheap television. I guess it's the continuation  
factor; once you've got a subject hooked they'll specifically tune in to  
watch and you can charge higher advertising rates.

>>> Then again, maybe I'm just bitter because you can't turn on your TV
>>> any more and watch science or nature programs. They just don't seem to
>>> make 'em any more.
>>
>> Couple of Horizon's on the BBC, the odd Attenborough, but no other than
>> that it's fairly bleak.
>
> Hell, Horizon used to be good stuff. Now it seems to be "hey, look at  
> this freak boy born without eyebrows, and watch the incredible reality  
> story of how doctors perform ground-breaking surgery to make him normal  
> again". To suffice, even Horizon is a reality TV show now.

Couple of decent ones recently. Though sadly they have gone down the route  
of re-explaining things every five minutes. Either they expect people to  
tune in late or they consider their audience memory-deprived.

>> There's always Dave.
>
> Dave. What are you doing Dave? This is highly irregular...

Dave Ja Vu :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> (Also, the only "glib" I know of is the GNOME Foundation utilities
>> library...)
>
> See this is why you need the Sony eReader with built-in dictionary (been
> slowly reading the "Kindling" thread)

GLib apparently being unrelated to GLibC...

>> In other words, instead of having four or five quality channels, we
>> have 400 or 500 channels of filler. How sad.
>
> Yup - well 20 channels anyway not counting the ones trying to overtly
> sell you something. Discounting Sky (which I hear so many say "I just
> bought it for the football/movies and there's nothing else on") and
> consider the jump to Freeview from five channels to over twenty. With no
> increase in budget how can there not be a hit in quality?

Ah, shopping TV. That most hateful abomination. I suppose sport TV might 
be interesting if I was actually interested in sport. (Apart from darts 
and snooker, anyway.)

Can you tell that I basically just *don't watch* TV any more? Hell, when 
I do it's like taking a bad acid trip. What with the talking frogs and 
dancing babies and flying opera singers. Seriously, WTF are the 
advertising execs smoking?

>> I hate soaps too. And yet, we seem to be drowning in them today.
>
> I can't even argue them as cheap television. I guess it's the
> continuation factor; once you've got a subject hooked they'll
> specifically tune in to watch and you can charge higher advertising rates.

Well, yeah, that's it. Soaps do have the property that if you miss an 
episode, the rest just isn't going to make sense. So it sharply forces 
people to watch, which generates revenue.

Alternatively, "reality" TV almost always involves extremely expensive 
phone-ins, which also generates money.

Then we have the "talent contests" (which are of course *popularity* 
contents), which similarly generate money.

Suck to be you if you happen to have a brain...

>> Hell, Horizon used to be good stuff. Now it seems to be "hey, look at
>> this freak boy born without eyebrows, and watch the incredible reality
>> story of how doctors perform ground-breaking surgery to make him
>> normal again". To suffice, even Horizon is a reality TV show now.
>
> Couple of decent ones recently. Though sadly they have gone down the
> route of re-explaining things every five minutes. Either they expect
> people to tune in late or they consider their audience memory-deprived.

Oh God, I HATE THAT! >_< Why do TV programs have to repeat themselves 
every 25 seconds these days?! I can only imagine that either they think 
the people watching are absurdly stupid, or it makes the program cheaper 
if they just repeat the same shots over and over again.

> Dave Ja Vu :-P

That's one hell of a name choice, right there!

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 3:28 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> See this is why you need the Sony eReader with built-in dictionary

Yes!
I didn't know that there were so many words I did not know until I could 
look them up.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 3:39 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> Couple of decent ones recently. Though sadly they have gone down the
>> route of re-explaining things every five minutes. Either they expect
>> people to tune in late or they consider their audience memory-deprived.
>
> Oh God, I HATE THAT! >_< Why do TV programs have to repeat themselves
> every 25 seconds these days?! I can only imagine that either they think
> the people watching are absurdly stupid, or it makes the program cheaper
> if they just repeat the same shots over and over again.

Me too!
I had a job one where I had to have the TV on all the time in my 
workshop. (To make sure that the satellite dish had not lost alignment.)
Sky News was the only thing I could bare to have on and it repeated 
every 20 minutes. It drove me mad(er)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 03:46 PM, Stephen wrote:

> I didn't know that there were so many words I did not know until I could
> look them up.

Yesterday I told my girlfriend "I didn't think hypernatraemia was good 
for hypotension". The look she gave me indicated that I was in danger of 
having the breakfast spoon I was holding shoved somewhere unpleasant...

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 11:44 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Nice to be back, just time, work  and blogging. Amazing how much of a
> time-sink that latter can be if you want to pepper your entries with
> something more filling than expanded tweets. Oh that and Minecraft :-)
>

Lost on me. I don't think that anyone (myself included) would want to 
read my ramblings.

>> What second childhood?
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again - children's TV programming
> often excels compared to that targeted at adults. Then again are we just
> getting a large amount of rubbish these days? "Have I Got News for You",
> "Never Mind the Buzzcocks", and "Mock the Week" in the short bursts they
> do. "Misfits" which has been simply outstanding. "Being Human" which
> just gets better. "Doctor Who" of course and... hmm that's about it.
> I've ended up setting the box to record the re-runs of "Malcolm in the
> Middle" on Fiver for a half-hour 'fix' of something decent. Everything
> else is Soap or soap-like - real-life turned to 11 and painted in
> day-glo fluorescent colours; or reality shows that aren't. Just nothing
> worth watching for most of the week.

I quite liked the Inbetweeners.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh God, I HATE THAT! >_< Why do TV programs have to repeat themselves
>> every 25 seconds these days?! I can only imagine that either they think
>> the people watching are absurdly stupid, or it makes the program cheaper
>> if they just repeat the same shots over and over again.
>
> Me too!
> I had a job one where I had to have the TV on all the time in my
> workshop. (To make sure that the satellite dish had not lost alignment.)
> Sky News was the only thing I could bare to have on and it repeated
> every 20 minutes. It drove me mad(er)

Well, news channels are like that. I guess the idea is that you tune in, 
watch for long enough to see what's happening, and then turn off again. 
So they just repeat the same news again and again, because people are 
arriving and leaving constantly.

But normal TV should *not* be like this! And I am now sufficiently old 
and demented to claim that it wasn't when I was young. I can only 
imagine they keep repeating everything to pad out the material and make 
it last longer. Feature films don't do this, so clearly it's not because 
the adult human has an attention span shorter than a goldfish.

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 3:55 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 31/01/2011 03:46 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I didn't know that there were so many words I did not know until I could
>> look them up.
>
> Yesterday I told my girlfriend "I didn't think hypernatraemia was good
> for hypotension". The look she gave me indicated that I was in danger of
> having the breakfast spoon I was holding shoved somewhere unpleasant...

Not surprising ;-)
But reading between the lines. Breakfast spoon?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 3:59 PM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Well, news channels are like that.

I know but it still drove me bonkers.
>
> But normal TV should *not* be like this! And I am now sufficiently old
> and demented to claim that it wasn't when I was young.

I bet you can't remember "Rag, Tag and bobtail" :-P

I can only
> imagine they keep repeating everything to pad out the material and make
> it last longer. Feature films don't do this, so clearly it's not because
> the adult human has an attention span shorter than a goldfish.

Attention span is getting shorter as less and less is demanded of people.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:28:23 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>> I don't have enough data to say with any certainty.
>>
>> (Also, the only "glib" I know of is the GNOME Foundation utilities
>> library...)
> 
> See this is why you need the Sony eReader with built-in dictionary (been
> slowly reading the "Kindling" thread)

Or indeed just access to dictionary.com. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:51:08 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 3:39 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Couple of decent ones recently. Though sadly they have gone down the
>>> route of re-explaining things every five minutes. Either they expect
>>> people to tune in late or they consider their audience
>>> memory-deprived.
>>
>> Oh God, I HATE THAT! >_< Why do TV programs have to repeat themselves
>> every 25 seconds these days?! I can only imagine that either they think
>> the people watching are absurdly stupid, or it makes the program
>> cheaper if they just repeat the same shots over and over again.
> 
> Me too!
> I had a job one where I had to have the TV on all the time in my
> workshop. (To make sure that the satellite dish had not lost alignment.)
> Sky News was the only thing I could bare to have on and it repeated
> every 20 minutes. It drove me mad(er)

The one that gets me is programmes that break for a 5-minute commercial 
break and when they come back, you get a recap of everything that 
happened before the break.  Just in case you forgot.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Yesterday I told my girlfriend "I didn't think hypernatraemia was good
>> for hypotension". The look she gave me indicated that I was in danger of
>> having the breakfast spoon I was holding shoved somewhere unpleasant...
>
> Not surprising ;-)

Hmm. Electroplated nickel enema. Not good. >_<

> But reading between the lines. Breakfast spoon?

Well, it was *actually* nearly noon. What can I say? It took us that 
long to get out of bed. Dancing until midnight two nights back to back 
will do that to you. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, news channels are like that.
>
> I know but it still drove me bonkers.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing.

>> I can only
>> imagine they keep repeating everything to pad out the material and make
>> it last longer. Feature films don't do this, so clearly it's not because
>> the adult human has an attention span shorter than a goldfish.
>
> Attention span is getting shorter as less and less is demanded of people.

Well yes, you do start to wonder.

On the other hand, consider recent films like Lord of the Rings or 
Avatar. Those are pretty damned long, and yet still very popular.

Post a reply to this message

> The one that gets me is programmes that break for a 5-minute commercial
> break and when they come back, you get a recap of everything that
> happened before the break.  Just in case you forgot.

Oh, don't even get me started on programs that have commercial breaks 
every 3 minutes, where the break lasts 5 minutes. >_<

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:15:27 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>> The one that gets me is programmes that break for a 5-minute commercial
>> break and when they come back, you get a recap of everything that
>> happened before the break.  Just in case you forgot.
> 
> Oh, don't even get me started on programs that have commercial breaks
> every 3 minutes, where the break lasts 5 minutes. >_<

You don't need to - I feel the same way about those.  Fortunately, we 
record the programmes on our DVR and skip the commercials.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:11:24 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:51:08 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 31/01/2011 3:39 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Couple of decent ones recently. Though sadly they have gone down the
>>>> route of re-explaining things every five minutes. Either they expect
>>>> people to tune in late or they consider their audience
>>>> memory-deprived.
>>>
>>> Oh God, I HATE THAT! >_< Why do TV programs have to repeat themselves
>>> every 25 seconds these days?! I can only imagine that either they think
>>> the people watching are absurdly stupid, or it makes the program
>>> cheaper if they just repeat the same shots over and over again.
>>
>> Me too!
>> I had a job one where I had to have the TV on all the time in my
>> workshop. (To make sure that the satellite dish had not lost alignment.)
>> Sky News was the only thing I could bare to have on and it repeated
>> every 20 minutes. It drove me mad(er)
>
> The one that gets me is programmes that break for a 5-minute commercial
> break and when they come back, you get a recap of everything that
> happened before the break.  Just in case you forgot.

And the teasing pre-caps "coming up on..." that repeat multiple times  
during the show not just at breaks or at the end for the next episode;  
even the BBC have got into the act.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 04:38 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> And the teasing pre-caps "coming up on..." that repeat multiple times
> during the show not just at breaks or at the end for the next episode;
> even the BBC have got into the act.

Coming up on tonight's program, X, Y, Z and W.
X.
Coming up after the break: Y, Z and W.

So far, X.
Coming up, Z and W.
But first, Y.
After the break: Z and W.

So far, X and Y.
Coming up, W.
But first, Z.
You may remember X and Y.
And we just say Z.
Coming up: W.

So far, Y and Z.
But it all started with X.
And now, W.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!?!?!! >_<

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 4:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The one that gets me is programmes that break for a 5-minute commercial
> break and when they come back, you get a recap of everything that
> happened before the break.  Just in case you forgot.
>
We have less commercial breaks here in the UK than you do. I know this 
because often American made programmes will have a scene change that 
exhibits the behaviour you describe.
I too watch recorded programmes to cut out the adverts.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:56:53 -0000, Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  
did spake thusly:

> On 31/01/2011 11:44 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> I've said it before and I'll say it again - children's TV programming
>> often excels compared to that targeted at adults. Then again are we just
>> getting a large amount of rubbish these days? "Have I Got News for You",
>> "Never Mind the Buzzcocks", and "Mock the Week" in the short bursts they
>> do. "Misfits" which has been simply outstanding. "Being Human" which
>> just gets better. "Doctor Who" of course and... hmm that's about it.
>> I've ended up setting the box to record the re-runs of "Malcolm in the
>> Middle" on Fiver for a half-hour 'fix' of something decent. Everything
>> else is Soap or soap-like - real-life turned to 11 and painted in
>> day-glo fluorescent colours; or reality shows that aren't. Just nothing
>> worth watching for most of the week.
>
> I quite liked the Inbetweeners.

Couldn't get on with it, a bit like "The Office" caused too much  
arse-squirming embarrassment.

Time for the controversy - Miranda (Hart) - Best New British TV Comedy?  
Talking to someone about that and they said "If they can't make a funny  
30-second 'advert' what hope is there for the series?"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 4:14 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On the other hand, consider recent films like Lord of the Rings or
> Avatar. Those are pretty damned long, and yet still very popular.

What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?
That is one of the things that puts me off going.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 04:48 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 31/01/2011 4:14 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> On the other hand, consider recent films like Lord of the Rings or
>> Avatar. Those are pretty damned long, and yet still very popular.
>
> What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?
> That is one of the things that puts me off going.

Depends what film, and what time of day you go.

I've only had a problem once. I went with a girl to see AI. (If you ever 
get the chance, DO NOT bother watching this miserable piece of crap.) 
Some kid behind us was playing with explosives. They actually stopped 
the film and turned all the lights back on while the police removed them.

Great way to get into a girl's knickers, that one. >_<

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 4:45 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Couldn't get on with it, a bit like "The Office" caused too much
> arse-squirming embarrassment.
>

Maybe I'm a bit more removed from adolescence. But I know what you mean 
because that's how I feel about "The Office".

> Time for the controversy - Miranda (Hart) - Best New British TV Comedy?
> Talking to someone about that and they said "If they can't make a funny
> 30-second 'advert' what hope is there for the series?"

Not seen/heard her.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 4:50 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 31/01/2011 04:48 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 31/01/2011 4:14 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> On the other hand, consider recent films like Lord of the Rings or
>>> Avatar. Those are pretty damned long, and yet still very popular.
>>
>> What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?
>> That is one of the things that puts me off going.
>
> Depends what film, and what time of day you go.
>

I suppose so.

> I've only had a problem once. I went with a girl to see AI. (If you ever
> get the chance, DO NOT bother watching this miserable piece of crap.)
> Some kid behind us was playing with explosives. They actually stopped
> the film and turned all the lights back on while the police removed them.
>
> Great way to get into a girl's knickers, that one. >_<

Why did she leave them on the seat?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 4:13 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> But reading between the lines. Breakfast spoon?
>
> Well, it was *actually* nearly noon. What can I say?

"I'll be home late, mum"?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> But reading between the lines. Breakfast spoon?
>>
>> Well, it was *actually* nearly noon. What can I say?
>
> "I'll be home late, mum"?

I think you mean, "mum, I'm 30 years old and I'll be home whenever I 
damned well feel like it".

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Great way to get into a girl's knickers, that one. >_<
>
> Why did she leave them on the seat?

Oh, don't even get me started thinking about actually seeing her knickers...

Ah, the memories of shattered dreams.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:42:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 4:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The one that gets me is programmes that break for a 5-minute commercial
>> break and when they come back, you get a recap of everything that
>> happened before the break.  Just in case you forgot.
>>
> We have less commercial breaks here in the UK than you do. I know this
> because often American made programmes will have a scene change that
> exhibits the behaviour you describe.
> I too watch recorded programmes to cut out the adverts.

"Fewer", you mean?  (Odd that an American has to teach English to a Brit 
<gd&rvvf>)

But yes, I know what you mean - I do wish we had fewer breaks, but it 
seems that now out of an hour, we get about 43 minutes of actual 
programming.  Used to be closer to 50 minutes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:38:32 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> And the teasing pre-caps "coming up on..." that repeat multiple times
> during the show not just at breaks or at the end for the next episode;
> even the BBC have got into the act.

Even worse is when they start one show over the credits of another.  If 
I'm recording a programme, how am I supposed to get the whole thing if 
you start EARLY?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:48:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?

Recent experience suggests that it's not good.  We went to see Tron 
Legacy and there was a group of half a dozen teens who came in late and 
then talked through the entire film.  Not in whispers, either, but in 
normal voices.  I was tempted multiple times to loudly suggest that they 
take their conversation outside, or to ask for reimbursement for my 
tickets, because I hadn't paid to listen to them gab through the whole 
film.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 9:06 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> But reading between the lines. Breakfast spoon?
>>>
>>> Well, it was *actually* nearly noon. What can I say?
>>
>> "I'll be home late, mum"?
>
> I think you mean, "mum, I'm 30 years old and I'll be home whenever I
> damned well feel like it".
>
If that's OK with you :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 9:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >  We have less commercial breaks here in the UK than you do. I know this
>> >  because often American made programmes will have a scene change that
>> >  exhibits the behaviour you describe.
>> >  I too watch recorded programmes to cut out the adverts.
> "Fewer", you mean?  (Odd that an American has to teach English to a Brit)

First we had the Irish (GBS) now you.
You must remember that English is not my first language, it is Stephen-ese.
Thirdly I was speaking about time periods which as everyone knows is 
“less” not “fewer”.
(I liked Mornington Crescent, this week.)

> <gd&rvvf>

How right you are.

> But yes, I know what you mean - I do wish we had fewer breaks, but it
> seems that now out of an hour, we get about 43 minutes of actual
> programming.  Used to be closer to 50 minutes.

That seems about right. :-(

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 9:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:48:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?
>
> Recent experience suggests that it's not good.  We went to see Tron
> Legacy and there was a group of half a dozen teens who came in late and
> then talked through the entire film.  Not in whispers, either, but in
> normal voices.  I was tempted multiple times to loudly suggest that they
> take their conversation outside, or to ask for reimbursement for my
> tickets, because I hadn't paid to listen to them gab through the whole
> film.
>

It is as if they think they are at home watching their TV.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:49:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 9:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:48:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> What is the behaviour of the audience, in the cinema, like?
>>
>> Recent experience suggests that it's not good.  We went to see Tron
>> Legacy and there was a group of half a dozen teens who came in late and
>> then talked through the entire film.  Not in whispers, either, but in
>> normal voices.  I was tempted multiple times to loudly suggest that
>> they take their conversation outside, or to ask for reimbursement for
>> my tickets, because I hadn't paid to listen to them gab through the
>> whole film.
>>
>>
> It is as if they think they are at home watching their TV.

Indeed, but even then I get annoyed when watching a film at home and 
having people talking during it.  If I've seen it before, that's a 
different matter - but it drives me crazy having people saying "Oh, this 
is the coolest part of the film coming up!" ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:48:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 9:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >  We have less commercial breaks here in the UK than you do. I know
>>> >  this because often American made programmes will have a scene
>>> >  change that exhibits the behaviour you describe.
>>> >  I too watch recorded programmes to cut out the adverts.
>> "Fewer", you mean?  (Odd that an American has to teach English to a
>> Brit)
> 
> First we had the Irish (GBS) now you. You must remember that English is
> not my first language, it is Stephen-ese. Thirdly I was speaking about
> time periods which as everyone knows is “less” not “fewer”.
> (I liked Mornington Crescent, this week.)

Ah, but you were not speaking about duration of the periods, but the 
number of breaks, so it would be "Fewer", properly. ;-)

I know at least one Brit who would back me up on this. ;-)

>> <gd&rvvf>
> 
> How right you are.

Yes, but fortunately, I'm faster. ;-)

>> But yes, I know what you mean - I do wish we had fewer breaks, but it
>> seems that now out of an hour, we get about 43 minutes of actual
>> programming.  Used to be closer to 50 minutes.
> 
> That seems about right. :-(

Yeah, then again, the quality of a lot of programming here in the US, 
losing time to commercials isn't an entirely bad thing.  600 channels of 
programmes, and nothing on worth watching much of the time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 10:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Ah, but you were not speaking about duration of the periods, but the
> number of breaks, so it would be "Fewer", properly.;-)
>

Have it your own way. You always do. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 10:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Indeed, but even then I get annoyed when watching a film at home and
> having people talking during it.  If I've seen it before, that's a
> different matter - but it drives me crazy having people saying "Oh, this
> is the coolest part of the film coming up!";-)
>
Remedy: Stop the film and say “Is it, what happens next?”

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:48:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 10:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Ah, but you were not speaking about duration of the periods, but the
>> number of breaks, so it would be "Fewer", properly.;-)
>>
>>
> Have it your own way. You always do. :-P

That's because I'm right. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:50:46 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 31/01/2011 10:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Indeed, but even then I get annoyed when watching a film at home and
>> having people talking during it.  If I've seen it before, that's a
>> different matter - but it drives me crazy having people saying "Oh,
>> this is the coolest part of the film coming up!";-)
>>
> Remedy: Stop the film and say “Is it, what happens next?”

I actually came close to that - it was Ken's girlfriend, and she didn't 
realise we hadn't seen the film before.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 12:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:48:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 31/01/2011 10:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Ah, but you were not speaking about duration of the periods, but the
>>> number of breaks, so it would be "Fewer", properly.;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Have it your own way. You always do. :-P
>
> That's because I'm right. ;-)
>

You always are (so you say). ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 12:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Remedy: Stop the film and say “Is it, what happens next?”
> I actually came close to that - it was Ken's girlfriend, and she didn't
> realise we hadn't seen the film before.

Awkward

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message