By Challi
(In advance, I apologise to jsb for the obscure esoteric references in this post and video about people and things that only Australians understand. Think of it as revenge for all the obscure esoteric references in Family Guy. Who the hell are Kristy McNichol or Tom Brokaw?)
A Current Affair are snakes! Snakes! Why? They pick on other shows on other channels that just happen to have higher ratings than pretty much any show on Channel 9. Coincidence? I think not. They're clearly using blatant slander to avoid people watching the shows, which never works anyway. They've done it with Dancing With the Stars, The Biggest Loser, Australian Idol, Summer Heights High and, of course, The Chaser's War on Everything.
In fact, they've recently been picking on The Chaser's War on Everything the most of all of those shows at any chance they can get. Seriously, it's non-stop. There were fabricated rumours that they would sell out, ACA do a story on it. They call some old guy a paedophile, ACA do a story on it. They do a joke video of Osama Bin Laden, ACA do a story on it.
The Chaser have been doing this kind of shit for years now but did ACA give a damn? No, because they weren't a ratings threat back then. Now they are. In fact, there must be a whole lot of ACA journalists watching ABC on Wednesday with notebooks in hand waiting to see if The Chaser do something that they could sensationalise and make it seem controversial.
and those journalists must have been yelling "SCORE! SCORE!" last Wednesday when they heard this song on the show:
Sure, it's offensive, but ACA clearly missed the point of the song. Either that, or they knew the point of the song but chose to ignore it in place of making it seem like all they were doing was disrespecting the dead. Melodramatic garbage obviously works much better than actual facts in a current affairs show.
Nobody watches ACA here so I'll explain. What they decided to focus on instead was the fact that they were making fun of dead people and they interviewed the families and friends of the dead people being made fun of. Gosh, I wonder what they'd think of it. Obviously, they were disgusted by it and for the only person they interviewed who wasn't disgusted by it, they decided to discredit him by saying he's said controversial things as well before we get to hear what he has to say about it. Gee, great fucking journalism, ACA, I wonder who Australia's supposed to side with. Hey, let's be biased, it's not like news stories are supposed to be neutral or anything. That last sentence was sarcastic if you couldn't tell.
Through this biased journalism, they were trying to make it seem like the whole of Australia must be against them. They went as far as to say that the ABC's switchboard was jammed with complaints about it. If you consider six calls to be jamming the switchboard, it must be a really shit switchboard.
They actually even recorded Bev Brock saying that they were just doing this to get free publicity. Well, they didn't actually advertise that the song was being played, but if they were trying to get publicity from it, ACA's segment on it means "mission accomplished", right? Thanks for the publicity, ACA!
Another bit in the segment referenced how The Chaser went as far as to say that even Martin Bryant, the guy responsible for the Port Arthur Massacre, would be a top bloke after death and that it is a disgusting thing to say. Duh, but their point was that it's wrong to think that all dead people's wrongs should be forgotten, like Kerry Packer's tax evasion, just because they're dead. So to say that it's disgusting for them to think Martin Bryant will be praised when he's dead proves the real point of the song that ACA tried to avoid.
Obviously Martin Bryant won't be a saint when he dies but I guess it required an extreme view to get the point across that ACA still couldn't comprehend even though it's pretty freaking conspicuous especially after that.
The Glass House made fun of dead celebrities too, but they didn't have quite as good ratings to be a threat so they got let off. It seems to be that ACA's ethics are that your show can get away with anything if it's not popular.
What about Channel 9 itself? "Comedy" inc. were making fun of the dead even back when people still watched the awful show so why not pick on them? Oh that's right, they're on Channel 9.
and to top everything off, I'd think the song was so outrageous to the point of it being a parody of itself so nobody should need to take it seriously. They even made fun of it's own outrageousness by stopping Andrew Hansen before he said what he was about to say about Belinda Emmett. So get the fuck over it, snakes.
-C
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Friday, October 19, 2007
Monday, October 01, 2007
rat race.
By Challi
First of all, way to suck, Port! I knew Geelong was going to win because they wanted it more, but yikes, a 119 point margin? That's just taking the piss. Also, I might know very little about AFL strategy, but maybe any defense at all would have helped? but hey, I'm just being an asshole. Who I really feel sorry for are those fans who spent all that money to go to the cesspool that is Melbourne, some even without tickets, to watch their team do their best, and that's definitely not what they saw.
Anyway, I was watching the Sunday program yesterday and there was this bit about a doctor deeming that Australia is racist in regards to our attitude to Muslims. Now, although I don't deny that Australians are racist (in fact, being part Asian, I've experienced it first hand), I feel like I need to clarify a few things:
1. "Muslim" is not a race of people, they're followers of a particular religion called Islam. Therefore it's not racism, it's religious discrimination. I'm not saying it's still not bad, just saying that it's dumb to call us racist towards something that's not even a race.
2. Race only exists as a social construct, not a biological one. I'm not too sure how this gets us off the hook for being racist, but I just felt like showing off my Uni intellectual prowess.
Racism is way too an obscure definition anyway and I still haven't quite grasped what it means. Apparently generalisation is a form of racism but I've been involved in a situation where it seemed like it was perfectly valid to generalise (in fact, it was impossible not to generalise in the context it was in) and I was accused of being racist even though I couldn't really avoid it. So in what situation could I have not avoided being generalistic? Well gather round and I'll tell you the story:
At our catholic school's year 11 spiritual retreat, we were put into groups of 10 or so people and we were given a scenario where there were several people on a boat and the boat was slowly sinking and the only nearby island was kilometre away and they had to get rid of some of the people on the boat and leave 5 so that they could make it to the island without sinking. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but bear with me. The people we could choose to save included a lawyer, a doctor and her husband, an Iraqi man, and a 24-year-old Aboriginal man. I don't remember the rest. I stated that the Aborigine should be on the boat because he could make smoke signals and get help.
but no, the supervising teacher was having none of that. She stated that not all Aborigines make smoke signals and since I apparently generalised that they do, I was racist for doing so.
That's just stupid. This is a fictional Aborigine in a scenario where we clearly had to make shit up, and I think it's perfectly valid that the Aborigine should be able to make smoke signals. They want to get off the island, don't they? Besides, since it's fictional and we're only given the detail that it's a 24-year old Aboriginal man, of course I'm going to assume everything else and use stereotypes to do so. I had no other option.
and why was the Aboriginal and the Iraqi man the only ones whom it was deemed their nationality was worth pointing out? Why not go ahead and give us the nationalities of the lawyer and the doctor? Why was it so damn important that the 24-year old man was Aborigine if we couldn't make use of it in the scenario?
Man, I hate retreats.
So that's my story. In the context I was accused of racist in, I think we are all racist in some way. We all generalise and assume things about races and we've all laughed at racist jokes, don't deny it. As long as we don't start Cronulla-esque riots or start a political party built on racism we can pretty much get away with it, and that's what makes Australia great.
-C
First of all, way to suck, Port! I knew Geelong was going to win because they wanted it more, but yikes, a 119 point margin? That's just taking the piss. Also, I might know very little about AFL strategy, but maybe any defense at all would have helped? but hey, I'm just being an asshole. Who I really feel sorry for are those fans who spent all that money to go to the cesspool that is Melbourne, some even without tickets, to watch their team do their best, and that's definitely not what they saw.
Anyway, I was watching the Sunday program yesterday and there was this bit about a doctor deeming that Australia is racist in regards to our attitude to Muslims. Now, although I don't deny that Australians are racist (in fact, being part Asian, I've experienced it first hand), I feel like I need to clarify a few things:
1. "Muslim" is not a race of people, they're followers of a particular religion called Islam. Therefore it's not racism, it's religious discrimination. I'm not saying it's still not bad, just saying that it's dumb to call us racist towards something that's not even a race.
2. Race only exists as a social construct, not a biological one. I'm not too sure how this gets us off the hook for being racist, but I just felt like showing off my Uni intellectual prowess.
Racism is way too an obscure definition anyway and I still haven't quite grasped what it means. Apparently generalisation is a form of racism but I've been involved in a situation where it seemed like it was perfectly valid to generalise (in fact, it was impossible not to generalise in the context it was in) and I was accused of being racist even though I couldn't really avoid it. So in what situation could I have not avoided being generalistic? Well gather round and I'll tell you the story:
At our catholic school's year 11 spiritual retreat, we were put into groups of 10 or so people and we were given a scenario where there were several people on a boat and the boat was slowly sinking and the only nearby island was kilometre away and they had to get rid of some of the people on the boat and leave 5 so that they could make it to the island without sinking. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but bear with me. The people we could choose to save included a lawyer, a doctor and her husband, an Iraqi man, and a 24-year-old Aboriginal man. I don't remember the rest. I stated that the Aborigine should be on the boat because he could make smoke signals and get help.
but no, the supervising teacher was having none of that. She stated that not all Aborigines make smoke signals and since I apparently generalised that they do, I was racist for doing so.
That's just stupid. This is a fictional Aborigine in a scenario where we clearly had to make shit up, and I think it's perfectly valid that the Aborigine should be able to make smoke signals. They want to get off the island, don't they? Besides, since it's fictional and we're only given the detail that it's a 24-year old Aboriginal man, of course I'm going to assume everything else and use stereotypes to do so. I had no other option.
and why was the Aboriginal and the Iraqi man the only ones whom it was deemed their nationality was worth pointing out? Why not go ahead and give us the nationalities of the lawyer and the doctor? Why was it so damn important that the 24-year old man was Aborigine if we couldn't make use of it in the scenario?
Man, I hate retreats.
So that's my story. In the context I was accused of racist in, I think we are all racist in some way. We all generalise and assume things about races and we've all laughed at racist jokes, don't deny it. As long as we don't start Cronulla-esque riots or start a political party built on racism we can pretty much get away with it, and that's what makes Australia great.
-C
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
a Chip off the old 'munk?
By Challi
I'm all for the upcoming wave of live-action movie remakes of old cartoons. They're great for nostalgia value and good fun for the adults who grew up on them to take their kids to so that they can wonder why the hell their parents liked crap like this. It's also a great distraction for Hollywood to give to the moviegoers until they can actually come up with something original. I can't wait to see how Hollywood have remade Speed Racer, Tintin and The Jetsons using their own unique adaptations which are still somehow loyal to the original show in some way.
However, I do have some sort of dignity and, although I know I should never judge a movie by its poster, I think I'm going to have to try to avoid the following movie. I think it speaks for itself:
May God have mercy on us all.
-C
I'm all for the upcoming wave of live-action movie remakes of old cartoons. They're great for nostalgia value and good fun for the adults who grew up on them to take their kids to so that they can wonder why the hell their parents liked crap like this. It's also a great distraction for Hollywood to give to the moviegoers until they can actually come up with something original. I can't wait to see how Hollywood have remade Speed Racer, Tintin and The Jetsons using their own unique adaptations which are still somehow loyal to the original show in some way.
However, I do have some sort of dignity and, although I know I should never judge a movie by its poster, I think I'm going to have to try to avoid the following movie. I think it speaks for itself:
May God have mercy on us all.-C
Sunday, July 08, 2007
ad-libbed.
By Challi
This is the Fisher-Price animal sounds farm.
This is a sticker.
These are TIGHTS!
This is handy!
but yeah, back to the animal sounds farm. To the untrained eye, it's just a crappy fiberglass toy barn with crappy toy animals that make sounds for the kids playing with it to listen to, and even to the trained eye it still probably seems like that. However, according to the ad for this product, it's more than that. Apparently it "gives kids a real feel for working on the farm".
Yes, because clearly all that farmers do is sit around and listen to their animals make noises. Forget about trying to make a profit off of them, they must of only bought their animals so they can listen to them and then go to sleep. Job done, now they can retire because they've listened to their animals make animal noises! Shut up, I was being sarcastic.
What this toy should really have to give kids a feel of life in the farm is to have toy crops and a sunlamp and have the crops be harmed by the suns powerful rays and lack of water so much that they die and be rendered useless so they have to be fed to the livestock. That's right, the toy should be drought-affected! Oh the fun the kids shall have when they learn how it sucks to be a farmer. Either that, or change the product's stupid slogan to something like "It gives kids a real feel of what it's like to play with a fiberglass toy barn that has toy animals in it that make noises" because that's what they're actually doing!
and here's an ad that's been freaking me out, for Coke and Coke Zero:
Ok, that's completely scared me off of Coca Cola for at least a minute. What I'm gathering from this ad is that, as soon as you take one sip of Coke or Coke Zero, you start having a huge uncontrollable epileptic seizure for a whole 4 seconds, which also involves speaking in tongues, saying incomprehensible crap like "Za Zang!". No thanks, Coke, I'll just stick to my red cordial.
-C
This is the Fisher-Price animal sounds farm.This is a sticker.These are TIGHTS!This is handy!but yeah, back to the animal sounds farm. To the untrained eye, it's just a crappy fiberglass toy barn with crappy toy animals that make sounds for the kids playing with it to listen to, and even to the trained eye it still probably seems like that. However, according to the ad for this product, it's more than that. Apparently it "gives kids a real feel for working on the farm".
Yes, because clearly all that farmers do is sit around and listen to their animals make noises. Forget about trying to make a profit off of them, they must of only bought their animals so they can listen to them and then go to sleep. Job done, now they can retire because they've listened to their animals make animal noises! Shut up, I was being sarcastic.
What this toy should really have to give kids a feel of life in the farm is to have toy crops and a sunlamp and have the crops be harmed by the suns powerful rays and lack of water so much that they die and be rendered useless so they have to be fed to the livestock. That's right, the toy should be drought-affected! Oh the fun the kids shall have when they learn how it sucks to be a farmer. Either that, or change the product's stupid slogan to something like "It gives kids a real feel of what it's like to play with a fiberglass toy barn that has toy animals in it that make noises" because that's what they're actually doing!
and here's an ad that's been freaking me out, for Coke and Coke Zero:
Ok, that's completely scared me off of Coca Cola for at least a minute. What I'm gathering from this ad is that, as soon as you take one sip of Coke or Coke Zero, you start having a huge uncontrollable epileptic seizure for a whole 4 seconds, which also involves speaking in tongues, saying incomprehensible crap like "Za Zang!". No thanks, Coke, I'll just stick to my red cordial.
-C
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
donkey-punched.
By Challi
There's been a lot of talk going around that Shrek, the lovable bald green ogre version of John Goodman, should stop being used for advertising junk food, like cheesy bacon balls and Nutella, because, apparently, that would only contribute to the obesity epidemic.
but of course, that's stupid. Kids will eat what their parents give them and usually nothing else, therefore parents are the ones responsible for their children's health. So how freaking stupid must the parents be to assume that some food being represented a clearly obese, ugly, green monster could possibly be good for their kids? Not very stupid at all, actually. Parents are usually smart and they have enough common sense to know that cheesy bacon balls and Nutella are bad for their kids but they'll buy it anyway, ugly ogre or not, because they know it will shut the kids up.
Back to the point of a fat green ogre advertising junk food, it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? He's fat and he's promoting kids to eat stuff that makes them fat, and possibly green. If he was actually promoting food that was good and healthy for kids, it wouldn't actually work.
What really grinds my gears about all this is that all these health organisations and such are basically trying to eliminate the junk food companies' right to promote their product at all. They have a right to advertise as much as everyone else does. How else are they going to make people aware of their junk?So what's the mentality of these health organisations trying to get rid of ads and promotions like these for junk food? Apparently, it's bad for us. No shit! We wouldn't buy it if it wasn't bad for us. Are we now going to get rid of every ad promoting things that are bad for us? Well there goes all the ads for beer, Travel Auction, 4WDs, Optus and any ad for Big Brother, then what the hell's left?
If the people aren't aware of the product, it might as well not exist and will just be sitting on the shelves unbought and label-less. And although that's probably what is preferred by these protesters, you can't take away the right for us already obese people to enjoy such wonderful food as much as we want. We earned it!
So get stuffed!
-C
There's been a lot of talk going around that Shrek, the lovable bald green ogre version of John Goodman, should stop being used for advertising junk food, like cheesy bacon balls and Nutella, because, apparently, that would only contribute to the obesity epidemic.
but of course, that's stupid. Kids will eat what their parents give them and usually nothing else, therefore parents are the ones responsible for their children's health. So how freaking stupid must the parents be to assume that some food being represented a clearly obese, ugly, green monster could possibly be good for their kids? Not very stupid at all, actually. Parents are usually smart and they have enough common sense to know that cheesy bacon balls and Nutella are bad for their kids but they'll buy it anyway, ugly ogre or not, because they know it will shut the kids up.
Back to the point of a fat green ogre advertising junk food, it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? He's fat and he's promoting kids to eat stuff that makes them fat, and possibly green. If he was actually promoting food that was good and healthy for kids, it wouldn't actually work.
What really grinds my gears about all this is that all these health organisations and such are basically trying to eliminate the junk food companies' right to promote their product at all. They have a right to advertise as much as everyone else does. How else are they going to make people aware of their junk?So what's the mentality of these health organisations trying to get rid of ads and promotions like these for junk food? Apparently, it's bad for us. No shit! We wouldn't buy it if it wasn't bad for us. Are we now going to get rid of every ad promoting things that are bad for us? Well there goes all the ads for beer, Travel Auction, 4WDs, Optus and any ad for Big Brother, then what the hell's left?
If the people aren't aware of the product, it might as well not exist and will just be sitting on the shelves unbought and label-less. And although that's probably what is preferred by these protesters, you can't take away the right for us already obese people to enjoy such wonderful food as much as we want. We earned it!
So get stuffed!
-C
Monday, January 22, 2007
blue dodo down.
By Challi
I'm bringing blogging back (yeah), them other n00bs don't know how to act.
Yes, I had a nice half of a summer holiday that involved me getting drunk off my ass at my brother's wedding and watching the worst of daytime TV and overall just avoiding this blog, thanks for asking. However, now I'm back from outer space and you just walked in to find me here with that sad look upon my face. Should you have changed that stupid lock or even made me leave my key if you had known for just one second I'd be back to follow you?
*water splashes on face*
Ok, back to business. Let's start this blogging year with a pointless rant about an annoying ad.
Not only is this ad annoying, it is also immoral and just downright evil. It's bad enough that Dodo Australia has played God by resurrecting an extinct bird and painting it blue in order to sell their services but they also are playing on people's addictions to sell their services too.
In this ad, there are people in a group counselling session ala Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous where they go around the circle and everyone states their name and tells everyone that they have an addiction or dependency. In this case, they are apparently all mobile phone addicts. The first guy stands up and states his name and says he is a mobile phone junkie. The next person is an overtly happy woman who just says "I don't have a problem because my mobile charges are half price!"
Wrong! It's wrong!
If it's an addiction then the idea of getting it cheaper won't stop the addiction, it would only make it worse! That's like going into a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and saying "I don't have a problem with my addiction to crack anymore because I know a place where I can get 10kg of crack for 50 bucks!" How much it costs shouldn't be the problem, it should have something to do with, oh I don't know, how much it can kill you? How much you get addicted to it and ruin your life? Even if the addiction is mobile phones, the radiation poisoning can kill you and you're always paying for it anyway and yeah, it damn well ruins your life! So for ruining everybody's life, Dodo, Derryn Hinch just has this to say to you:
A licky boom boom down
Where's all this water coming from?
Before I stop wasting your time, another ad I hate is that god damn ad for Off! insect repellent. Sure we should be concerned that it's called "Off!" but there's more. In it, there is some family outside going all "I don't think I've got it on but you've got it on well I've got it on let's get it on and something about mosquitos".
Now look, I don't mind American ads on television, but they shouldn't need to dub everyone with Australian accents when we can plainly see that the ad was American to begin with. Australians don't look like that, and if we know they're not Australian then your pathetic attempt to make it seem like it's a product of Australia has failed miserably. This isn't the only ad where they do it either, and it's always painfully obvious when they do. Stop dubbing ads, thanks.
-C
I'm bringing blogging back (yeah), them other n00bs don't know how to act.
Yes, I had a nice half of a summer holiday that involved me getting drunk off my ass at my brother's wedding and watching the worst of daytime TV and overall just avoiding this blog, thanks for asking. However, now I'm back from outer space and you just walked in to find me here with that sad look upon my face. Should you have changed that stupid lock or even made me leave my key if you had known for just one second I'd be back to follow you?
*water splashes on face*
Ok, back to business. Let's start this blogging year with a pointless rant about an annoying ad.
Not only is this ad annoying, it is also immoral and just downright evil. It's bad enough that Dodo Australia has played God by resurrecting an extinct bird and painting it blue in order to sell their services but they also are playing on people's addictions to sell their services too.
In this ad, there are people in a group counselling session ala Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous where they go around the circle and everyone states their name and tells everyone that they have an addiction or dependency. In this case, they are apparently all mobile phone addicts. The first guy stands up and states his name and says he is a mobile phone junkie. The next person is an overtly happy woman who just says "I don't have a problem because my mobile charges are half price!"
Wrong! It's wrong!
If it's an addiction then the idea of getting it cheaper won't stop the addiction, it would only make it worse! That's like going into a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and saying "I don't have a problem with my addiction to crack anymore because I know a place where I can get 10kg of crack for 50 bucks!" How much it costs shouldn't be the problem, it should have something to do with, oh I don't know, how much it can kill you? How much you get addicted to it and ruin your life? Even if the addiction is mobile phones, the radiation poisoning can kill you and you're always paying for it anyway and yeah, it damn well ruins your life! So for ruining everybody's life, Dodo, Derryn Hinch just has this to say to you:
Shame, Shame, Shame
Oh wait, while I still have Derryn Hinch, he also has this to say to you:
Paw-paw because you pour pour the milk, Mango because it makes a man go.
Oh, and this:
A licky boom boom down *Water splashes on face*
Where's all this water coming from?
Before I stop wasting your time, another ad I hate is that god damn ad for Off! insect repellent. Sure we should be concerned that it's called "Off!" but there's more. In it, there is some family outside going all "I don't think I've got it on but you've got it on well I've got it on let's get it on and something about mosquitos".
Now look, I don't mind American ads on television, but they shouldn't need to dub everyone with Australian accents when we can plainly see that the ad was American to begin with. Australians don't look like that, and if we know they're not Australian then your pathetic attempt to make it seem like it's a product of Australia has failed miserably. This isn't the only ad where they do it either, and it's always painfully obvious when they do. Stop dubbing ads, thanks.
-C
Friday, October 13, 2006
the immortality of reality and other verses.
By Challi
You haters can complain all you like about reality television and how there is way too much of it on television and yeah, you'd be right, but reality television is here to stay.
By "here" I mean "on television" and where you are now clearly isn't television so that didn't make sense at all.
What does make sense, however, is that reality TV shows will be screening on our televisions sets for decades to come. They're cheap to produce, meaning maximum profit, and they're extremely popular because they're addictive. In a sense, the producers are capitalising on people's addictions, they're like drug dealers!
This doesn't bother me too much, it's natural, but I still need something to complain about otherwise this will be one boring-ass post. So what does bother me is how the contestants in these kind of shows reckon they have some kind of celebrity status just based on the fact they were on these shows, and it's true, they do. In fact, it has gone to the point where the reality TV contestants have gone on another reality TV show just because they have been on the previous reality TV show and are now considered celebrities so they have given access to the subgenre I have dubbed celebrity reality television (Dancing With The Stars, Celebrity Overhaul, It takes Two, Celebrity Survivor etc.)
Here are the main offenders:
There is a blatant pattern of reality tv show contestants being used as reality TV show contestants again on another show just because of there fame from their first reality TV show. Reality show contestants should be put in the garbage part of the wheelie bin after they're finished with, not the recycle part. But no, apparently if they've been on TV once they are now celebrities. Is Australia so damn short of celebrities for their celebrity reality television that they need to put in a contestant from another reality show and deem them as a celebrity even if they didn't even win the original show?
If it wasn't for The Biggest Loser, Fiona would of just been some fat slob on the bus trying to make her way home that nobody would give a shit about, but now she is a celebrity because she lost weight on TV. If she lost weight in real life she would feel happy about herself but she wouldn't be a celebrity and would never of been considered for Dancing With The Stars.
So what of Sara-Marie? All she did on Big Brother was laze around and show off her big fat ass occasionally and basically be a stupid bitch all the time, and for that reason she is deemed a celebrity? She didn't even win Big Brother, for freaks sake. I could laze around and be a stupid bitch all my life and still wouldn't get the celebrity status she sort of got.
The pattern is clear. If you really want to be a celebrity but don't want to go through the hard work of having to go to acting schools or singing lessons, try to get on Big Brother like Sara Marie did and just be as irritating as you possibly can to insure maximum airtime. Hey Presto, you're a celebrity.
and I am aware that nobody cares about Sara-Marie anymore, but it doesn't change the fact that at a time people did, and that's what pisses me off the most.
-C
You haters can complain all you like about reality television and how there is way too much of it on television and yeah, you'd be right, but reality television is here to stay.
By "here" I mean "on television" and where you are now clearly isn't television so that didn't make sense at all.
What does make sense, however, is that reality TV shows will be screening on our televisions sets for decades to come. They're cheap to produce, meaning maximum profit, and they're extremely popular because they're addictive. In a sense, the producers are capitalising on people's addictions, they're like drug dealers!
This doesn't bother me too much, it's natural, but I still need something to complain about otherwise this will be one boring-ass post. So what does bother me is how the contestants in these kind of shows reckon they have some kind of celebrity status just based on the fact they were on these shows, and it's true, they do. In fact, it has gone to the point where the reality TV contestants have gone on another reality TV show just because they have been on the previous reality TV show and are now considered celebrities so they have given access to the subgenre I have dubbed celebrity reality television (Dancing With The Stars, Celebrity Overhaul, It takes Two, Celebrity Survivor etc.)
Here are the main offenders:
- Paulini from Australian Idol appearing on Celebrity Overhaul
- Guy Sebastian from Australian Idol appearing on It Takes Two
- Fiona from The Biggest Loser appearing on Dancing With The Stars
- Sara-Marie from Big Brother appearing on Celebrity Big Brother.
There is a blatant pattern of reality tv show contestants being used as reality TV show contestants again on another show just because of there fame from their first reality TV show. Reality show contestants should be put in the garbage part of the wheelie bin after they're finished with, not the recycle part. But no, apparently if they've been on TV once they are now celebrities. Is Australia so damn short of celebrities for their celebrity reality television that they need to put in a contestant from another reality show and deem them as a celebrity even if they didn't even win the original show?
If it wasn't for The Biggest Loser, Fiona would of just been some fat slob on the bus trying to make her way home that nobody would give a shit about, but now she is a celebrity because she lost weight on TV. If she lost weight in real life she would feel happy about herself but she wouldn't be a celebrity and would never of been considered for Dancing With The Stars.
So what of Sara-Marie? All she did on Big Brother was laze around and show off her big fat ass occasionally and basically be a stupid bitch all the time, and for that reason she is deemed a celebrity? She didn't even win Big Brother, for freaks sake. I could laze around and be a stupid bitch all my life and still wouldn't get the celebrity status she sort of got.
The pattern is clear. If you really want to be a celebrity but don't want to go through the hard work of having to go to acting schools or singing lessons, try to get on Big Brother like Sara Marie did and just be as irritating as you possibly can to insure maximum airtime. Hey Presto, you're a celebrity.
and I am aware that nobody cares about Sara-Marie anymore, but it doesn't change the fact that at a time people did, and that's what pisses me off the most.
-C
Thursday, October 12, 2006
another day, another dollar... for television.
By PJK
Ok get this. So I'm watching SBS just now (I know why you're smirking and the answer is no), and the show I'm watching cuts to a commercial break. So I think to myself, oh ok, I'll go make myself an espresso. After all, isn't this SBS, the channel for artsy intellectual poseurs and black-scivvied latte-sippers, and...? Whoah, wait a second... a commercial break?! *does double take* I check the channel: it's definately SBS. And yet there I am, in bewilderment, watching an overly-dramatic car ad.
I immidiately leapt onto the computer to check this out (not really, that would probably break the computer, it just sounds dramatic). I asked Google in no uncertain terms: what the fuck is going on? Well, apparently I'm not going insane, it's true; SBS will be running ads throughout their programming now. Why do I get the impression a lot of suburban hippies are going to get very mad? After all, this is supposed to be television's last refuge for the Australian middle class intelligensia (obviously the ABC remains ad-free, but just remember who our Prime Minister has been for the last decade and then compare that to the annual budget of the ABC over that period and you realise we're in big trouble).
I don't mind SBS "selling out" or whatever, I'm not going to go accusing them. I mean, it's not like they didn't already have ads. I just thought it was considerate that they were shown AFTER the programme, so we could change channels or leave the room. Now what? Quality shows/cult-movies will run longer and be less engaging to watch, all for the sake of a buck. For shame.
In other news, apparently North Korea has the bomb or somesuch and there might be a war going on in the Middle East. But I guess we'll never know that, because our most trusted news source SOLD OUT BIG TIME!
Ok get this. So I'm watching SBS just now (I know why you're smirking and the answer is no), and the show I'm watching cuts to a commercial break. So I think to myself, oh ok, I'll go make myself an espresso. After all, isn't this SBS, the channel for artsy intellectual poseurs and black-scivvied latte-sippers, and...? Whoah, wait a second... a commercial break?! *does double take* I check the channel: it's definately SBS. And yet there I am, in bewilderment, watching an overly-dramatic car ad.
I immidiately leapt onto the computer to check this out (not really, that would probably break the computer, it just sounds dramatic). I asked Google in no uncertain terms: what the fuck is going on? Well, apparently I'm not going insane, it's true; SBS will be running ads throughout their programming now. Why do I get the impression a lot of suburban hippies are going to get very mad? After all, this is supposed to be television's last refuge for the Australian middle class intelligensia (obviously the ABC remains ad-free, but just remember who our Prime Minister has been for the last decade and then compare that to the annual budget of the ABC over that period and you realise we're in big trouble).
I don't mind SBS "selling out" or whatever, I'm not going to go accusing them. I mean, it's not like they didn't already have ads. I just thought it was considerate that they were shown AFTER the programme, so we could change channels or leave the room. Now what? Quality shows/cult-movies will run longer and be less engaging to watch, all for the sake of a buck. For shame.
In other news, apparently North Korea has the bomb or somesuch and there might be a war going on in the Middle East. But I guess we'll never know that, because our most trusted news source SOLD OUT BIG TIME!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
