I have to agree although I havn't watched it for a while due to having better things to do lolOriginally Posted by Stewart
I think what I do like about JR is that he seems like/is a genuine enthusiast of film and music. His guests are guests who he actually very much admires and has some decent banter going on with them.
They question that nags at me is, who would you have host Have I got News For You, because I know I'd very much like Angus back.
Friday night show is normally as good as the guests are. If thier good and funny then the show is. But when he has boring people on the show is boring.
Although i feel the situation is blown out of proportion and Ross probobly shouldn't be sacked, it wouldn't be difficult to replace him.
Mabee being the BBC they should be looking at young less expencive host and giving someone a break into TV?
I've no dought if in the future he comes back and i see that he has a guest i've a particular interest in seeing i'll still watch his show.
Actually, it's called choice, or opinion - and we all get both (free of charge). And mine isn't worth more than yours and vice versa
I don't really mind JR's chat show - he's a bit fauning to say the least but it's generally amusing and it's not as though there's a great deal of competition for it anyway. That said, i don't exactly kick myself if I miss it either..
Crosshair VIII Hero (WIFI), 3900x, 32GB DDR4, Many SSDs, EVGA FTW3 3090, Ethoo 719
Can we stop characterising members (especially in a way to put them down) who either like or don't like Brand or Ross.
Humour, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some people find these two funny, and some don't. All that proves is that we have different senses of humour.
Personally, I don't find Brand all that funny. Though, I have to say, when he's not doing his silly act, and actually talks properly (as he did on Ross' show a few months back), he's MUCH funnier, IMHO. But that is IMHO.
As for Ross, I don't find him funny either. Oh, sometimes mildly amusing. I watch his show from time to time because (and if) I'm interested in what his guests have to say. But in that regards, Parkinson was a FAR better show. Why? Because Parky had the habit of letting his guests do most of the talking, and just guiding it and prompting it when it slowed down. Ross, on the other hand, seems to spend his time competing with his guests, many of whom struggle to get a word in edgeways and appear only to be there as a foil for what Ross clearly regards as his rapier-like wit. Personally, I reckon he's short of the mark in that by a "t".
But, as has been said, many people like it. Me, I've seen it all before. He's been doing the same thing for years, relying on vulgarity, cheap point-scoring and varying degrees of offensiveness and calling it "cutting edge" comedy. There's nothing cutting edge about it when he's been milking the same haggard old goat for years.
Of course, in both cases, what we see is the public persona. Is Brand quite the gormless muppet he portrays? Dunno, never having met the bloke ..... but I rather doubt it. However, that "gormless muppet" act has clearly made him very successful.
So, they're both very successful and, at least in Ross' case, offensively overpaid. And good luck to them both. They've found a niche and are milking it.
So, if either want to appear on TV and TV stations want to put them on, fine. Do so. If people want to watch them because they find them funny, again, fine, let them do so. I have a problem with Ross being paid what he is from licence-fee money, but that's not because I think he's an egotistic, dreary once-trick-pony, it's because I object to ANY, and I mean absolutely ANY performer being paid that by the BBC.
The BBC licence isn't quite a tax, as it's voluntary in the sense that we don't have to have a TV. But it's a technical distinction and the licence fee is, in all but that technicality a tax, and in my view, it is utterly unjustified to pay anyone that sort of sum out of what is effectively a tax.
So, as far as I'm concerned, Ross is an overpaid, barely amusing one-trick-pony that didn't ought to be on the BBC at that sort of cost. The BBC is supposed to provide public service broadcasting, not to pander to that sort of salary demand. If we wants to work for sensible figures on the BBC, fine. If not, the BBC ought to let him go to commercial stations.
But all of that is largely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which was the ridiculous and offensive stunt these two idiots pulled .... and they're idiots precisely because of what they did, supposedly in the name of comedy.
If you're going to be out there on the cutting edge of comedy, then you have legal, contractual and ethical responsibilities. Exploring the bounds of comedy is fine, and nobody should sensibly want to restrain that, provided it's done legally and responsibly. But Ross seems to use vulgarity not because it's funny, but because it's become some kind of trademark. The same can be said of others, including a couple of TV chefs. Years ago, using certain words on TV was shocking ... and to many, offensive. And that's why people did it. The first to do it got taken off air. Then it was slowly allowed, on rare occasions, and then it was allowed when it was particularly relevant to the context, say in a drama. Then, you wind up with shows like Jamie Oliver's recent Rotherham experiment where he was very toilet-mouthed. And, in that latter case, exactly what did it achieve? What context did it support? Why was it necessary? How did it add ANYTHING to the show or the objectives of his experiment?
It didn't. All it did was to prove that such vulgarity starts out as "cutting edge", and ends up as commonplace and, because it's commonplace, meaningless.
Or rather, it's meaningless except in one very important way. When "stars" like Oliver, Ross and others use that kind of language as a matter of course on TV, all it does it perpetuate it in society and we end up with slowly degrading standards ... as indeed, we have. I certainly don't blame Jamie Oliver for declining standards in that regards, though. Instead, I think he's typifies the result of those standards declining, not the cause. And kids don't need him using that sort of language as it's thoroughly commonplace anyway. But it's commonplace because of declining standards.
And that is why broadcasters have standards to which they must comply. Some of those standards are set by broadcasters internally, and from what so many BBC execs have no said, Ross and Brand went WAY beyond those standards. They we're tiptoeing over the line, they blew straight threw it and went miles past it.
And if that sort of decline in standard starts setting the standard, what does it say for what will become acceptable in the future. So they were wrong that they ignored their contractual obligations, as per BBC standards.
Next, there's Ofcom. Ofcom also sets broadcasting standards which ALL broadcasters have to comply with. It seems to me, having read them, that this went way past Ofcom standards too and, presumably, that's why (or at least, part of why) Ofcom are investigating.
Then there's at least three laws I can think of that this stunt would appear to either break, or at least, appear to be at risk of breaking. Only a court can decide if they did, but it certainly looks like it to me. Those laws are the Telecommunications Act, the Protection from Harassment Act (both of which are criminal issues), and the right to privacy elements of the Human Rights Act.
For instance, in that latter, there is a carefully constructed balance between the individual's right to privacy and various justifications for broaching that in either broadcast or print, if there is adequate justifying cause. And I can't see how Brand, in broadcasting what he did, can in any sense claim justification for what he said, and broadcast.
Will either of them end up in court? I doubt it. But the mere fact that it's a possibility shows just how much regard they took either to broadcasting standards, their own contracts or the law. For that reason, both ought to have been fired. Not suspended, and then allowed to resume your incredibly cushy contract, and not to resign. Fired. And, though I don't find either of them any more than mildly amusing, and normally, not even that, it isn't (IMHO) about whether they're funny or not, or about whether this stunt was funny - it's about the offensiveness of it and the breach of standards. As public figures and broadcasters, you owe a duty, a responsibility, and these two ignored the hell out of it.
Blitzen (31-10-2008)
and for this reason they should be sacked instead of a tap on the back of the wrist
and i dont like Heartbeat or Songs of Praise eitherCan we stop characterising members (especially in a way to put them down) who either like or don't like Brand or Ross. Humour, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder
but.........Murder She Worte is the best thing EVER on TV
Seen what they have put on this week in place of Wossy? Speed.
That crap film from the 90s about a bus, with Keanu thingy and the fit one.
Booo!
Oi sunshine. It's a bit rich you moaning about the thread being spammed and then you go talking about that crap film.
No mate, that film is on in place of Friday Night With Wossy, so its got something to do with this issue - the BBC seem to think you can replace a chat show that 4m people watch with a dodgy film from the 1990s.
This is in no way the same as the inane, childish nonsense you were spaming the thread with yesterday.
All clear and understood?
Good man.
Which was deliberately comparable to the style of 'humour' a la Ross/Brand. And guess who bit? That's how others feel when listening to the overpaid, self indulgent fop.
Don't listen to him then.
Do you see?
I pay his wages. He owes me entertainment.
I completely concur with your critical opinion of speed. It is, however, a step in the right direction.
Tyipcal BBC. Try to do the 'right on' thing, and kick Ross out for 12 weeks - then completely fail to fill that slot with a suitable replacement.
Say what you like about Wossy, its a high profile show, all the big Hollywood names come on, 4m viewers, etc. Speed is not a decent replacement.
What are they planing to do, show 12 crap films from the 90s every Friday night for 12 weeks?
How about snooker instead?Tyipcal BBC. Try to do the 'right on' thing, and kick Ross out for 12 weeks - then completely fail to fill that slot with a suitable replacement.
Say what you like about Wossy, its a high profile show, all the big Hollywood names come on, 4m viewers, etc. Speed is not a decent replacement.
What are they planing to do, show 12 crap films from the 90s every Friday night for 12 weeks?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
A signature? Oh... Okay...