Rove Is Not Funny (And other Australian TV observations)

Commonwealth Games, Part II

2006-03-21T19:49:00.000+11:00

Ok, I cannot claim credit for this at all. A friend of mine saw this at a forum on another website. But it was so appropriate, and so simply brilliant, I couldn't resist. Here goes:

The best description for the Commonwealth Games is ............ Golden Shower.

I expect this to be used in a newspaper headline asap.

I. Hate. The. Commonwealth. Games.

2006-03-16T20:15:00.000+11:00

Why the hell are we supposed to care about the Commonwealth Games? Seriously. It's a stupid competition between Australia and a bunch of impoverished African countries. Whoop-dee-do. Even considering that, I might have been vaguely interested had Channel Nine not promoted the hell out of it for the past month. For example, I was unfortunate enough to catch a few minutes of the Today show last week and they had an interview with the postman who delivers letters to the athletes. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT (besides the fact that it allows Nine to reiterate for the umpteenth time that it is showing the Games)?!?! WHY SHOULD I GIVE A SHIT?!?

Speaking of unfortunate, I also saw about 3 minutes of the opening ceremony last night. Looks like they ripped off the 2000 olympics, substituting Nikki Webster for some young boy who is going to get the crap beaten out of him for the next few years.

Rove pwned by Harrison Ford

2006-02-22T19:08:00.000+11:00

Anyone who had the misfortune of watching Rove Live last night would have seen what was, oddly, the best and worst interview of Rove's career. The best because it made Rove look like the D grade shmuck he is and was thus hilariously funny, and the worst because it was so uncomfortable.

Some highlights:

Rove asks Ford about the mile high club, Ford grumbles something, and then Rove goes "high-five Harrison Ford" and sticks his hand up in the air. Ford gives him this dirty look, looks at the crowd like "who the fuck is this idiot?", and Rove literally shrinks into seat.
Rove asks Ford about his involvement in rescues with his helicopter. Rove then poses the dumbest question imaginable: "Were you actually there when the people were rescued?" Ford dryly replied that "No, I was in my trailer", and then gives the audience the aforementioned "who the fuck is this idiot" look.
Not peturbed, Rove continues the above line of questioning and asks Ford if the people being rescued were shocked to see Harrison Ford there. Ford responded with "they were happy to be rescued, they didn't give a rat's ass who did it." Perfect answer to a completely idiotic question.

Poetry in motion, folks.

Email me a comment!: stinrab@hotmail.com

No celebrities here

2006-02-17T10:02:00.000+11:00

Remember a few years back when Australia's version of the Jerry Springer Show - A Current Affair - aired the story about the Paxtons, a trio of "dole bludgers" who were ripping off "our tax dollars"? Remember the follow-up story, where the Paxton's were offered jobs at an exclusive resort but turned them down? Not only did this help create a precedent in the programming of current affairs programming - the "more dole bludgers and whitetrash, more often" philosophy - it also led to a curious decision by Channel 7. Y'see, Channel 7 news then employed one of the Paxton brothers. As their weatherman/roving reporter.

Now, there is a bit of a problem with this. As far as I know, Mr Paxton did not and does not have a degree in journalism, meteorology, or any talent. He did not earn his right to be on television. How many qualified people were passed over to give Paxton the job? Too many. This in itself started another precedent, whereby mimbos were given highly paid positions at the expense of qualified professionals - the "more Tim Bailey's and Grant Denyer's, and less people you don't want to punch" philosophy. But more on that another day.

By employing Paxton, Channel 7 had made clear that it would attempt to create a TV personality/celebrity out of anyone. Paxton's career at 7 may now be long over, but Channel 7 has continued with this philosophy. The most recent example is - of course - Simone Warne.

I have nothing against "Mrs" Warne but please tell me why she is qualified to work at Channel 7 as one of their talents? And why is she a contestant on the next pissweak installment of Dancing with the Stars? Her only talent, as far as I can see, was putting up with Warney's excuses for so long and then making some money out of it with a book deal.

Have we really run out of worthy people in this country, so much so that we're currently scraping the bottom of the barrel?

Comments? Email me at stinrab@hotmail.com

More on Rove's season premiere

2006-02-16T10:34:00.000+11:00

For those brave souls that can actually make it through an episode of Rove Live, Casey, a reader of this blog, has suggested the following:

It would be interesting to keep a tally of how many times he says "I don't what I'm doing" after an awkward pause, or any similar kind of comments. And maybe how many times Peter Helliar laughs in the middle of his own jokes?

If you are not brave enough to actually sit through an entire episode, I suggest that you create a drinking game along the same lines. You'll be absolutely wasted within 5 minutes and won't remember a thing after that. Oh happy day!

Quick Question

2006-02-15T13:00:00.000+11:00

Why does Rove's new set look like the inside of a Pimp's House? He's even got his own bitches escorting to him to the stage at the start of the program.

Email me a comment: stinrab@hotmail.com

Australian celebrity lookalikes #1

2006-02-08T13:46:00.000+11:00

Spot the difference.

Ok, it's a bit difficult. I'll give you a hint: one is not a real person, the other is from Star Wars.

Cure for insomnia

2006-02-08T11:41:00.000+11:00

Have you ever wanted to stay up all night, doing nothing but watch TV? Me neither. Apparently Channel 10 agrees, scheduling some absolutely painful programming in the wee hours. It's clear that Channel 10 wants us to close our eyes and pray for sleep. Or wants us to slit our wrists.

One particular piece of programming needs to be talked about and I'm dedicating this post to it. This show is so mindnumbingly stupid and dull that it makes The Hothouse, The X-Factor and that stupid show about building a resort on an island look brilliant by comparison. That show of course is the cleverly titled Up Late Game Show. It's hosted by Simon Deering, better known to Australian TV audiences as "Hot Dogs" and to women Australia over as "the guy who didn't return my calls."

Is that... hairgel?

To be honest, Hot Dogs is not that bad a host. He's kinda charming in a used car salesman sort of way and manages to keep the show "moving" for its 90 minute duration. That said, I think the way Hot Dogs presents himself on this show is somewhat fake. For example, the fact that he has yet to urinate on the Up Late set indicates we are not seeing the real Hot Dogs.

For those who have yet to see this show (all 19.99 million of you), the format is quite simple: Hot Dogs shows the audience a puzzle, people phone in and guess the answer, and if they are correct they earn some extra cash on a bonus board. You'd think a show like this would go pretty fast, right? You'd be wrong. Deaaaad wrong. And this is one of the many reasons this shows sucks the big one.

On average, in its 90 minute run time, the show goes through about four puzzles and takes less than 20 phone calls. It's painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted viewer that the switchboard at Channel 10 is hardly alive with calls. As a consequence, 95% of the show is Hot Dogs shitting on about his day and about how tricky/easy the puzzles are. Unfortunately, I am not exaggerating.

Last night was a great example of how horrid this show is. The show started with a simple word jumble. You had to figure out what word the letters "VES TIG ATE IN" make. The phone number flashed on the screen next to Hot Dogs' head and I instinctively reached for the phone to vote Hot Dogs out of the house. Unfortunately, it is not that type of show and he is there to stay.

It should be noted that, due to a time delay, viewers from WA, SA and NT cannot participate in puzzles such as these. I really feel sorry for anyone watching in those states and that territory. At least those of us on the East Coast can justify watching the show on the basis that we can earn some money. They cannot. If they are watching the show, it means they are watching it for the entertainment value and that their lives are really in the toilet.

After about 15 minutes of Hot Dogs wacking on about something or the other, he finally goes to a caller. The first caller, unsurprisingly, solves the puzzle and gets to play the bonus board. Now, it should be noted that this caller, like a lot of other contestants on this show, is completely insane - he's either drunk, drugged up, inbred, or a combination of the three. He's so out of his mind that he can barely comprehend the fact that he won, let alone understand how the bonus board works. Hot Dogs explains that, to win on the bonus board, you have to guess whether the next number is higher or lower than the one previous. The numbers go from 1 through to 5. The first number on the board is a 1. The contestant guesses "lower". Surprisingly, he lost.

On the whole, however, while the contestant lost a lot of his dignity, I lost a lot of my brain cells by watching the show. On the up side, I saw an unintentionally hilarious phone sex line commercial which featured 50 year old skags who had overdosed on collagen and silicon. It was still no consolation for missing sleep.

Misc. stuff

2006-02-08T10:17:00.000+11:00

After a busy few months, I am back, ready to inanely talk about shit no one cares about. It's certainly been a long time since I posted. To give you some idea of how long it's been, the last time I posted Simone Warne wasn't a celebrity, Michelle Leslie was still a Muslim, and "Hot Dogs" was simply what we called rancid rat meat in a bun.

Before I get back into it, I have to mention a couple of administrative matters. First, I have disabled the 'comments' feature since, as many of you may have noticed, it was getting filled with spam. Apparently some numbnuts thought the comment section of an obscure blog would be a good place to sell their herbal viagra and dick extenders. Consequently, if you wish to comment on posts from now on, please email me (stinrab@hotmail.com). I'll even post your comments on the blog if I think they are interesting enough - or if I'm in the mood.

Second, I'd like to thank those of you who emailed me during my off-time. I really appreciate feedback of any kind. It's what keeps bringing me back to post.

Poor form

2005-07-08T13:26:00.000+10:00

Well, I guess we all know now that there has been a series of substantial terror attacks in London. A horrible event and my sympathies go out to all concerned.

As per usual, the news coverage of this event here in Australia has been absolute crap. Credit must be given, though, to Channels 7 and 9, as well as the ABC and SBS, for presenting a live feed of the events as they unfolded. However, why this feed had to be interrupted by a cricket match and the usual cross-dressing shenanigans of the Footy Show on Channels 7 and 9 respectively is beyond me. Surely an attack on one of Australia's closest allies is much more important.

Even worse, though, was Channel 10's "coverage". Now, regular readers of this blog (both of you) know that I'm no fan of the nightly comedy hour Channel 10 disguises as news, but their "reaction" to the events in London was even more pathetic than usual. For starters, while all the other networks were showing a live feed, Channel 10 continued with its ENCORE screening (ie: we'll repeat this shit until you like it, bitch!) of it's latest overadverised crapfest, House. Now, I may be biased because that fucking Thirsty Merc song they play in every ad for this show has made me wish it a fate similar to Let Loose Live, but is a repeat of some crappy show really a more pressing issue than a terrorist attack?

Next, when the Channel 10 "special" news bulletin on the attacks eventually began at 10.30, I realised why they should never be allowed to cover tragic events. I saw about five minutes of it and was wishing they put House back on. True to form, Channel 10 spent most of its time interviewing any London-based Australian they could find, sticking to their belief that we can't sympathise if only non-Australians are effected, and asking extremely insightful questions ("Is everyone there in a state of shock?").

I hate Channel 10.

Thin Ice indeed

2005-06-23T00:05:00.000+10:00

Hot off the success of high quality programming such as Celebrity Circus and that celebrity weightloss crapfest, Channel 9 has decided that, hey, lets do one more celebrity-based reality show. The premise this time? Celebrities on ice! That's right, ice. I'm going to avoid lame jokes about Walt Disney here and just cut right to the point: This is the most fucking lame idea for a television program I have ever heard.

What's more, it is just another rip-off of Dancing with the Stars (oh wait, it can't be a rip-off.... it's on ice! That's completely different!!!1!1!one). Of course, it is debatable whether you can actually "rip-off" something which is complete shit to begin with, but the central idea of these programs is always exactly the same: long-forgotten celebrities looking like complete tools in a misguided attempt at a comeback. Thin Ice certainly looks like it will follow this trend as the "celebrity" contestants revealed so far are people I thought were already dead: the poor man's Ray Romano Vince Sorrenti (or is Ray Romano the poor man's Vince Sorrenti?), chick-with-a-dick Kim Kilbey (who has taken a break from filming the future classic, and cleverly titled, Mobile Home Disaster), and Reggie Bird (the other famous dumbass who owns a fish and chips shop).

Such plagarism is obviously to be expected in the television industry, but I think the wankers who run the networks here in Australia take it to extremes. Off the top of my head, here are some other examples where one network has blatantly copied from the other:

Backyard Blitz and Ground Force: Channel 9 came out with the former, Channel 7 with the latter. Both are shit, every episode is usually the same (generally involving a "special" family too lazy to mow their back lawn), yet people watch them in huge numbers.

Popstars Live and Starstruck and Australian Idol: Same basic premise - idiotic viewers waste money by smsing their favourite (see: least annoying) singer. Winner of each contest then spends rest of the year visiting malls and appearing on posters in the bedrooms of 10 year girls (or, in Anthony Callea's case, the walls of 32 year old men and assorted Long Bay residents)

Room for Improvement and Changing Rooms: as above, exactly the same. Only difference here was that the former did not feature Susie Wilks' rack. For shame.

A Current Affair and Today Tonight: No real comment needed here. Both are hard hitting news programs with journalists of the highest calibre. The news stories are relevant, topical, and are rarely about miracle diets, heartless bureaucrats, or petty disputes between bogan neighbours. What's more, neither program ever stoops to advertising other programs on their network. Two thumbs up!

Great Outdoors and Getaway: Both takes you places you will never visit. One flaunts Jennifer Hawkins, the other Catriona Rowntree's increasingly disturbing bust.

Rove Live and Hey Dad!

Priorities

2005-06-18T23:04:00.000+10:00

So, I guess we all heard the earth-shattering, heart pounding, absolutely astonishing headline news today? Fricking Tom Cruise and his daughter, er, Katie Holmes are going to marry in an effort to promote their upcoming releases. Who cares? As if seeing Cruise destroy his career on Oprah wasn't bad enough, we now have to stomach the idea that this PR stunt is news-worthy?!?

Channel 10, as per usual, is the worst offender, placing this piece of shit as one of the first stories in its "news" bulletin today. Though, to be fair, the stories which followed it were actually even more pathetic: a tiger with a toothache, the link between mobile phones and a person's personality (for example, if you have anything "Jamster" related on your mobile this indicates that you are a fucking idiot and should not be trusted with money), and a baby elephant in Germany getting Thai citizenship. Seriously. If this is how they try to pad out a 30 minute weekend edition, I'm glad I haven't sat through the hour-long version on the weekdays for a while. Thank God their news is unintentionally hilarious, leaving gems like Let Loose Live for dead.

So, while this crap is being portrayed as news, what actual news are we, the viewing public, actually missing? Well, after a very brief surf of the net, here's a taste:

Taliban rebels take Afghan cops hostage

EU budget block, faces a profound crisis

US-Iraqi offensive against insurgents kills 50 rebels

Guinea risks becoming failed state

North Korea hints at return to international talks

Al Qaeda's #2 criticises US foreign policy, encourages armed jihad

If this continues, we're going to move away from being the lucky country. Instead, we'll be the ignorant, dumbass country.

The problem with Big Brother

2005-06-16T11:45:00.000+10:00

Some say that the problem with Big Brother is that the contestants are all dipshits and attention whores. Others just find the hostess annoying (and let's face it, she is; there's nothing worse than a fossil who thinks she is twenty-five). In reality, I believe that the biggest problem with Big Brother is that it just shows way too much wang. Anyone who has been misfortunate enough to sit through more than five minutes of Uncut knows that it is just a sausage fest. Why Channel 10 thought this would rate well is beyond me as I doubt many males (or indeed females) would like to watch an hour-long program filled with full-frontal images of penises.

It should come as no surprise that BB's ratings are dwindling. Blame the wang, Channel 10, blame the wang.

Just tell me the news

2005-06-13T19:28:00.000+10:00

Am I the only one weirded out by the way commercial TV is "selling", er, "presenting" the news to us? This is obviously not a recent phenomenon but it has become so blatant in the last few years that it's disturbing.

Firstly, is anyone else a little creeped out by the fact that the news presenters are being socialised with? In particular, I'm thinking about the thought-provoking, intelligent television that is Sunrise and Today. On these sorry excuses for TV programming, the hosts frequently chat to the news presenter in-between the news bulletins, gossiping about the most inane, pointless things imaginable. This is annoying enough, but the fact that the news presenter, only minutes later, reports to us in the news bulletin information about foreign wars, tragic deaths and natural disasters is a little jarring. You can't go from talking about something stupid like diapers to the latest casualties in the Iraq. It just does not work. It desensitizes us to important events and weakens our priorities.

Natalie Marr on Sunrise is the biggest offender here as she seems to spend most of her time trying desperately to show Australia that she actually has a personality and is interesting. Unfortunately, she fails on both counts and just comes off as a pain in the ass. The fact that she then goes on to report the news is beyond irritating.

Secondly, the overuse of emotive and descriptive language in news reporting. Channel 10 is the worst offender in this respect, with Ron Wilson and the increasingly emaciated Jessica Rowe seeming to always describe everything as either a "tragedy" or "controversial." We all know when something is horrific, tragic or scandalous, you do not need to spell it for us. We are not as stupid as the person who writes your auto-cue.

Thirdly, and finally, entertainment news is hardly news at all. If it needs to be told, tell it at the end of the bulletin where the fluff usually goes. Nicole Kidman's new movie is not more important than the events in world politics so it should not be put before it in any newscasts. Channel 10 should particularly take note here since Entertainment Tonight currently features more actual news in its 30 minutes than all of the Channel 10 bulletins combined.

"Celebrating all that is excellent, and some which is excrement, in Australian television"

2005-05-01T22:46:00.000+10:00

Some Logie "highlights":

Nothing beats awkward banter. Example: Claudia Karvan and the international guest. The silence in the crowd said it all.
The Logie for most ignored international guest: Mario. Also won the Logie for the artist most likely to be forgotten by the end of the year
The Neighbours production number. No words, just laughter. Unintentional laughter.
The annoying guy backstage who seemed to predominantly interview only those from Channel 9 programs.
The Anthony Calliea tsunami musical montage. Hopefully symbolic of the rest of his career: a disaster.
The Logie for least convincing performance as a heterosexual: Ian Thorpe.
Did Garnier sponsor this night of event bigness? I hardly noticed the subtle advertising. By the way, I am also blind and stupid.
Rove, as per usual, was not funny. But Andrew O'Keefe (Logie winner for the most fake laugh on Australian television) was worse.

Get a dictionary, plz

2005-04-14T22:08:00.000+10:00

Hello, I'm back. I've been busy with my Honours year so haven't had much time for anything, let alone this blog. Nevertheless, there are some things that just annoy me so much I just have to make time to bitch about it.

Channel 10. I hate it. You hate it. It's shamelessly mediocre programming at best. It makes Channel 7 and 9 look tasteful and the Pinko propaganda of teh ABC and SBS inviting. But today, boys and girls, I'm not talking about their crappy shows, I'm discussing their crappy promotion for their crappy shows.

One beef in particular: the use of the word "controversial".

Seriously, this is a plea to the monkeys who run network 10. For God's sake, look up the word "controversial" in the dictionary. C'mon. I challenge you. Heck, I'll do it for you using the always reliable internet:

con-tro-ver-sial: adj : marked by or capable of arousing controversy; "the issue of the death penalty is highly controversial"; "Rushdie's controversial book"; "a controversial decision on affirmative action"

Now, please note that the following were not listed as examples of controversy: American Idol, Australian Idol, the X Factor, the OC, Neighbours, Big Brother, Law & Order: Every Friggin' Unit, and Scooter: Secret Agent. Also not considered controversial under this definition is lesbianism or comments about clothes. As well, you will notice, the definition is not:

con-tro-ver-sial: adj : way to get cheap ratings.

Understand? Good. Now stop using it in the promotion of all your shows.

More annoying than Rove

2005-02-17T18:39:00.000+11:00

If there is one thing more annoying on Australian television than Rove, it would be Corrine Grant. However, if there was another thing that was more annoying, it would have to be that bloody Mt Franklin Spring Water commercial.

Is there anyone out there who hasn't seen this commercial? It'd be next to impossible, since they play it every second ad break.

The ad begins with an attractive woman standing in a line for what could only be a lobotomy. A dream sequence starts where she imagines the queue is a conga line. Some of the most annoying music ever composed plays obnoxiously in the background. The dream sequence ends and it is revealed that there is no conga line and the woman is just dancing by herself, looking like a complete moron. Yes, hilarious. Especially after seeing it for the 93rd time. Today.

The tagline for the Spring Water is equally stupid: "Makes you feel good." How about a little honesty, huh? I think "Yeah, it's just tap water" would be a more responsible motto.

Tell me I'm not alone in my hatred for this ad?

Enjoy it while it lasts

2005-02-12T17:24:00.000+11:00

It won't last. You know it, I know it, Sci-Fi nuts know it. There is absolutely, positively, no friggin' way that Battlestar Galactica TV series will stay in the primetime slots the mini-series is currently enjoying. No way. Primetime is, afterall, reserved only for major sporting events, crappy US sitcoms, bland and interchangeable lifestyle programs, and specials hosted by Eddie Maguire.

Now, please don't take me as some sort of Sci-Fi fanatic. Aside from Star Wars and the Alien films (Alien vs Predator doesn't count), I generally don't follow science fiction. Sci-Fi TV shows, in particular, have never really maintained my interest for too long a period. But I appreciate that there is an audience out there for these types of programs, populated by both hardcore sci-fi fans and casual fans such as myself.

The fact remains, however, that mainstream Australian TV stations rarely give these shows the chance to build an audience (Foxtel is excluded, though sci-fi on cable is usually placed at inappropriate times). The history is not good:

The X-Files: Initially given a chance to thrive, the X-Files definitely built a following in Australia that was maintained for a number of years. However, Channel 10 eventually moved the show away from the slot in which it was best performing (Wednesday 8.30, right after The Simpsons), confusing the audience. Though the audience numbers probably would eventually dwindle due to the fact that episodes were getting further and further away from the original premise, the show was still, for the most part, better than most of the crap on television at the time (when was the last time anyone ever had a water cooler conversation over Suddenly Susan anyway?). In the show's final years, Channel 10 really just gave up, showing the program in two hour blocks on a Saturday night (y'know, when no one is friggin' home?), and then cutting it halfway through the season. They eventually showed the series finale in prime time but everyone had missed so many episodes that it was hardly worth watching.
Star Trek: Now, this show, to me, is as boring as batshit. Ok, I find batshit a bit more exciting because it comes from a bat, and bats are cool. Nevertheless, Trek is a popular series and a cultural phenomenon in its own right. What respect is this show and any of its offspring given in mainstream TV? 12.30 on a Tuesday night. To put this in perspective, Channel 9's karoake crapfest, Starstruck (the show where Doug Mulray continues his slide into unfunny blandness, and Vanessa Amarosi, who hasn't had a hit since before the Sydney Olympics, dispenses career advice), is put on in primetime a full FIVE hours beforehand on the same Channel. And Rove[Die] is on THREE hours before it on another Channel. Now neither Rove nor Doug Mulray are cultural phenomenons nor more exciting than the more-boring-than-batshit Trek, yet they are treated with some measure of respect. Why is this?
Farscape: Now, in my opinion, this show was pretty ordinary. Everything looked like it was filmed on a Fox Studios set (which, funnily enough, it was), and the special effects still had a long way to go. But I was still willing to give it a chance since it was rather popular in the US and it was different to everything else screening in primetime. True to form, however, Channel 9 didn't give it a chance and it was dumped (in non-ratings period too, if I remember correctly... an even bigger insult, since ratings aren't as important and the program was most likely replaced by King of Queens).

With these in mind, I have little faith that Battlestar will be given a fair go. To be fair, Channel 10 has a better track record when it comes to these kinds of show (afterall, it did give X-Files a chance for a while). Heck, it even continues to play shows in primetime no matter how badly they are performing (take The Hothouse for example: a show whose ratings made Echo Point look like a sensation). However, despite the fact that, from all reports, the show is actually pretty damn good and improves as the season develops, do not be surprised when Channel 10 begins slotting the show into progressively later and later timeslots before it disappears completely.

Memo to Rove

2005-02-08T22:49:00.000+11:00

Yelling your opening monologue does not make your lame jokes any funnier. In fact, it just makes you look even more desperate for a laugh.
Having Australia's unfunniest skrag, Corrine Grant, as your first guest for the year does not set a good standard.
Do not attempt sketch comedy. Skithouse tried and failed dismally. Your "mini-me" sketch was beyond pathetic.
Asking your guests cringe-worthy questions (such as, to Goldeneye's Famke Jansen, "Do you get to choose your character's name?".... Really. What the fuck kind of shitty question is that?) is embarassing. When it is an international guest, it's even more shameful.
When the most amusing part of your show is people flicking their lights on and off, you should realise there is a problem.

The recipe is correct, next dish served

2005-02-08T19:12:00.000+11:00

Seems my post here is proving even more correct. A night or so ago, a group of young hoons were caught drag-racing by police. Some of the knuckleheads involved then proceeded to assault the police. Of course, the media got some footage of the assault and played it as their top story the entire day. Now, remember the recipe I came up with in that previous post? For those to lazy to click the link, the recipe needed to get anything done in this country is the following:

something horrific to happen
the horrific event recorded on video
said video distributed to media and played ad nauseum

Well, with the assault caught on video, you'd never guess what NSW Premier Bob Carr was prattling on about today. That's right, you guessed it: increased sentences for young hoons. God forbid lawmakers quit being reactive and be proactive for a change.

Channel 7 continues its overkill

2005-02-03T21:34:00.000+11:00

Sure didn't take Channel 7 long to capitalise on its new "golden couple" of Lleyton Hewitt and Bec Cartwright. "Golden couple" is, of course, defined as two people who will be splashed on the front of every newspaper and tabloid until everyone gets completely sick of them and the couple inevitably break-up, their careers thankfully in ruin. Channel 7 has helped jumpstart this cycle of events.

Although every Channel has featured stories about Lleyton and Bec's engagement (complete with hilariously witty remarks like "It's LOVE all" and "LOVE match"), only Channel 7 actually features Ms Cartwright as a star on one of its TV shows. To the brainless boffins at Channel 7, this is an absolute goldmine; with Bec and Lleyton splashed on all the news programs and mentioned everywhere, everyone wants to see more, more, more! People will never get tired of them! With this in mind, Channel 7 has begun promoting Home & Away with the focus being on Bec Cartwright even moreso than usual. The latest ad features Bec heavily, and ends with the voiceover "BEC CARTWRIGHT stars in Home & Away". Now, a couple of things:

She has starred on this shitty show for about five years already. Her acting has not improved and so the fact that she is now bonking Lleyton Hewitt does not mean her "performance" should be given special attention. Her acting is no better or worse than the other shithouse actors on the show; Home & Away is, afterall, just Neighbours with good looking people
Since when does Home & Away's advertising focus on its cast members? I don't recall a "Dieter Brummer stars in Home & Away" promotion (then again, I doubt many people can recall Dieter Brummer). If anything, Channel 7 should be diverting attention away from their shitty actors and their piss-poor acting.

So, Channel 7, please stop now. Stop assuming that everyone is as fascinated with the engagement news as your publicity department is. Australia does not care what Australian celebrities do in their personal lives. We do not base our viewing preferences on said personal lives. Please get over it.

Australian TV commercials go samurai!

2005-02-02T18:51:00.000+11:00

Has happened in the past, will no doubt happen again in the future, but let's hope that they actually try and do it a better better next time. What I'm referring to is the continued habit of dubbing Australian accents over American commercials. Why this needs to be done is beyond me; listening to the voice of some bogan chick is not going to inspire me to buy the product advertised anymore than hearing an American drawl. Listening to an American voice is certainly no more offensive than those bloody stupid ads selling love poems, dating tips, and penis origami via SMS. But anyway, for those looking for an extremely blatant version of this phenomena (Australian dubbing, not penis puppetry), look no further than the advertisements for that Iron Free spray thing (the product where you spray stuff on your clothes and it possibly removes wrinkles but definitely wastes your money).

Anyone else noticed any other poor dubbing of late?

It's criminal

2005-02-02T18:30:00.000+11:00

Channel 7 just ran a story on this upcoming court case where two fellows were caught taking photos of topless women at Coogee Beach with their mobile phones. This case is almost identical to a similar one last year (also mentioned in the linked article). Of course, though it's interesting enough that these guys were arrested for taking pictures of what everyone else on the beach was already seeing, the Channel 7 report itself struck me as rather odd. Y'see, in padding out the story with images of the beach, the Channel 7 camera crew was filming topless women. The only difference between the Channel 7 crew and the two defendants in the court case was that one was using a video camera and the other a mobile phone.

Add this to the Channel 7 news' usual crimes (stupidity, populist reporting, Ian Ross as presenter) and the question must be asked; can we charge them already?

Channel 7 continues to suck

2005-01-31T20:38:00.000+11:00

I am glad the Austalian Open is over. A lot of great tennis was played throughout the tournament's duration and the Russian Safin is a worthy winner. So, why am I glad it is over if I enjoyed it so much?

Well, I'm glad I don't have to sit through more tedious advertisements for Channel 7's upcoming line-up. Channel 9 pioneered this technique, with its overuse of promotions running along the bottom of the screen during cricket matches (and thus distracting us from the commentators trying to flog us one of their books or a plaque commemorating the 713th on-air swear word/racist comment/inappropriate innuendo accidently muttered into their microphones). Channel 7 has grabbed hold of this practice and used it at every available opportunity. Throughout the tournament, as I'm sure we all noticed, any break in play was immediately accompanied by a quick cut to a billboard displaying promotions for Channel 7's upcoming line-up. This was in addition to the actual ad breaks (y'know, Channel 7, the place where the ads are supposed to friggin' go?).

The ads repeated most throughout the tournament were those for Lost, Better Homes and Gardens, Dancing with the Stars, and Desperate Housewives. Why these shows needed to be advertised so extensively is unknown. Just because Joanna Griggs (who, besides a short-lived swimming career, has no real claim to fame except the fact she bonked Gary Sweet) is now hosting Better Homes and Gardens (replacing Noni Hazelhurst who, apparently, is pursuing her acting career. No joke. Guess she got the acting bug all those years she was pretending to be happily married to John Jarratt) does not warrant the show's constant promotion. Just because Derryn Hinch is going to try and develop a personality on Dancing with the Stars, doesn't mean the show won't be the same crap it was last year. And just because Channel 7 outbid the other Channels for Lost and Desperate Housewives (which Channel 7 has, for some reason, promoted as an Angela Lansbury style mystery series rather than the comedy and social satire that it actually is) does not mean we, the audience, have to hear about them at every opportunity. Channel 7 really needs to learn from Channel 10's mistakes with overadvertising.

Be. Think. Wank. Seriously.

2005-01-27T16:32:00.000+11:00

How deep and meaningful does Channel 10 think it is? Every ad break we're bombarded by their stupid summer montage promo with the tag line "Be. Think. See. Seriously." Can someone tell me what this tagline has to do with the current state of Channel 10?

Be - what is Channel 10 over summer? A compilation of various crappy US TV shows which they knew were too bad even for their regular schedule. Is this something to "be"? Wouldn't providing some good programming "be" a better thing to actually "be"?

Think - a Channel which features Big Brother, Australian Idol rip-off The X Factor, Rove Live, and Tim Bailey in its programming shouldn't exactly be using the word "think". Well, it definately shouldn't be encouraging you to think; that would result in you turning the channel.

See - Channel 10's biggest error. If viewers actually saw with some clarity, they wouldn't be watching Channel 10. Backfire.

Is Rove all we got? (Part Two)

2005-01-27T15:06:00.000+11:00

Daily Telegraph today reports that tickets to the new season of Rove Live were sold out in a matter of hours. Can you believe this? There are actually people out there who like Rove enough to want to see him in the unfunny flesh. Not only that, there are so many that it sells out in hours. I guess the recent lull in his ratings (he was being firmly beaten by 9's import Cold Case weekly) hasn't meant a dent in his popularity.

Continuing on from a theme I discussed in a previous post, I wonder if Rove would actually be this popular if there were other alternatives? Would Rove be Channel 10's golden boy, a Gold Logie winner, and a pin-up for lamewads who repeat his catchphrases ad nauseum, if our country had more modern day Bert Newtons and Graeme Kennedys? Heck, would he be this popular if Shaun Micallef was given enough time to find his own niche? The answer is, of course, no. If more funny people were acutally on TV, Rove would be exposed for the completely unfunny hack wankfest that he is.

Happy Australia Day

2005-01-25T20:19:00.000+11:00

Have a good Australia Day everyone. In order to truly enjoy the day, I would suggest steering clear of Channel 10 tonight as, for some reason, they've allowed the prehistoric trollop known as Gretel Killeen to host some Australia Day program. Another good reason to stay away is that it also features Australian Idol excrement Anthony.

Other than that, have an enjoyable day, all!

Your recipe for media action

2005-01-25T10:09:00.000+11:00

To get anything done in this country, you need a few things:

something horrific to happen
the horrific event recorded on video
said video distributed to media and played ad nauseum

Happened with Port Arthur and the gun laws that followed, happened with September 11 and the anti-terrorism laws that eventuated, and it is happening once again with laws targeting those guilty of torturing animals being considered after a video of a group of idiotic kids stoning a kitten was played over and over again by the news programs. As per usual, the laws will consider tougher penalties for all such offenders.

Now, I'm definately not complaining that such laws are being considered, but it makes one wonder; why the heck does it take a horrific event to make the media actually get behind something?

Is Rove all we got?

2005-01-24T20:21:00.000+11:00

Johnny Carson died today. Carson quite possibly was the single most influential personality when it came to late night talkshows. He was witty, graceful and always entertaining. Australia has its own share of similar significant personalities, such as Graeme Kennedy and Bert Newton. However, with Graeme Kennedy now a hermit and Bert Newton confined to an early morning excuse for infomericals, what does modern Australian television offer us?

Rove.

That's friggin' it.

The little chipmonk turd is basically all that is left of Australian late night comedy. Yes, that's right, it's supposed to be a comedy (I just found out). Why he is even successful has already been pondered by this blog, but why he is the only person out there with such a program is unknown. Though the fact that most of the funny people out there in Australia are ugly and thus would never be given a presenting job on modern Australian TV is probably a start (let's face it, uglies like Kennedy or Newton would never get a job if they started out today). It's very sad indeed that, here in Australia, our generation may never see the likes of such personalities in our own time.

Australian television's waste products # 1: Matthew Krok

2005-01-23T17:57:00.000+11:00

With Jim Waley departing Channel 9 news, I began thinking about Australian television's excrement. And by excrement, I mean shit. And by shit, I mean the foul putrid waste products that Australian television digests and then disposes of; the TV "stars" who annoy for an extended period of time before thankfully disappearing into oblivion. Jim Waley has now begun his journey into this category, joining the ranks of Holly Valance, the contestants on any series of Popstars, Sam from Home & Away, and this guy:

The aptly named Matthew Krok. If there was a king of excrement, it would be Matthew Krok for Matthew Krok is King Shit. Before he reached the top of this pile, Matthew Krok had an exteemed career of annoying the Australian public senseless. So, let us now look back at his short-lived career, and thus place him as our first entry into the Australian television's waste product hall of fame.

Matthew Krok first hit our screens in Hey Dad. This was, of course, his biggest, and most annoying role. Playing the hilariously named Arthur Macarthur (OMG it rhymes! Funny! Couple that with the flatulent sounding doorbell and we have a television show that is pure comedic gold), Matthew pissed off thousands of viewers with his fat little kid routine and with the fact that he was Nudge's replacement (seriously, how the hell can you replace NUDGE?!?). Matthew's appearance on this already long-running TV show (it began in 1986 and Arthur Macarthur didn't appear until 1991) was a clear sign of shark jumping (the shark was even more clearly jumped when Mr Kelly, the "Dad" in the show's title, left to go to Africa [seriously?] and was replaced by another relative [who all the others in the household, for no real reason, also called Dad]). As if his mere presence wasn't enough, Arthur Macarthur was even given a catch phrase to annoy the shit out of us (again, Matthew is King Shit, all shit obeys his commands): "I'm just a widdle kid." That's right, before George Lucas had even dreamed of making Star Wars I, Matthew Krok was speaking Gungan.

Capitalising on this role of annoying kid, Matthew went on to play an annoying fat kid in Sorbent toilet paper advertisements. That's correct, toilet paper. Do I even need to continue with the whole "King Shit" routine? It's all too easy. But yes, Matthew was the mascot of all things toilet paper for a number of years in the early 1990s. Why Sorbent chose him is a matter of opinion, but I like to think it is because Sorbent knew Australia would like to shit on something that represented the young Krok. Anyway, despite this, Sorbent eventually attempted to counterbalance Matthew's annoyingness by also putting Magda Szubanski on the same commercials. It took years for toilet paper companies to realise that fat people don't sell toilet paper; ugly dogs do.

After these rather big roles , after festering in Australian television's gut, Matthew truly became excrement with a number of minor roles. His first role outside of Hey Dad was a movie called Eight Ball. Yeah, I have never heard of it either. This movie was so popular that it doesn't even have the five votes neccessary at imdb to be actually given a ranking. Continuing this trend of creating box office gold, Matthew appeared in Paws and Joey, and, also continuing the whole "King Shit" thing, Matthew's character's name in Paws was "Bottom". Bloody hell, this blog entry writes itself.

Matthew went on to do a number of small television appearances, including a stint as "Aiden McGregor" on All Saints, and, according to imdb, played someone called "Bike Gang" in the unintentionally hilarious horse-riding mega series Outriders. Outriders also marked Matthew's last appearance on Australian television (to date). All those involved in Outriders must be pretty embarassed that this was the show that finally made Matthew quit his television career.

So, where is Matthew now? Well, according to Sydney Morning Herald, Matthew is now known as "Elder Krok". Yes, you heard right. Matthew Krok is now a mormon missionary. If there ever was a reason to close the curtains, turn off the TV, turn down the radio, and pretend you aren't home, this is it, Australia.

Goodnight, Jim Waley

2005-01-23T17:21:00.000+11:00

For those who haven't heard, Jim Waley has been given the arse by Channel 9 news. His replacement is the younger, less experienced, Mark Ferguson. While the removal of Jim Waley's jowls from our television sets is hardly a sign of the decay of Australian TV (in fact, Jim contributed to this decay last year when he reported the news swathed in a kevlar vest), it is, nonetheless, still a blemish. Experience no longer seems to matter in "journalism" (as far as sitting behind a desk and reading an autocue can be regarded as journalism anyway), with the Channel 9 promos which last year trumpeted Jim Waley's many years in the field now ringing completely hollow. To be a newsreader in the modern world, one must, it seems, be good looking. Experience and education are not important if you look like Mark Ferguson, Sandra Sully, Georgie Gardner, or that annoying bimbo newsreader on 7's Sunrise (a sign of the apocalypse itself). Channel 9 is simply getting rid of one of the last ugly presenters on Australian television, leaving 7's Ian Ross all by his lonesome.

The cause of the "P"roblem?

2005-01-21T11:08:00.000+11:00

The major news stations have continued their smear campaign against "P" plate provisional drivers again today. Both Channel 7 and Channel 9 showed the same story in which a P plater was the cause of a relatively minor traffic accidents (by relatively minor, I mean there has been no fatalities as yet). Curiously, both stations introduced the story with a jibe that "it seems P platers still have not learned."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but today's P platers would know more about road rules than any other average driver on the road. Today's P platers have to be on their provisionals for at least three years and have to sit multiple choice, hazard perception and rather rigorous driving tests to advance. With this education in mind, it should make one wonder why P platers still crash so frequently.

The answer is twofold. Firstly, yes, P platers have some blame in this. It's their actions which directly cause these sorts of accidents. Contrary to what the news stations imply, however, most P platers are not idiots. The P platers who cause these accidents are in the minority and should be no reflection on P platers in general.

Secondly, and primarily in my opinion, parents and other adults on the road have a lot to be blamed for. I only just recently got off my Ps, but in my four or so years of driving, the worst drivers I have seen were not P platers. They were fully licensed adult drivers. Adult drivers constantly go over the speed limit, and are more likely than P platers to cause rear-end crashes due to their tendency to tailgate other cars whilst travelling at high speeds. When you have people like this influencing the next generation, is the increasing fatalities of P platers really a surprise? I mean, I remember, way back in 10th grade, a friend of mine was about to sit his Learners test and actually seriously asked me "Is it true that you are legally allowed to drive 5-10km/h over the speed limit?", to which I replied "No, that's why it is called a speed limit." Because my friend had grown up watching his parents break the speed limit, he actually thought that it was legal.

But, of course, the Australian media will not blame the parents, and will instead continue to sensationalise the story. So it goes on.

"Seriously" shitting me

2005-01-18T22:03:00.000+11:00

For those of you tuned to Channel 10, count the number of times an advertisement for One Tree Hill appears per hour. I just watched an hour long program, and I counted four ads for this piece of crap. Four ads! They were all exactly the bloody same; same annoying actors saying the same annoying lines with the same annoying music.

Seriously, you'd think Channel 10 would've learnt by now that oversaturation of their products does not make people want to watch their shows. To the contrary, it just pisses people off and stops them watching.

Take GNW for example. It was, while on the ABC, a fairly popular show. Channel 10 buys the show, over-advertises it and, within months, the show is cancelled due to poor ratings. Surprise! Next example, The Secret Life of Us. Quite possibly a good show, but I never could stand to sit through an entire episode. Why? Because Channel 10 had saturated every promo with images of that Samuel Johnson dickhead (y'know, that really ugly guy with a voice that sounds like he's talking through gravel) so that every time he came on screen I screamed at the TV. Literally. I have witnesses who can verify that. Same thing is happening with Rove Live, whose ratings are dwindling of late because of the media saturation of the little unfunny bastard (plus that and he is, I maintain, not funny).

The trend will not end here, of course. I predict that, with the continuous hype over summer, viewers are eventually going to get tired of the twenty and thirty-something year old teenagers on The O.C. Though, as with Rove, possibly not a bad thing, but still annoying to those of us who have to sit through all the bloody ads before the show is finally canned.

But, yes, anyway, count the number of ads and try not to go postal.

Shameless money grab by Channel Nine #8812: Tsunami - A Time to Remember, A Time to Hope

2005-01-15T17:22:00.000+11:00

A tragedy strikes and you can be sure that, sooner or later, a TV channel is going to capitalise upon it. Well, Australia is certainly no exception. Anyone else remember the failed attempt at a ratings grab by Channel 9 with its Surviving the Times information service in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? If you weren't one of its two viewers, all you "missed" was Ray Martin and co showing viewers how to buy gas masks. Huzzah, paranoia for all!

In the same vein, Channel 9 is providing Australia with a new special: Tsunami - A Time to Remember, A Time to Hope. No doubt, this landmark in television will consist of showing the same horrific footage we've already seen over and over, juxtaposed with clips of tearful reporters and Ray Martin's new grey-tinted wig, and completed with numerous promos for Channel 9 programmes (ala the Tsunami concert). It really is a shame when networks capitalise on these things for their own gain; all we can hope is that this Channel 9 "effort" encourages Australians to continue their generosity.

A reason for existence (aka why Rove is not funny)

2005-01-13T21:52:00.000+11:00

I guess it is appropriate that one of the first posts on this blog should be dedicated to one of the reasons for its creation. Not since Daryl Somers has someone with so little comic timing, talent, originality and wit ever actually amounted to anything in the realm of Australian comedy (Richard Wilkins is excluded because his comedy is entirely unintentional). The person I'm referring to is, of course, this man:

Rove McManus. How this guy has remained on the air is, to many, mindboggling. Perhaps it is because he has a unique name (his real name is about as original as his material: John). Perhaps it is because his childish "poo-bum-poo" humour appeals to mentally underdeveloped pre-teens and teens. Perhaps it is because he has generated catch phrases ("What the...?", "Say Hi to Your Mum For Me" and, in demonstrating that he has never been to any continent other than Australasia, "It's a whole other country, you can't get there by bus"). Whatever the reason, Rove is undeserving of all the attention he gets.

Firstly, his humour, if it can be called that, is extremely unsophisticated, and, for a 9.30 timeslot, extremely tame. Compare Rove with previous comedic variety shows like The Late Show, The Panel, and Micallef Tonight, as well as his American counterparts Letterman, Leno and O'Brien, and you will see he is way out of his league. All of the aforementioned shows and talents tended to push the envelope of humour. Rove, instead, plays it safe, thereby creating an extremely dull television experience for all involved. This tameness is not just limited to Rove Live either; Skithouse (another Rove production) features enough lame humour to make even the fifth grader inside all of us to cringe (especially when compared to previous greats of Australian sketch comedy: Fast Forward, The Comedy Company, The Micallef Programme/Pogrom/Program).

Secondly, Rove's interviewing skills are mediocre at best. If the show can't be identified as a comedy (which I doubt it could be since it lacks the key ingrediant of actually being funny), then perhaps programmers could say it is an interview show. Sorry to say, but when it comes to interviewing guests (especially via satellite), Rove is less like Andrew Denton and more like Kerri Anne Kennerly.

Thirdly, Rove is a thief. A plagariser. This fact may be unknown to many of those out there who don't watch Letterman, or do not have access to Leno and O'Brien on Foxtel, but it is true. Let's show some examples:

Rove's "What the...?" is basically a rip-off of Leno's "Headlines". Both are exactly the same, except Leno's newspaper clippings are actually funny, whereas Rove lamely tries to compensate for the blandness of his clippings by intentionally mispronouncing the names of the viewers who sent them in. Of course, this sort of sketch is a trademark for variety shows, but at least the hosts of most of said shows actually admit that they stole the idea from others.
Rove's interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger (in which it was just a picture of Arnold but the lips were moving) is a complete rip-off of Conan O'Brien. On Late Night With Conan O'Brien, one of the most popular sketches is Conan interviewing Arnold (where it is only a picture but, and this may sound familiar, only the lips are moving).
Rove's constant dancing around the stage during his opening monologue is, again, plagarised from Conan O'Brien, who also dances at the start of all his shows.
Rove's campaign to get Australian PM John Howard onto his show is exactly the same as Letterman's campaign to get Oprah on his show.

As someone who seldomly watches Rove's show, these are the few major bits of plagarism that I have picked up. I'm sure many of you have noticed even more.

Fourthly, finally, and most importantly, Rove should be forever shamed for introducing Australia to the monstrosity that is Corrine Grant. Grant is one of the most hopeless hack comedians of all time. She is completely unfunny, not a crime in itself, but tries so hard to be funny that she becomes irritating to the point of complete annoyance. Memo to Corrine Grant: overexaggerated facial expressions are not funny, constant jokes only about one side of politics gets repetitive, and no one actually finds you funny (seriously, watch Rove Live and take note: there is seldom any laughter whenever Corrine Grant tries to be funny [the most she ever gets is pity laughs]).

So, in summary, Rove is not funny, has no skills warranting his own interview show, is a thief, and has committed a crime against humanity by unleashing Corrine Grant on the Australian public. Sure, you might say, Rove may be annoying to me, but I could always switch the TV off. And, yes, that is true. But we pay good money for our TV sets and, damn it, the people of Australia want some quality programming to go with it.

Who cares about "Our Nicole"?

2005-01-12T18:00:00.000+11:00

Channel 10 news, being an extremely professional information service, just spent an entire hour telling us "Nicole Kidman reveals that her kids are embarassed by her; that story is coming up after the ad break!" With ratings glory in its sight, that Nicole "story" was not just after the ad break; not surprisingly, they withheld it to the last 5 minutes of the "news" bulletin. When the story was finally shown, all it was was Nicole mentioning that her kids were embarassed by her (wonder why? who cares?). That's it. Oh yeah, and she did a snort laugh and Ellen Degeneres made a crack about her hair. Meanwhile, people are in desperate need throughout the world, and Channel 10 just wasted our time with this piece of meaningless fluff all because it is assumed that Australians love "Our Nicole" (my term for her, yes, I made that up all by myself).

Quite frankly, who the heck cares about Nicole Kidman? Sure, she's kinda cute, an accomplished (though rather overexposed) actress, and she was once married to Tom Cruise for convenience. But is it really necessary that the news devotes its time to following her every move, as if the Australian public is just dying to know what talkshow she was on, how she feels about contemporary issues, and who she is currently bonking? Leave that to the entertainment magazines and the tabloids, please.

Welcome

2005-01-12T13:55:00.000+11:00

This marks the first post on Rove Is Not Funny (And other Australian TV Observations): The Blog. This blog is, as the title may suggest, intended to be an ongoing critique of Australian television (we'll be focusing primarily on the commercial Channels of 7, 9, and 10, though the ABC, SBS and various Foxtel channels may eventually make an appearance). Although "critique" is a fancy word, do not be too alarmed; the aim of Rove Is Not Funny is to take the piss, and not be an overtly intellectual wankfest.