Ross Semple2013-05-23T17:05:15-04:00Ross Semplehttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=ross-sempleCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Ross SempleGood old fashioned elbow grease.Ryan Murphy's New Show Is Anything But Normaltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19300192012-10-07T19:01:58-04:002012-12-07T05:12:02-05:00Ross Semplehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-semple/
Ryan Murphy is everywhere these days; like shit in a field. His ubiquity is both a blessing and a curse. One one hand, he unleashed Glee onto the world and, just like Frankenstein, he probably had no idea of the horrible things his creation would do. However, American Horror Story - another of Murphy's brainchildren - is one of the most captivating shows on television. It doesn't contain any musical numbers; but you don't need distractions like that when you have stunning visuals and the incomparable Jessica Lange.
Murphy's hit-and-miss history made me wary of his next project, The New Normal. The show is based around a gay couple who hire a surrogate to carry their baby, and form a close bond with her. That immediately set off alarm bells in my head. I know from Glee that Murphy's shows can get a little too preachy on these kinds of issues. I'm all for equal rights' but when I'm watching a sitcom, I just want to be entertained. I want some escapism; and I don't want to think about how terribly the majority of gay people are treated in society. I just want to laugh.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I tuned into the pilot of The New Normal to find that it was hilarious, simplistic and wonderfully acted. The show's writers deftly walked the tightrope of delivering an important cultural message; while not losing the humour or becoming politicised. It really was a pleasure to watch, and made me want to tune in for more.
Part of the appeal of The New Normal comes from its core actors. Justin Bartha and Andrew Rannells, who portray the show's central couple, David and Bryan, have impeccable chemistry and charm by the bucketload. Rannells, in particular, does an amazing job of humanising several gay stereotypes, while not distancing himself from them. The show is stolen, however, by a certain Ms Ellen Barkin. Playing Jane Forrest; the judgmental, right-wing grandmother of Goldie (the surrogate); Barkin delivers earth-shatteringly insensitive remarks with a smirk that is full to the brim with irony. She is the show's crown jewel.
The actors may be brilliant, but so are the words coming out of their mouths. It has been a while since I've come across such edgy, pop culture-laden dialogue. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is the only other show I can think of that has so many funny lines one after the other. Every Wednesday morning, my twitter feed *ahem* @rosssemple *ahem* is full of quotes from the previous night's episode. Who can resist when you've got gems like "It's like giving penicillin to a Kardashian - too little too late," & "Wow, a black Republican. You know, I've heard stories; I just didn't know they were real."
I hope The New Normal continues to be good. The show has already gained a substantial following, and has already been given a full season order. If you haven't watched it yet; give it a shot. It may not be your cup of tea, but it's not boring or inoffensive like some other comedies out there (on CBS). And Ryan, you'll be happy to know that you're 2-1 up. Get Glee back to its former glory and you might get my full support.]]>A Guide to Jumping the Sharktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18298462012-08-28T08:34:42-04:002012-10-28T05:12:04-04:00Ross Semplehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-semple/Happy Days changed the world forever. In 'Hollywood Part 3', The Fonz jumps over a shark to prove how brave he is. The episode marked the beginning of what is seen as a downward spiral for the series. After this incident, the series' plots became more outlandish and unrealistic, and audiences gradually turned off. Borne out of this example, the phrase 'jump the shark' refers to an event (or events) in a television series that signals a drop in quality, and eventually leads to the show's demise. Here are three television shows that have jumped the shark for one reason or another:
The OC (2003 - 2007; should've ended in 2006)
When The OC began airing in 2003, it was an instant hit. The prime time soap opera, set in the wealthy California town of Newport Beach, was particularly popular with younger viewers. This was likely due to the show's focus on the trials and tribulations its teenage characters (well they were supposed to be teenagers, the majority of the actors playing them were pushing 30). As a soap, The OC got away with many crazy plot twists ('My mum is sleeping with my boyfriend!' 'My girlfriend is my aunt!'), because it comes with the territory. However, the series' shark-jumping moment occurred the moment Mischa Barton left. Well, the moment the producers decided to continue the show after Mischa Barton left. Her character Marissa's death at the end of the third season, just as the characters were graduating, was a natural ending for the series. Instead, the show's fans were given a flat-footed and awkward 4th season. There were no memorable plot lines, and the season was shortened due to its early cancellation.
The X-Files (1993 - 2002; should've ended in 2000)
In its prime, The X-Files mastered the art of brilliant storytelling with the combination of mythology episodes and stand-alone ones. However, the show was always centred on the relationship between the two central characters: Fox Mulder and Dana Scully. That's why it was such a stupid idea to continue the series after David Duchovny's Mulder was abducted at the end of the seventh season. Despite the efforts of replacement Robert Patrick (one of the worst actors in the universe), the magic of the series had disappeared. The show managed to last two more painfully mediocre seasons before the creators decided to call it quits. Two years too late if you ask me.
Glee (2009 - present; should've ended in 2010)
Ah, Glee. You started out with such promise. In 2009, when you couldn't swing a cat without hitting a crime investigation/hospital drama, Glee brightened up the TV landscape a bit. The show had a host of interesting characters, witty writing and the novelty of musical numbers. However, its descent into utter ridiculousness is almost admirable in its rapidity. When the show returned from its first winter hiatus, the seeds of mediocrity were planted. Glee's writers decided to forego character development and do an episode solely as a tribute to Madonna. Furthermore, famous faces starting making cameos in the show for no obvious reasons (Neil Patrick Harris, Olivia Newton-John).
These mistakes could've been forgiven if they were only momentary. They weren't. The show was becoming popular though, so Ryan Murphy (the creator of Glee), in his almighty wisdom, decided to make the second season an explosion of random tribute episodes and obvious stunt casting. The popularity of the show's music in the charts has also taken ahold of its creativity. By choosing current music rather than songs that would benefit the story, Glee has becoming a walking advertisement for its own merchandise. The elements that made the series strong in the beginning are gone. With no narrative coherence and a stupidly-large cast, the show hasn't just jumped the shark. It has cleared the whole fucking beach.]]>Hoarding Is The Cool, New Thingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18082132012-08-19T20:23:19-04:002012-10-19T05:12:03-04:00Ross Semplehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-semple/Hoarders. You will feel like the most normal, level-headed person in the world.
If you haven't heard of it, Hoarders is an American series that follows people who suffer from compulsive hoarding. Hoarding occurs when a person begins collecting objects with no obvious value or necessity, and is unable to throw these objects away. Basically, the show is about people who have too much shit in their houses. Sometimes they literally have shit all over their houses, but that's another story.
The average episode of the series focuses on two hoarders as they try and rid their home of all the crap they have collected. They are aided by a professional organiser, who is tasked with clearing the mess from the house, and a psychiatrist, who tries to figure out why the person has collected so much stuff. For the sake of this article, I'm going to focus on a particular episode from the show's first season. The episode is centred around Jill from Milwaukee and Jennifer & Ron, a couple from Louisville.
Jennifer and Ron are at risk of losing their three children after a neighbour called social services regarding the state of their home. Jennifer is addicted to shopping and Ron is a compulsive hoarder, which isn't really the best combo. Their home is covered in unwashed laundry and bric-a-brac. They are forced to eat meals on their bed because there is no space in the kitchen. The professional organiser is called in to their home and they begin to remove the clutter from the house. However, Ron becomes distressed when he discovers that the team plans to throw out his fish tanks. His six fish tanks. He says that they may be useful to him, despite the fact that he does not own any fish. He finally relents, though, and their house is cleared. A fairly happy ending.
Jill's hoarding, on the other hand, is a lot more disgusting. As well as collecting useless crap, Jill hoards food. She says she doesn't believe in use-by dates and will eat anything as long as it hasn't 'puffed up' from bacteria. Her living room is cluttered with rotten vegetables and her house is swarming with flies. Despite this, she says she doesn't think her house smells, and seems to think it's an okay living environment for her several dozen cats.
When the psychiatrist begins clearing out Jill's fridge, she becomes irked when he tries to throw out soup that has been out of date for over a year. She says that it looks fine. In one particularly disgusting scene, we see Jill picking seeds from a rotten pumpkin because she hopes to grow some for herself. Through the course of the episode, we discover that Jill hoards because she has gone through periods of poverty. She feels like she must have lots of food in the house so she can survive. In the end, though, her house is cleaned up and she begins trying to curb her hoarding (AKA stop keeping rotten food all over her house).
I like the ending of a Hoarders episode, because it fills you with a sense of hope that the hoarder will succeed in overcoming their compulsion. However, I tend to believe that they immediately begin collecting old magazines as soon as the camera crew leaves.
If you would like to watch Hoarders, it is shown at 5 on weeknights on Bio.
Peace out.]]>Television Is Dead, But Remarkably Alivetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16922292012-07-21T17:36:30-04:002012-09-20T05:12:04-04:00Ross Semplehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-semple/
Don't ask my why, but the evening soaps have long been the most viewed programmes in the UK. Coronation Street and Eastenders still dominate their primetime slots, and are often the highest rated shows on any given night. Although the soaps are still massively popular, their current viewership is down significantly from the 'glory days' of the 1980s and 90s. For example, recent episodes of Coronation Street are seen by an average of 7 million people. Ten years ago, at the beginning of the 2000s, the soap was viewed by an average of 15 million. It's not just the soaps either. Prime time audiences are down across the board, with most programmes failing to reach over 6 million viewers, an audience that would be considered tiny in years gone by. So, what's happened? Why have audience numbers fell so sharply?
Part of this decline in viewership can be explained by recent technological innovations. The introduction of Sky + and other DVR equipment after the millennium gave us the opportunity to record our favourite shows and watch them at our convenience. More recently, video on demand (VOD) services like BBC's iPlayer and Sky's Anytime allow us to watch television shows without a TV; on our computers and games consoles. The iPlayer in particular has been met with huge success. In the month of December 2011, over 7 million radio and television programmes were watched over various different platforms. These include the BBC website, mobile apps and internet televisions. According to the BBC's Media Centre, this represents a year-on-year increase of over 1000%. As television viewing is decreasing, the use of these services is increasing. So, it's not that people aren't watching television anymore, it's that people aren't watching television on television anymore.
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand, the evolution of television has given us more control over our viewing. We are no longer bound by schedules, and can slot our viewing into our own routines. Advertisements can be skipped, and programmes can be watched from any location. In many ways, we each run our own television station. On the other hand, these changes in the way we view television could lead to the downfall of the medium altogether. If we continue control when we watch TV, and pick and choose programmes at our convenience, then many networks may not survive. Television revenue is largely made through advertising, and if nobody is watching the old fashioned way, then the networks are in danger. If they don't move with the times, then most channels will fade into obscurity.
Some people argue that the end of television is nigh. They say that less and less people will watch, until television ceases to exist. I don't buy into that argument. I look at these changes not as a death knell, but as an evolution. Ratings may be down, but the ubiquity of television-related services prove that the medium is stronger than ever. In fact, when I finish writing this, I'm going to watch a shitload of Mad Men on Sky Go.]]>British TV Nights Aren't Funny Like American Onestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16400442012-07-02T19:00:00-04:002012-09-01T05:12:12-04:00Ross Semplehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-semple/Brand X With Russell Brand, which airs on FX in the States, mixes Brand's stand-up with political satire and audience participation. I watched the premiere episode, and it stank. It's nothing to do with Brand's hosting abilities; he actually came off as sincere and likeable. Unfortunately, all the charisma in the world couldn't hide the fact that the audience were noticeably uncomfortable and Brand's 'assistant' Matt appeared to be on some kind of tranquiliser. I didn't even get through the entire episode. I switched to The Daily Show instead, which made me realise something: there is an incredible amount of late-night television in the States.
On top of Brand's series, and Jon Stewart's Daily Show, there is a veritable smörgåsbord of shows that are broadcast when everyone should be in bed. The most well-known late-night shows are the ones shown on the main networks, like The Tonight Show, The Late Show, Late Night With... etc. These veteran programmes follow the same basic format: a topical monologue followed by scripted skits and celebrity interviews.
However, in recent years, the rising popularity of cable television has produced some shows that have successfully tweaked the format. Some, like the aforementioned Daily Show and The Colbert Report, have ventured into news commentary while maintaining comic roots. Others, most notably E!'s successful Chelsea Lately and Bravo's Kathy, have chosen to focus more on popular culture, with a selection of comedians giving their views on recent hot topics. Whatever the format, though, there is a lot of choice when it comes to late-night viewing across the pond.
So, why isn't the same thing happening here? Why do we get stuck with repeats of terrible films while our American cousins are spoiled for choice?
It's not as if we don't have any shows that are similar to the late-night programmes; we do. Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton, Paul O'Grady and Alan Carr all host shows that are similar in style to The Late Show and The Tonight Show. However, there are three main differences that have to be noted. Firstly, the British shows are broadcast only once a week, while the American ones run Monday - Friday. Secondly, the four aforementioned British series are broadcast sporadically throughout the year. The American ones, on the other hand, are shown all year round, with short breaks during the summer and at Christmas.
Lastly, and most importantly, our shows are too guest-dependent to be truly entertaining. For example, I watch Chelsea Lately quite frequently because I know that it will be entertaining, no matter who the guest is. This is because of the roundtable discussion at the beginning of each episodes, in which a panel of guests discuss the latest showbiz stories. Unlike Graham Norton's show, equal weighting is placed on this early part of the show as there is on the celebrity interviews. I don't know about anybody else, but I won't tune in to The Jonathan Ross Show if I'm not a fan of any of the guests, as there isn't really much else to offer. So what are we going to do to fix this?
I know what I would do. My first move would be to get rid of 90% of the celebrity panel quiz shows that dominate the idiot box. Just off the top of my head, you've got Have I Got News For You, QI, Celebrity Juice, 8 Out of 10 Cats, Mock the Week, Argumental and many, many more. If we get some of these out of the way, there will be enough room on the schedule for some nightly, comedy-chat shows. Furthermore, the people who are on the panel shows can move to the new ones as hosts and guests. They must be pretty cheap to produce as well. All you need is a sofa, a desk and an audience. It's really that simple.
If any television executives are reading this, I implore you to see some sense and give me something to watch when I'm up late, wondering how I can avoid failing at life. Just give me a British Chelsea Lately and I'll be a happy man. I'll even host it for you, because I'm just that kind of guy...]]>Is Cancún Canny? The Geordie Shore Gang are About to Find Outtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16106342012-06-19T19:02:15-04:002012-08-19T05:12:08-04:00Ross Semplehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-semple/
I am referring, of course, to the triumphant return of Geordie Shore. That's right, everyone's favourite televisual train wreck is screeching back for a third season. The amazingly-titled Geordie Shore: Chaos in Cancún will see our favourite characters (Vicky, Sophie, James, Charlotte, Holly, Gary, Jay, Rebecca & Ricci) head to Mexico for eight episodes of unadulterated filth and questionable behaviour. So, what can we expect from this season?
There were lots of story threads that were left unresolved at the end of the season two. I call them story threads, even though though they are obviously natural occurrences that are definitely not constructed by the producers to create drama. Definitely not.
The residents of Geordie Shore aren't doing to well on the relationship front. Firstly, there's the 'will they, won't they' game of Sexual Snakes and Ladders between Charlotte and Gary. I genuinely can't help but feel sorry for Charlotte. Every time she comes to her senses and gets away from Gary, she ends up sliding back down that snake. Or parsnip.
Then we've got the show's other romance: the bi-polar relationship between Vicky and Ricci. The couple have engaged in something of a whirlwind romance. After cheating on her previous boyfriend with Ricci for most of last season, Vicky finally decided to give the poor boy a chance. Good old crazy Vicky didn't disappoint, and the pair have been fighting ever since. The couple's engagement, filmed during this season, will only add to the insanity. I am impatiently waiting for MTV to greenlight Geordie Wedding, which I will watch every second of.
The other girls have a lot of baggage from last season that they are taking with them to Mexico. Sophie has taken back her dickhead of a boyfriend, Joel. I can't stand the guy, and he seems like a total idiot. The only thing lower than his IQ is his V-neck. Meanwhile, Holly and Rebecca, the 'rejects' of the bunch, seem to have developed a genuine friendship. This isn't too surprising, seeing as they share many of the same hobbies, which include wearing ill-fitting clothing and embarrassing themselves to get the attention of the ladz. Or James, in Holly's case.
I feel sorry for James. His name has become synonymous with not 'banging'. Holly follows him around like he's handing out free false eyelashes. Finally, and most worrying of all, he seems to think that his hairstyle is attractive. This isn't Mad Men, James. And if it was, Don Draper would not tolerate your silly antics or tight vests. Either way, the combover is silly and needs to go away.
Who have I forgotten? Oh yes, Jay. Remember all the way back in season one, when Jay was actually relevant to the series? Jay was the alpha male, 'banging' everything that moved and starting all the fights. Now, his rocky relationship with Vicky seems like a fairytale romance compared to her antics with Ricci. While the drama has intensified, Jay has faded into obscurity. Somewhere out there, while the rest of the cast hang out together, Jay is silently weeping, while plucking his eyebrows.
Now that we know where everyone's at, we can look ahead to the new season. Judging by the trailer below, it looks like it will not disappoint. Watch out America, I've got a feeling that a lot of Mexicans will be sneaking over the border to escape from these mental Geordies.
Geordie Shore: Chaos in Cancún begins Tuesday, June 26th at 10pm on MTV.]]>This is the Way The Voice Ends, Not With a Bang But With a Whimpertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15625482012-06-01T11:11:20-04:002012-08-01T05:12:19-04:00Ross Semplehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-semple/The Voice UK. This weekend, the series will bow out with its two-night finale, which will see Bo, Tyler, Vince and Leanne fight for the coveted title of The Voice. Over the ten weeks of its broadcast, The Voice UK has generated a great deal of press - and not always the good kind.
The series started off fairly well. The auditions were exciting. There was a genuine buzz over whether the coaches were going to push their button, and the talent on show was superior to anything we've seen before. The Battle Rounds were even better. Each coach pitted their own acts against one another. The performances were amazing, but the desperation was more entertaining. In their quest to be part of the live shows, the contestants threw their shame out the window, and replaced it with the kind of flagrant determination that is usually reserved for contestants on Golden Balls. They sang their asses off, adding all kinds of vocal tricks to get themselves noticed. It was unmissable.
At that point, The Voice UK was proving to be unstoppable. It was seen as a superior X Factor, with contestants of a high standard and judges who had constructive things to say. The show was also winning the Battle of Primetime, increasing its lead over ITV's Britain's Got Talent every week. Then came the live shows...
It was clear from the first live edition that The Voice UK was going to be a very different affair. First of all, the judges coaches didn't arrive on stage with any kind of pomp and circumstance. They were just sitting there in their fancy chairs. Presenters Holly Willoughby and Reggie Yates didn't introduce the show with an elaborate dance routine. Why? Because it's all about the voice, apparently. Each live show followed the same basic formula: ninety minutes of performances to very serious and credible songs, with only nice and 'constructive' feedback from the judges. If you were looking for a dubstep/dance breakdown, then you weren't in the right place. There was a lot of 'emotion' and hand gestures, but not one rap segment.
This is the show's problem. In their quest for credibility, the creatives at The Voice UK have removed any sense of entertainment from the programme. The contestant's performances come off as self-indulgent, and the coaches rarely provide any interesting - by that, I mean unnecessarily negative - critique. The songs themselves are often outdated and unsuited to the acts, and the group performances are shockingly underrehearsed.
I don't seem to be the only one who is going off the programme. Since the Battle Rounds, the show has steadily lost viewers. The most recent episode, shown on Sunday night, was seen by an average of 4 million people. Compare this to the Battle Rounds, which aired just over a month ago and were watched by over double that figure. The BBC are said to be worried about the situation, and tabloid reports (aka made up stories) suggest that the broadcaster is planning on making some major changes for the series' second run.
When The Voice UK began airing, it was hailed as a new kind of talent show, that wasn't so hung up on the personality of the contestants. It wasn't though. It was just The X Factor with less exploitation and more chair movement. I'm not complaining; I love The X Factor and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I do think that by distancing itself so far from the series, The Voice UK managed to alienate its core audience. The show will finish on Sunday, and The Voice of the UK will be crowned. The only problem is, I'm not sure anyone will really care.]]>TV Fans, Don't Get Yourselves Too Excited For Next Seasontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15254112012-05-17T16:05:16-04:002012-07-17T05:12:20-04:00Ross Semplehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-semple/
As well as revealing the fates of existing programmes, the networks preview the new shows that will fill our television schedules (and lives) for the next twelve months. I have been online all week, reading up on the pilots that each network has picked up. In the run up to the announcement, I was in a very excitable mood, thinking about all of the hypothetical shows I was going to become obsessed with. A kind of televisual mania, if you will. "These new shows will allow me to discover new actors", I thought. "I will be able to appreciate the subtle delicacy of their scripts", I thought. "I'll enjoy the gripping narratives and be drawn in to immersive, fantastical worlds," I thought.
What a crock of shit. Seriously, was this the best the networks could do? I was so appalled by some of the ideas that I actually questioned whether or not they were genuine. Sadly, they are. And here are some of the terrible shows we are going to put up with...
The pilots seem to fall under two categories: the ones that are cheap-looking imitations of successful shows, and the ones that are just terrible ideas in general. Side note: I haven't seen any of these pilots. I have only read the short plot summaries that were contained on the networks' press releases. Does that give me the right to criticise them? Of course it does; don't be so silly.
Have you seen Modern Family? Ryan Murphy, creator of Glee and American Horror Story has. Murphy, being ever so smart, must've taken a look at the success of the mockumentary series and thought, "I am going to take that idea, tweak it slightly, and put it on another network." And that's what he has done. The New Normal, Murphy's latest series, is part of NBC's fall schedule. The sitcom centres around a gay couple who, desperate for a baby, hire a surrogate and invite her to live in their house. It's supposed to be a comedy, but judging by Murphy's work on Glee, he will suck all of the comedy out of The New Normal, and turn into a platform for serious political discussion.
In 'What goes around comes around' news, Murphy seems to have been given a taste of his own medicine by ABC, who have ripped off his successful anthology series, American Horror Story. The show in question, 666 Park Avenue, is based around a haunted apartment building, known as 'The Drake'. Faced with the job of managing the building, a young couple are frightened by lots of creepy supernatural occurrences. If you want to know what happens in 666 Park Avenue's first season, but can't be bothered waiting, American Horror Story is available on Blu Ray and DVD now.
This next show isn't based on a stolen idea, just a ridiculous one. Fox's new drama, The Mob Doctor, isn't your normal hospital drama. As well as putting in shifts at a Chicago hospital, our protagonist Dr Grace Devlin also provides medical assistance to members of the mafia. Why? Because her family is indebted to them for some reason, I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that Fox seems to think creating an amalgam of two popular television genres (medical, gangster) is going to spell success in the ratings. What do they have planned for midseason? A series about a serial killer who joins a high school Glee club? Compared to The Mob Doctor, it doesn't sound half bad.
Picture the scene: a young family finally gets their dream home in an exclusive gated community. Quite a nice idea for a show, right? What I didn't mention is that the suburb's other residents are aliens who, amongst other things, read instead of eat and cry green goo out of their ears. No, it isn't a joke. It's The Neighbours, a sitcom that's due to air on ABC. I don't know about you, but I'm laughing already.
I was supposed to spend my summer anxiously counting down the days until the new TV season starts. Instead, I feel obliged to do one of two things: kill myself (because I can't live in a world without good television), or come up with my own idea for a show.
Both seem like a lot of work...]]>The Land of the Free and the Home of Great TVtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15096822012-05-11T12:19:55-04:002012-07-11T05:12:13-04:00Ross Semplehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-semple/
I am here to tell you that American television is far superior to the tosh that us Brits are producing. When I say that, I'm not talking about all TV. The UK produces some fine comedies (like Him & Her and Grandma's House), and some of the ITV dramas are pretty good. I like that police procedural with the woman who used to be in one of the soaps. You know the one... I am referring, of course, to the best, and most important television genre of them all: reality.
When it comes to reality television, America really is The Holy Land. The amount of unmissable trash that the US networks airs is almost too much for me to take. There's literally something for everyone. If you like big asses and bigger egos, you can check out Keeping Up with the Kardashians, or one of their many spin-offs. Want to know what a has-been celebrity is up to at the moment? Tune into the E! network at any time to see a number of blasts from the past trying to revive their careers. The bakers among you may enjoy Cake Boss, a show about a shop that makes amazing (and ridiculous) cakes for people. If you want to have your cake and eat it too, there is Ace of Cakes, which is essentially the same thing with slightly different cakes.
Mob Wives, Bad Girls Club & Basketball Wives. These are all shows that come from my favourite sub-genre of American reality TV: 'Grown Women Yelling At Each Other'. As a feminist, programmes like these ones are highly offensive and impede progress for women everywhere. As a seasoned television viewer, however, these shows are more addictive than heroin for me. The Real Housewives of... franchise, tragically overlooked by British broadcasters, is the best of the bunch. With six incarnations (Orange County, New York City, Atlanta, New Jersey, Beverly Hills & Miami), the franchise has provided me thousands of hours of entertainment. By 'entertainment', I of course mean wealthy women who say terrible things about each other and often get into screaming matches in inappropriate places. I often think about the prospect of a UK version of the series, and it is my dream to host the reunion specials. Someday, Ross.
Finally, there is the incomparable Jersey Shore, a series that charts the exploits of eight venereal disease-ridden simpletons as they go to filthy nightclubs and search for sex with strangers. MTV UK have tried their best to recreate the success of the series, with the copycat series Geordie Shore. They went too far though, as Geordie Shore is deliberately controversial, and frequently edges into porn territory. The male cast members in particular have their spots reserved on the Sex Offender Register. It just doesn't have the class of Jersey Shore...
The creatives at the UK networks really need to get their fingers out if they want to compete with our American cousins. Something in the vein of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings would be good, but with more glamour. And less spousal abuse. The Only Way is Essex and Made in Chelsea are alright, but they are too reliant on scripted situations to be 'true' reality shows. And Desperate Scousewives? I didn't watch it, but I heard it wasn't all that great.]]>