Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
has just made me thrown up my cheese and grapes snack.
Marx was right about the lumpenproletariat
Come back Richard & Judy. All is forgiven
And it's aimed at a particular (massive) audience. Not you.
There's a reason why shows like that are at the end of the pier
don't watch it.
quite harmless really
At least they don't do Richard and Judy style uninformed serious pieces about Myspace and Rape Drugs or Bollock cancer
have brought quasi-serious literature to the masses. O'Grady has brought nothing but cheap laughs and tired jokes.
but in terms of content, PO'G offers a billion times what Neighbours does. Surely you don't think Neighbours is genuinely superior! And as for the lumpenproletariat, well if you WILL watch Neighbours...
has layers of plot and comedy at the moment which are intrinsically better than anything else of its kind on television. Sure it drifts into silliness, but it is a knowing silliness recognising the joie de vivre that life offers the simple man!
I think Neighbours and Hollyoaks (in particular)are insulting their audiences in their extreme lack of any sensibility whatsoever. Hollyoaks purports to be tongue-in-cheek nowadays. It's clear that this is just an excuse for shoddy production values and bad acting.
was a knowing (just like Neighbours' creators) reference to the discussion of the lumpenproletariat earlier. Hollyoaks does not even belong in the same sentence as Neighbours. Seriously, I find Neighbours as stimulating as most things I watch, including film.
Neighbours is an intellectually stimulating programme in and of itself? I haven't watched it for a while. But when I do see it, it seems just as contrived and artless as it always did! And I would say it serves a similar purpose as POG does, but to a different audience. So why is one OK and one not?
I believe one is better than the other. That is why one is OK and the other is not!
I didn't say it was 'intellectually' stimulating, merely stimulating - unlike that hogwash of a d-list celebrity fest which flatters its audience with a form of authentic chat show.
i don't think you can have any illusions about watching neighbours. we know it's some funnily lame drama and most of us have been watching it since the year dot so it's excusable.
the problem with paul o grady is two fold. firstly it's not an interesting 'chat' show, it's a d-list celebrity bumfest. and the second problem is more with channel 4. they moved the show from itv and kept it as exactly the same shite, with the same set, poor guests etc. i expected more from 4
up to a point as I think both programmes are aimed at the lowest common denominator whilst keeping a cynical/hopeful eye on the student counch potato audience - hello Late Lunch and David Dickinson to name two other examples. it scares me that Neigbours was on when i was 14 and its STILL on - ARGH STOP IT PLEASE. At least there were a few uglies on it in 'them days'
Paul o Grady isn't on my hit list as a) he's a scouser and b) he is 'old school' entertainer etc blah - if I had my way he's be playing the eponymous character in the Derek Achorah Story. But as I said only IF I had my own way
I'll stop now.
to prove a point is a lost cause.
none of it is challenging, artistic or intelligent, but it's nice to watch, so what does it matter?
but afterwards watching daytime telly makes you realise your ever nearer the grave as you come back from putting the kettle on during the ad break for Cash In The Attic.
is when cash in the attic makes you want to participate in car boot sales more often.
and how he is obviously so nice but dim and landed gentry and will 'do anything' to keep himself busy, so a phone call to either a Bonham-Carter or a Bazelgette will do just the trick.
Still he seems like a nice chap.
Oh and I think I need to phone up about car insurance, though I CAN GET IT ONLINE NOW and cheaper IF Im a woman/under 98/a crane/certified permantely green or something
cash in the attic has no ad breaks! haha
I'll never work again in this town
I must be thinking of its itv 'rival' - there has to be one and no I don't mean Flog It
Nothing but NOTHING beats Derek Achorah's Ghost Towns
Just to conclude.
repeated on more 4? this depresses me.
until today's episode of the Paul O'Grady Show.
This stuff is light entertainment. Neighbours is not well acted or scripted. If it was, it would no longer be the televisual wallpaper that we expect it to be. It's a tour-de-force in its role as a televisual pacifier.
As Fishplums points out, trying to intellectualise either POG or Neighbours is to miss the point. To criticise C4 for scheduling POG is to miss the point - they are a TV channel interested in ratings. PArticularly in an early evening slot like this. Both BBC1 and C4 are equally culpable for 'dumbing down', if you wish to level this criticism.
Excusing Neighbours on the grounds that it is "funnily lame" and has been on "since the year dot" are hardly conclusive arguments. Also, for post-war types like me and Prole, PO'G does have a certain old school charm. He's good at what he does, in that sense.
Sorry to go all creakyknees, but I guess I'm just interested in the snobbish stance that people are wont to adopt simply due to their personal preferences. I'm just confused as to how anyone could believe that Neighbours is a genuinely superior programme to POG. I think they are much of a muchness, but at least POG displays some charisma and charm (albeit not to everyone's taste), and has higher production values.
from a student-ironic stance on Neighbours, saying it is good because it is bad. Neither am I defending any kind of intellectual impact it has on the viewing public. Clearly it doesn't. However, what I did say was that it is the best programme of its kind. I cannot say the same for the Paul O'Grady show. These 'entertainers' should have been killed off years ago. They do nothing but indulge the degenerate parts of human nature, shoreing up class boundaries in the process.
I am not a snob, neither intellectually or in terms of art or entertainment. It's just that the Paul O'Grady show is so base I felt moved to criticise it. So the debate was never meant to move into a which programme is better, because in my personal preference Neighbours is clearly so (even if it is not brilliant in the grand scheme of things).
What the best of a bad bunch, you mean? So we can agree that it is not a well-made programme? Merely less badly made than other badly made programmes.
What shows "of its kind" do you consider superior to PO'G, then?
"The degenerate parts of human nature"?? What? "shoring up class boundaries"? This is scary stuff! Can you explain. cos I had no idea that Paul O'G was such a degenerate scoundrel! Perhaps his ilk should indeed be rounded up and disposed of.
Also, can you explain why Neighbours is superior? Is it the production values, acting, scripting? There must be some reasoning behind all this...
that Roman Polanski, Ken Loach, Ken Russell, John Sleisenger* or Mike Leigh have not, to my knowledge EVER directed anything on between 11am and the 6 o clock news - not in my lifetime. So what I'm trying to say here is that this is not urban/urbane/gritty/realist television that Tom Paulin could write a monograph on to discuss in LONG AND SMUG DETAIL whilst Mark Lawson tries desperately to put his lips back round the right way in a valiant attempt to stop sweating.
*Is dead anyway but that's not the point.
But if pushed, I think all of the above directors would be far more appalled by the feeble (if vaguely enjoyable) ATTEMPTS at dramatic production from the Neighbours team, than the SUCCESSFUL, straight-forward entertainment that C4 provides to countless grannies on the PO'G show.
that is what I meant by its kind. It is, in my humble and stoic opinion, not only the best 'soap', but the best acted and scripted daytime television show.
I genuinely believe shows such as those presented by Paul O' Grady shore up class boundaries by directly appealing to the lowest common denominator. I cannot say hand on heart that Neighbours does this. In fact being a programme that has referenced Brecht and McEwan it is clearly light-hearted drama that can appeal to all classes and all generations. O'Grady is a smug old queen from the bad old days when homosexuality was flaunted as s defence mechanism. I mean get with the real world. It makes Sharon Osbourne look like Kirsty Wark and Neighbours look like "Blithe Spirits".
to see Mike LEigh produce/direct an episode of Richard & Judy so long as they had to act out the show like two condemned people in the White tiled cell featured in 1984 when Winston is first arrested.
with John Hurt?
In its context of "class boundaries", what does the term "lowest common denominator" refer to? The socially inferior, the intellectually inferior?
I don't really understand where class comes into this unless you are suggesting that only a particular class of people would find PAul O'Grady funny.
Neighbours is made to appeal to a particular audience. It's simplistic in in execution and intent. If you find some deeper intellectual leanings within its scripting and acting, then I envy you and perhaps I should try watching it again. But essentially, these are two lightweight programmes that are successful in their purpose. I think what really seems to annoy you is the fact that you see PO'G as a representative of a tradition that you, personally, find irritating (to say the least!).
I have a video of Mike Reid Live from 1987. I know what comedy is!
Whatever you may say the POG show seems socially regresiive to me, reinforcing stereotypes that I thought had been broken down. Whereas Neighbours is HARMLESS! LOLZ!
I don't think he intends to reinforce stereotypes. But yes - both shows are essentially harmless, but with bad aspects that are not particularly progressive. I just feel you were a bit harsh on O'Grady. In conclusion: LOLZ INDEED!
To be fair I've watched Neighbours already and to even things up I'm going to watch Paul O'Grady later. But if he plays that organ again......
Why can't all discussion threads end in a group hug like this!? We are a shining example of good debaters.
I agree with everyone as I have a tummy upset.
the worst thing on TV.
the best bit are when they have American guests on there who clearly have no idea what they've signed up for. pink was on it a while ago, and just looked confused the entire time.
how old is this coke quaffing hypo-bore?
When Norton occasionally drops the "it's funny when a camp man is rude" thing he can be quite amusing.
that's interesting to know as I knew he'd done the rounds as it were. i just found it funny that the BBC bought him for £3456 million and since then haven't given him a good 'vehicle' like Channel 4 did.
I'm a cynical bastard aren't I?