AlsoThey made TV Go Home and Unnovations into TV programmes. Which just goes to show that a funny website does not a good TV programme make. They were both atrocious.
(,
Thu 24 Jan 2002, 6:49,
archived)
probably becausethe web is a medium in the same way that TV is a medium - neither are entertainment in themselves.
(
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jan 2002, 7:07,
archived)
agreed. but you can make TVabout Newspapers (What the papers say), Books (Late Review, booker prize). So what is the keything that TV has missed in making TV about the web?
(
rob,
Thu 24 Jan 2002, 7:09,
archived)
it's revealing to look at the converseWhat good web stuff is their about TV? tv cream is fantastic. & it's not news, it's actually very much like much of current TV output: Nostalgic fact based entertainment with archive footage.
( rob,
Thu 24 Jan 2002, 7:20,
archived)
TV about newspapers and booksthough is about items that a huge number of people have or can go and consume/read/whatever.
Although people watching a program about the web can go follow up links, isn't always going to be about things a lot of people can't relate to yet?
In other words, web TV programs will work when the public knows more about the web...
Hmm, that doesn't really sound convincing.
Newspaper articles/columns about the web work - week in review columns are interesting to read and give an overview of general trends. Maybe that is what TV should pick up on... of course that would involve the people making the program understanding what the web is themselves :)
(Although people watching a program about the web can go follow up links, isn't always going to be about things a lot of people can't relate to yet?
In other words, web TV programs will work when the public knows more about the web...
Hmm, that doesn't really sound convincing.
Newspaper articles/columns about the web work - week in review columns are interesting to read and give an overview of general trends. Maybe that is what TV should pick up on... of course that would involve the people making the program understanding what the web is themselves :)
chthonic,
Thu 24 Jan 2002, 7:30,
archived)
I just thinkthat the humour doesn't translate very well. I find the TV Go Home website pretty funny, but watching it on telly was an ordeal and a half. I only watched the first 2.
TV is made for the lowest common denominator most of the time, it's passive. Hence the popularity of Eastenders, Millionaire etc. Whereas good internet humour is very hard to find, and usually only seen by people who are determined to seek it out. So when they try to port it over to TV, they have to dumb it down. This loses everything that made it funny in the first place.
Re-reading that, I'm not sure if that makes any sense. Ahhh. To early in the morning.
(,
Thu 24 Jan 2002, 7:10,
archived)
TV is made for the lowest common denominator most of the time, it's passive. Hence the popularity of Eastenders, Millionaire etc. Whereas good internet humour is very hard to find, and usually only seen by people who are determined to seek it out. So when they try to port it over to TV, they have to dumb it down. This loses everything that made it funny in the first place.
Re-reading that, I'm not sure if that makes any sense. Ahhh. To early in the morning.
TV is not its own masterNo swearing, nothing in potentially bad taste etc. Look at the furore over the Blue Jam Special - which was mild as a korma. On the net, you're free to experiment. Besides, TV's controlled by unfunny wankers who don't give a crap about the programming as long as they get their precious ad revenue.
( Cedarsave,
Thu 24 Jan 2002, 7:31,
archived)