Make a date with saturday night TV

Saturday night TV has been for some time a matter of great contention. Home to some of the finest shows that broadcasting has to offer, it is the pinnacle of the weeks TV. Which is why it is with a great degree of uncertainty that I looked at the listing and seeing new TV dating show ‘Take me out’. A show where the premise is simple – 30 women, 1 man, and the man then gives it his all to win a date... Sounds familiar to a certain older prime time TV dating show, once home to the great Cilla Black doesn’t it? And so, it is with understandable scepticism but an innate intrigue that I first set my eyes on the show 5/6 weeks ago.

Now let me tell you, it is a show that is repetitive, cheap and cringing – but strangely brilliant.

Admittedly, I wouldn’t recommend watching when looking for some real brain taxing stuff, but as far as light hearted and simple entertainment goes, this show has struck a gold mine. A family friendly dating show, that is both funny and has you screaming at the TV. From the moment where the man comes down the lift, to the crunch time when he has to pick his date, you find yourself interacting unintentionally with the show. A chorus of ‘he’s gunna pick her’ or ‘deary me, what a tragic bloke’ often echo around my houses living room mid-show.

Yet the true brilliance of the show lies solely in the hands of comedian/host Paddy McGuinness. A man most notably famed for his role in Phoenix Nights and Max and Paddys Road To Nowhere – his comic assertion on Take Me Out is one not to be missed. Siding predominantly with the men, and inadvertently mocking both the contestant and the women at any given opportunity, Paddy dictates the direction of the show and moves it along with effortless yet catchy phrases such as ‘no likey, no lighty’ that have become ever present in the show.

The other masterstroke is the lack of attention paid on the dates themselves. Despite an equal proportion of new contestants and dates shown, the previous week’s dates are swept along with swift efficiency. Combined with the show sending the dates to local restaurant ‘Fernando’s’ as opposed to the lavish holidays often associated with Blind date a few years back, show that the producers aren’t trying to replicate the structure of the show. It instead shows an indication that they know it’s low-brow, cheap and will have shed loads of critics – but by going through with it regardless the show’s producers are essentially sticking two fingers up at anyone who believes every show has to be of a high end intellectual nature.

So, with great surprise, this is me giving my upmost seal of approval to Take Me Out. A show full of catch phrases, dim-witted contestants and budget dates – quite literally the epitome of the phrase ‘guilty pleasure’.

Whilst some will clearly be sceptics to the show and what I’ve said, my retort is simple. In the words of Paddy McGuinness himself

If you don’t enjoy the show then

“No Likey, No Lighty”

Sorry state of affairs...

Upon picking up today’s papers, I was again greeted by the familiar sight of new scandal revolving around celebrity love wrongdoing. Unsurprisingly, the latest to have committed wrongdoing is love-rat veteran Ashley Cole. His latest crime? Sending naked pictures of himself to a model – claims Ashley has swiftly moved to discredit....well....ish.

On the back of his affair with a local hairdresser last year, Ashley claims the latest set of photos were taken whilst goofing around at an England training camp, not deleted and ‘somehow’ found their way to the model. A solid defence I’m sure you’ll agree.

However these latest sets of allegations are only a drop in the ocean compared to what the past few months has presented us with. Tiger Woods, John Terry, Vernon Kay and even rumours of Brad Pitt have all circulated with great regularity. Seemingly these celebrity men are more intent on the conquests of young beautiful women as opposed to their highly successful careers. Admittedly, I would argue that a large number of the facts strewn across the pages of the daily papers are either severely twisted or distorted to a sizeable extent. But in my eyes, such accusations must have a layer or truth. Either that or the papers will be coughing up hefty sums of money for publishing fabricated stories.

It is my belief that these men partake in such wayward actions not solely because of their high profiles though. The current UK divorce rate is 1 in 2 marriages. This suggests that there is already a wealth of mischievous behaviour taking place among both men and women. As a result, it must be equally considered then that such behaviour would be equally common place among those living the high life?

Admittedly, they are in the public eye and role models for many people all around the world. And as a result, I would hope that they would be smart enough to not participate in such activities - conducting themselves as appropriate and amicable role models. But the truth unfortunately is that because of their high profiles, these people are targeted more than any others. Whilst some of the population inadvertently find themselves having affairs, these elite set of people are the targets of unparalleled numbers of people throwing themselves at them. Whether it be through affection for the person themselves, or just to make a quick few quid, it is irrelevant. These celebrity icons are only people just the same as the rest of us, and as a result a number (and it is only a very small minority) are unable to keep their emotions under wraps and their trousers around their waists – thus leading to the scandals we read about on a daily basis.

The media being the keen and unrelenting vulture that it is, has detected these indignant deeds and in doing so has struck a gold mine for their publications. By acquiring enough information to make such affairs public, they are able to shame and disgrace the perpetrators. This then allows them to clock up page after page of dubious claims, knowing that the readers will adopt what they say as truth. And now, having drummed up such an interest in the personal conquests of these men, it can be considered highly likely that we will not be seeing the end of such stories and speculation anytime soon.

For me, it is a sad sight to see these people plastered all over the front pages each and every day. Not just because I’d like to read about some actual news. But because these individuals are meant to be the most creatively / athletically talented people our world has to offer. I feel that they should know their responsibilities as such and be able to adhere to them. After all, it all comes with the job. But instead, I can see no end ever in sight. There will always be those celebrities who will do the naughty naughty with an attractive young model or the sorts. And equally there will always be an unhealthy thirst for such stories. Such is the unfortunate state of our celebrity obsessed society.

The one where Friends changed homes..

I was and am thoroughly dejected at the news that Channel 4 and E4 are to stop airing Friends from 2011. After 15 years, 236 episodes, Friends will finally cease to be a fixture in the E4 constant repeats calendar. The show has become a mainstay in the daily schedule of many, with the show itself still proving to be relevant, entertaining and as endearing as it ever was. C4 however, disagree. They believe the show which still pulls in 400,000 viewers per episode will be better spent on the scrap heap. Their reasoning behind ridding the show is that they feel the airtime can be better spent with new UK and USA based sitcoms and dramas.

At 11am / 5 or 6pm?

Really?

I can’t see myself sitting down with either a throbbing hangover or after a hard day of work wanting to watch a nice light hearted re-run of Boston Legal or the sorts.

I’m afraid that I feel C4 have taken two steps backward with this move and the uproar that has surrounded the decision is tribute to this. I concur as much as anyone that new shows should be welcomed and given an equal chance, but when one of the best loved shows of the past 20 years is still pulling in such viewing figures it makes little sense to ditch it. The only logic I can see in the move is that C4 have some sure fire shows in the pipeline that they are confident that will draw in higher ratings; if this is the case then touché to the masterminds at the channel – but do they really think they can launch a new hit TV show at the times Friends occupies in the listings? Debatable.

However, Fear not Friends fans. Comedy Central has had the good sense to seize the opportunity and have acquired the rights to the show for the next four years. So Friends will be joining the Scrubs, Two and a half men and South Park line up for years to come.

Yet this is where my problem lies.

Friends isn’t a show that should be surrounded by such contemporary comedies. Friends was the last great sitcom and acted as a reminder of the times when Friday night TV was worth watching. In a line up that included the likes of Will and Grace and Frasier, it was the star attraction in a pool of high quality (pre-reality TV) comedies and should be treated as comedy royalty. The love between Ross and Rachel, the friendship of Joey and Chandler, Phoebe’s quirkiness or Monica’s obsessive nature – all were effortless and even now offer a great insight into the social dynamics of people’s lives. It provided the kind of easy but enjoyable viewing that few shows are able to do, and did so without feeling dated. But now, seemingly on its last legs, Friends is being made to abandon its roots and seek pastures new...

And so come 2011, when C4 show the final scenes of the show and the group decides to go grab one last coffee. Only for Chandler to utter those near immortal words ‘Sure! Where?’ Will we then see Friends change homes from C4 to Comedy Central. But much like Chandlers irony about finding a new coffee shop, it is with great scepticism that I feel Friends is changing channels. Because in my eyes, C4 is to Friends, what Central Perk coffee shop was to the cast – a secure and welcoming residence, where the roots of the show’s success stem from. And now as a result of the move, it is resigned to live out its final days on a satellite TV channel, as opposed to its terrestrial roots.

It really is the end of an era.

Cheryl - Because your worth it...

If this isn’t a lesson in how to not take yourself seriously, I genuinely don’t know what is. Above is the YouTube video of estate agent Gareth Mason, with his spoof (and in my view better) version of Cheryl Coles ‘Fight for this love’.

Of course it is only one man’s light hearted take on her song. But it does hold a degree of irony given that alot of people think Cheryl copped out by releasing a song with the vocal difficulty of your average nursery rhyme. Also I’m worried for her; first Ashley does the naughty with that hairdresser, rumours of a certain sausage roll being more popular than her on Facebook and now this. It’ll be interesting to see how she reacts...

It’s ok though. Should Cheryl now fall on the slippery slope of decline, she can rest assured; she’s welcome at the Stevenson residence any day.

Cleveland Strikes Gold..

At first glance, you’d be forgiven for being more than dubious about a show that is a spin off from a mid-importance Family Guy character. Equally, you’d be more than entitled for a double glance at the TV listings after seeing the entire cast of Family Guy in the opening few minutes of the pilot episode. However, as I watched on and found out, The Cleveland Show is actually one of the most surprisingly honest and funny TV animations I have seen in recent times.

The show centres on Cleveland Brown. Cleveland is a man down on his luck after losing his divorce settlement and only gaining custody of his son Cleveland Junior; but maintains the happy go lucky nature that saw him as one of the unsung heroes of Family Guy (a factor they immediately make fun of in the opening scenes, with both Peter and Stewie poking fun at Cleveland being something of a peripheral character). The pilot show excellently sets the scene however, within 30 minutes Cleveland has set his sights on moving to California, but ends up in his home town of Stoolbend, Virginia. Whilst in Stoolbend he immediately gains the attentions of his childhood sweetheart Donna Tubbs. Donna is the local schools secretary and has two children of her own – unruly Roberta Tubbs and a five year old afro bearing son Rallo Tubbs. To save on the minor details, (and as I’m sure many would gather within minutes of watching the show), they end up married by the end of the first show, leaving a household with two parents and three children – an elder teenager, a young chubby teen and a smart-aleck 5 year old. Spot any similarities there?

Admittedly you may meet that revelation with some scepticism granted that it is essentially Family Guy the second. You’d be even harder pressed after hearing that everything from the format, to Cleveland being part of a group of 4 best friends drinking at the local pub to there being a anthropomorphic (talking) bear, are all straight out of the ‘Family Guy Guide To Comedy’. However, this is first unsurprising granted the entire same writing and creation crew are behind the show. And secondly, and more importantly, the show is an absolute gem of low brow, easy viewing, and stereotype bearing comedy brilliance.

Cleveland has been exposed as a character of great hilarity, whilst Cleveland Junior offers an innocence and simplicity that is hard not to endear. Donna and Roberta both have their parts to play, and are integral to constructing the family format of the show. The star of the show (much with Family Guys Stewie) is five year old Rollo Tubbs. If you’re able to get past his already comic appearance, it soon becomes apparent that there is a wealth of untouched humour that will be dished out by the shed load throughout the show. Add Cleveland’s new buddies Holt, redneck Lester and Tim the bear, and you have yourself a cast that can provide a platform for areas of social comedy that have remained previously untouched.

I as much as anyone was expecting a drab and dull set of repetitive episodes, and in a sense they are repetitive as they recreate Family Guy – however, creator Seth MacFarlane appears to have learnt on the early mistakes of Family Guy. The Cleveland Show offers a slightly more structured approach than Family Guy, with not every other second being an off the wall and unrelated gag. Sure critics will slate the show for its relations to Family Guy, but give the show a season or two and if it carries on in its current vein of form it will have lost all associations to the show and be able to fully stand on its own two feet.

All in all the show offers a well polished and entertaining animated treat. Its comedy is derived from simple humour and cultural stereotypes a plenty. But this is something that should be welcomed due to its obvious light heartedness, rather than frowned upon. I for one will certainly be a keen viewer...

(The Cleveland Show – E4 10.30pm every Monday. Every episode also available online at www.channel4.com/programmes/the-cleveland-show/4od )

Why the young want to be mum..

Teenage pregnancy. A term that cannot be escaped from. Bantered around on a daily basis by the wealth of media available to us, as well as anyone who feels they own a moral compass. However, it is also a term that paints a picture of excessively over the top connotations. It is a term that stems ideas of drunken, drug fuelled teenage sex binges – the likes of which only seen on an X rated channel or an episode of E4s skins. Condemned by anyone outside their teenage years and refuted by anyone it is applied to; it is undoubtedly a subject of much contention.

It is first important to pinpoint that the phrase ‘teenage pregnancy’ only first came to prominence in the past decade. Whilst it was of course used prior to this, it was only after intensified media coverage toward youth culture and a wish to look at their deplorable behaviour that it was used to figurehead stories on the subject of youths becoming pregnant (the term youth generally refering to under-16s). As a result of this, it soon gained a negative tag toward it. I believe that by doing so, the media (and eventually the public) used the term as a means of condemning the behaviour of the young. After all, you don’t hear of people writing stories on ‘the unacceptable actions of people in their mid-twenties getting knocked up’.

It is with that, that teenagers became under great scrutiny. Despite their best efforts to show that they were actually upstanding citizens, all areas of their lives were subsequently pushed into the public spotlight by a population of people who had been teenagers themselves. A population of people who were fully aware of the pressures of being young. A population who will undoubtedly remember the awkwardness that comes with the discussion of any means of sex outside their own generational bracket (beautifully illustrated by Jay in The Inbetweeners when speaking to his dad in the unforgettable ‘Caravan Club’ episode). Yet still, the media and elderly persisted in their quest to eradicate such unscrupulous teenage behaviour. Attaching negative attitudes to all areas of their social lives, feeling they knew best, and seeing this as the best means of pressuring teens into stopping. This, I believe, is where they went wrong.

By casting a keen eye onto the behaviour of the young, the media has helped relax social attitudes toward speaking about previously awkward topics such as sex. Had it been 20 years ago, to hear of a family openly talking about sex would have been an unheard of concept. This is where the change has taken place. With it now being something that is openly discussed by all, it has attained a new set of values toward it. Those people who first pressed it into the public eye will say that it has helped encourage families to educate the young about their sexual escapades. But surely this can’t be the case, seeing as teenage pregnancy is at an all time high in the UK?

I would argue that for all the talk of underage being down to ill-fated role models, liberal television and a decline in social values – the real foundation of the rise in underage sex and teenage pregnancy is that of the media. Teenagers now are the same as they have ever been. Inadvertently sexually curious – but where previously they were unaware of what was available to them, they are now not just aware, but feel that they are ‘educated’. As a result we have a wealth of statistics including 300 under 13 girls become pregnant every year and 23 under 15s are expecting every day.

Again society will blame youths themselves. But I can’t help but believe that if they fully articulated the facts they would see that they themselves are the real source of the problem?

I would clarify that I’m not saying all us under-20 something’s are angelic beings. Nor am I actually saying that all youths are unprepared parents – far from it infact. But I fear that such continued negative coverage of youths will result in a complete collapse in social values – which will only lead to worse and worse statistics being publicised.

It’s near unthinkable that even half the people that read this will agree with what I’ve had to say. But I hope that by having read this far you’ll see a degree of truth in what’s been written. Until this situation is rectified however, things will only get worse before they get better...

Ice Ice Baby...

The UK music singles chart has long been the most coveted spot for any recording artist. It has been seen as a sign that an act has made it to the top of the pile and cements the artists place in chart history. All of the top artists to have ever graced the recorded single have occupied a whole host of top 10 positions. However, it has long since been debated that its credibility as the peak of music has slightly declined, with many now opting to set their sights on the album chart.

At the time of writing, 1,120 singles have topped the UK music chart. They range from The Beatles to Bob the builder. Yet whilst many of these songs will long live on in our memory, it is the musicians themselves that seek the immortality of idolisation. Many a musician has occupied a one hit wonder and done well off the back of it, but really, can anybody say they truly love somebody like Chesney Hawkes after ‘I am the one and only’? – I think you’d be lying to yourself if you said yes.

On the other hand, there are minor exceptions to the rule. Artist Rick Astley has acquired unparalleled fame off his song ‘Never gonna give you up’. Yet even then, his adoration is nothing more than a fleeting love of the internet craze ‘rick rolling’

(if you don’t know what this is, I highly recommend following this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling).

It is on the back of this that I believe the shift in the approach by musicians has taken place. Whilst the singles chart is obviously still of great importance and offers a strong platform on which to offer your music; I believe it is the album chart where the strength now lies. If we were to look through the catalogue of those people who have topped the album chart as opposed to the single chart, we would see a list of illustrious musical royalty. Of course some slip through the net, but in my eyes, if they can do it in the album chart, then props to them.

Equally, I feel the album chart offers a far more even playing field. Whilst the singles chart is often dominated by merely the genres of music that are commercially viable, the album chart offers musicians from all walks of music the opportunity to reach the heady heights of British music. Diversity is actively encouraged in the album chart, with last week’s top three albums coming from Paolo Nutini, Alicia Keys and Florence and the Machine. Three massively different artists, but artists all the same that offer a wide range of entertaining and well developed tracks. If we were to instead look at the singles chart, the top three would read; Owl City – Fireflys, Glee Cast – Don’t stop believing and Iyaz – Replay. Are any of them likely to remain in your head in a month or twos time? I guess only you can answer that...

This is not an attempt on my part to slander those who have topped the singles chart, nor is it a call for such artists to stop. It is just in my eyes important to distinguish between the good and the great. And I feel it is those who release album after album that are truly remembered on the merit of their music. After all, singles don’t fill arenas, albums do.

Disagree? I’m sure some do.

If so, I draw your attention to today’s chart. X Factor twin-duo John and Edward (or Jedward to those in the know) are set to chart with ‘Under pressure; ice ice baby’. A song they performed and acquired much attention from in their time on the ITV show. It is however, to me, the perfect case study to illustrate my point. To begin with, it is Vanilla Ice’s biggest song in his fleeting career anyway. However, the ‘Jedward twist’ is meant to provide originality. Furthermore, some very dubious vocals that I can only gather are heavily edited to the same extent as the arctic monkeys (sorry, saw them once, very disappointed and still harbouring harsh feelings), leave me feeling that this song will be resigned to the scrap bin in a mere matter of weeks. That is however, after they chart in the top 10 today.

Now, can it really be said that Jedward deserve to occupy the same spots held by some of the greatest musicians of all time? Equally, can we now deem them ‘sound recording artists’? Because given the significance of the UK singles chart, that is exactly what they should be.

However, to agree with those two statements would be ludicrous. And as such, I feel that the album chart should hold a greater level of importance to the general public. After all, it is the singles chart that holds the majority of the limelight, yet it is the album chart that generates by far the greatest revenue.

I do compensate that this is all more of a want than a need though. And as such, I feel all I can do is wish Jedward the best of luck today and hope that they never re-appear.

After all, there’s only so much we can all take..

(Admittedly I have neglected to even delve into the financial side behind records or the threat of internet piracy – but I fear if I had you would have long since chosen to stop reading, so best I save that for a rainy day!)