Terabell

Tonight in Australia we see the first episode on channel nine of Top Gear Australia competing with this we have Iron Chef Australia on channel 7.

I have no doubt that these shows will not be as good as the original.  I think they will be terrible and make me feel worse than I do when a beloved book is turned into a 90 minute screen play. I would like to say that these will probably be short lived but depending on the audience viewer numbers the networks may decide to keep them on indefinitely like dancing with the stars.

This has been done many times before, there was a short lived australian Wipeout last year and even masterchef is an English knock off.  Some shows have managed to use an adapted format and bring it to this country with success but these are based on shows that were not watched here initially and have presented themselves as effectively new content, spicks and specks, letters and numbers and good news week (the initial run) are examples (but none of these kept the original name)

My big question is why do we feel so inferior that we need to buy someone else’s trademark and live off their shirtsleeves just to get a television show made?

Surely we could have ideas of our own that produce similar results without the stigma of always trying to live up to something it is not?

We could have our own car show, with entertaining hosts who are able to review cars and perform stunts and have a good time without having to call it top gear Australia?

Surely we could have a competition between two chefs with a theme ingredient without having to call it kitchen stadium and poorly try to imitate something the program directors at channel 7 clearly don’t understand?

We could even try to be inventive and come up with a format that is not tied to any of these models?  The channels could even sell this on to other countries to adapt.

I am guessing that this all comes down to the reason that TV exists.  As a viewer you want to believe that television is made for people to be entertained, for something to be created that is clever and enjoyable and essentially a piece of art.  The commercial television stations however are not a charity and looking at their owners are not art connoisseurs either.  They are there to make money and don’t pretend otherwise.  I’m guessing that having a brand name of something that people know already is what they are paying for, not for it to be good or creative or even entertaining but to get people to watch.  The more people to watch the more money.  If they did it on their own they may get a better product that is more entertaining and even potentially much cheaper that they could sell on but there are no immediate benefits of pursuing such a strategy.  So therefore we get lumped with content that is laughable not laudable.

Television seems to be becoming more like movies, the content is less important than getting people to watch it – so you either put a star in something contemptible or you buy a brand name and the viewers will come.  Think of the awful remakes of 70′s tv and comic book movies that are common at the moment, they do not do justice to what they represent but that does not matter, its the dollars that count.  Similarly, there seem to be a lot of ensemble movies lately with stars that cover the spectrum of genres but the movies are generally far from the best to put it mildly.

I would like to think there is a solution to this, looking at the sheer number of fine BBC productions potentially we should be investing in an ABC that is able to produce more local content.  I’m not sure however if we have the population to support this. I guess we can either watch sport, things from overseas or crazy youtube dramas like Ikea Heights.

Do you have any ideas for TV shows that should be made?  Had you considered producing them yourself?

photo credit: x-ray delta one