Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Villainy and engagement

165 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

  • Mike O'Connell,

    Michele A'Court has also weighed in on the X Factor The problem with putting real people on TV. Interestingly,she doesn't mention Moon and Kills by name. She also suggests a different model for reality TV - fakes. E.g. the House (medic) character of recent seasons.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 385 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to steve black,

    Really really really no small safety net?

    It's close enough to live that they couldn't edit that sequence out. Nor do I think they really would anyway - it didn't violate broadcasting standards. It was just nasty. The judge appraisal of the performances is also part of the show - it would barely have made sense, since the next judge replied to the criticism. TBH, I think it's actually turned out well that the nation saw the display, because it was the national outrage that led to the canning of the judges.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    NZ on Air had already decided not to subsidise future series of X Factor.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19707 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Mike O'Connell,

    That "actor" concept is really out there.

    Apparently in the olden days they used to have many such people who "played" characters in "plays" and "films". They could even do all sorts of bad shit "on stage" such as murdering the Roman Emperor, and they didn't even get in any personal or professional trouble for it.

    Wierd.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Mike O'Connell, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    The 'play within the play', an example of meta theatre. Shakespeare used it in Hamlet. Maybe the Romans were on lead and didn't notice! It became a much riskier affair in front of the likes of Henry VIII.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 385 posts Report Reply

  • fraser munro,

    All of this - once again - raises the question of why such imported format shows even get NZ on Air funding

    Its an imported format, with set rules of structure and production, that cuts out massive sectors of our creative industry in order to show a tiny bunch of NZers in a manner that is utterly fabricated

    advertisers get viewers watching their adds/sponsership claims
    the franchise holder gets their required fee
    the franchisee does quite well (in theory)
    the tiny crew gets paid

    but writers, producers, directors, actors, designers, technicians etc etc etc - as a whole - simply arent even in the picture. Then theres the added issue of the downwards spiral of whats on screen, and how that in turn feeds back into the industry

    Exactly why are NZ on air choosing to fund shows that badly impact the industry and the quality of output - both now and in the future - for us to see.... what exactly?

    Yeah i get its all safe bets and ratings - but is that what NZ on air is mandated to focus on?

    ranui • Since Nov 2014 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to fraser munro,

    but writers, producers, directors, actors, designers, technicians etc etc etc – as a whole – simply arent even in the picture. Then theres the added issue of the downwards spiral of whats on screen, and how that in turn feeds back into the industry

    To be fair, X Factor is keeping a bunch of production people in employment, even if it’s not their favourite thing. And scripted TV drama has performed horribly for TV3 in the past couple of years.

    But NZ On Air said this week it won’t be part-funding the big talent show formats any more. I’d link to the Drinnan story but he has his numbers all confused and it'd be like spreading misinformation.

    Short version:

    X Factor NZ series 1 (2013) = $1.6m

    X Factor NZ series 2 (2015) = $800,000

    X factor NZ series 3 = $0

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22830 posts Report Reply

  • bob daktari,

    They were never going to fund another season, made it quite clear when this current funding was announced... good PR by the agency - story of this whole affair all round really... everyone gets their drama no real victims... well two former pop stars perhaps

    "NZ on Air announced today it would provide funding of up to $800,000 for 32 episodes of a new season.

    A NZ on Air spokeswoman confirmed this would be the last season it would assist with funding the X Factor New Zealand."

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/10346412/New-X-Factor-NZ-bags-800k-taxpayer-funding

    And as much as I am no fan of reality TV, these shows keep a lot of people employed and a shedload of people watch the shows - this is entertainment (and broadcast wins) as much as it pains some

    auckland • Since Dec 2006 • 540 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to fraser munro,

    All of this – once again – raises the question of why such imported format shows even get NZ on Air funding

    Probably for the same reasons an aluminium smelter gets $30m or a casino nearly got $150m.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5429 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    If this is representative, the people that they use for their ratings game are utterly pliable and thrilled to be made into 'stars'. It's not a talent show, it's an entertainment platform.

    https://twitter.com/HungryPeachBoy/status/577956597705519105

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • fraser munro, in reply to Russell Brown,

    true enough russel - im more talking the wider skill set and roles of TV/film production right from IP through to post. Funding shows that have a wider industry involvement will bear more fruit for eveyone IMO

    this continual funding of imported formats (and then trying to claim they are docos - do they still do that?) and reality shows seems to serve the interests of a very small set of people at the expense of the wider industry and the viewing public

    of course thats just a gut feeling so happy to be proven wrong

    ranui • Since Nov 2014 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    It's a myth that pork creates jobs. Mostly, it just changes them and moves them around - making people work in the pork-barrelled industry or move to the favoured region.

    Maybe, if there were a pool of unskilled, hard to employ people, some sort of hole digging and filling project would create jobs for them, but most kind of subsidies don't.

    (Like tourism subsidies, which drive up room rates, maybe hotel income, probably inner-city land prices but don't do much for jobs or wages).

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • fraser munro, in reply to bob daktari,

    i would argue that broadcast doesnt win – it, and the local industry, suffers over the long term.

    Its an issue bigger than just the x-factor. A decision to not fund more x-factor isnt a signal of any fundamental change at NZ on air. You only get a limited run at funding anyway so its not uncommon for that well to dry up

    Being involved in this field – its bloody hard to get original content funded. Of course thats not accounting for the good funding that NZ on air does – it does exist – but has many applicants and often falls off the radar

    ranui • Since Nov 2014 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to fraser munro,

    the wider skill set and roles of TV/film production right from IP through to post. Funding shows that have a wider industry involvement will bear more fruit for eveyone IMO

    of course thats just a gut feeling so happy to be proven wrong

    I reckon you’re spot-on here. If one of these contrived competitions insisted all the songs be originals, I might be swayed. But IMO NZ on Air shouldn’t be ratings driven; it should fund on potential contribution to NZ culture – even if only half-a-dozen people see it.
    TV ‘ratings’ are a one-off randomised (what’s on the other channel?) metric anyway; they’re for advertisers and NZ on Air shouldn’t jump on board.
    On-line distribution is fast changing the ‘one-night only’ broadcaster-as-gatekeeper model. A classic that gets missed, that misses its time, can be re-discovered. Over time, a niche drama can find its niche audience.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2109 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    TV ‘ratings’ are a one-off randomised (what’s on the other channel?) metric anyway; they’re for advertisers and NZ on Air shouldn’t jump on board.

    But don't both TV and Newspapers nowadays only see the advertisers as their clients, not the viewers and readers?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7943 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to fraser munro,

    (and then trying to claim they are docos – do they still do that?)

    THIS. This drives me nuts. It's hard for NZ On Air, because most of the network screening commitments they get for documentary funding are things are really aren't documentaries. At best, they're "obs-docs".

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22830 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    But IMO NZ on Air shouldn’t be ratings driven; it should fund on potential contribution to NZ culture – even if only half-a-dozen people see it.

    And which networks will screen these programmes that attract half a dozen viewers, and at what time of day? Will not happen.

    It's just not how the system works. There's a straightforward solution, of course: a properly-resourced public broadcaster.

    Although even then, as is the case at Radio New Zealand, there's still a case for some form of audience measurement. You do want to know what's working.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22830 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand, in reply to Russell Brown,

    But only we can devise something better than the deeply flawed and deceitful Peoplemeter measurement, and the even worse radio ratings sweeps.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2557 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    It’s a myth that pork creates jobs. Mostly, it just changes them and moves them around – making people work in the pork-barrelled industry or move to the favoured region.

    Maybe, if there were a pool of unskilled, hard to employ people, some sort of hole digging and filling project would create jobs for them, but most kind of subsidies don’t.

    Yep, the big difference between New Deal-ist regional development and pork barrel corporate welfare is that the former benefits the many, the latter benefits the few.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5429 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Geoff Lealand,

    But only we can devise something better than the deeply flawed and deceitful Peoplemeter measurement, and the even worse radio ratings sweeps.

    The Peoplemeter system should have been unplugged with the analogue TV network. With digital TV it's theoretically less cumbersome to track viewing habits.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5429 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Russell Brown,

    And which networks will screen these programmes that attract half a dozen viewers, and at what time of day?

    Wiki sez Freeview has 30 channels. Must be some space in there somewhere :)
    I know the current NZ on Air charter wouldn't allow it, but I'm not alone in thinking it's about time the charter was re-conceptualised.
    There does have to be a balance between 'meritorious but dull' and 'popular but frivolous'. But it feels as if NZ on Air has been skewed commercial for too long. <departs ranting into the distance and not before time>

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2109 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Russell Brown,

    There’s a straightforward solution, of course: a properly-resourced public broadcaster.
    Although even then, as is the case at Radio New Zealand, there’s still a case for some form of audience measurement.

    Wouldn't provision of a dedicated YouTube channel (or parallel public-access portal) address both concerns at practically zero cost?

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1929 posts Report Reply

  • fraser munro,

    just for the record - despite my criticism, it would be a bit unfair to not recognise that allocating limited funding across a wide pool of applicants - and taking into account some of the more opaque factors - must be a bugger of a job

    Nz on Air do make some good decisions - and some not so good. Humans and all that

    ranui • Since Nov 2014 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    Wiki sez Freeview has 30 channels.
    Must be some space in there somewhere :)

    If only there was a free-to-air channel showing the best of NZ funded TV - like Heartland (but not behind Sky's paywall)...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7943 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to fraser munro,

    just for the record – despite my criticism, it would be a bit unfair to not recognise that allocating limited funding across a wide pool of applicants – and taking into account some of the more opaque factors – must be a bugger of a job

    It really must, especially given that the budget has been frozen in cash terms since National took government in 2008.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22830 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.