Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News1 min ago
Why?
33 Answers
It seems that every time I turn on the TV, Mary Berry is on. I thought she was a cook, but she seems to have become an expert on many things. Rather like a latter day Carol Vorderman.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by maggiebee. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I quite like her. I think she’s a very gracious lady. That said, television does have a habit of clinging to the same presenters, the same programmes, and the same formats. I guess they think if it’s not broken why mend it? Just one snag with that. They need to recognise when it is broken. Strictly, Bake Off, X-Factor, Britain’s Got Talent, I’m a Celebrity, all past their sell-by dates in my opinion - and this current series of Celebrity Masterchef is hovering around the off-switch in my home now.
TV programme makers are very fond of deciding that someone is 'popular', and therefore must be seen as often as possible.
This inevitably leads to over-exposure, and whatever genuine popularity a person had is eclipsed by the negative feedback that over-exposure brings, with far more speed and fury than the original popularity created, and they are shuffled off screen pronto.
There are exceptions - the BBC continued to worship at the feet of Terry Wogan long past the time when he had morphed into a caricature of himself, and developed speech patterns that, with the exception of Jimmy Young who did the same, were never heard outside the orbit of Pluto.
They also imagine that popularity in one format indicates popularity, which it isn't - it's the format that is popular, not the individual.
Witness Len Goodman, good 'ole Uncle Len on Strictly, dishing out the cockney charm with a wink and a smile.
Put him in anything else, and hey presto, he's just an annoying old man with a space where a personality should be, and the one-trick cockernee schtick has got very tedious very quickly.
Exit Len.
This is not rocket science, I can figure it out as a viewer, and for free, so why can't TV execs on seven-figure salaries figure it out as well?
This inevitably leads to over-exposure, and whatever genuine popularity a person had is eclipsed by the negative feedback that over-exposure brings, with far more speed and fury than the original popularity created, and they are shuffled off screen pronto.
There are exceptions - the BBC continued to worship at the feet of Terry Wogan long past the time when he had morphed into a caricature of himself, and developed speech patterns that, with the exception of Jimmy Young who did the same, were never heard outside the orbit of Pluto.
They also imagine that popularity in one format indicates popularity, which it isn't - it's the format that is popular, not the individual.
Witness Len Goodman, good 'ole Uncle Len on Strictly, dishing out the cockney charm with a wink and a smile.
Put him in anything else, and hey presto, he's just an annoying old man with a space where a personality should be, and the one-trick cockernee schtick has got very tedious very quickly.
Exit Len.
This is not rocket science, I can figure it out as a viewer, and for free, so why can't TV execs on seven-figure salaries figure it out as well?
Tilly2 - // You really didn't like old Tel, did you Andy? //
Frankly, I loathed him.
Principally because he spent nine years presenting Children In Need and being the only member of celebrity cast who received a salary for his time - around £9,000.
The BBC was mealy-mouthed enough to advise that he was paid out of BBC funds, and they felt it appropriate, because without him, the show 'would not be what it was'.
Considering that the show was nothing at all in the first year, I fail to see how a salary is justified for one presenter, when every other celebrity and musical guest waived any fees they were offered.
Sir Tel, then had the gall to say he would gladly do it for free, and he was unaware he was being paid.
That means, either he was lying, because anyone knows if they are being paid or not, if they check their salary slips, or pay an accountant to keep track of things - which a man being paid £800,000 a year would probably have, you'd think.
Or, he is so busy swimming in licence payers' cash, that he doesn't notice an additional unexplained nine grand mysteriously appearing in his bank account every November, just after Children In Need has been on.
Neither sceario paints him in a good light, and I viewed him as an overpaid duplicitous hypocrite from that day forward.
The other reason I detested him was his constant unctuous over-bearing cod-humility and self-deprecation.
Frankly, if you are that busy knowing that you are a skilled professional presenter, which he was, and telling everyone that it really nothing, you drift through the realm of genuine modesty, and out into the inversely proportional concept of telling everyone how average you are, simply so they can fall over themselves to contradict you, and feed your monstrous ego a little further.
So no Til, I really didn't like old Tel at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For everyone's advance info - following requests for an opinion of Gloria Hunniford will be met with a sharp slap!!!
Frankly, I loathed him.
Principally because he spent nine years presenting Children In Need and being the only member of celebrity cast who received a salary for his time - around £9,000.
The BBC was mealy-mouthed enough to advise that he was paid out of BBC funds, and they felt it appropriate, because without him, the show 'would not be what it was'.
Considering that the show was nothing at all in the first year, I fail to see how a salary is justified for one presenter, when every other celebrity and musical guest waived any fees they were offered.
Sir Tel, then had the gall to say he would gladly do it for free, and he was unaware he was being paid.
That means, either he was lying, because anyone knows if they are being paid or not, if they check their salary slips, or pay an accountant to keep track of things - which a man being paid £800,000 a year would probably have, you'd think.
Or, he is so busy swimming in licence payers' cash, that he doesn't notice an additional unexplained nine grand mysteriously appearing in his bank account every November, just after Children In Need has been on.
Neither sceario paints him in a good light, and I viewed him as an overpaid duplicitous hypocrite from that day forward.
The other reason I detested him was his constant unctuous over-bearing cod-humility and self-deprecation.
Frankly, if you are that busy knowing that you are a skilled professional presenter, which he was, and telling everyone that it really nothing, you drift through the realm of genuine modesty, and out into the inversely proportional concept of telling everyone how average you are, simply so they can fall over themselves to contradict you, and feed your monstrous ego a little further.
So no Til, I really didn't like old Tel at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For everyone's advance info - following requests for an opinion of Gloria Hunniford will be met with a sharp slap!!!
Latest Posts
Wintry Weather Heading Our Way
News1 min ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
