I am reminded of a SuperBowl moment from many years past in which a "wardrobe malfunction" led to a series of debates and news stories regarding what constitutes as "offensive television broadcasting" and the fact that the FCC was allowed to fine the television broadcasters a hefty amount because of the damaging/offensive nature of what they allowed to air on their channel.
But which is really more psychologically damaging and deserving of a strict penalty and fine for the broadcaster: a split-second viewing of the nipple of a major celebrity or holiday commercials that are aired outside of the holiday season?
In my opinion, I can think of incredibly few scenarios in which the viewing of Janet Jackson's nipple could put a human being into a homicidal rampage. And yet it seems that way before Thanksgiving and way after New Year's are we all bombarded with Christmas-related commercials - and the urge to kill rises. It's a wonder that you don't see murderers throughout the month of January on film in high-speed chases with the police, then led off in handcuffs sporting a murderous grin while softly humming the particular holiday commercial jingle that finally drove them over the edge.
I present to you two commercials that, if not stopped immediately, will be what you hear humming from behind prison bars in February by convicted killers with icy stares and sinister smiles:
I get it, Hyundai. You found an indie band called "Pomplamoose" consisting of two members who have a certain sound that really belongs on NPR and it's wacky because now you can bring them to the public eye and sell some cars while promoting Christmas.
CHRISTMAS IS OVER. NEW YEAR'S IS OVER. HANNUKAH IS REALLY OVER. You have no right to continue promoting a "Holiday" sale! Cease and desist immediately!
The FCC should fine any television broadcasting station which continues to allow the airing of advertisements related to "winter holidays" after 11:59pm PST on January 1st.
For our sanity. Think of the children!
What do you think? Do you also feel murderous rage when watching holiday commercials after the official holiday season is over? Leave a comment!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
New Show Idea!
I'm always trying to come with horrible new TV shows, in hopes of one day landing one with a TV exec and getting paid a decent amount of money (not "retirement" money, but "living comfortably while keeping my job" money) and getting to appear in the credits or something. You know, a legacy. And more bad TV!
In the past, most of my efforts have gone to a FOX-style TV show called "V.D. Island" which would have honestly fit in perfectly with the FOX steaming pile of reality crap television. It's basically "The Mole" meets "Tempation Island", in which you basically have 10 males and 10 females all with clean bills of health except for one who secretly has a venerial disease. I'm thinking it would be best to do this show with an STD that can be fought with antibiotics, but it's up to the producers. It's basically a show where contestants have to have sex with someone at least once a week and try not to get the disease. The real fun comes in when people realize they've GOT the disease and since nobody's booted off the island, they get to trick other people into having sex with them just to screw them out of the prize. Would it come down to rape? Who knows! It's FOX programming at it's finest, no?
The real FOX-style twist would be when on the final episode, as the host is announcing the winner who does not have the VD that everyone else has...
...the host stabs the winner in the arm with a syringe and screams "YOU'VE GOT VD!" and hope on a helicopter as all of the signs flip-change to read an extra "ESCAPE FROM" over the "V.D. ISLAND"! Now it's a NEW reality show where 20 people with V.D. have six weeks to escape from V.D. Island! Plus, as an incentive, for every week they DON'T escape, they airdrop in a ravenous lion - who also has V.D.! The show would only obviously last two seasons (or whenever they get cancelled due to death-related lawsuits), but I think that's enough to get the ratings and merchandising enough to turn a profit.
I'm off the toppic - I have a NEW show idea. It's certainly not good enough for FOX (and by that, I mean "not profitable or horrendous enough") but it would do well on a network like maybe Food Network, given the nature of it.
I'm still working on a title.
Here's the premise:
A crew goes to a fast-food place, somewhere that has those deceptive-looking pictures of menu items (I've found them mostly at Chinese places, but most fast food locations would work just as well) and you basically tell the cashier that you will pay $100 if they can produce in ten minutes the equivelant food item that is represented in the picture. The footage would show the crew scrambling to adjust things or maybe make something fresh for a change just to try and piece together all of the elements of the picture in order to satisfy the judge. The end result would be a photo match showing the picture and the item, and if it comes close enough they get the money to be split among the crew, otherwise they get paid the regular value of the item.
Since the ten minutes of time they need to make the item is obviously not long enough for one full half-hour episode (I doubt that even with minimal editing, there isn't even going to be ten full minutes of footage that's airworthy), Food Network might have the classier programming to maybe take a few minutes to do some background on the location, or air the letter or video send in requesting that their team tackle this location. I can't wait to see angry patrons showing video of the picture on the menu and the pathetic excuses for food that are served, demanding this kind of satisfaction to be televised. Maybe as a bonus, they have that patron who sent the request actually show up at the location to eat the end results and maybe give a food rating or just a statement of gratitude.
Maybe as a show-off, they could have a moderately-famous chef as the host and after the ten-minute judging, the chef would get behind the counter and use their ingredients to try and out-do them in making the visual masterpiece? The possibilities are quite extensive. I think it would make for great bad-TV, something you flip to and wonder what it is long enough to stay tuned, like a car accident that piques your interest.
What do you think? Would you watch this kind of show? Should I create a real pitch for it? Do you have restaurants screwing you over with inaccurate visual representations of their food? Should I just stick to "V.D. Island"-type shows?
(Fact: My dad used to order burgers from Carl's Jr. with the phrase "extra messy" because he wanted them to accurately represent the sloppy claims made in the TV advertisements. For those of you not familiar with one of Carl's Jr. or their slogans, "If it doesn't get all over the place - it doesn't belong in your face.") Read more!
In the past, most of my efforts have gone to a FOX-style TV show called "V.D. Island" which would have honestly fit in perfectly with the FOX steaming pile of reality crap television. It's basically "The Mole" meets "Tempation Island", in which you basically have 10 males and 10 females all with clean bills of health except for one who secretly has a venerial disease. I'm thinking it would be best to do this show with an STD that can be fought with antibiotics, but it's up to the producers. It's basically a show where contestants have to have sex with someone at least once a week and try not to get the disease. The real fun comes in when people realize they've GOT the disease and since nobody's booted off the island, they get to trick other people into having sex with them just to screw them out of the prize. Would it come down to rape? Who knows! It's FOX programming at it's finest, no?
The real FOX-style twist would be when on the final episode, as the host is announcing the winner who does not have the VD that everyone else has...
...the host stabs the winner in the arm with a syringe and screams "YOU'VE GOT VD!" and hope on a helicopter as all of the signs flip-change to read an extra "ESCAPE FROM" over the "V.D. ISLAND"! Now it's a NEW reality show where 20 people with V.D. have six weeks to escape from V.D. Island! Plus, as an incentive, for every week they DON'T escape, they airdrop in a ravenous lion - who also has V.D.! The show would only obviously last two seasons (or whenever they get cancelled due to death-related lawsuits), but I think that's enough to get the ratings and merchandising enough to turn a profit.
I'm off the toppic - I have a NEW show idea. It's certainly not good enough for FOX (and by that, I mean "not profitable or horrendous enough") but it would do well on a network like maybe Food Network, given the nature of it.
I'm still working on a title.
Here's the premise:
A crew goes to a fast-food place, somewhere that has those deceptive-looking pictures of menu items (I've found them mostly at Chinese places, but most fast food locations would work just as well) and you basically tell the cashier that you will pay $100 if they can produce in ten minutes the equivelant food item that is represented in the picture. The footage would show the crew scrambling to adjust things or maybe make something fresh for a change just to try and piece together all of the elements of the picture in order to satisfy the judge. The end result would be a photo match showing the picture and the item, and if it comes close enough they get the money to be split among the crew, otherwise they get paid the regular value of the item.
Since the ten minutes of time they need to make the item is obviously not long enough for one full half-hour episode (I doubt that even with minimal editing, there isn't even going to be ten full minutes of footage that's airworthy), Food Network might have the classier programming to maybe take a few minutes to do some background on the location, or air the letter or video send in requesting that their team tackle this location. I can't wait to see angry patrons showing video of the picture on the menu and the pathetic excuses for food that are served, demanding this kind of satisfaction to be televised. Maybe as a bonus, they have that patron who sent the request actually show up at the location to eat the end results and maybe give a food rating or just a statement of gratitude.
Maybe as a show-off, they could have a moderately-famous chef as the host and after the ten-minute judging, the chef would get behind the counter and use their ingredients to try and out-do them in making the visual masterpiece? The possibilities are quite extensive. I think it would make for great bad-TV, something you flip to and wonder what it is long enough to stay tuned, like a car accident that piques your interest.
What do you think? Would you watch this kind of show? Should I create a real pitch for it? Do you have restaurants screwing you over with inaccurate visual representations of their food? Should I just stick to "V.D. Island"-type shows?
(Fact: My dad used to order burgers from Carl's Jr. with the phrase "extra messy" because he wanted them to accurately represent the sloppy claims made in the TV advertisements. For those of you not familiar with one of Carl's Jr. or their slogans, "If it doesn't get all over the place - it doesn't belong in your face.") Read more!
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Shows to Miss
With all of the Fall premieres going on, new TV shows are popping up everywhere. Some, like Reaper or Chuck, are getting rave reviews and bringing something new to the television world. Okay, well maybe not "new" because everything's pretty much already been done, for the most part and to a degree. After all, (and those of you who watch South Park probably know this already,) when you get right down to it, anything really humorous means that The Simpsons probably already did it.
So with that in mind, what out there is invading our airwaves with mindless feces that would make you want to wash your eyes out with soap?
Here are a few things I've been picking up on:
Dr. Steve-O: I can already hear some of you saying "whaaaaa?" - and you'd be right. On first glance, it looks like the Jackass jackass is creating yet another spinoff, since apparently all of his Jackass money and spinoff Wildboyz money had probably all gone right down the toilet from hospital bills and vaccinations and antidotes. So you might be thinking, "Okay, what's the new show about? What new wacky ways will Steve-O degrade himself and injure himself on the airwaves of MTV?"
Wrong. Not MTV. This new show is on the USA Network.
Seriously. Not kidding you. U-S-f*ckin'-A.
Okay, so maybe they're just going to tone things down a little, but certainly it's still just Steve-O running around and doing stupid things, right? "Dr. Steve-O" makes it sound like he's going to be involving some weird medical equipment and probably sticking them in orifices! Well, hate to disappoint you, but here's the show's premise:
"Dr. Steve-O" will be going around the nation to "de-wussify wimps, nerds and couch potatoes." And of course, rather than sitting and talking about it, Steve-O will be setting up hilarious stunts and demented dares which he'll be calling "extreme attitude adjustments" - participants will be selected on behalf of pleas from girlfriends, mothers, and friends to want to hire Steve-O for his dewussification services.
It's pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Instead of sophisticated guys taking tactless men and training them in elegance and style, this show has a jackass taking wusses and torturing them into manliness - I think?
No matter how you slice it, I just don't think the show will be worth it. The stunts may be entertaining (whatever they'll allow to air on the USA Network), but it's all just a testosterone-fueled ripoff of Dr. Phil. There are just too many therapy shows on TV right now, between asinine weight-loss series and "starting over" programs and "let's either talk about your problems or send you to a boot camp to scare you straight" drivel. Enough. The last thing we need is a guy who sticks leeches on his eye and ties fireworks to his penis telling men how to behave. Frankly, I'd rather just have a few more wusses around.
Cavemen: Oh goodie, an entire television series dedicated to one-liner commercial characters!! How can this POSSIBLY go wrong??
According to reports and what very little actual information there is on the show, since the pilot is still unfinished and probably being rewritten again due to writers committing actual suicide instead of just the career suicide of having their name attached to this monstrocity would undoubtedly bring.
Odds are it will attempt to stray from "ha ha you think we're dumb because we're cavemen but we're really not we're totally smart lol kthxbye" and will go for the faux-comedic route of "we're different and it's funny because we have to assimilate and it's going to be awkward!"
Been there. Done that. If you're really interested in a "fish out of water" type of series with old and overplayed jokes, why don't you just go watch reruns of Mork & Mindy or maybe 3rd Rock from the Sun - hell, you could even watch The Jeffersons and get your dosage of "we're different and it's awkward" that way! No need to drag out another two-episode show (that's when it will inevitably be cancelled) just for the end result of an "I told you so."
That's all I'm willing to speculate on for right now. Expect a few more editions of this as the Fall Season really picks up. (Maybe even a good-show list!)
(Proof that I'm not lying about this Dr. Steve-O show)
Read more!
So with that in mind, what out there is invading our airwaves with mindless feces that would make you want to wash your eyes out with soap?
Here are a few things I've been picking up on:
Dr. Steve-O: I can already hear some of you saying "whaaaaa?" - and you'd be right. On first glance, it looks like the Jackass jackass is creating yet another spinoff, since apparently all of his Jackass money and spinoff Wildboyz money had probably all gone right down the toilet from hospital bills and vaccinations and antidotes. So you might be thinking, "Okay, what's the new show about? What new wacky ways will Steve-O degrade himself and injure himself on the airwaves of MTV?"
Wrong. Not MTV. This new show is on the USA Network.
Seriously. Not kidding you. U-S-f*ckin'-A.
Okay, so maybe they're just going to tone things down a little, but certainly it's still just Steve-O running around and doing stupid things, right? "Dr. Steve-O" makes it sound like he's going to be involving some weird medical equipment and probably sticking them in orifices! Well, hate to disappoint you, but here's the show's premise:
"Dr. Steve-O" will be going around the nation to "de-wussify wimps, nerds and couch potatoes." And of course, rather than sitting and talking about it, Steve-O will be setting up hilarious stunts and demented dares which he'll be calling "extreme attitude adjustments" - participants will be selected on behalf of pleas from girlfriends, mothers, and friends to want to hire Steve-O for his dewussification services.
It's pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Instead of sophisticated guys taking tactless men and training them in elegance and style, this show has a jackass taking wusses and torturing them into manliness - I think?
No matter how you slice it, I just don't think the show will be worth it. The stunts may be entertaining (whatever they'll allow to air on the USA Network), but it's all just a testosterone-fueled ripoff of Dr. Phil. There are just too many therapy shows on TV right now, between asinine weight-loss series and "starting over" programs and "let's either talk about your problems or send you to a boot camp to scare you straight" drivel. Enough. The last thing we need is a guy who sticks leeches on his eye and ties fireworks to his penis telling men how to behave. Frankly, I'd rather just have a few more wusses around.
Cavemen: Oh goodie, an entire television series dedicated to one-liner commercial characters!! How can this POSSIBLY go wrong??
According to reports and what very little actual information there is on the show, since the pilot is still unfinished and probably being rewritten again due to writers committing actual suicide instead of just the career suicide of having their name attached to this monstrocity would undoubtedly bring.
Odds are it will attempt to stray from "ha ha you think we're dumb because we're cavemen but we're really not we're totally smart lol kthxbye" and will go for the faux-comedic route of "we're different and it's funny because we have to assimilate and it's going to be awkward!"
Been there. Done that. If you're really interested in a "fish out of water" type of series with old and overplayed jokes, why don't you just go watch reruns of Mork & Mindy or maybe 3rd Rock from the Sun - hell, you could even watch The Jeffersons and get your dosage of "we're different and it's awkward" that way! No need to drag out another two-episode show (that's when it will inevitably be cancelled) just for the end result of an "I told you so."
That's all I'm willing to speculate on for right now. Expect a few more editions of this as the Fall Season really picks up. (Maybe even a good-show list!)
(Proof that I'm not lying about this Dr. Steve-O show)
Read more!
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
NEWS FLASH: Burritos are not sandwiches!
It was hard to decide a category in which to place this news flash. I first thought about the Legal section, since it was all about the lawsuit over the burrito's status as a sandwich or not a sandwich - but then I thought about the heart of the matter: food logic.
The whole debate about burritos and sandwiches all started when a Panera store (of a huge franchise based in St. Louis with stores across the nation) in the White City Shopping Center added a clause in its lease with the shopping center that there would not be another sandwich shop allowed to rent space while Panera is there. Then along came the Qdoba Mexican Grill, which led to Panera invoking that clause to prevent the new store from opening, and challenging its right to even rent space in the shopping center.
And they went to court, hearing testimony from Webster's Dictionary, a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official.
Verdict: Burritos are not sandwiches.
The court heard a lot of testimony on the subject. Panera claimed that a flour tortilla is a bread, and a food product with bread and filling is a sandwich. The judge wound up ruling that "a sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans." Well, the actual ruling took up eight pages, but that was the bread and butter of the decision.
Bread and butter: Sandwich or No Sandwich?
In fact, the whole difference between Panera's self-serving broad definition of a sandwich being any bread/grain product and a filling, versus the court's ruling about sandwiches following more of the dictionary definition of two individual pieces of leavened bread and usually containing meat, cheese or another savory mixture - it raises a few other questions.
Let's think of things Panera would think are sandwiches that a court (and probably a nutritional anthropologist) would disagree with!
Calzone - one slab of pizza dough, folded over, and containing pizza sauce, cheese, and sometimes meats.
Pizza Puff - the same, but usually fried rather than baked.
Burrito - the reigning champion of "Not a Sandwich"
Taco - also only one tortilla, folded over
Quesadilla - questionable, as more traditional methods say one tortilla folded over, but I have cooked several times with two tortillas. This could be a sandwich, unless leavening comes into play, in which case my tortilla might still be safe from sandwichdom.
Ravioli - A bread product with a meat/cheese filling, but uses only one piece of dough.
Eggroll - also only one piece of dough.
Pierogi - also only one piece of dough.
Gyro - one piece of flatbread, which isn't really that flat
Now let's take on a few questionable items, and I'll let you help decide as you pretend to be a high-powered Superior Court judge who is stuck handling cases of "What is a Sandwich?"
"Sandwich" or "No Sandwich"?
S'mores - two pieces of bread-type food, filling that is usually not meaty or cheesy.
Chicago-Style Stuffed Pizza - a pizza that has both a bottom crust and a top crust, obviously with a pizza filling in the middle.
Ritz Bits Sandwiches (with cheese or peanut butter) - two separate crackers, filling of cheesy/savory nature. Is the term "sandwich" in the title an admission of guilt? Does this affect the law itself?
Nachos - another Mexican dish, comprised of MORE THAN ONE piece of bread-product, with cheese in-between as a "filling". Could Panera cry "sandwich" over this culinary treat after its relative, the burrito, has walked away clean?
Lasagna - the meaty cheesy filling is placed between separate layers of noodles. Does a sandwich have to be something hand-held, as it was supposedly originally created by the Earl of Sandwich to hold meaty food in his hand while playing cards?
Oreos - Two cookies, including a filling. While Oreos are the brand-name misnomer given to lots of non-Oreo cookies (like Band-aids are misnomered for adhesive bandages and Kleenex are for tissues), the category of cookie is known as "sandwich cookies" by the industry. Admission of guilt or simple racial profiling and stereotyping as Sandwich?
Pie - a classic two-breaded filled food item! While meat pies are not as common as the fruity variety, and more and more cream-based pies have no top shell - classic pie chefs are aware that the standard pie would make an excellent example of a possible Sandwich candidate.
You decide. You rule.
Sandwich? No Sandwich?
Have fun being judge and jury, and feel free to bring any other food items to the courtroom to be judged as you see fit!
(You know, this might be a stupidly-funny skit for SNL or MadTV of something. A gameshow/courtshow titled "Sandwich or No Sandwich?" and featuring a really fat judge who "knows about sandwiches". Hell, if "Extreme Akim" could be a judge on that outrageous debacle of a court show, "Eye for an Eye", and have a disclaimer in the credits to let viewers know that "Extreme Akim is not a judge. Rulings are not final or legally binding." - why couldn't THIS show fly?)
This is my claim on the whole idea. Patent Pending! Copyright Pending! Trademark Pending! Bwaaarg!!!
What foods would you bring to "Sandwich or No Sandwich"? Leave a comment and let me know!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
The whole debate about burritos and sandwiches all started when a Panera store (of a huge franchise based in St. Louis with stores across the nation) in the White City Shopping Center added a clause in its lease with the shopping center that there would not be another sandwich shop allowed to rent space while Panera is there. Then along came the Qdoba Mexican Grill, which led to Panera invoking that clause to prevent the new store from opening, and challenging its right to even rent space in the shopping center.
And they went to court, hearing testimony from Webster's Dictionary, a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official.
Verdict: Burritos are not sandwiches.
The court heard a lot of testimony on the subject. Panera claimed that a flour tortilla is a bread, and a food product with bread and filling is a sandwich. The judge wound up ruling that "a sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans." Well, the actual ruling took up eight pages, but that was the bread and butter of the decision.
Bread and butter: Sandwich or No Sandwich?
In fact, the whole difference between Panera's self-serving broad definition of a sandwich being any bread/grain product and a filling, versus the court's ruling about sandwiches following more of the dictionary definition of two individual pieces of leavened bread and usually containing meat, cheese or another savory mixture - it raises a few other questions.
Let's think of things Panera would think are sandwiches that a court (and probably a nutritional anthropologist) would disagree with!
Calzone - one slab of pizza dough, folded over, and containing pizza sauce, cheese, and sometimes meats.
Pizza Puff - the same, but usually fried rather than baked.
Burrito - the reigning champion of "Not a Sandwich"
Taco - also only one tortilla, folded over
Quesadilla - questionable, as more traditional methods say one tortilla folded over, but I have cooked several times with two tortillas. This could be a sandwich, unless leavening comes into play, in which case my tortilla might still be safe from sandwichdom.
Ravioli - A bread product with a meat/cheese filling, but uses only one piece of dough.
Eggroll - also only one piece of dough.
Pierogi - also only one piece of dough.
Gyro - one piece of flatbread, which isn't really that flat
Now let's take on a few questionable items, and I'll let you help decide as you pretend to be a high-powered Superior Court judge who is stuck handling cases of "What is a Sandwich?"
"Sandwich" or "No Sandwich"?
S'mores - two pieces of bread-type food, filling that is usually not meaty or cheesy.
Chicago-Style Stuffed Pizza - a pizza that has both a bottom crust and a top crust, obviously with a pizza filling in the middle.
Ritz Bits Sandwiches (with cheese or peanut butter) - two separate crackers, filling of cheesy/savory nature. Is the term "sandwich" in the title an admission of guilt? Does this affect the law itself?
Nachos - another Mexican dish, comprised of MORE THAN ONE piece of bread-product, with cheese in-between as a "filling". Could Panera cry "sandwich" over this culinary treat after its relative, the burrito, has walked away clean?
Lasagna - the meaty cheesy filling is placed between separate layers of noodles. Does a sandwich have to be something hand-held, as it was supposedly originally created by the Earl of Sandwich to hold meaty food in his hand while playing cards?
Oreos - Two cookies, including a filling. While Oreos are the brand-name misnomer given to lots of non-Oreo cookies (like Band-aids are misnomered for adhesive bandages and Kleenex are for tissues), the category of cookie is known as "sandwich cookies" by the industry. Admission of guilt or simple racial profiling and stereotyping as Sandwich?
Pie - a classic two-breaded filled food item! While meat pies are not as common as the fruity variety, and more and more cream-based pies have no top shell - classic pie chefs are aware that the standard pie would make an excellent example of a possible Sandwich candidate.
You decide. You rule.
Sandwich? No Sandwich?
Have fun being judge and jury, and feel free to bring any other food items to the courtroom to be judged as you see fit!
(You know, this might be a stupidly-funny skit for SNL or MadTV of something. A gameshow/courtshow titled "Sandwich or No Sandwich?" and featuring a really fat judge who "knows about sandwiches". Hell, if "Extreme Akim" could be a judge on that outrageous debacle of a court show, "Eye for an Eye", and have a disclaimer in the credits to let viewers know that "Extreme Akim is not a judge. Rulings are not final or legally binding." - why couldn't THIS show fly?)
This is my claim on the whole idea. Patent Pending! Copyright Pending! Trademark Pending! Bwaaarg!!!
What foods would you bring to "Sandwich or No Sandwich"? Leave a comment and let me know!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
