Analysis: Can of Worms: Will Denton open a Can of Beast, Tench or Gruen?

Another month, another "Zapruder's Other Films" program premieres.

In recent times, Andrew Denton and Anita Jacoby's production company has churned out shows including Hungry Beast, AFP, The Gruen Transfer and Gruen Nation, all to varying degrees of success.

On the whole, there is a consensus that shows that they formulate are new and inventive, if nothing else. Before their respective premieres, they are also shrouded in secrecy, with man of the key talent kept under wraps, as well as the format, premise and general feel of the show.

This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to predict the success of the show. Their policy of secrecy is a double-edged sword, as obviously not knowing anything about the show builds up a sort of mystique, and of course builds the curiosity factor. It also encourages people to watch the show for the central premise, rather than fob it off after seeing a personality one dislikes on the promo (Dicko is nowhere to be seen on the talking-head promos, despite the fact that he is the host).

On the other hand, the vague "Australia, we need to talk" tagline is not quite explicit enough for some people to feel an urge to tune in.

The "talking heads" that appear to discuss various issues which touch on "porn", religion and the internet. So its clear that we're in line for some modern, frank discussion. Presumably there is a newfound market for this kind of discussion, what with these type of discussions being brought up frequently on Q and A.

Obviously the show wants "Australia" to start talking. It wants families to start these type of discussions in their own house. This will create further word-of-mouth between friends, etc. etc.

Whether the show is aiming to set the agenda on new issues or rather react to issues in the news is unknown.

So, what do we know we can expect?

Read on to find out...

Nine Draws a Line after Three Weeks: Between the Lines Cancelled

So, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise, but Eddie McGuire's latest show Between the Lines has been cancelled after only three weeks.

Ratings weren't terrible with 696,000 in its first week, 610,000 in its second, then 510,000 viewers in its third. For a Thursday night, it would need at least 700,000 to justify its presence.

It featured Mick Molloy and Ryan Fitzgerald, both Channel Ten personalities (lucky they didn't sever that tie) who tried their best but unfortunately it wasn't enough.

The show drew criticism for its blokey vibe (only one woman was allowed to be a guest per-week) which only perpetuated the "boys club" myth that many find repulsive. It also had an over-emphasis on AFL (McGuire, Molloy and Fitzgerald are all AFL media identities), which obviously didn't have a great appeal to Sydney audiences.

However, it is a bit of a shame, as it is when any Aussie program bites the dust, and there were some decent laughs to be had on the show. Unfortunately, viewers have clearly tired of shows which try to replicate formulae of other shows (BTL was obviously a copy of Spicks and Specks, The Trophy Room, or any other show along those lines).

Even if it didn't make an identical copy, the fact is that it wasn't original enough, or at least it wasn't entertaining enough to overcome that initial hurdle.

Just look at the example of My Kitchen Rules: it was obviously an attempt to replicate the winning formula of MasterChef- the drama of preparing dishes, the plating up, friendly yet critical judges, etc- yet it appeared to be a completely different show. For starters, it was set in people's homes. The contestants also were able to critique each other's dishes, which was somewhat of a novelty. Hence, it became a success in its own right, an remarks comparing it to MasterChef became minimal.

So hopefully the lesson learned from this should be that networks should focus on giving a new show a strong element of originality to avoid people judging it in comparison to their more successful counterparts.

Between the Lines Review: A Nice Surprise, but can it Join the Ranks of "Specks", GNW, TAYG?

I was pleasantly surprised by Nine's latest foray into the panel/quiz show formula. Ten has its pop culture quiz show in Talkin' 'Bout Your Generation, its news quiz show in Good News Week. ABC has its music quiz show in Spicks and Specks and its sports quiz show in The Trophy Room. So how does this stack up?

Well, first off Eddie McGuire as host : he did the job just fine, there was never any question of that. As always, it always comes down to whether you are a fan of his or not, or rather, if you can tolerate him or not. But whether you like him or not, he knows when to let the guests crack their jokes or tell their stories, and when to keep the show moving (though it was not live).
But at the end of the day, even if you don't like Eddie, he doesn't dominate the show, so it would be tolerable at worst.

The two team captains were Mick Molloy and Ryan Fitzgerald, who were both quite funny. Molloy came with a few succinct one-liners that he's used to delivering on Before the Game while Fitzgerald was quite good at responding to situations and making jokes up on the spot.

The comedians were Peter Berner and Ed Kavalee, and they were predictably brilliant, however, I couldn't help feeling a pang of nostalgia and excitement for the two shows these two were/are involved in (The Einstein Factor and The Joy of Sets).

The stars Lauren Burns and James Tomkins didn't really have a lot to offer except for a couple of amusing anecdotes, but I guess you need them on there given it is a sports show. And having 6 comedians on a show can sometimes be too chaotic.

So it's really no different to most panel-type shows- it will live and die by the quality of its guests. For example, I would watch if people like Ed Kavalee were on, but not if someone like Ruby Rose were on.



Also, speaking of female guests, many have remarked that there is not a strong female presence, which opens it up to a barrage of criticism. Here's a suggestion for another female guest- Mieke Buchan. She is also on Eddie's Triple M breakfast show, and has good chemistry with him. Also, and most importantly, she knows her sport- she is also associated with Channel Nine as she does voiceovers for the AFL Footy Show.

And speaking of chaos, if you stack it up against GNW, Eddie keeps his show under control. Which isn't to say that the chaos doesn't work for GNW.

It is also a bit more structured than Talkin Bout Your Generation, as that show requires a looser format to allow Shaun Micallef room to weave his magic, the elaborate games to play out and allow the guests to have some good ol' fashioned fun.

However, it is not as structured as Spicks and Specks. It does borrow heavily from its games such as the "pick a subject" questions, and the "true or false" anecdotes. However, I for one couldn't care less. If a show is good, I don't care if it borrows elements from other shows. After all, we're all friends here....

There was, however, one part I disliked was the segment in which the contestants had to pick the "real" Gary Cosier. It isn't really the fault of the comedians, as they are there to make jokes, but they proceeded to take potshots at the five "Garys" based on their physical appearance. It only served to demonstrate the sort of blokey ribbing with more than a hint of nastiness that would cause many to switch off. For example, Molloy kicked it off by saying one of the "Garys" "is clearly on day release". Ed Kavalee's were less malicious, saying one looked like he wants to "go (him)", while another looked like "Con the Fruiterer". Molloy, though, finished by saying one looked like he was born in "1896". On the other side, Berner said "Get two Kerry Bousteads and tape them together" to get one of the "Kerry Bousteads" in the line-up.

I just hope five women aren't put up next week or else it could get very ugly...

So in the end, it turned out to be a decent show. Not exactly a rip-snorter, but it has the capacity to turn out some decent laughs every week. However, it all comes down to the ratings tomorrow...

Between the Lines: The Crappy Art of Replicating a Formula

Here's one for ya, how big a failure will Nine's "new" "TV show" be?

A. A "Let Loose Live" failure

B. A "Ben Elton" failure

C.

D.

Too harsh? Possibly. But I'm usually all for giving new Australian shows a go. But I'm less "forgiving" when it comes to Australian shows that are slapped together and thrown into viewers lounge rooms which try to capitalise on the success of another show.

Take the Todd McKenney abomination, You May Be Right. It tried to capitalise on the success of Dancing With the Stars, of which Todd McKenney was the nasty, yet intelligently catty judge, as well as the runaway success that was (and continues to be) Spicks and Specks. With these two elements together, surely Seven was on to a winner? All it needed now was to plug the rest of the panel holes with "celebrities" and other such "funny-funny makers", as they're known in the industry. It also, laughably, centred around not only music, but also TV shows and movies, because, you see, this automatically made it better (and different) to Spicks and Specks.

However, it was an unabashed failure. Incidentally, in 2010, a similar attempt was made to presumably relaunch You May Be Right, or at least the concept of it. This time, it came in the form of The White Room. Yes, there were games, a panel, celebs... but, get this: there were TWO hosts this time. Thus, it was better, etc.

Anyway, the point remains, replicating a winning idea remains a difficult, and mostly scorned tactic, especially in the mind of the viewer.

However, it can be done, as was proven in 2010 with the success of My Kitchen Rules, or in other words, MasterChef @ Home But With That French Chef That Was On MasterChef Once Or Twice But Is Now On This Show. And although it's basically the same show (people put food on a plate to be judged, rinse, repeat), Channel Seven managed to successfully make it look different to MasterChef (though its lower production values may have just been a budget issue). They also didn't try to top MasterChef (and this was subsequently reflects in its ratings), and hence why many people have commented that it has served as an entree to the main course of MasterChef.

The problem with Ed's new show, however, comes in the fact that they are trying to throw together all manner of formats and pass it off as a fun new show.

Let's break it apart: it's a sports quiz show. But wait, there's more! From TV website TV Tonight comes the press release:

"Competitors will take part in Q&A segments with pictures, video clips, guessing games, special guest rounds, performance rounds and sporting challenges."

I sincerely hope Q&A was not slipped in there gratuitously, given the success of the ABC program... actually, I wouldn't put it past Nine.

And "guessing games" really sound like they will be the winner amongst that group.

Each episode will feature guest appearances from sporting identities who will provide anecdotes from their careers. The teams will then be required to say whether the stories they’ve just heard are true or false."

Surely it goes without saying for Spicks and Specks viewers, but it sounds eerily similar to a certain game on that show, where contestants must pick the correct anecdote from a choice of three.

"Between The Lines will also include a special segment that gives viewers a rare peek into the locker room to hear never-before-told tales from Australian sporting heroes."

Soooo, a sports quiz show. There hasn't been one of them since The Squiz on SBS, and H2H on the ABC. And, of course, we all know where we have seen the "quiz" aspect.

It is also trying to recreate the jokey, blokey atmosphere of the Footy Show by bringing in Dermott Brereton and Billy Brownless, while also bringing in the "new generation" of comics in Mick Molloy and Ryan "Fitzy" Fitzgerald (who are a part of the team on Ten's Before the Game- one can only guess how this conflict will play out).

It is also combining the "winning" chemistry of Mick Molloy and Eddie McGuire, who have seemingly hit it off big-time after spending mornings together on the Hot Breakfast on Triple M.

There is also the light-hearted panel vibe which has seemingly been pioneered by the folk on The 7pm Project.

They have also had previous form together on TV - fun times.

We all know about Nine's track-record in 2011. Let's just say it hasn't been fantastic.

And Eddie McGuire has had somewhat of a hit with his Million Dollar Drop, as well as Hot Seat, yet it is well known that interstate viewers don't respond well to him in many other roles.

This isn't to say I won't give it a go... but these days, trying to replicate a formula almost invariably sets a show up for failure.

Note: I am aware that Spicks and Specks bares many a similarity to "Never Mind the Buzzcocks", and the TV Guru has very perceptively alluded to this fact, but I am talking about trying to replicate the often intangible nuances of successful shows in Australia, for example, the chemistry between stars on the show.

No Falaughing Matter

Just a word on the latest Eddie McGuire furore.

You might even say the most recent "food-in-mouth" scandal... If you wanted to get punched in the nose.

It all started when Eddie was having a bit of to-and-fro with GWS coach Kevin Sheedy on his Hot Breakfast radio show on Triple M Melbourne.

Now, the context is important and it isn't. It isn't because all you need to know is that Sheedy was being his usual cheeky self, in-part being honest about their hunt for players, and in-part baiting Eddie, knowing full-well that Eddie has been acting even more Mother Hen-like after the Premiership win in 2010. Also knowing that he is just about the only man who can offer Collingwood players more money than Collingwood itself.

Therefore when Sheedy spoke of "picking a team of all players off-contract", and there being "a lot of Collingwood players on this team"... just to add fuel, "Sheeds" also said it's a "Deal or No Deal" situation.

Then Eddie had about a minute to come up with this: "I've just put a team together of your seventeen year olds who'll be sick of living up in the land of the felafel in Western Sydney..."

So the context was Eddie having a go at Sheedy... and Western Sydney.

That is, I think, what Eddie does not grasp. Eddie, today, tried to justify his comments by equating it to saying Carlton's the "land of the pizza". If you were to hear that on say, a program such as Postcards, you wouldn't bat an eyelid- so he is right. However, they would be painting Carlton in a positive light by trying to highlight its dominant ethnic identity, that of a large Italian population, with a defining reputation for its iconic Lygon Street.

So this is when context is crucial.

Eddie was using it as a slur against Western Sydney- nothing more, nothing less.

Now you might be like Eddie and declare your unbridled love for all things falafel. You might say that even in the context it was in and whatever intent Eddie had, that it isn't even that damaging in content. However, think of the connotations associated with a fried falafel and then the connotations involved in alluding to pizza or "haggis" (as he also calls his father a "haggis-muncher").

Yes, because the racial associations with these foods play no part at all, do they? These cultures have long been a part of Australian culture, or at least the ancestry of many Australians. The days of teasing someone as a "wog" are now over, so why would calling something a land of pizza be even a slight jibe?

This is why these seemingly innocent jibes against some groups do so much damage. Take Ben Elton's Live From Planet Earth. During a "public school teacher" sketch, a teacher said various made-up Asian-sounding names (one for example, sounded like "ain't-shit") and implied how ridiculously hard they were working.

Now, this seems like a compliment, and on the surface, it is. But, these sort of compliments or observations have a more insidious racism, even it is more hidden.

Either way, the person saying these "jokes" is usually feeling threatened, and uses his or her position chatting to a bunch of friends or thousands of people, to simultaneously make themselves more secure and take another group (usually in a lower position to start with) down a peg or two.

And of course, you always get the perpetrator of an offensive remark defending themselves by saying it was all a joke or some such.

And sometimes it is.

Here's the distinction; the Chaser Make a Wish Sketch was utterly lambasted for uttering the line "they are just going to die anyway". I'm not for one second defending it by saying how funny it was. I am also not saying it was tasteful or nice in any way. But! At no stage did anyone think the Chaser laughed at the fact that these kids were sick; their intention was not to make these kids or their families lose hope. They were trying- poorly- to be so outrageous that it was somehow funny. Needless to say it didn't work, but the point is- their intention was not a nasty one.

As Ricky Gervais said, comedy can either come from a good place or a bad place. And while the Chaser did not have their comedy come from a good place, it certainly wasn't the other.

And no one can deny that protective
Eddie wasn't trying to land a knockout blow with an easy stereotype of both the Lebanese population and the rest of the people of Greater Westen Sydney.