Strictly Come Dancing 2025: The Thomas Skinner Controversy

View fullsize

Strictly Come Dancing remains the BBC’s flagship light entertainment show for Autumn. Despite controversy and scandal, the show bounced back last year and firmly re-established itself as the “feel good, family show” it has always claimed to be. Blind comedian Chris McCausland becoming the 2024 champion certainly validated the show’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and helped place Strictly (as it is known to its fans) back on its cultural pedestal. I’m sure those involved in the production of the show breathed a sigh of relief when the season ended on such a positive note, eclipsing the negative press that had been ever present last summer. Second chances and opportunities for a “course correction” are few and far between these days. Especially when you have elements of the UK press waiting with bated breath and hoping that you’ll fail.

For those who live outside of the UK or who do not watch Strictly, it is worth taking a few moments to consider the significance of the show, its importance to the BBC and its place in UK pop culture. Strictly has grown from its humble origins in 2004 as a celebrity dance talent show, to a national institution and a text book example of  “feel-good TV”. It champions dancing, fitness, inclusivity and celebrity re-invention. It regularly has an audience of over 7 million viewers and has been licensed to over 60 other countries under the title Dancing With the Stars. The show has a broadly wholesome reputation and as such has proven accessible to a wide audience. It appeals to wide eyed fans, families, casual viewers and even cynical old curmudgeons like myself, as learning to dance is a prodigious undertaking requiring dedication and fortitude. Strictly is also a great way for actors, artists and media personalities to revitalise their careers.

Bearing this all in mind, the fact that Strictly is a big deal in entertainment terms and that it has bounced back after a problematic year, let us address the elephant in the room that manifested itself in late summer when this year’s contestants were announced. Why did the BBC decide to include Thomas Skinner in this year’s line up? For those who are unfamiliar with Mr Skinner, he is a UK businessman and TV personality who is best known for appearing on The Apprentice. At first glance, this is hardly controversial. However, if you look further Thomas Skinner has clear political affiliations with the likes of J.D. Vance and Robert Jenrick, has spoken out publicly on several issues such as crime in London and the performance of Mayor Sadiq Khan and is potentially seeking a political career with either the Conservative Party or Reform UK. He has been offered support by Dominic Cummings.

View fullsize

Strictly has always been a bastion of inclusivity. Straight, gay, able bodied, disabled, all are welcome on the show. The show has even included former politicians, such as Anne Widdecombe and Ed Balls. However, these were individuals who were no longer directly involved in frontline politics at the time of their appearance. It can be argued that this is not the case with Thomas Skinner. Furthermore, Mr Skinner is linked to a type of popular politics that has specific views regarding diversity and inclusion. Things they perceive as being “woke” or the province of the left. A percentage of the UK electorate and thus Strictly viewers, see the sort of politics and ideology that Mr Skinner is affiliated to as populist, nationalist and even racist. Hence his inclusion in this year’s show was not well received by all. Others see it as a politically useful Trojan Horse.

If you peruse the in-depth musings on Strictly by its hard core fans on such platforms as Reddit, Instagram and TikTok, you’ll find several recurring complaints regarding Thomas Skinner. Firstly, that he potentially contradicts the show’s inclusivity philosophy with his personal views and political outlook. Secondly, his very presence diminishes the feel good factor inherent in Strictly by dragging real world politics into the show. Something that fans wish to escape. Thirdly, the inclusion of a person with clear right wing leanings will further exacerbate the tabloid press frenzy regarding the show, as much of the UK print media is owned and edited by figures of a similar political disposition. Hence, a show designed to bring audiences together may potentially become a vehicle for bi-partisan politics and a further bridgehead in the ongoing culture war.

The BBC has long been a target for the political right, being seen as institutionally biased against them and a platform for all the political and cultural ideas that they are mainly against. The BBC in its naivete continues to seek balance in all things and thus ultimately giving a platform and possibly an excess of air time to those who would happily see it brought to heel or closed. It can be argued that in principle, Thomas Skinner should be able to participate in a show such as Strictly Come Dancing and be treated the same as anyone else. He is competing in a dance based reality show and no more. However, the reality of the situation is quite the opposite. Television of this kind is about more than just entertainment. It is a platform for messaging and promoting a media persona. Look at what appearing on a few episodes of the comedy panel show Have I Got News For You did for Boris Johnson’s career.

View fullsize

It was inevitable that the inclusion of a person such as Thomas Skinner on a high profile TV show such as Strictly, would result in a political bunfight. The BBC cannot claim surprise at this? Perhaps they chose to do so as a way of declaring to their opponents, “look we aren’t biased. Here’s one of your people”. An act of appeasement or the extending of an olive branch, perhaps? However, such a move never works. As any child will tell you, you can’t befriend your bully. Which means that for however long Thomas Skinner remains on the show, the wider coverage will be about his politics and him personally, as opposed to his dancing prowess. More cynical viewers believe that he has been partnered with Amy Dowden, a much loved professional dancer who has been battling multiple illnesses, as a means to negate the negative optics. If that is the case I doubt it will work.

This Saturday’s second episode of this year’s Strictly will see the first couple voted off the show. Someone has to go and it usually is the celebrity with the least skill. However, the participation of Mr Skinner and the media circus that follows means that whatever happens, the situation will be portrayed negatively for the show and what it represents, in the tabloid press. No doubt there will be plenty of political capital to be gained. If Thomas is eliminated, it will be because the liberal elite establishment conspired against him and if he endures, then it will be a triumph of British traditionalism over the woke cultural Marxism. The right wing media headlines effectively write themselves, the BBC scores a massive own goal and the viewing public are left with an unpleasant aftertaste as their favourite pop culture safe place is dragged through the sewer of contemporary politics.

Keep dancing.

Treasure Island in Outer Space (1987)

View fullsize

Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science. 

As in most of Antonio Margheriti’s films, there are a lot of traditional visual effects. The miniatures are efficiently realised, given the budgetary restrictions, by the late Emilio Ruiz del Rio (Pan’s Labyrinth, Dune, Conan The Barbarian). There are also some solid matte paintings, in-camera visual effects and simple composite shots. However, not all the visual effects are up to the standards of the time. The most obvious explanations for this are possibly the budget running out of the strictures of the shooting schedule. The quality of the set designs are also variable. Some are again somewhat obvious, leaning into standard tropes of the decade. Hence we see random arrays of flashing lights and banks of switches and dials that serve no particular purpose. Others, such as the bone graveyard at the film’s climax, are quite striking visually and have clearly been given some thought.

View fullsize

The lead performances from both Quinn and Borgnine are acceptable, delivering measured interpretations of their characters. Both avoid the standard cliched tropes associated with the depiction of pirates on film. Quinn attempts a more paternalistic approach to the character of Long John Silver. Itaco Nardulli is a somewhat generic Jim Hawkins. Like most Italian productions, the actors speak their lines in their native language while filming and are dubbed accordingly in post production. The main cast have subsequently re-recorded their own dialogue but some of the Italian cast have been dubbed in a somewhat incongruous fashion. Treasure Island In Outer Space features a traditional musical score by composer Gianfranco Plenizio, avoiding the usual synthesizer based approach to the science fiction genre, which was common at the time.

View fullsize

What makes Treasure Island In Outer Space a somewhat frustrating experience to watch is the ways that some aspects of the production have been given attention and others have been handled poorly. The cinematography by Sandro Messina is quite creative by television standards, with some scenes being shot from low angles or behind objects. Sadly the action scenes and fight choreography is somewhat theatrical and lacks any sense of momentum or kinetic energy. At seven episodes, each with a running time of 50 minutes, the English language version of Treasure Island In Outer Space is a somewhat lengthy adaptation. Perhaps a little too long. These deficiencies highlight the fact that this show is very much a product of its time and as such should be judged accordingly. There are better adaptations of Treasure Island and there are worse. For those who are curious, Treasure Island in Outer Space can be found on YouTube.

NB. Treasure Island in Outer Space was shown in 5 episodes, each running 75 minutes on Italian television in 1987. There are no major differences between this and the English language version which ran for 7 episodes of 50 minutes. However, there was also a theatrical version of the show, which was common practice at the time. This has a running time of 150 minutes and was released under the title Space Island.

The Idiot Box

View fullsize

Thoughts on TV shows and my current viewing habits.

I last wrote a blog post in this series back in February 2022. Then for various reasons, I stopped. Possibly because my relationship with TV has changed in recent years. It’s fair to say at present that viewers are spoilt for choice. There are lots of very good shows around. Conversely, there is also a lot of bland, generic, filler as well. I appreciate that not every television series has to be an industry milestone and there are times when I’m content to watch undemanding content. However, I am very protective of how I spend my leisure time at present. I am not prepared to sink 6 or 8 hours into a show that is just “okay”. Hence I’m becoming very particular about what I watch. If something isn’t working for me in any fashion then I just abandon it and am happy to do so.

NCIS: Origins. The first season of this prequel to NCIS has been a proverbial breath of fresh air. Where NCIS has become a cartoonish caricature of itself, NCIS: Origins is the polar opposite. The characters are well defined, plausible and interesting. The cast is good and the stories are centred around everyday cases, rather than hyperbolic “let’s save the world” scenarios. It really is a case of less is more. Mercifully, CBS have had the sense to renew the show for a second season. As for NCIS, it continues its slow decline, as it gradually morphs from a military police procedural drama into something akin to Murder She Wrote.

View fullsize

Teacup. Loosely based upon the novel Stinger by Robert R. McCammon, Teacup centres around a group of neighbours in rural Georgia who are trapped on a farm and forced to confront a mysterious and deadly threat. As they struggle to survive, they must overcome rising tensions and uncover the truth behind the strange occurrences. Teacup has a strong start and then continues the pace over its subsequent 8 episodes. The shorter 30 minute episode format works to the show’s advantage. There are some solid jump scares and a fair amount of gore. I like the idea of a horror film turned into an episodic TV show but commissioning network Peacock obviously didn’t and cancelled the show. 

Dept. Q. Every now and then, someone makes a police procedural drama which takes a different approach to the genre. Based on a series of books by Danish writer Jussi Adler-Olsen, Dept. Q relocates the stories from Copenhagen to Edinburgh. Detective Chief Inspector Carl Morck (Matthew Goode), a disliked but talented detective, returns to police work after being shot and is given a cold case unit to run. It is naturally a “poison chalice”, set up for political reasons. He is assisted by enigmatic, civilian employee Akram (Alexej Manvelov) who may have worked for the Syrian Police prior to moving to Scotland. This nine part Netflix drama is well written, with an involving plot and compelling characters. It doesn’t pull its punches and the language is ripe. Its inherent differences to standard genre fodder is what makes it such good viewing. Akram is also one of the most enigmatic characters I’ve seen in a drama for a while.

View fullsize

Bookish. Set in London after WWII, Bookish is a beautiful distillation of the classic detective and whodunnit genres. Blending Sherlock Holmes, Poirot and Miss Marple (and much more) Bookish is written and stars Mark Gatiss. In lesser hands this could have ended up a rather self congratulatory fan service but, here it is a multifaceted drama that blends the cosy, with the classic detective tropes. It also alludes to wider social commentary, with the lead character, Gabriel Book, being in "lavender marriage” with his wife Trottie. Beautifully shot in both the UK and Belgium and sporting an interesting modern take on period music, Bookish has all the hallmarks of a genuine hit show.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. I am very pleased to see this iteration of Star Trek return for a third season. It’s nearly been two years since the last episode was broadcast. Despite being set in a time period where large swathes of the existing, canonical lore can potentially hem the show in, it still manages to innovate and expand in a very creative way. Furthermore it does this without crossing too many lines with its retconning. There are several standout characters, especially Doctor M’Benga, played by the superb Babs Olusanmokun. I am also happy with the return of classic crew members such as Spock and Scotty and the opportunity to explore their past more. I feel this show totally eclipsed Star Trek: Discovery, from which it was a spinoff. I look forward to watching the remainder of the season.

Sapphire & Steel (1979-1982)

View fullsize

The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.

Shot on video like many UK TV productions at the time, the main appeal of Sapphire & Steel lies in the thought provoking scripts and the relationship between its two lead characters. Sapphire (Joanna Lumley) is graceful, empathetic and flirtatious in her relationship with Steel (David McCallum). He in turn is somewhat curt and focused. Both can communicate telepathically. Sapphire can discern data from objects such as their age and can also manipulate time, usually backwards for short periods. Steel can lower his body temperature and freeze “ghosts” and any other rogue fragments of time. He also has telekinetic abilities, such as opening locked doors or paralysing people with a look. All these powers are never depicted in a bravura manner, mainly due to the technical limitations of the production. Like so many other aspects of the show, they are done in a subtle manner.

View fullsize

Although most of Peter J. Hammond’s stories are effectively science fiction, many of the recurring plot devices, such as old objects and locations being temporal triggers, imbue the proceedings with a supernatural feel. There are often ghosts which turn out to be time related echoes. Several of the protagonists throughout the three seasons are beings that exist outside of our reality “at the beginning and end of time”. There’s a faceless entity that exists in all photographs and a non-corporeal force called “Darkness” that feeds on human resentment and other negative emotions. Like other shows from this TV era, Sapphire & Steel is often quite sinister and somewhat bleak. Unlike modern shows that frequently feel disposed to champion modern idealistic sensibilities, this one does no such things. Characters die, sometimes unjustly.

The main weakness of Sapphire & Steel is its pacing. TV productions from the seventies and eighties ran at a much slower pace. Each episode is 25 minutes long and the first 2 to 3 minutes of each instalment is a recap of the previous cliffhanger ending. Some of the stories are 8 episodes long and it does feel somewhat dragged out. The fourth story is a near perfect 4 episodes long and it’s a shame more weren’t written so economically. The acting from the support cast is very much of its time. Although it seems a little unfair to criticise the chroma key driven visual effects, they are a weakness when viewed with a contemporary eye. The production both then and now relies heavily on the charisma of its two leads, especially Joanna Lumley who has a natural screen presence. It is interesting to see David McCallum play such a dour character.

View fullsize

Sapphire & Steel has some very interesting recurring themes. It clearly champions modernity and through its various stories, strongly implies metaphorically that clinging to the past is potentially dangerous. This certainly was a subject of wider debate in the UK in the late seventies when the country was in economic decline due to outdated socioeconomic practices. The science fiction elements of the various plots also share themes with those common in the works of writer Nigel Kneale, with malign, energy based, cosmic entities and ghosts that are in fact a curious form of recording, held within the fabric of an environment. The show also shares a similar dark tone to that of Doctor Who from the same era. A sense of decay and a fear of old institutions is present in the scripts.

Despite gaining a loyal audience, Sapphire & Steel was beset with issues that impacted upon its production. Its two main stars’ existing film and TV commitments made the shooting schedule erratic and the commissioning TV company, ATV, was acquired and became Central Independent Television. There was also industrial action during the show’s original run which disrupted its broadcasting. Hence Sapphire & Steel was eventually cancelled, leaving the final story on a cliffhanger ending that has yet to be canonically resolved. It’s a shame because the show had great promise, due to its interesting premise and refusal to simplify itself to gain a wider audience. Sapphire & Steel may still prove entertaining to those who are at ease with material from the same time, such as classic Doctor Who or Blake’s Seven. The original three seasons are currently available on Amazon Prime and on the ITV Retro YouTube channel.

Thoughts on Andor

View fullsize

Season 2 of Andor has received praise from both critics and fans alike. It finally seems to have put to bed the common argument that Star Wars as a franchise has traditionally been light on narrative depth, character development and the exploration of the themes that its main story is predicated upon. Andor shows the realities of opposing authoritarian regimes and exists within shades of grey, rather than purille, binary positions. Many have drawn parallels with the current state of geopolitics, especially that of the United States. I certainly found the second season of Andor to be engaging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed the performances of many of the British actors who by default are cast in all the major Empire roles. I thought Anton Lesser was especially noteworthy as a senior officer in the Imperial Security Bureau.

Setting aside for a moment the praise for Andor, I do think there is a rather interesting fact that has contributed to the show’s mainstream and critical success. For this iteration of Star Wars to be embraced by a wider and possibly more cerebral audience, it appears to have shed many of the science fantasy tropes that have been integral to the franchise’s appeal for decades. Namely, the Jedi Knights, the Sith and the force. Andor leans into the technological aesthetic that is synonymous with Star Wars but ignores the quasi religious presence of the Jedi and the Sith. Their theological battles are conspicuously absent. What you are left with is a clever parable about an authoritarian regime, and the resistance against it. Although very entertaining Andor is far more akin to the BBC show Secret Army from 1977, than being just more Star Wars. There are also shades of John le Carré. 

View fullsize

George Lucas dealt in clear archetypes and the medium of high adventure when he conceived and originally wrote Star Wars. I don’t believe he ever intended the source material to be anything more than “modern legends”. A vehicle for traditional morality tales. I do not doubt that he drew upon contemporary sociopolitical events for inspiration but I in no way think that Star Wars was intended to be a indepth exploration of them. Which is why Andor is such a different beast. It is a good show but it is effectively using the aesthetic and lore of Star Wars to pitch to an alternative audience and in a very different way. Just as Christopher Nolan’s Batman films took a stylised property with a broad spectrum of prior interpretations and crashed it headlong into “reality”. Andor is very much Star Wars evolved. However, will that ongoing process eventually be to the detriment of the original content?

TV in the UK Part 2

View fullsize

Freeview and Freesat provide digital terrestrial TV access in the UK

If you don’t want to pay for streaming services, or premium digital satellite and cable content, then your choice in the UK is somewhat limited. You can receive all “free to air channels”, IE the ones that have advertising, via the digital terrestrial platform Freeview. Most UK televisions have Freeview access built in. Alternatively, the same selection of channels are available via the digital satellite platform Freesat. You can also buy either Freeview or Freesat digital video recorders and require only a rooftop aerial or satellite dish respectively to access these platforms. Most DVRs come with additional IPTV functionality built in along with the most popular streaming apps, so additional subscription services can be added if the viewer so desires. Freeview and Freesat carry a mixture of high definition and standard definition channels. Internet based services offer 4K content.

Until recently, our household has used Freeview, along with some additional IPTV channels and streaming apps for our television requirements. However, it has not been especially good value for money. The DVR that is supplied by our broadband provider, performs poorly and the extra channels we pay for are only in standard definition. So we have chosen not to renew our contract. We have moved over to Freesat, which broadly offers the same channels as Freeview, although more are in HD. Beyond the initial hardware costs, Freesat incurs no further charges. I recently changed my cell phone contract and received a year’s subscription to Netflix. As a regular Amazon Prime customer, we also have access to Prime Video. For the present these services are to be our main source of television content. We regularly avail ourselves on free trials, discount codes and other promotional opportunities so we can access other platforms. Thus we do not face “TV poverty”.

View fullsize

Freesat 4K Recordable TV Box

I spent some time researching what TV services are available in the UK, prior to changing from Freeview to Freesat. What I learned was quite discouraging. Television has changed its business model, just like the music industry and those changes are not beneficial to the customer. The dominance of streaming services has led to a decline in DVR production. Streaming services run on a subscription model, whereas digital terrestrial and satellite services rely on a hybrid of advertising and paid for content. TV is now a compartmentalised industry and although there is still a substantial audience in the UK, it is spread over a wider variety of platforms. Hence advertising reaches a smaller audience. DVRs further compound the problems, allowing viewers to bypass adverts. Thus there are less new DVRs coming to market, because user control of content is not good for business.

There is also a broader decline in physical media sales, again because streaming services appear to negate the need for it. Sadly, the reality is about removing customer choice and placing control in the hands of the vendor. Disney is reducing the availability of a lot of its classic content on physical media to drive customers to its streaming service. However, a lot of material from Disney’s back catalogue remains absent from its streaming service and a lot of content is being altered to make it compliant with what Disney consider to be “modern sensibilities”. Looking at streaming services from a wider perspective, a lot of content is licensed from third parties, to supplement original material. This means that content can come and go quickly once licensing arrangements expire. At one point, Netflix in the UK had access to all respective Star Trek shows. An arrangement that ended once Paramount Plus launched.

View fullsize

Apps available on Freesat

We are now living in an age where the entertainment industry (along with others) have decided that ownership or at least paying once to access material is not an adequate business model. Streaming, be it audio or video content, addresses this offering a service where the customer pays continuously for continuing access but has no direct control beyond that. Choice is very much dependent upon what the streaming platforms currently have licensed and there is always scope for material to be removed from access when licensing arrangements change or end. Due to a finite customer base being divided among an ever increasing group of vendors, subscription services are proving an “inadequate” revenue stream. Hence we are now seeing advertising being introduced on lower tiers of subscription. If the customer objects they can pay to remove it.

Due to the cost of producing content for streaming services, many platforms are now opting to release material in a weekly schedule to maximise audience retention and return on investment. Hence, we are currently experiencing a return to “appointment television”, although for a much more compartmentalised audience. Shows such as Reacher and Severance are released weekly and immediately become the focus of intense online debate on subreddits and the like. For those who think this is in some way a return to the viewing habits of the seventies, it comes with a substantial loss of agency. Adverts are forced upon viewers, where they could in the past be bypassed via a VCR. Furthermore, if you wish to avoid spoilers then you have to eschew all social media until you have watched the program in question. Once again it would seem that “choice” and “progress” are not as beneficial as they first appear.

TV in the UK Part 1

Philips CRT TV circa 1980

When I started writing this post it was intended to be about changing from one UK TV provider to another. However, I became concerned that there was a need to provide some sort of historical context, because I wasn’t sure whether all readers would be familiar with how television is provided here. The next thing I know, I’ve written a potted history of public and commercial broadcasting in the UK and the resulting post has become somewhat lengthy. So I have decided to split the text into two halves. The first being a summary of how the provision of television has changed in the UK over the course of the last fifty plus years. The second focuses more upon changes to the TV industry’s business model, consumer habits and the present status quo.

In the seventies and eighties, television in the UK was a singularly uncomplicated affair. You would buy a TV, connect it to a rooftop or indoor aerial/antenna and set the channel buttons to the four analogue stations that were broadcasting at the time. You then watched your favourite programmes at the time that they were broadcast and discussed them the following day at either school or work. Hence the viewing figures for popular shows were large with popular soap operas such as East Enders and sitcoms like Only Fools and Horses regularly achieving audiences of over 20,000,000. Over a third of the population at the time. Although video cassette recorders became ubiquitous during the eighties, the culture of “appointment TV” (IE watching stuff when it was shown), persisted. Analogue terrestrial television, introduced in the UK in 1936, remained the predominant source of TV in homes until 2012.

View fullsize

UK analogue aerial and satellite dish circa the mid-eighties

During the eighties, changes in TV regulation saw the emergence of analogue satellite and cable services. However, cable was not readily available in rural and most suburban areas due to the logistics of installing the infrastructure. Similarly, satellite TV required a dish which added to the set up costs for new customers. Plus due to the prevailing UK class culture of the time, there was a great deal of snobbery regarding “unsightly dishes” and commercial television programming that was perceived as “low rent”. However, in the early 2000s (noughties), the UK was getting ready to decommission analogue terrestrial TV broadcasting and replace it with a digital terrestrial service. Hence a lot of new commercial television services began to appear as the public became more comfortable with the business model of paying a subscription for quality programmes, rather than free TV paid by advertising.

The noughties were a time of major change for UK television. Many new commercial services, such as OnDigital (digital terrestrial) and NTL (digital cable) came to market and ultimately failed. However, other industry changes proved successful, such as the transition from 4:3 to 16:9 aspect ratio and from standard definition to high definition. Tests are currently underway for ultra high definition digital terrestrial broadcasts and 4K streaming content is becoming more widespread. There was a period of a few decades, when Sky was king and digital satellite TV was the dominant premium service in the UK with a fifth of the population as customers. The provision of major sporting events and franchises, especially premier league football, was a major factor in Sky’s success. However, over time other services have begun to compete and steadily eroded 

View fullsize

A selection of UK streaming services

In 2025, we find ourselves in a TV market dominated by streaming services. Major streaming providers have the budgets to produce high quality shows and the remaining UK broadcasters dependent on advertising revenue, struggle to compete. The main problem with streaming services, is that if you want to keep abreast of all the most popular shows then you have to subscribe to 4 or 5 services. Sport in the UK is still mainly carried on digital satellite (and now streaming) via Sky, so if you want access to that as well you’re going to have to subscribe to their services as well. The monthly cost of all of these is somewhere north of £75, which is no small beer and a reason why so many people share logon credentials for streaming services. Subsequently, there is now a societal divide regarding TV access. “TV poverty” has emerged as a term describing those excluded from premium content due to its cost.

Continued in TV in the UK Part 2

A Year in TV

View fullsize

It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.

Yet there are downsides. The most obvious one is the fact that most people cannot subscribe to all the platforms they would like to and that there are simply too many competing services. So we all make tough choices based on what permutation of subscriptions offers us the most choice and then use other family member’s login details to cover the shortfall. Then there is the concept of “TV poverty” for those on low incomes who have no other recourse other than what is available for free. Internet access is still poor in some regions of the UK, meaning that streaming is not always the best option available. It has been mooted that the UK government intends to phase out digital terrestrial television by 2030 and replace it with streaming exclusively but until the internet divide is addressed i cannot see this being viable.

Freely, the proposed streaming replacement for UK digital terrestrial TV

TV has always had a curious relationship with cinema. In many ways they have been opposites at different periods of time. In the fifties and sixties cinema was considered the cerebral medium and TV was the poor, populist relation. At present it is the opposite. Film is driven by franchise spectacles, where TV is the home of complex, well written dramas. That being said, TV is not averse to creating franchises with an eye on long term longevity. This can come with its own set of problems. I started watching From on the understanding that this complex sci-fi horror drama would not make the same mistakes as the TV show Lost. Sadly the plot is dragging and there is little progression. One cannot escape the feeling that this show with its interesting premise and strong cast, is deliberately being dragged out for obvious financial reasons at the risk of the public just getting bored and switching off.

Another issue is time that elapses between seasons of a popular show. If more than a year goes by then it can be a struggle to recollect all nuances of the plot. Sometimes, I will have to rewatch the final episode of the previous season to jog my memory. On a few occasions, I have watched YouTube summaries of the previous series to bring me back up to speed. I find it kills your interest in a show if you have to do homework to keep on top of it. Sadly, some shows just drag on too long and end up diminishing their brand. It is argued that the optimal number of seasons is between five and seven. NCIS is a prime example of a popular show that has just gone on for too long. The most beloved characters have gone and it currently suffers from very poor writing. Conversely, its recent spinoff show, NCIS Origins, is the complete opposite with tightly written, well conceived and minimalist episodes.

View fullsize

NCIS Origins is a far better written show than NCIS

I enjoy good television but if left unchecked it could totally monopolise all my leisure time. Therefore I will make the decision to not watch some shows as I would rather spend the time on some other hobby. Unfortunately, just like the film industry, the current business model for television has an element of “fear of missing out” built into its marketing. Do you want to be one of the “cool kids” discussing the latest episode of a show and thus be part of a shared cultural moment, or will you watch it a couple of years later and discover that none of your mates want to talk about it anymore as they’ve moved on? Another cultural change is whether we “accept” that YouTube is a form of TV? I regularly watch YouTube on my lounge TV and for many, this is what they watch instead of “old school” TV. I suspect that 2025 will have more changes in store for us and will therefore be an equally interesting year in television.

Music by John Williams (2024)

View fullsize

Music by John Williams is a documentary celebration of the famous composer and his illustrious body of work. It provides some interesting biographical background information as to how the man was born into a family of talented musicians. It then traces his rise from pianist for hire to the most well known film composer today. Along the way, anyone who is anyone in film and music appears to heap justifiable praise upon him and his body of work. It also features a continuous medley of John Williams’ greatest hits, as it catalogues his work in broadly chronological order. Music by John Williams is an upbeat and positive love letter to the composer and exactly what you would expect, when you consider that the documentary was produced by his friends and peers. 

“How does he do it”? This is a question that is continuously raised throughout the documentary’s 105 minute running time, by the various talking heads such as  J.J. Abrams, Chris Columbus and Seth McFarlane. Naturally, this is a perfectly logical question considering the composer’s ability to continuously write outstanding music for film after film. However, it becomes clear after a while that this particular documentary doesn’t really intend to answer this question, preferring to simply reflect on the composer’s work and frame his skills in enigmatic terms. It is a perfectly valid approach and ensures that Music by John Williams remains very accessible to viewers who may well have no background in musical theory. But it is a little disappointing to those who have a genuine interest in Mr Williams technical skills.

View fullsize

We are briefly given a rare insight as to John Williams thought processes, when he discusses his famous five note motif for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. He draws a grammatical analogy stating that the five note motif is akin to a conjunctive sentence and that it ends in a questioning fashion. The motif raises an expectation with the fifth degree of the scale. Contextually, it is a “but”, rather than a definitive statement. Within the parameters of the film, that is an important point and taps into the themes of the story with its cosmic questions. I would have liked to have seen far more examples of Mr Williams’ reasoning because it shows that he doesn’t just write from the heart but there is a great deal of technical literacy at work as well. It adds an additional cerebral dimension to his music as well as its inherent emotional content.

There is still much to recommend Music by John Williams. Director Laurent Bouzereau asks pertinent questions in a casual and disarming way. Steven Spielberg’s home movies are an invaluable source of information and insight as he has recorded numerous studio sessions of Mr Williams’ conducting the score for his films. The documentary also does a good job of highlighting John Williams’ work for the Boston Pops and how he did much to bring orchestral music to a wider audience. There was a surprising amount of snobbery and pushback to this in the mid eighties. However, if you are seeking the rigour and scrutiny of Ennio, Giuseppe Tornatore’s sprawling documentary about Ennio Morricone, you won’t find it. Music by John Williams is not intended to be such an exploration, preferring to be an ode to the composer and a much deserved veneration.

Strictly Come Dancing: The Fickle Nature of the Public Vote

View fullsize

Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.

The departure of Tom Dean in week 2 (the first week the public could vote) was a shock as Tom was patently a better dancer than Toyah Willcox and much higher on the leaderboard. Last week (the 4th in the series) it came as a surprise to see Shayne Ward in the dance off as he was 9 points ahead of Nick Knowles. However, there has been a degree of viewer pushback against The X Factor winner from 2005. On the first episode of this season, Shayne stated he was “in to win it”. A remark that was interpreted by some viewers as being somewhat arrogant, although it may have been an honest statement of intent to work hard. Hence, he seems to have failed to gain much public support and suffered as a result. On this occasion he was saved by the judges and injured Nick Knowles was voted off. Again, in the past a celebrity who has missed a show due to injury, is usually given some latitude by the public. Nick was not, in spite of his wider popularity. He was simply deemed as “lacking” and shown the door.

View fullsize

Which brings me to this evening’s debacle in which JLS vocalist JB Gill found himself in the dance off with ex-professional footballer Paul Merson. JB has consistently scored well over the last 5 weeks and is considered by some pundits to be a “shoo-in” for the final. However, despite having a 11 point lead over Paul, still found himself having to dance again to remain on the show. There is a school of thought that suggests that celebrities who are consistently good can lose public votes because everyone assumes they’ll be alright and someone else will vote for them. Another theory is that the viewers get bored with those who are good, right from the start of the show, as they prefer those who get better over time and thus go on the Strictly “journey”. Let us also take a moment to ponder the fate of Paul Merson, who appeared up to tonight, to have sufficient support to stay out of the dance off. If such a fanbase exists, where was it this week?

I am beginning to wonder if all the talk about mobilising fan bases and tactical voting that we have taken as read over the last 22 seasons of Strictly is spurious. Are fans always wedded to particular celebrities or do they simply vote on a week by week basis? Are the current voting patterns associated with Strictly, in any way similar to those that have recently emerged in contemporary politics, post 2016, where people are no longer loyal to specific causes and are far more volatile in the way in which they vote? If only we could get voting expert, Professor John Curtice, on the show and have the benefit of his insight. In the meantime JB Gill was saved but I suspect that the message from tonight is abundantly clear to all remaining celebrities. No matter how good you are and wherever you may be on the leaderboard, no one is safe. I expect to see an increase in social media output next week, from the remaining contestants, as they actively try and woo the British public.

Strictly Come Dancing: A Controversial Decision

View fullsize

I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.

Season 22 of Strictly began in earnest last Saturday 21st September. The 15 celebrities and their professional dancer partners all performed live on TV and were marked accordingly by the judges. As always, there were some contestants who showed ability and talent, straight out of the gate, such as model and TV presenter Tasha Ghouri. Hardly surprising as she has had dance experience in the past. Then there were other competitors who showed potential and may well improve in the weeks to come, as they go on their Strictly journey. Viewers like these individuals as they are the epitome of what audiences want from the show. Strictly has in recent years become a torchbearer for inclusion, with many disabled contestants. This year’s celebrity line up includes blind standup comedian Chris McCausland. The show has also pioneered the partnering of same sex couples, despite complaints from the usual suspects. 

View fullsize

Another essential part of the Strictly formula are celebrity contestants with little or no dancing ability. Sometimes, such individuals are championed by viewers, especially if the judges have been especially harsh with their comments. But this is not always the case. Sometimes the less talented participants are dismissed from the show by the public vote, quickly and ruthlessly. And talking of the judges, their opinions are often at odds with the public’s. Viewers tend to vote with their hearts and don’t maintain the same objectivity of the judges, who tend to score purely on technical ability. Furthermore, there is no consensus among the judges regarding this, as they all come from different dancing disciplines. Hence, scoring can be very inconsistent at times. And then, from time to time, the judges make a decision that appears patently absurd and results in controversy. It would appear that season 22 of Strictly has just had its first tonight, which is very early on in the season.

Yesterday, Saturday 28th September, the second show of the season was broadcast. Again the couples were marked by the judges and this week’s scores were combined with last week’s. The public were allowed to vote this time and through a complex mathematical formula, this was combined with the judges scores to produce a simple results table. The bottom two couples then have to performa “dance off” and the judges (not the public) decide who stays and who goes. It came as no surprise to anyone that singer and actor, Toyah Willcox partnered with pro-dancer Neil Jones, was bottom of the leaderboard. Toyah performed two exuberant but technically lacking dances. A Tango and a Jive respectively. I suspect that all future dances will always be through the prism of her unique personal style. However, what came as a surprise was the inclusion of Olympic swimmer and nice guy, Tom Dean. He was ten points ahead on the leaderboard and also had the advantage of being partnered with pro-dancer Nadiya Bychkova, who is well regarded by fans.

View fullsize

Hence many viewers thought that the dance off was all over, bar the shouting. Yet surprisingly, both celebrities didn’t improve their performances. Three of the Judges, including head judge Shirley Ballas, Motsi Mabuse and Craig Revel Horwood, were focused on Tom being out of time with the music, although it didn’t seem immediately obvious.Thus they voted to keep Toyah on the show. Only Anton Du Beke, former pro-dancer from the  show turned judge, voted to keep Tom. However, the decision was made and Tom got his marching orders. To say that fans of Strictly were peeved, is a massive understatement. It has become very clear over the course of this evening that many regard this as an utterly wrong decision. Social media erupted into an angry and restless lynch mob and the tabloid newspaper websites have already joined the passing bandwagon.

Now it can be argued that this sort of brouhaha goes hand in glove with reality TV and is part of its fundamental appeal. However, I believe it is in fact symptomatic of several problems arising from the show. Each year, Strictly ups the ante and the overall standard of dancing produced by contestants goes up. Surely, this reduces the potential pool of contestants that the BBC can draw upon? Furthermore, a decade ago, viewers were not quite so demanding in their expectations and possibly more tolerant of those contestants with less ability. This accommodating mindset seems to have diminished. Then there is the wider societal decline of the public being equipped to deal with not getting their own way. A subjective choice that goes against your preference isn’t seen as “bad luck” or “just the way the cookie crumbles”. It is deemed an act of sabotage, a plot and a personal slight. Remember, the internet is where nuance goes to die.

View fullsize

This controversial decision may blow over. The BBC may not even see it in such terms. But as the broadcaster is feeling very protective of the show at present and averse to pad press, it may well make some sort of statement about the situation. This will more than likely take place during tomorrow’s episode of Strictly Come Dancing: It Takes Two. The daily sister show of Strictly that follows all news, gossip and progress of the celebrities and their partners. The couple that were voted off the show over the weekend, always get interviewed on the following Monday and I’m curious to see if there will be any animosity from Tom Dean or Nadiya Bychkova. Time will tell. I’ve been watching Strictly since 2005 and this season seems different in some way that I can’t quite quantify. I think we may be in for an unusual season this year. It has been argued that the format needs revising to bring some fresh ideas to the proceedings. Perhaps this and other controversial decisions may be the catalyst to shake things up.

Watching TV Part 2

View fullsize

A modern Smart TV menu

Watching TV was a far more communal activity in my youth. Families sat and watched specific shows or sports together. “Appointment TV” had its benefits not only for TV ratings but for advertising revenue. Although audiences may have grown over the years, they have also become more fragmented and compartmentalised. Smaller market shares have therefore made advertising far more pervasive. Even big streaming platforms are feeling the squeeze with declining subscribers and therefore introducing advertising on lower tier tariffs. Many catch up services also rely on advertising. However, viewers can always pay a fee if they wish to dispense with it. Another foible of modern digital television is poor picture quality Many smaller digital channels broadcast in standard definition. The source material has often been converted between different picture formats and has been cropped to suit a 16:9 screen. This results in low definition picture quality, with weak colours and a lot of digital artefacts.

Yet despite these commercial pressures, TV is still a major form of entertainment, although the manner in which we view it has changed substantially. We don’t necessarily watch the  same shows together and at the same time. However, the social aspect that surrounds popular shows still exists. Rather than talking about last night’s episode at work in the break room, we now discuss it online. Or we recommend a particular show to a friend and wait for them to binge watch enough, before enjoying a lengthy analysis of what has happened so far. Dramas have become more complex and in many ways, more like cinema. It  can be argued we live in a golden age of TV. However, some aspects have declined. I find that historical and science based documentaries lack the intellectual rigour of those produced in the seventies and nineties. News coverage has also become simpler, risk averse and reticent to show the realities of modern life. 

Returning to the matter of the old CRT television I saw in the charity shop window (from the previous part of this post), seeing that old set did make me nostalgic for a time when I felt that TV was more special. I can remember when the BBC first broadcast Life on Earth. This major wildlife show had taken years to collate and felt like a significant milestone. This was the very definition of event television. A decade later, popular shows such as The X-Files became a highlight of the week. Something to look forward to. We now live in an age where high quality shows abound. Yet does their abundance diminish their value? I’m not sure. I still look forward to certain shows starting a new season. But not quite in the same way as I did 20 years ago. Perhaps that’s because there were real stakes back then. You could miss a show or your VCR could fail to record it. These are no longer factors. Shows may go from streaming platforms due to licensing changes but they never truly vanish. They can be “found”.

View fullsize

Is YouTube the same as regular TV?

Finally, how does YouTube fit into all of this? Many younger people do not watch traditional TV. Yet they spend comparable amounts of time watching various YouTube channels. Technically, you can argue that YouTube content isn’t the same as regular TV because it is not made to the same technical standard, does not have any kind of editorial oversight and is not subject to independent regulation standards. But not every YouTube channel is made on the fly. Many professional establishments have channels that they run along traditional lines. I think the distinction between YouTube and TV is not so clear. I also think that the ability to watch YouTube on your lounge TV makes a difference as well. It garners a sense of legitimacy. Furthermore, YouTube channels can gain substantial audiences and become very influential. These numbers make them relevant. So does their clout.

TV has proven a resilient medium over its seventy year lifespan. It adapts to the latest trends and embraces new technology. There was a time when the TV industry thought the advent of the VCR would kill commercial televsion. It didn’t. Similarly, the growth of Netflix a decade ago, caused panic among traditional television networks. Then multiple streaming platforms emerged and split the market. Due to a need to create more and more content, many of these companies have over extended themselves and are now finding that there are consequences to growing too fast. However, the traditional outlets, weather the storm and continue on, as they always have. So all things considered, let’s not write off television just yet. I have no idea what the next trend or innovation may be but I’m confident that most people still want to be able to enjoy quality entertainment from the comfort of their own home. Until that changes, TV is safe.

Watching TV Part 1

View fullsize

A Widescreen Panasonic CRT TV

I recently visited my local branch of the British Heart Foundation. This is a chain of UK charity shops that sell previously owned furniture and electrical goods, all of which are certified to be in good working order. It’s one of the few places where you’ll still find old school CRT televisions. These mainly come from house clearances. On this occasion, a particularly bulky model from the early 2000s was on display and despite its age, it still had a good, clear picture. I spoke to a member of staff and apparently these TVs are still popular with gamers who buy them for use with retro video games consoles. I felt especially nostalgic for this particular ageing Sony TV, because Mrs P and I had once owned a similar model. We bought it from a local department store (which no longer exists) and I remember it took two robust gentlemen to deliver it and install it.

For much of my life, televisions have been expensive, bulky devices that no matter where you put them, always became the focal point of the room. During the seventies TVs were the primary source of household entertainment and most families did not have any additional devices connected to them. It was not until the eighties that VCRs and games consoles grew in popularity and became more commonplace peripheral devices. Today in contrast, a TV is usually part of a wider home entertainment system, potentially consisting of some sort of DVR, a games console, a DVD/Blu-ray player and a surround sound system. The TV and some of these other devices will all be connected to the internet and provide access to streaming services. It is no longer even considered essential to have access to a cable, satellite or digital terrestrial source. Some households are happy to rely purely on the internet.

View fullsize

Anyone remember Tivo?

Returning to the title of this post, I think we are all fully aware that we watch TV in a much different manner to how we did thirty years ago. So this is not the central point of this article, although I may come back to it. On this occasion I am curious not so much about peoples specific viewing habits but rather the medium they use to watch. For example, I remember working with someone who due to their constant travelling, watched primarily via their tablet. My granddaughters used to do the same, until they got TVs in their bedrooms. For them, family viewing is a rarity. Furthermore, they tend to watch specific shows via streaming or YouTube Kids. If memory serves, I don’t think their home has a roof aerial, satellite dish or cable service. Conversely, my neighbours have gone all in on digital satellite services, mainly due to the sports coverage on offer. They also watch as a family on large TV in their lounge. You may do the same or something completely different. The fact is there is no standard way of watching TV anymore.

In our home, we have a wall mounted 4K TV in our lounge. Despite it being equipped with various apps for streaming as well as a terrestrial digital tuner, it ultimately serves as nothing more than a high end monitor. There are various other devices attached including a new DVR (a BT TV Box Pro) supplied by our ISP. This provides digital terrestrial channels as well as subscription based IPTV services. It can record three different channels while watching a fourth and can output streaming content in 4K HDR and Dolby Atmos. It currently has eight on demand and “catch up” services that we are actively logged into. Despite all its functionality, Mrs P uses it mainly for recording from a handful of mainstream UK TV channels. If there is ever a viewing conflict between Mrs P and I, then I will watch streaming services via my PC. It also has a TV tuner installed in case there’s an issue with internet services.

View fullsize

BT TV Box Pro

One of the benefits of TV today is that there’s no shortage of choice as to what to watch. Mrs P and I will frequently watch TV shows together as we broadly have similar tastes. If we want to watch a specific show, we determine what platform it is available on and whether we have existing access to it. We continuously make use of free trials to various streaming services. We seldom buy physical media anymore, although I will buy a Blu-ray copy of a film if it is difficult to source anywhere else. Overall we can usually access what we wish to watch. Some shows we’re happy to watch weekly but others we prefer to binge watch. By default we always have the subtitles on, which is no reflection upon our hearing but is mainly due to the way sound mixing is conducted these days. As I have stated before, I prefer to watch in either HD or UHD, without adverts as well as on screen graphics and logos.

Despite the technological changes that have happened over the years, not everything associated with watching televisions is an improvement. For example, I recently installed a new DVR. The process required me to choose the power management settings, connect the box to the internet, tune the various TV stations and hide any I didn’t want. I then had to set a PIN for content control, log into multiple streaming services using multiple log on credentials and set the remote control to operate our existing TV as well. Furthermore the new remote doesn’t have appropriate buttons to shut down the TV, only the DVR. Fortunately, the remote for the old DVR is still compatible, so we’re using that one instead. And speaking of remote controls, it would appear I now have six lying around the lounge to operate four devices? How is this easier?

Too Much Star Wars

View fullsize

We all knew it had to happen sooner or later. According to reports, Lucasfilm is planning to reduce its Star Wars related output on Disney+. Specifically, from 2025 there will be only one live-action television series per year. For comparison, Disney+ commissioned three shows in 2022 and two shows in both 2023 and 2024. It should be noted that this reduced output doesn’t include animated shows. It would appear that senior management at Disney have finally figured out something most of us have known for a while. That saturating the market with content based upon a specific intellectual property, is ultimately detrimental to its popularity and financial viability. To use an old adage “familiarity breeds contempt”. At present, hardcore fans are “unhappy” with the way the IP is being developed, while casual fans are somewhat burned out by the excess of content and its varying quality.

In recent years, the Star Wars franchise has evolved an increasingly complex lore, as it attempts to codify into canon all things alluded to in the original films. This matter is further complicated as Disney picks and chooses what material from the expanded universe it wishes to use. Hence a reciprocal need has grown, requiring viewers to be au fait with this continuously growing mythology. Someone watching The Rise of Skywalker or season 2 of The Mandolorian with no prior knowledge of the franchise would struggle with much of the plot beyond the obvious. This growing interdependence may well be appealing to hardcore fans, but it can equally be off putting those just dipping their toes into the franchise. It’s a stark contrast to the first Star Wars movie which dealt in archetypes and addressed the themes of good and evil with broad brushstrokes.

View fullsize

From a business perspective, Disney’s decision is a sensible move. Star Wars remains the goose that lays the golden egg but it needs to be handled with care and consideration. Over the last 47 years, fans have gone from a lengthy period without new content, to an abundance of it in the last decade. I am reminded of the old aphorism regarding buses. You wait ages for one and then several turn up simultaneously. Furthermore, Star Wars is an intellectual property in transition at present. It was conceived during the seventies when the world was a very different place to how it is today. Its narrative simplicity was an antidote to the prevailing political and cultural cynicism of the time. However, Star Wars today has to appeal to a more diverse and sophisticated audience. Andor has shown that the source material can be updated to encompass more complex and adult themes. But this process is still a work in progress.

Which brings us to what is paradoxically the franchise’s greatest strength and sadly its most obvious Achilles’ heel; its fans. Star Wars fans are steadfast, engaged and passionate about that which they love. However, some are also possessive to the point of mania. They fail to see that fandom is not the same as ownership and that they are not the exclusive audience for this franchise. As to what happens next, now that Disney has made this decision, remains to be seen. Fans of all shades seem to agree that this is the right thing to do. Many think that Disney needs to reconsider what they do next with the franchise. I even saw one comment on a subreddit  that simply said “make Star Wars great again”. The only flaw with this plea is that there is no clear consensus as to how you exactly achieve that. On mature reflection, perhaps owning the biggest pop culture franchise ever, isn’t as great as it sounds.

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Season 2

View fullsize

Two years ago, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premiered on Amazon Prime to mixed reviews and a tedious and predictable internet brouhaha. I have no interest in that debacle as I consider it spurious, to say the least. Representation is a commercial imperative for any big budget television production. As for any deviation from the established canon, that’s due to the show being an “adaptation” of Tolkien’s work. At no point were viewers promised a literal interpretation of the source text. Therefore I am only interested in legitimate critiques of the show based upon its production, writing and acting. As far as I’m concerned, the first season was broadly entertaining and had outstanding production values. Overall I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as an exciting and inventive take on Tolkien’s legendarium. Hence, I have been looking forward to the second season, which began today.

As I have only watched the first three episodes of Season 2, this is not a review. It is simply some initial thoughts. My opinion may change when I have seen all eight episodes. So far, relocation of the production from New Zealand to the UK does not appear to have had a detrimental impact on the show’s aesthetics or high quality. Weta FX and Industrial Light and Magic still continue to produce the lionshare of visual effects. Long term Tolkien illustrator John Howe, remains the main conceptual artist and although there has been changes in staff relating to costume and production design, there still appears to be a sense of visual continuity between this show and Peter Jackson’s feature films. Bear McCreary has also been retained to provide the score and has again provided some outstanding new themes. I was pleasantly surprised to see cast member Benjamin Walker singing “Golden Leaves” in Sindarin. Song is such an integral part of Tolkien’s work.

View fullsize

Narratively, Season 2 quickly resumes where the previous ended. Here are a few of the ongoing plot points. In an extended flashback we see why the transition of power from Morgoth to Sauron did not go well. We also get to see Sauron in an earlier physical guise played by Jack Lowden. The “meteor man” has reached Rhûn with Nori the Harfoot and it would appear that they are being tracked by the minions of a “Dark Wizard”. The unnamed sorcerer refers to the “meteor man” as an Istar, a Quenya term for “wise”. The Wizards of the Third Age were known as the Istari; “wise ones”. In Khazad-dûm, seismic activity caused by the eruption of Mount Doom leads to the collapse of many of the city’s light wells, disrupting the Dwarves’ means of food production. In Eregion, Sauron takes the guise of Annatar, Lord of Gifts and tricks Celebrimbor into making further rings of power. 

So far it seems that show runners, J. D. Payne and Patrick McKay, are working more within the parameters of Tolkien’s legendarium than previously. This may be due to the story moving forward into more closely defined “history”. The addition of further canonical characters such as Narvi (Kevin Eldon) and Círdan (Ben Foster) certainly makes the proceedings feel more “Tolkienesque”. Adar, the Dark Elf chieftain of the Orcs, is played by a different actor to season one but due to the prosthetic makeup, it doesn’t make any significant difference. I am extremely curious to see Rory Kinnear as Tom Bombadil and I saw via the IMDb that Jim Broadbent is providing a voice for what may be an Ent. I find the presence of so many established UK actors reassuring. Also the fact that the show uses Hammer’s old studios at Bray, in Berkshire.

View fullsize

Season 2 of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power has gotten off to a good start. With five more episodes to go, it can still cover a lot of ground. At present it is the non canonical material that holds my interest the most. The introduction of a “Dark Wizard” in Rhûn is not an implausible plot element. The Blue Wizards travelled to that region and were ultimately lost. Saruman himself dwelt there at one point. And then there is the Dark Elf Adar, allegedly one of the first to be corrupted by Morgoth. In another bold choice, there is a brief appearance in episode three of a female Orc holding an Orc baby. Rather than being perturbed by the creative choices of the showrunners, I find them a source of fascination. If I want pure Tolkien, then there are the source texts and audio productions to enjoy. The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is ultimately just one of many interpretations of Middle-earth. I suspect in the years to come there will be more. Not all will be to everyone’s tastes. However, if they introduce people to the original texts then that is no bad thing.

Ghostwatch (1992)

View fullsize

Ghostwatch is a controversial British horror “mockumentary” produced by the BBC that was first broadcast on October 31st 1992. Written by Stephen Volk and produced by Ruth Baumgarten it is now considered a milestone in UK broadcasting. This was mainly due to the strong reaction it provoked from the public, many of whom failed to grasp that it was a drama. At the time it raised serious questions about responsible programming and caused a furore in the British press. It has curiously never been shown since by the BBC. Ghostwatch remains a talking point to this day and is a text book example of the power of television as well as the public's enduring belief in the supernatural. 

View fullsize

The 90 minute film is shot in a documentary style and appeared as part of BBC Drama’s Screen One series. While it is often incorrectly referred to as a hoax, it is more accurate to call it a “mockumentary”. In many ways it was a precursor to the supernatural reality shows that are prevalent today, such as Most Haunted and Ghost Hunters. Ghostwatch centres on a team of BBC reporters conducting a live, on-air investigation into alleged Poltergeist activity at a family home in Northolt, Greater London. Through the medium of a live broadcast the investigators discover the existence of a malevolent ghost nicknamed “Pipes”, as his banging and crashing were initially attributed to bad plumbing.

View fullsize

As the programme unfolds viewers learn that “Pipes” is the ghost of a psychologically disturbed man called Raymond Tunstill, who is believed to have been possessed by the spirit of a child killer from the 19th century. The manifestations became more intense and terrifying as the investigation progresses, until the frightened reporters realise that the broadcast itself is acting as a focus for a national séance through which “Pipes” is gaining more power. The program ends with poltergeist activity manifesting in the BBC TV studios themselves, before the screen fades to black.

View fullsize

One of the reasons Ghostwatch succeeds is through the use of known and trusted television personalities. Michael Parkinson and real life couple Mike Smith and Sarah Greene brought credibility and professionalism to the proceedings. All were firmly established television broadcasters at the time. The Crimewatch style format, complete with telephone phone in and hand held cameras is oddly prophetic of popular paranormal shows we see today. However the most interesting aspect of the original broadcast was the way the public assumed the show was a genuine investigation and not a drama. Despite the addition of brief credits by the BBC at the start of the broadcast, viewers watched events unfold for over ninety minutes before they began to question the authenticity of them. It also highlights how the supernatural remains an integral part of UK popular culture.

View fullsize

Twenty three years on Ghostwatch is still fascinating and disturbing to watch. The story unfolds in a leisurely manner focusing on a very credible family. Halfway through the proceedings there is a red herring which indicates the alleged phenomena at the house may be a hoax. However this bluff cunningly sets the audience up for further paranormal activity and an interesting plot twist. Having now watched Ghostwatch several times, its dramatic roots are more noticeable with references to Nigel Kneale and even a nod to Orson Welles’ famous broadcast of War of the Worlds. It is still fun to keep an eye out for all the allusive on screen appearances by “Pipes”. Overall Ghostwatch remains a prime example of the power of television and its ability to hoodwink the public. Although similar themes have been tackled in films such as Cannibal Holocaust and The Blair Witch Project, it is the immediacy and intimacy of TV that makes this production so successful.

View fullsize

As an addendum to this post, I've included a short podcast about Ghostwatch that I participated in. It was first published in October 2016, as part of the 31 Days of Scary Movies event at Totally Legit Publishing. I discuss the enigma of the mockumentary with the host Jessica.

Classic TV Themes: The Prisoner

View fullsize

Ronald Erle Grainer (11 August 1922 – 21 February 1981) was a prolific Australian composer who is best remembered for his work in the United Kingdom during the sixties and seventies. He wrote numerous notable scores and theme music for several iconic television shows such as Doctor Who, Steptoe and Son and Tales of the Unexpected. He also composed the soundtrack for several major motion pictures such as Some People (1962), The Assassination Bureau (1969) and The Omega Man (1971). Grainer relocated to London from Australia in 1952 but it was not until 1960 that he gained critical success after writing the music for the popular TV show Maigret. He subsequently received an Ivor Novello award for “Outstanding Composition for Film, TV or Radio”.

 By the mid-sixties Grainer was in demand and hence a logical choice to write the theme for a show such as The Prisoner. However, it was a competitive process and Grainer's theme was chosen after two other composers, Robert Farnon and Wilfred Josephs, had their material rejected by series executive producer and star, Patrick McGoohan. Farnon's theme was declined due to its similarity with the theme from The Big Country (1958) by Jerome Moross. However, Josephs' discordant and enigmatic theme was used in early edits of two episodes of The Prisoner before being replaced by Grainer’s material which was then used in all subsequent episodes. It should be noted that Grainer declined to score the incidental music for the entire series of 17 episodes, which was handled by Albert Elms.

View fullsize

 Ron Grainer’s theme for The Prisoner is as iconic as the show mainly because it is such an integral part of the opening credits. These are a microcosm of themes and ideas that the show explores. Furthermore, the opening credits serve as visual summation of the plot of The Prisoner, with Patrick McGoohan resigning from his job as an agent for the UK security services, only to be gassed, kidnapped, and taken to a remote village where he is interrogated for “information”. Why did he resign? The brass, bass and timpani set the tone with a bombastic motif that reflects McGoohan’s volatile character. The music also reflects what is happening on screen with the drumbeats syncopated with McGoohan as he angrily walks down the concrete corridor into his superior’s office. This is a powerful piece reflecting the style of the time, with its bold brass and cool, electric guitar backing. It really sets the tone of the show.

The Return of “Walter Watches”

View fullsize

Anyone who writes regularly, sooner or later will have the following epiphany. The realisation that the post you consider your best work seldom finds an audience. Furthermore, the most inconsequential, disposable things that you have written on a whim, will often end up being the one article that gets a big response. It can be very frustrating but it is a reality of writing. It is with that idea in mind, I wish to move on to the matter of “Walter Watches”. In late March 2019, I took a picture of Walter sitting in his chair, watching a classic episode of The Twilight Zone. I subsequently Tweeted this image along with a descriptive caption. This gained a number of “likes” and retweets, so a day later I posted another. This time Walter was watching the film Krull (1983) and I added a humorous caption. Let’s just say I got more of a response for that one Tweet than I had for anything else I had posted over the previous nine years when promoting a blog post.

Such are the origins of “Walter Watches”. I continued posting pictures until the end of May 2019. I resumed again in January 2020 and continued until the end of February. During these two “seasons”, I selected a variety of cult  and famous films for Walter (and his nephew Finwë) to comment upon. Because of my love of cinema and filmmaking, I must admit I did find this process entertaining. And obviously so did others, because “Walter Watches” continued to receive “likes” and retweets while it was “a thing”, as the kids say. Which brings me to the point of this post. Things are far from peachy at present, if you take a step back and take a long hard look at the world. It’s all a bit depressing. Hence, I have decided to bring just a little bit of fun and mirth back to social media with a third “season” of “Walter Watches”.

View fullsize

There are to be no changes in the format. If something isn’t broken, then there is no requirement to fix it. However, as well as being posted on social media, there is now a designated “Walter Watches” page here on Contains Moderate Peril. Walter’s sage wisdom and keen insights will be available here to view and ponder. I shall also be reposting all previous instalments for continuity. It should also be noted that last year we upgraded the TV in our lounge, so Walter now has the luxury of watching in 4K UHD. Whether this has any significant impact upon his musings, remains to be seen. As does whether Walter will consider requests from readers to watch specific things. We shall have to wait and see. Season three should begin by the middle of September. As the saying goes, “watch this space”.

The Six Million Dollar Man (1973-78)

View fullsize

I was seven when The Six Million Dollar Man was first broadcast in the UK in late 1974. As a young and impressionable child, who was already fascinated by Doctor Who, Star Trek (TOS) and the films of Ray Harryhausen, this show was essential weekly viewing. I believe for the first couple of seasons, we sat and watched it as an entire family. Television was less sophisticated back then and dominated by sitcoms, police procedurals and traditional dramas. So a weekly show blending the espionage genre with science fiction themes was revolutionary. It also inspired a generation of school kids to run around the playground in “slow motion” and give themselves hernias as they attempted to lift heavy objects. And don’t get me started on the range of Steve Austin toys. One had a “bionic eye” which meant it had a lens in the front of the action figure’s face and you could look through the back of his head like a telescope. What a time to be alive!

In case you are unfamiliar with The Six Million Dollar Man, it was a popular TV show based upon the novel “Cyborg” by Martin Caidin. Astronaut Colonel Steve Austin (Lee Majors) is catastrophically injured after a crash testing an experimental lifting body. He has “bionic” implants, replacing his left eye, right arm and both legs. These robotic replacement parts give him enhanced strength, speed and vision. He subsequently becomes an operative of the Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI) upon recovery. The Six Million Dollar Man ran for five seasons and spawned a spinoff show, The Bionic Woman. As the show progressed the science fiction elements became more fantastic. People were replaced by robot doubles. Aliens and Bigfoot became a recurring plot. And there was a rogue Russian probe designed for the harsh atmosphere of venus. The show often featured notable guest actors such as John Saxon, Monte Markham and William Shatner.

View fullsize

To say that The Six Million Dollar Man was influential would be an understatement. The show remained popular for five years or more and its audio-visual trappings such as slow motion fights, sound effects and electronic ambient sounds became a major part of pop culture of the time. Between 1974 and 1980, there wasn’t a comedy sketch show that didn’t at some point lampoon The Six Million Dollar Man. Subsequently films such as RoboCop and video games such as Deus Ex have drawn heavily on its themes. Then there was the range of toys as mentioned earlier, as well as the comic strips, books and other marketing paraphernalia. It made actor Lee Majors a household name and yet he wasn’t typecast by the role. He successfully went on to another successful show, The Fall Guy, in the early eighties and has remained a busy actor ever since.

Recently, UK TV channel Legend has started repeating The Six Million Dollar Man. It is interesting to note that they are showing the episodes that were prepared for syndication after the show’s initial success. Hence, the three pilot TV movies are each broadcast as two part episodes. Also the opening credits have been shortened, presumably for a standard running time. However, these minor technicalities aside, it has been interesting to see the show once again. I recently watched a particularly iconic episode, “Day of the Robots”. This featured the first appearance of evil Doctor Dolenz and his robot replacements. It culminates in a slow motion fight between Steve Austin and a robot version of his friend Major Sloan played by John Saxon. I was haunted as a child by the robot’s face being knocked off and it subsequently being impaled upon a girder. Although it’s incredibly tame by today’s standards.

View fullsize

Having revisited this show that was an integral part of my youth, I have reached an interesting conclusion. Not too dissimilar to my experience when I re-watched Space 1999. One’s enjoyment of a TV show, film or book can often be contextual and based upon one’s circumstances and mindset at the time. Television was narratively less complex in the seventies and genre material was often treated as a novelty. I was a child with less discerning tastes. There was nothing really comparable to The Six Million Dollar Man at the time and so it had a strong impact. Yet viewed through contemporary eyes, it is simplistic, the special effects are dated and the pacing of the shows are slow. Despite the nostalgia, there is a risk of undermining my fond memories with an over analytical, contemporary view. So I’ve chosen not to watch anymore and to keep my memories as they are. This may not be the case with all old TV shows but I think it prudent in this instance.

Prohibition (2011)

View fullsize

Despite being an analysis of the past there is a portentous air about Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s Prohibition. A fascinating five-and-a-half-hour documentary produced for PBS in 2011. The history of this disastrous experiment, the banning of alcoholic beverages, is a textbook example of how the transactional nature of US politics can be effectively used upon “wedge” issues. Prohibition follows the format and style of Burns previous documentaries such as the Civil War (1990) and The War (2007) with the wider subject broken down and analysed according to protagonists, events and the political background. Specific historical figures and key players are followed throughout the documentary’s narrative, giving viewers a sense of focus. Hence we meet the hatchet-wielding Carrie Nation, Wayne Wheeler from the Anti-Saloon League and media savvy gangsters like Al Capone. It is interesting to note that some themes continue from Burns’ previous work, such as the political and cultural conflict between native-born Americans and European immigrants. The rural heartlands versus the big cities.

The first episode, “A Nation of Drunkards,” explores the growth of the temperance movement in preindustrial America as a pushback against alcoholism and specifically, “the saloon” as a source of public drunkenness, domestic abuse and poverty. Americans were a nation of drinkers right from the start. Mainly because brewing was the primary means of making water drinkable. However, an influx of European immigrants to the major cities introduced new drinking customs that fueled the problem. Hence many brewers and distillers were established to meet demand. The temperance movement grew in power and managed to restrict alcohol sales in Maine in 1851. Yet the alcohol lobby was slow to react to this existential threat, assuming that the tax revenue raised on alcohol negated any attempt of a national prohibition. However,the ratification of the 16th Amendment and the introduction of income tax in 1913 paved the way for a political push for a nationwide ban. In 1919 the 18th Amendment prohibiting the manufacture, sale or importing of alcohol was ratified. 

View fullsize

The second part of Prohibition, is “A Nation of Scofflaws” (the origin of this and many other words is a fascinating aspect of the series). Legal scholar, Noah Feldman, succinctly observes “To pass a law, in the real world, means nothing. To enforce the law means everything.” To enforce the new constitutional amendment, the administration created the Volstead Act but it was vague and underfinanced, with an inadequate number of law enforcement officials tasked with stopping the drinking habits of millions of Americans. It is here that Mr. Burns and Ms. Novick, play their hand well. The criminal opportunities that arose from prohibition were staggering. Rather than overwhelm viewers with a tsunami of data, they elect to focus on a handful of well known bootleggers to make their point. The scenes of violence stemming from organised crime are well known but the deaths and illnesses caused by unregulated and potentially poisonous alcohol are not so well publicised.

The utter failure of the 18th Amendment is addressed in the final instalment, “A Nation of Hypocrites”. It documents the run up to its repeal in 1933. Again a perfect storm of events set the political chess board in such a fashion that repeal was not only possible but politically expedient. The great depression and subsequent economic fallout required the tax revenue that alcohol brought. Plus, there was an increasing concern that a nation of willing law breakers was detrimental to democracy. So an additional amendment was made to negate the effects of the 18th. It was expected to be a long and drawn out process but self-correction was remarkably quick in governmental terms. Historian Catherine Gilbert Murdock muses upon how a political lobbying success ultimately failed due to its own intransigence. “The dry movement in the late 1920s had an opportunity to capitalise on its success and modify the most egregious issues within the Volstead Act and the enforcement of prohibition, but refused to. In their extremism, they eliminated all moderate support.” Perhaps if the excesses of prohibition had been mollified, the act would have lasted much longer.

View fullsize

As ever with Ken Burns’ documentaries, the historians and experts that provide insight and analysis are complemented by a broad selection of quotes from correspondence and period texts, by all the major parties. Peter Coyote narrates in a focused and engaging fashion. Prohibition also features the voice talents of  John Lithgow, Sam Waterston and Samuel L. Jackson. What Prohibition does successfully is make its point without bludgeoning the viewer with the obvious lessons for those who currently seek to legislate personal and moral behaviour. Burns and Novick let the story of the 18th Amendment speak for itself. The message is not that laws based on restricting rights of citizens, as opposed to protecting them, are ultimately destined to fail. It’s that social engineering of this nature can result in far more problematic consequences. Prohibition is fascinating viewing and extremely relatable, due to the ubiquity of drinking in so many cultures.