<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Twonilblankblank &#187; television</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.twonilblankblank.com/tag/television/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.twonilblankblank.com</link>
	<description>Every RPG I have ever played is a lie</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:09:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Masterchef: The Professionals</title>
		<link>http://www.twonilblankblank.com/2008/09/18/masterchef-the-professionals/</link>
		<comments>http://www.twonilblankblank.com/2008/09/18/masterchef-the-professionals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:23:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The other]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[banter]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[BBC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[food]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[television]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twonilblankblank.com/?p=1099</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Masterchef: The Professionals is brilliant.  I&#8217;m no foodie - but I do like good food, and appreciate good restaurants (in the sense that I don&#8217;t give a shit about the associated pomp - rather the food).  And Masterchef: The Professionals is all about the food.  Unlike many television shows all of the contestants are already [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Masterchef: The Professionals is brilliant.  I&#8217;m no foodie - but I do like good food, and appreciate good restaurants (in the sense that I don&#8217;t give a shit about the associated pomp - rather the food).  And Masterchef: The Professionals is all about the food.  Unlike many television shows all of the contestants are already reasonable chefs, and many of the contestants are not just competent; they border on brilliance.  If the up and coming chefs on the show are representative of David Cameron&#8217;s Broken Britain, it&#8217;s another reason he should go inflate himself with a bicycle pump every time he utters the platitude.   Many of the featured chefs are the future of the UK restaurant scene.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s the best food show on television at the moment.  Bar none.  It&#8217;s better than Top Chef.  There is zero excessive drama worked in by producers. So well done BBC.  Michel Roux Jnr is a bit scary though.  He reminds me of my old French teacher, who was ex-military, and had a stare that was odd.  But Michel Roux Jnr, and Gregg Wallace, are very good presenters for the show.  Because they know their onions (it&#8217;s a good one to note that BBC - front shows with people who know, in-depth, about the subject they&#8217;re presenting - seems obvious that one).  They&#8217;re also personable.</p>
<p>Great stuff - <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/?uri=%2Fiplayer%2F&amp;go=toolbar&amp;q=masterchef" target="_blank">it&#8217;s on iPlayer</a>, but if you can&#8217;t get iPlayer where you are you have my permission (as a license fee payer) to pirate it for the benefit of mankind.  It&#8217;s a shame it&#8217;s on 18:30 on BBC 2 because many people aren&#8217;t home to watch it on their actual telly-boxes.  Thanks to iPlayer that&#8217;s less of a problem than it was, but I think placing Masterchef: The Professionals in that slot is as bigger crime as the slot the first series of The Mighty Boosh had.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.twonilblankblank.com/2008/09/18/masterchef-the-professionals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The future of television [prologue]</title>
		<link>http://www.twonilblankblank.com/2008/06/17/the-future-of-television-prologue/</link>
		<comments>http://www.twonilblankblank.com/2008/06/17/the-future-of-television-prologue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:24:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[The other]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[banter]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[series]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[television]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[the future of television]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twonilblankblank.com/?p=477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s plenty on television but nothing that grabs me.  Which got me thinking&#8230;
What would I like to watch? 
Which is a question everybody should ask and write blog posts about.  It&#8217;s a difficult question because it&#8217;s hard to go beyond simple statements like “a good comedy” or “a decent documentary”.  Good and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s plenty on television but nothing that grabs me.  Which got me thinking&#8230;</p>
<ul><strong>What would I like to watch? </strong></ul>
<p>Which is a question everybody should ask and write blog posts about.  It&#8217;s a difficult question because it&#8217;s hard to go beyond simple statements like “a good comedy” or “a decent documentary”.  Good and decent are not qualities that are universally appreciable – they&#8217;re relative to me/you.  There&#8217;s plenty of things that are good that other people think are shit and vice-versa.  So, maybe the question should be revised to:</p>
<ul> <strong>What would I like to watch that other people would like to watch?</strong></ul>
<p>The difference between “What would I like to watch?” and “What would I like to watch that other people would like to watch?” is something that is often overlooked . <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Brother,_Where_Art_Thou%3F" target="_blank">Homer Simpson was not aware of the distinction between such questions when he designed his car</a>.  On the other-hand it&#8217;s a bit self important to make presumptions about what other people want to watch - but surely it would be more self-important to say what I&#8217;d like to watch without reference to other people?  Or is that worse?  Why bother to talk about it at all if I&#8217;m going to feel bad about it?</p>
<p>There comes a time, in every bloggers life, maybe during a flicker of remorse for wasted minutes bashing at a keyboard, that you start off with something, and talk yourself out of writing about it.  Because it&#8217;s rubbish.  Less lazy, more committed bloggers wouldn&#8217;t even bother to post this.  What a loss to the world that would be.</p>
<p>TBC</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.twonilblankblank.com/2008/06/17/the-future-of-television-prologue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The equation for a great film-drama character (press release bukkake)</title>
		<link>http://www.twonilblankblank.com/2008/04/07/the-equation-for-a-great-film-drama-character-press-release-bukkake/</link>
		<comments>http://www.twonilblankblank.com/2008/04/07/the-equation-for-a-great-film-drama-character-press-release-bukkake/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:37:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[That]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[The other]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[This]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[banter]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[cinema]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[newspapers]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[sanctimonious tongue in cheek bloggers]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[television]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[wanky]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twonilblankblank.com/?p=238</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are qualities that exist in all great film-drama characters that are hard to pin down.   It is too simplistic to say that the characters have depth or complexity because some great film characters aren&#8217;t complex and don&#8217;t have depth.  An element may be that while a part of  a narrative, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are qualities that exist in all great film-drama characters that are hard to pin down.   It is too simplistic to say that the characters have depth or complexity because some great film characters aren&#8217;t complex and don&#8217;t have depth.  An element may be that while a part of  a narrative, at some point in the film, (or even all of it) a great character&#8217;s motivations are not obvious to the viewer.  So elements of the character are open to interpretation and the character is interesting as a result.  Another factor may be the freshness of a role.  As defined by the script and/or director and/or acting skills.  A memorable character  - because they&#8217;re novel and a benchmark by which others will be judged.  And, I suppose, the pathos or revulsion the character can elicit from an audience.</p>
<p>All in varying proportions.  Of course.  One day a twat will paid peanuts to put together a shoddy equation for the benefit of a cinema chain.  Who&#8217;ll pump out press releases on the unsuspecting public like bukkake.  Mopped up by the news.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.twonilblankblank.com/2008/04/07/the-equation-for-a-great-film-drama-character-press-release-bukkake/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in -0.074 seconds -->
