I was nonplussed about a change in commentators for Film 2010, Jonathan Ross was classy, but not irreplaceable I thought. However not only has his replacement made me realise Jonathan Ross was probably more talented then I gave him credit for, but it has also brought with it what I should have realised would be inevitable; the arrival of the ever-so-bollocks 'makeover'.
I'm in the middle of watching the second episode and I'm probably not alone in saying the following; I just about give two craps about what Claudia Winkleman thinks. But not by much. Jonathan's witty banter was both informative and funny but you were also wrapped in the comforting safety net that was the fact that Mr Ross was a talented and smart reviewer whose word should be heeded. Don't get me wrong, I think his 6 million a year salary was a scandal and I was mostly against him when it came to antics which quite rightly made him appear to be quite the tit, but his research seemed to revolve around a lot of hard work and a general passion to give the right balance of opinion and unbiased facts.
Claudia Winkleman and the bloke she bounces off of make what appear to be solid judgements, especially at the start of their reviews. But when the words "I think" creep into the mix I find my concentration waining. I see two chat show hosts having a natter about one film or another rather then the technical in-depth discussion about the pros and cons of a film which will effect whether or not I will pay to view it.
The crappy "upgrades" (and I can't stress those quotation marks strongly enough) include the 'Top 5' part of the show. Somewhere along the line someone at the BBC decided it would be good to bring complete randoms onto the show to express their love of the top 5 'somethings' from any movie in their repertoire. I need this addition about as much as a drowning nun needs a hamburger. To make matters worse, the first episode drew on the knowledge of some plucky young pre-pubescent pillock who proceeded to give his top 5 inclusions of the moon in films. And then not mention E.T. I mean really. I'm not a big E.T fan myself, but to start the already-wobbly new series of a film review show with a top 5 list of moons and not include the lovable extra-terrestrial is just plain awful. Whether Winkleman mentions it at the end or not. Tweets from viewers were also used and (no offense to you at home) once more I did not care. At all.
I shall be generous and say one thing; it does look like the team have pounced on the majority of the 'iffy' parts of the first Film 2010 with ole Winkleman and have adapted the following episode to meet those challenges rather successfully. The presenters seem more focused on providing quality reviews at the expense of the other cack parts of the show thus far. Conversation is streamlined, focusing more on movie content and describing their views with a 'step-back', more in-depth approach. Aka, The Jonathan Ross effect. The Top 5 section was pointless once more, but not cringingly awful and the dreaded crappy tweets were not even mentioned apart from at the start. Pointless jokes were at a minimum and the banter was much improved as a result; bouncing views between one another actually produced some intelligent insight.
So thar she goes. It's not great, but its already improving after one show which is pretty impressive. Of course this could all be reversed. Maybe I misconstrued their actions and no progress has been made, I could have just seen the best the series is going to get. Maybe time issues meant tweets had to be cut from only this episode and next weeks show will include 'Maud' with her Top 5 uses of cheese in black and while cinema. I sincerely hope not.
I shall have to put my faith in the team and hope I can continue to get solid criticism on what I may potentially be seeing. Either way, RIP Jonathan Ross' film reviewing career, you shall be missed.
No comments:
Post a Comment