One of the game shows on that list is Gambit. I had seen the US edition, and when I visited the UK back in the 1970s, I had a chance to see the British version.
The game was played exactly the same way, but I was baffled by one aspect of it. In the US, such game shows are an excuse for advertising. Even Jeopardy, which has money as a prize, shills for several companies (often one is named during the show, and a whole list shows up at the end). Most shows are and were incredibly blatant about it. “Your prize is a new Pontiac GTO!”
But in the UK, there were never any brand names or prices. It was a blatant example of TV made for advertising, only without the advertising. “You’ve won a New Car!” – only they didn’t give the brand, model, or price. Since the channel was state-supported, I suppose they didn’t have to do it for the money, but it’s weird. Like watching a DVD of a TV show with the commercials cut out – it makes it abundantly obvious how artificial the structure of American TV shows are, because they’re meant to have little climaxes before the commercial breaks that are meant to keep you watching and not changing the channel.
I think it’s more than that – there’s a LOT of TV being made out there in the world, of very high quality. I’m surprised, when I’m traveling, at some of the offerings from Australia and elsewhere. This stuff never shows up on American TV. We’ll get British TV on PBS and some independent stuff (like Benny Hill) elsewhere. Occasionally Canadian stuff or Japanese anime. But real shows from Australia? And forget about shows not in English.
I remember once, back in the 1960s, one of the networks ran An Evening of French TV (I think it was during the summer doldrums). I was fascinated. But I haven’t seen anything like it since. Unless you go to one of the foreign-language cable stations, you won’t see any of this, and even then there’s a lot you won’t see.
American broadcasters simply won’t run foreign TV, with a few notable exceptions. And it’s not all because of supposed cultural/language incompatibilities. There’s a real prejudice there.
Also, British standards & practices are somewhat laxer than American. I don’t think you could have possibly gotten Mrs. Slocumb’s pussy references or Mr. Humfries’ overt effeminacy past the censors in the US until at least the mid-90s. It was okay to reference homosexuality well before that (eg, the premise of Three’s Company), but to have such an obviously “sissy” regular character and also to float jokes about it on a regular basis wouldn’t have happened.
Yeah, I’ve been rewatching the British Office recently and I’d forgotten that David swears a lot. He even tells someone to “Fuck off” at one point.
I’ve also come to the realization that not only is the US Office better, but it’s light years better. Also, anyone that floats the meme of “The British Office had lots of unattractive cast members, unlike American TV” was watching the show with their eyes closed.
It’s not that the BBC don’t need or want the money, it’s that they aren’t allowed to use anything brand reference that could be construed as advertising – free or otherwise. In return for public funding, the BBC must comply with a code which states
Even commercial TV stations have to comply with certain broadcast advertising restrictions. There’s restrictions on product placement, for example, as the Broadcast Code stipulates that the viewer must be able to immediately distinguish between what is advertising and what isn’t.
I’m aware of that – but if that was the case, why slavishly follow the US model that gives cars as prizes when the raison d’etre no longer exists? Why not simply give points, or money as a prize?
“Gambit” was shown on commercial TV, not BBC. So while it still had restrictions compared to the in-show product placement seen in American gameshows as SanVito descibes, there were commercial breaks. The BBC has adapted some American gameshows, but not the formats that rely heavily on sponsorship.
But it still doesn’t explain why they kept the “American Advertising Game Show” format without the advertising! The fact that it ran on commercial TV is pretty irrelevant to the fact that they didn’t use the format to do any advertising (except in commercial breaks, presumably). Again, if you’re not using the prizes as an excuse to pimp the products, why even use such products as prizes?
Because cars are shiny and can be put on a turntable. Some shows use them in addition to money; for example, Family Fortunes (based on Family Feud) used give small prizes for guessing specific answers as well as money for winning the round, and a car would be added to the winning total if they guessed all the top answers in the final round.
It also makes a good prize for a family game as the whole family benefits from another car. Holidays were also an option, like in Catchphrase, but obviously more expensive for the shows.
It could also be like when you get given a present at Christmas - cash is nice, but presents are nicer as it makes it feel more like an event.
It seems that most shows these days are all about the cash, sadly - not even chequebooks and pens as consolation prizes.
I guess product placement still works to some extent even if the host can only show the product but not describe it. For the TV company, the benefit was glamorous prizes that it presumably didn’t have to pay for. I doubt that the code allowed them to accept money from the prize donors, so no, it would not have been lucrative in the way that product placement on American shows was. But who knows what went on behind closed doors - “have our Ford Escort as your big prize, and we’ll buy a load of expensive advertising time from you”, perhaps.
Also, and I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that for a long time there was a limit to the amount of cash that could be given away. I remember the game show “the 64,000 Dollar Question” only giving away 6,400 GBP, using the “excuse” that they were using the old-style exchange rate of 1 USD to the pound.
Of course now “What Wants to be a Millionaire” came from the UK, so something changed somewhere.
The UK is almost as bad. Programmes from other English-speaking countries are common but stuff in different languages? Largely unheard of unless it is a late night film on BBC or Channel 4 (which teenage boys like me in the 80s and 90s would always try and sneak a watch of as there would be a high chance of breasts.
Due to the popularity of the books and the English-language version, the BBC is showing the Swedish language Wallander shows. It is being treated like some kind of revolution in TV broadcasting.
I remember watching Ocean Girl and Spellbinder (both series) on the Disney channel as a kid. I really liked both shows too. After we got DirecTV we got a cable channel that aired alot of Aussie kids shows. I remember watching Ship to Shore, Wayne’s Manifesto, Round the Twist, and some show set in an underground city during a future ice age (staring the kid from OG and WM).
Mcleod’s Daughters has aired on PBS stations (& surprising gotten a full DVD release in the US). I’ve also seen a show about a divorced solicitor from the city taking a job as a magistrate in small quirky island town with her kids in tow.
It’s a given it’ll suck. There’s no way in hell the sex/nudity/drug use/language in the original could pass even MTV’s censors. All of which not only involves teenagers, but is portrayed by actors almost the same exact age as their characters. Maxxie’s been made into a lesbian. There’s also one major plot point at the end of series 2 that would never fly on American TV and nicely highlights the cultural differences between the US and the UK.
Jal going through with the abortion even after Chris died. No American TV show would have her do that. She’d end up keeping the kid, giving it to his parents, or something so that “he could live on”. If an American TV character did aborted in those circumstances she’d be portrayed as a total monster.
AFAIK, Disney doesn’t run any Aussie dramas now, nor do any of the other cable networks I get. And I don’t recall seeing any in recent years (or ever).
I take it you never watched Undressed then? Aside from the nudity, it featured plenty of sexually active teens, college kids and 20somethings and starred a whole host of people who would later go on to be better known for other things:
Christina Hendricks, Katee Sackhoff, Brandon Routh, J. August Richards (Gunn from Angel), Adam Brody (the kid from The OC), Jason David Frank (The White Power Ranger), Bret “the kid from Reaper” Harrison, Sarah Lancaster (Chuck’s sister), Marc Blucas (Riley from Buffy), and Luke “the retarded kid from The Wizard” Edwards
I was a fan of Undressed and no; it wasn’t anywhere nearly as explicit as Skins. Most of the sex and drug use was implied rather than shown outright. Same for the nudity; they always shot the actor from the waist up or had something blocking the view. In that story about the teen who was embaressed because his dick was too big they used actual black censor bars (admitedly that scene was way funnier than actually showing anything).
