Changes are afoot at MI5 when the new series of Spooks starts this autumn
Good news for Spooks fans, as The Stage tells us that in the new series they will be moving from a one plot/one episode structure to a single plot/10 episode thing. Now for some reason - yes, possibly because I've been too heavily influenced by US drama structures of late (for "of late" read "the last eight years or so") I am really looking forward to this development. I've always been determined to get into Spooks but found it hard because it's so simple to just dip in and out. Hopefully this new experiment in structure might create more of a hook for viewers.
Of course, mainly because there are so many more quality TV blogs there than here (as well as reasons touched upon above) I'm still flicking lustfully and somewhat enviously through the US TV blogs, trawling through the new season premiere reviews with a jealous glare like a girl with a lust for new shows, but no cable and the world's slowest internet connection. Determined not to ruin anything for myself, though, I'm still desperate to ruin anything with spoilers, but when it comes to comedy, that doesn't really matter so much - so South Dakota Dark's round up of the latest comedy seasons was pretty much the only thing I could read without fear on what is otherwise a read-all site. It was particularly interesting to note different reactions to the new Simpsons, particularly in light of this summer's movie. Reaction on SDD was slightly more wary, but it was liked very much indeed over on Me And The TV.
Staying in the US for just a second more, I know it's not strictly a "TV Blog" so much as an article, but this NYT article on the idea of You Are What You Watch is a good read, and prompted deep thoughts about what I might say was my very favourite of shows and what that might reflect about me and how I wanted other people to see me for, oooh, ages, or at least until the advert break ended.
Speaking of advert breaks (I was! Just there! In that seamless link!) Dan Owen presents a balanced view of the fact that Ofcom are apparently thinking about raising the nine-minute-per-hour maximum advert break to a maximum 12-minute one. Which would mean that terrestrial TV channels (who, he says, only use around seven minutes of their nine-minute maximum at the moment), might be tempted to bump that up by a couple. Hang on. If TV channels only use seven minutes of the hour for adverts at the moment, and an episode of, say CSI is 42 minutes long, where do the other 11 minutes go? I mean, I know that there are trailers for other shows, credits, all of that - but really? Eleven minutes worth? Really? (I'm pulling my best incredulous face, just so you know). Just think, if they really did only use those seven or nine minutes in an hour, we could save lots of time, and use it to do worthwhile things, like read Dickens novels, or solve large political problems, or, you know, watch more television. That's why Doctor Who is only 43 minutes long. It is not so it can be sold to other channels in other countries and shown with adverts. It is trying to encourage us all to read Dickens or something.
Oh damn. Having made a secret promise to myself not to mention Doctor Who for at least a month - and that doesn't count, I was only mentioning not mentioning it, which is different - I will not be mentioning the spin off, either. Luckily, it's been very capably reviewed on Behind The Sofa, so I don't have to.
