Talk:The Wedge (Australian TV show)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Recent ratings 2 "Criticism" Issues 3 Looking for criticism 4 I beg of you

Recent ratings

I added a section about the show's recent ratings. Crikey reports that the ratings have been in steady decline and the most recent episode ,airing 14/11, reached only 650,000 viewers. This is a poor result considering the 1 million viewers the show was receiving early in the series or the 1.8 million it started with. The show can no longer be called "a big success with audiences" when it is now reaching such a small amount of viewers Eadsmasha 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" Issues

"The Wedge is terrible" = By all means, get rid of stuff like this. It's pointless. So is the unsourced stuff about how "some people speculate" that the series ripped off XXXX other sketch show.

"The Wedge is very popular, but almost all TV critics in the country thought it was awful, and here is what they said" = This isn't the same thing. The presence of a section - and a small one, at that - which records a virtually unanimous negative response from the Australian media doesn't make the article biased. Family Guy has a criticism section. The Simpsons has a criticism section. Uwe Boll has a criticism section. Anything that receives an unusually large amount of criticism (and scant praise) should have that criticism documented in an article that's, ostensibly, objective. The Wedge has copped a lot of flak from the media, and omitting this information really would make the article biased. It has nothing to do with wanting the series to look bad / good.

"Criticism" has been changed to "Reaction". It states that the series has been popular and the ratings have been strong, just like before, only (slightly) longer. It has been re-worded, so that "Its implausible laugh-track" is now "What they perceived as an over-use of canned laughter". Or something like that, I don't remember the exact wording. That is what critics - paid entertainment critics who write for respected, popular newspapers, not anonymous bloogers that reactionary vandals found through Google - said (OK, and one webzine). Their words are right there, with sources. Were this a short article with a large amount of criticism, I could see the point in removing it, but the article is quite lengthy, with DVD releases and trivia getting their own sections, so why should the criticism - which is arguably more notable than the source of Mark Wary's name, but let's not open that can of worms right now - be any different? I fail to see how any of this is unfair, biased or NPOV.

Shaggy9872004, please stop erasing / moving the section, especially if you aren't even going to give a reason. A cursory glance at the history page will show that a few dozen separate accounts / IPs are all opposed to what you're doing. This isn't a debate between two sides of an issue, it's you doing something that nobody else agrees with, consistently, even after you've been made aware that nobody agrees with it. If you want an article that ignores all the bad things people have said about The Wedge, then write a review for IMDB or whatever. There are plenty of people who, I'm sure, work on this page, and would dearly love to write an article that only mentioned the bad things. However, they're willing to put their personal bias aside and try to come up with something that, however imperfectly, presents an objective view of the subject matter. Could you please extend the same courtesy?

Regards, Somebody without an account 58.166.6.17 18:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Adam Zwar is the "fwee for fwee" guy. Dailan didn't mention it on Thank God Your Here. Before the person who keeps changing the text, changes it again, I suggest they contact Aran Michael Management - the agency that managers both actors, for their own peace of mind.

This show shouldn't be classified as comedy. It should be classified as "half an hour of smelly dung". BaHaReep 07:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The opinion expressed below is biased and not quoted from a verifiable source. Parrabellum 11:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should simply be noted in the article that it is currently not a success with viewers or critics, which is true and can be quoted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Deshem (talk • contribs).

I like ^ that idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.196.204 (talk • contribs).

Ummm its ratings are going quite well, so that would be incorrect. Please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ after your post. Mike Beckham 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

i'm sure YOU'D love it

Anyone have a source for the sports player beng based on Shane Warne? --Stretch 01:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't have a source, but I'd say it's probable. I'll add a little something. The Frederick 10:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Common sense would be a pretty good source - johnsurname

Still needs a source, otherwise it gets classified as original research --Stretch 12:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This show sucks JayKeaton 12:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Can the opinion already. If you can't source crticism for the show, don't bother.--Stretch 00:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

gad, man, pick up a television guide! - johnsurname

The paper also rips through The Wedge with disgust like a muscle man through a telephone book JayKeaton 03:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, so post that up and source it --Stretch 09:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia part about "Art Carney" makes no sense to me, I don't know who Art Carny is... I think it needs to be deleted or clarified. --Nicwright 08:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pfffff.... people just watch it to fill in the time untill the tuesday 8:30 show. Anyone have any idea where one could get any critical reviews on this? It is so non-notable that it hardly turns up on a google search. Sfacets 10:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking for criticism

From the SMH:

But now the age of The Laff Box is over, according to Tom Gleisner, co-creator of Frontline, The Castle, Molvania, Phaic Tan, All Aussie Adventures, The Panel, and Thank God You're Here. He says Australians will no longer tolerate having their reactions dictated:

"Americans seem to be able to cope with laugh tracks, but to us the notion that some unseen audience is splitting its sides every few seconds feels too self-satisfied. Kath & Kim and Frontline would be unthinkable with canned laughter. They worked because they gave the audience the freedom not to laugh."

Three days after Gleisner was reported saying that, Channel Ten launched a new local comedy called The Wedge, of which the most notable feature is a laugh track so implausible as to be a joke in itself. It started with 1.5 million viewers in the mainland capitals, and has now sunk to 1.0 million -- which still puts it above Channel Nine's latest US cancom The New Adventures of Old Christine.

From The Age blogs:

Ten's second comedy show, The Wedge, debuted last night. Much has been made of the involvement of The Comedy Company's Ian McFadyen, but it's worth remembering that, apart from those Spring Valley ads, McFadyen's post-Comedy Company CV features forgettable sitcoms such as Newlyweds, Let the Blood Run Free and Bingles.

For one thing, the show seems to rely more on the heavily-utilised laugh track to get laughs than the actual punch lines. There were some funny moments, but much of it felt tired and obvious.

Unfortunately, Google isn't turning up much. I know I've heard a few of the presenters of Triple J rubbishing the show. It was probably Jay and the Doctor with the girl that does TV reviews, Kiralee/Library spice. But that's not in print (or on the web), probably not even on the Triple J podcast. We need some sources! --Imroy 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff! I have added a criticism section with the sources you provided... it would be great if we could find an independant critic for this... they would have more to say than criticise the laugh track (shudder). Sfacets 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeez. Who wastes their lives on this stuff?

Obviously Australians don't mind having their reactions dictated, if the ratings were good enough for a second season. Can someone provide a source for this? Sfacets 20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg of you

Anyone know if Channel 10 is considering ditching this AWFUL show? It seems to be rating poorly. Battle Ape 12:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is intended to be used for discussing the article and not POV opinions. - Mike Beckham 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lucky we have template messages for these things, Mike. I'm adding the {{TVSeriesTalk}} template. If any further irrelevent messages (e.g. "This show sucks") are posted, perhaps we should just delete them? QazPlm 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Most likely a good idea, to stop flame wars. - Mike Beckham 09:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I wa sonly asking because Wikipedia had become my prime and only source of information. 58.7.179.179 13:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)