"What a f*ck-up", as the ever-eloquent Gordon Ramsey might say...
I only caught a few episodes of the new Kitchen Nightmares series, then Channel 4 started showing repeats. So I abandoned trying to remember when the show was on (yes, it gets tricky without Sky+ to help), and have now discovered they weren't repeats... no, they were revisits.
Revisits are "special episodes" -- which is a fancy name for a repeat, with 10 minutes of new material at the end; where Ramsey returns to the kitchens he helped rejuvenate and finds they're either (a) firing on all cylinders and a huge success, or (b) closed down and the owners are destitute.
This is all very well, in principle. I quite like seeing what happened to the restaurants from previous episodes – although I'll only tune in for the last 10 minutes of new material. No, what irritates me is that these "revisits" have been mixed into the new series! A revisit one week, a new episode the following, I assume. It's just a calculated way to extend the run of a new show!
Well, guess what Channel 4 – it's backfired. I can't speak for others, but I thought the new series only had 4 episodes and when the first revisit aired, I took it to be a repeat that signalled the end of the new series. So I stopped watching... and you lost a viewer. I can't be alone either. Doesn't one viewer equal a few thousand in TV rating terms?
It just doesn't make sense to me! Why show old episodes during a run of new episodes? Just show uninterrupted new stuff next time, and stop trying to trick people into watching your repeats. It doesn't work. I don't have Altzheimer's, so I know when I'm watching a repeat -- and quickly turn over to something else...
It's left a bad taste in my mouth.
I only caught a few episodes of the new Kitchen Nightmares series, then Channel 4 started showing repeats. So I abandoned trying to remember when the show was on (yes, it gets tricky without Sky+ to help), and have now discovered they weren't repeats... no, they were revisits.
Revisits are "special episodes" -- which is a fancy name for a repeat, with 10 minutes of new material at the end; where Ramsey returns to the kitchens he helped rejuvenate and finds they're either (a) firing on all cylinders and a huge success, or (b) closed down and the owners are destitute.
This is all very well, in principle. I quite like seeing what happened to the restaurants from previous episodes – although I'll only tune in for the last 10 minutes of new material. No, what irritates me is that these "revisits" have been mixed into the new series! A revisit one week, a new episode the following, I assume. It's just a calculated way to extend the run of a new show!
Well, guess what Channel 4 – it's backfired. I can't speak for others, but I thought the new series only had 4 episodes and when the first revisit aired, I took it to be a repeat that signalled the end of the new series. So I stopped watching... and you lost a viewer. I can't be alone either. Doesn't one viewer equal a few thousand in TV rating terms?
It just doesn't make sense to me! Why show old episodes during a run of new episodes? Just show uninterrupted new stuff next time, and stop trying to trick people into watching your repeats. It doesn't work. I don't have Altzheimer's, so I know when I'm watching a repeat -- and quickly turn over to something else...
It's left a bad taste in my mouth.
