Live n Loaded to make way for Just for Gags = Dirty deeds? Done dirt cheap

[tajmall]

NIGHTMARE

having a 2nd season of Live 'n' Loaded, guess what guys, you're gonna be so thrilled with...

I felt despair when I saw it reported in Singapore's TODAY newspaper that "It won’t be long before you might find yourself an unwitting victim of Just for Laughs". This was on Friday (Feb 20, 2009) in the story by May Seah: "Just for Laughs comes to S’pore".

I thought it was already here in full force thanks to the seeming saturation broadcasts of the company's shows on TVMobile (and in almost every extra space Channel 5 can find when not advertising its own programming), but no. The story says: "MediaCorp TV has entered into an exclusive agreement with Just for Laughs to co-produce and distribute gags for the Asian market".

That's vile filth. Cheap and nasty. And something I would have thought doesn't square with Singapore's quest for a gracious society.

How come film, music, art and theatre get censored, but it's ok to show ad naseum the anti-social behaviour that Just for Laughs "gags" depend on?

If the logic of the censor and other moral guardians is to be understood, then isn't Just for Laughs in danger of encouraging anti-social behaviour?

I can imagine one retort to this being: 'Where's your sense of humour?'

Answer: It's on a higher plane than yours. At least, that's my answer to anyone who asks me this in relation to Just for Laughs. And then I am tempted to call them a moron or make them step in dog poo or make them think they've accidentally broken a priceless vase or scare the crap out of them by leaping out of some bushes while dressed as a gorilla. And if they don't like it I will remind them: it's just for a laugh.

Having been told my whole life to "Make Courtesy Your Way of Life" I then see Just for Laughs seems to win everytime... Dirty deeds? Done dirt cheap.

 

[rottenramone]

bro tajmall bro

thank god you're not living in japan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovlru0WGyAA

 

[tajmall]

bro tajmall bro

thank god you're not living in japan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovlru0WGyAA

At least they made it themselves, it's part of the culture, it's not some shoddy import that's shown on buses over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and it probably doesn't replace potentially interesting music TV programming.

 

[kjartan_v]

ooh i remember we had 'Gotcha!' some years back. moe alkaff was the host. hehe.

 

[tajmall]

ooh i remember we had 'Gotcha!' some years back. moe alkaff was the host. hehe.

yeh that sucked too.

and the GOTCHA 2 was even worse. "...pranksters Howard Lo (Eye For A Guy II) and Cheryl Tay (Miss Singapore Universe 2005) are on the loose!... an all-new telegenic pairing and a barrel of laughter as Gotcha 2 pulls a fast one on the unsuspecting man-in-the-street."

left me cringing in embarrassment. One of the pranks involved fooling a temp into thinking she was under threat of losing her life when gangsters invaded her office after the boss stepped out and they wanted their money back. i mean, pretending to threaten someone with knives is the same as threatening them with a knife if they don't know any better. tf. Surely illegal? And they dragged it on and on and didn't bother editing it out that the poor victims didn't seem to see the funny side of it. It was verging on snuff film potential.

 

[wyldeboon]

left me cringing in embarrassment. One of the pranks involved fooling a temp into thinking she was under threat of losing her life when gangsters invaded her office after the boss stepped out and they wanted their money back. i mean, pretending to threaten someone with knives is the same as threatening them with a knife if they don't know any better. tf. Surely illegal? And they dragged it on and on and didn't bother editing it out that the poor victims didn't seem to see the funny side of it. It was verging on snuff film potential.

hell yeah... there was tis scare tactic show i think... the mexico series i watch on youtube...
pretty weird plot... like women trapped in car in garage wif a naked man trying to rape her.


but frankly speaking, i rather have local shows than overseas shows shown on tv during the prime time.

 

[tajmall]

complaining about TV is pretty pointless i think because we always have the option to turn it off (go play an instrument instead), but i seriously have a deep beef w/ Just for Laughs because, like TVmobile says: IT'S EVERYWHERE. I detest that crappy stock music on a loop - sometimes the only thing it has to let the audience know it's meant to be funny... (the power of music eh?) and the canned laughter and all

No doubt it's cheap. that's the only explanation i can think of.

or the could show Mister Bean instead. live audience watching the playback. minimal music. very popular. and jokes only at his expense.

 

[AgingYouth]

I always wondered if there's a release form for the victims to sign...

If there's not, could I sue them if they used footage of me without my consent and permission?

 

[theliverevolution]

The pranks they use, IMO, should be something that just is plain simple. Nothing too serious or disturbing. If its "Just For Laughs", where's the humour in fooling someone in losing his job?

 

[Danelectrico]

Singapore has no personal privacy laws. Unless it falls under some other umbrella (eg harassment, criminal intimidation, public nuisance, assault, insulting modesty, etc) there's nothing to prevent some prick from shadowing you and videotaping you. And unless you can prove nervous shock / psychiatric damage, a civil claim is unlikely to succeed.

Though chances are the producers would to play safe just persuade - or should i say coerce - the victims of such stupid and mean-spirited pranks to sign a waiver of liability and image / video rights release form. It might not be duress per se, but to me at best it falls short of it. Think about it - for a victim who has just been in a stressful situation, with the "relief" (of finding themselves not in the deep shit situation after all) coming so soon after the shock, they might subconsicouly find themselves willing to sign whatever semblance of their rights away. In a hurry to just get over the embarassment and a crew pressurising them and harping over how "it was all a joke, where's your sense of humour" etc, it's easy for them to be manipulated.

The whole thing disgusts me - up yours to the programming team that commissioned and developed this.

I always wondered if there's a release form for the victims to sign...

If there's not, could I sue them if they used footage of me without my consent and permission?

 

[AgingYouth]

Hey bro dan bro, thanks for da tip.

Now I know how to react if I were to be so suay to be caught in such a situation. But of cuz, if it's either Felicia Chin, Jesseca Liu or Rui En who approaches...

I sign.

 

[growlingsoulpup]

Danelectrico, are you a lawyer? Man I just took my business law exam two weeks ago and already those words like duress and whatnot are greek to me. :S

 

[Danelectrico]

hey growlingsoupup - i guess the language kinda gives it away ... but i don't practise anymore. business law modules can be tricky but it's always useful to file away some concepts for future use when you actually work in the business world!

bro agingyouth bro - i understand completely if i see you on tv at the bar then heheh :grin:

 

[tajmall]

Dan? Electro? Law stuff well-said? I think I can hazard a guess who this is! Hello Sir!

Singapore has no personal privacy laws.

Thanks for answering this. I'd heard this too (after finding heroic images from a gig I didn't get paid for were being used all across the Malaysian website for a deodorant company), but I couldn't have put it like that.

I also know that: Release forms? Nope - since a friend was once shown in a sequence, but was never told they had even been filmed (tf thought the man they saw really was eating off the pavement or having a heart attack or something). And guess what: the foootage of them was then looped and wacky sound effects added and cheap graphics like handdrawn question and exclamation marks added to the screen as we saw the 'victim' doing a quadruple take of their shock... a la Taiwanese TV. (Oh that bloke w/ the glasses and the mullet and the beard who does those shows where people are humiliated... So much to answer for... still one could always say no)

 

[Danelectrico]

Mr H, good day to you too sir.

Yes we're a little backwards where privacy laws are concerned - but that's not entirely surprising is it?

Anyways. If the PHOTOGRAPH of you is owned / commissioned by you and you own the copyright, you have a case for copyright infringement. However if it's not (eg someone takes your photo in the streets) - if you're the subject of a photo used in connection for something you really found objectionable without your consent, you might have a case for defamation, albeit it's a bit tenuous.

If the entity using your photo without permission has an overseas affiliate or parent company in the US or UK, your best bet is to just sue them there You might be able to walk away with a nice settlement.

The added screen and sound effects to the video is just adding insult to injury.

Ah well, STOMP makes a career out of allowing people to taking pics and videos of others without any abandon. I think all these just appeal to the basest, most low brow voyeuristic instincts we have as human beings. Whether fuelled by the need for vidication, sadism, whatever, it's all the same result. I mean, reality TV shows are mostly vile, but at least they're done with mutual consent of all participants.

 

[tajmall]

a gag worthy of Just for Laughs: how Live n' Loaded has a section called 'Sonic Youth' and yet the band called Sonic Youth probably wouldn't stand a chance of getting on the show.

(perhaps too complex for Just for Laughs since it involves irony?)

 

[tajmall]

Anyways. If the PHOTOGRAPH of you is owned / commissioned by you and you own the copyright, you have a case for copyright infringement.

Nope. Was oblivious to it all. After getting nowhere contacting the website I looked up who owned the franchise...

Score - their HQ is in Singapore.
Score - big enough to have news articles about them online, instantly giving me the name of their CEO.
Score - tel number in the book.

Me: can i speak to (insert CEO name here)
Receptionist: she's not in Singapore at the moment...
Me (acting all casual): oh is she in Malaysia already? i am there tomorrow (true), maybe i'll see her there (well, slim chance ... but not impossible) ... is she using her Singapore number (not that i know it)?
Receptionist: yes, do you have it?
Me: er is it the eight ... two...
Receptionist (interrupting): it's xxxxxxx (insert number here)
Me: thanks - i might give her a call then.

Seconds later:
CEO (sounding drowsy ... hope i woke them up and disturbed their comfortable bliss sleep in their K.L. hotel): ...hello?

Miraculously the website was amended within hours.

 

[Danelectrico]

nice one! i suppose the lack of privacy laws (or in this case, clued-in receptionists) cuts both ways!

 

[AgingYouth]

Could it be the British accent, dude?

You know how subservient we Asians are... but I love the story! One for the pub!

 

[tajmall]

Could it be the British accent, dude?

you know i bigged it up on this occasion. sounded like the lady would go for a bit of Hugh Grant so i whipped it out. my impression of him that is.