What are the nadir moments of retrospective clip shows?

Since the late 90's, we seem to have become inundated with rather smug, navelgazing retrospective shows (or as Boofer rather colourfully put it, 'clips and cunts' shows).

Shows like I Love 1980s, or It Was Alright in the 70's. I suppose you could even class some of Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe stuff in that category.

Clip shows where the usual celebrity talking heads look back on old TV and popular trends of the past and either give condescending praise of how fun and wonderful it was, or leap at the chance to be really mocking and smugly 'knowing' and smart-arsed about how rubbish or misjudged it was, and 'thank God we know better now'. And in a sense almost setting the terms for what's the cool, ironic way to like old stuff.

I think many of us have seen them. So what would you nominate as the most unbearable or plain stupid moments in them?

I prefer the term 'clips and cunts' myself.

I didn't really mind them up until the last few years or so. They're fucking everywhere now.

You knew the death of TV was coming once the BBC started to churn them out at a rate of 3 or more a week.

I can't name any specifically, but anything involving a marathon top 100 on channel 5 featuring Zlebs from various reality shows gets my vote.

I don't watch them. The narcissism of the "we're so much more enlightened" brigade makes me vomit enough as it is.

I can remember in early 2001 really liking the I love the 1980's series at the time. I remember enjoying each episode's nostalgia journey of discovery (it's through them that I discovered stuff like Threads, Kim Wilde, Altered Images). I even found it comforting viewing that cheered me up a bit when I had the flu.

There was I suppose a nice innocence to a retrospective show like that then, but I think even in the course of that show's run they did get progressively more cynical and nasty and more just an excuse for those smug media types to be superior and smart-arsed about yesteryear's tastes.

The nadir however for me was one episode of It Was Alright In the 70's back in 2015 which was called 'Fear in the 80's' that looked back at fearmongering television of the time.

And there was actually some shocking material they'd dug from the archives, including some very children's show in which this older woman owned a bus converted into a mobile home that was full of very gruesome toys and items she'd use to demonstrate stark lessons of household items that could be a potential death trap.

So there was the potential to have made a good retrospective out of that material.

But the way it was cut together was just unbearably insufferable. They actually showed the nuclear strike sequence from Threads, which was a brilliant piece of film editing and visual storytelling.

And yet they went and spoilt it (and indeed vandalized it) by inserting it with overlong reaction moments with some smug wanker being so obvious about it and going "Oh wow, did they really think they needed to put that bit in where the woman wets herself? That's nice".

And I remember thinking "It's not *supposed* to be nice you total wanker!" and that there was just nothing they wouldn't go for a cheap remark over, even in something of the import of Threads.

And ironically it just showed how the editors of Threads really knew their craft in a way the wankers who put that retrospective together didn't and yet somehow still thought they knew so much better than TV makers of the past.

That really lodged in the memory as a painful bit of modern television.

Tanmann wrote:Id yet somehow still thought they knew so much better than TV makers of the past.

.

The reason New Who is so shit in a nutshell.

Pretty much, yeah.

RTD's revival was largely just a love-letter to contemporary trash TV, and seemed to rather be in awe of that than Doctor Who itself.

A Doctor Who one I watched a few years ago was just unbareable. It seemed to me as if they were looking down on you for liking things which they thought were below them.


The made it look as though the classic series was an absolute trainwreck of a show. They highlighted the Third Doctor's "sexism" for some reason and commented on the "less than convincing" spider in POTS. Colin also said the a lot of the things from the Eighties are very hard to look back at now or words to that effect. They didn't make any disparaging comments towards Tennant's era. They spoke about that era for much longer than the rest.

Oh of course... (vomits)

Tanmann wrote:I can remember in early 2001 really liking the I love the 1980's series at the time. I remember enjoying each episode's nostalgia journey of discovery (it's through them that I discovered stuff like Threads, Kim Wilde, Altered Images). I even found it comforting viewing that cheered me up a bit when I had the flu.

There was I suppose a nice innocence to a retrospective show like that then, but I think even in the course of that show's run they did get progressively more cynical and nasty and more just an excuse for those smug media types to be superior and smart-arsed about yesteryear's tastes.

The nadir however for me was one episode of It Was Alright In the 70's back in 2015 which was called 'Fear in the 80's' that looked back at fearmongering television of the time.

And there was actually some shocking material they'd dug from the archives, including some very children's show in which this older woman owned a bus converted into a mobile home that was full of very gruesome toys and items she'd use to demonstrate stark lessons of household items that could be a potential death trap.

So there was the potential to have made a good retrospective out of that material.

But the way it was cut together was just unbearably insufferable. They actually showed the nuclear strike sequence from Threads, which was a brilliant piece of film editing and visual storytelling.

And yet they went and spoilt it (and indeed vandalized it) by inserting it with overlong reaction moments with some smug wanker being so obvious about it and going "Oh wow, did they really think they needed to put that bit in where the woman wets herself? That's nice".

And I remember thinking "It's not *supposed* to be nice you total wanker!" and that there was just nothing they wouldn't go for a cheap remark over, even in something of the import of Threads.

And ironically it just showed how the editors of Threads really knew their craft in a way the wankers who put that retrospective together didn't and yet somehow still thought they knew so much better than TV makers of the past.

That really lodged in the memory as a painful bit of modern television.

That does sound embarrassing. I saw Threads merely a few months ago for the first time, and to display that harrowing sequence in the most superficial and dumbed down of contexts is just laughable. I’m not too familiar with these formats of TV myself, thankfully, although did indeed watch some of Screenwipe, which while sometimes accidentally slipping through the popularist mantra often critiqued such things. Although Brooker has declined considerably of late- the latest season of Black Mirror was largely rubbish, and his sycophantic comments concerning Whittaker’s Doctor don’t bode too well either.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:A Doctor Who one I watched a few years ago was just unbareable. It seemed to me as if they were looking down on you for liking things which they thought were below them.  


The made it look as though the classic series was an absolute trainwreck of a show. They highlighted the Third Doctor's "sexism" for some reason and commented on the "less than convincing" spider in POTS. Colin also said the a lot of the things from the Eighties are very hard to look back at now or words to that effect. They didn't make any disparaging comments towards Tennant's era. They spoke about that era for much longer than the rest.

What was this one called? I recall seeing something similar near the 50th anniversary... either way, it sounds shite.

Bernard Marx wrote:

That does sound embarrassing. I saw Threads merely a few months ago for the first time, and to display that harrowing sequence in the most superficial and dumbed down of contexts is just laughable.

It really maddened me. It's like they desecrated a classic, masterful piece of emotive film editing, just for the sake of letting someone who doesn't appreciate its craft waste our time by saying something so smug, stupid and irrelevant about it.

The worst thing is, they could only make light of the woman wetting herself because it's the only moment in it they could remotely try to cheaply highlight as cringey to mock or be snooty about, and even then it's a ridiculous stretch (in the context of the sequence it makes utter sense).

It just showed that the show only had one end-goal to just be a mocking, smirking, puerile school bully to all these old clips, treating them like they're always doing something wrong and embarrassing (in this case tripping them up if necessary by interrupting their masterful editing), and never giving them the reverence they deserved and have earned by most sane metrics.

I’m not too familiar with these formats of TV myself, thankfully, although did indeed watch some of Screenwipe, which while sometimes accidentally slipping through the popularist mantra often critiqued such things. Although Brooker has declined considerably of late- the latest season of Black Mirror was largely rubbish, and his sycophantic comments concerning Whittaker’s Doctor don’t bode too well either.

I like Charlie Brooker, but he's definitely not as sharp as he used to be, and he definitely follows the same political hymn sheet as the BBC.

I'm a bit surprised you've not seen many shows of that format, given there has, since 2000 been quite a saturation of them on TV. It seemed to start with a series called I Love The Seventies, which would go through each year of the 70's, devoting an hour and a half to reminiscing on the trends of that year. Very quickly they did a sequel series on the eighties, and then on the nineties.

This was one of the better ones I remember, and should give you some idea of what they're like. (it also covers Threads but does it properly).



But as I say, they seem to have gotten increasingly bitchy since.

Tanmann wrote:

I'm a bit surprised you've not seen many shows of that format, given there has, since 2000 been quite a saturation of them on TV. It seemed to start with a series called I Love The Seventies, which would go through each year of the 70's, devoting an hour and a half to reminiscing on the trends of that year. Very quickly they did a sequel series on the eighties, and then on the nineties.

This was one of the better ones I remember, and should give you some idea of what they're like. (it also covers Threads but does it properly).



But as I say, they seem to have gotten increasingly bitchy since.

The reason I haven’t watched many of them is because I assumed they were all shit- there’s always been a spiteful and scornful aura associated with them for the most part, and as Iank points out, there’s a certain elitism that surrounds them too. Although perhaps there are a few which are tolerable. I’ll check out the one you’ve linked to me when I can, anyway, although I’m a little preoccupied in a busy environment at the moment (and messaging via phone).

Bernard Marx wrote:

Tanmann wrote:I can remember in early 2001 really liking the I love the 1980's series at the time. I remember enjoying each episode's nostalgia journey of discovery (it's through them that I discovered stuff like Threads, Kim Wilde, Altered Images). I even found it comforting viewing that cheered me up a bit when I had the flu.

There was I suppose a nice innocence to a retrospective show like that then, but I think even in the course of that show's run they did get progressively more cynical and nasty and more just an excuse for those smug media types to be superior and smart-arsed about yesteryear's tastes.

The nadir however for me was one episode of It Was Alright In the 70's back in 2015 which was called 'Fear in the 80's' that looked back at fearmongering television of the time.

And there was actually some shocking material they'd dug from the archives, including some very children's show in which this older woman owned a bus converted into a mobile home that was full of very gruesome toys and items she'd use to demonstrate stark lessons of household items that could be a potential death trap.

So there was the potential to have made a good retrospective out of that material.

But the way it was cut together was just unbearably insufferable. They actually showed the nuclear strike sequence from Threads, which was a brilliant piece of film editing and visual storytelling.

And yet they went and spoilt it (and indeed vandalized it) by inserting it with overlong reaction moments with some smug wanker being so obvious about it and going "Oh wow, did they really think they needed to put that bit in where the woman wets herself? That's nice".

And I remember thinking "It's not *supposed* to be nice you total wanker!" and that there was just nothing they wouldn't go for a cheap remark over, even in something of the import of Threads.

And ironically it just showed how the editors of Threads really knew their craft in a way the wankers who put that retrospective together didn't and yet somehow still thought they knew so much better than TV makers of the past.

That really lodged in the memory as a painful bit of modern television.

That does sound embarrassing. I saw Threads merely a few months ago for the first time, and to display that harrowing sequence in the most superficial and dumbed down of contexts is just laughable. I’m not too familiar with these formats of TV myself, thankfully, although did indeed watch some of Screenwipe, which while sometimes accidentally slipping through the popularist mantra often critiqued such things. Although Brooker has declined considerably of late- the latest season of Black Mirror was largely rubbish, and his sycophantic comments concerning Whittaker’s Doctor don’t bode too well either.

I think that the ultimate problem with Charlie Brooker isn't even on him himself. His biggest problem is as of lately is writing too many stories in the span of a short time. He clearly needs to let other writers come in and write other episodes, because I'm sure that other writers have as much of a creative vision as him. The fact that Black Mirror is also a yearly thing doesn't help things either. It's like asking Stephen King to write 3 1000 page books in the span of 5 months. And it's clear that Charlie still has that vision (as Bandersnatch and Smithereens are still excellent hours of television), but I'm definitely noticing him burning out on his imagination for the show.

Bernard Marx wrote:
What was this one called? I recall seeing something similar near the 50th anniversary... either way, it sounds shite.

I believe it was called The Ultimate Guide.

These show's contents aren't always negative.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:
What was this one called? I recall seeing something similar near the 50th anniversary... either way, it sounds shite.

I believe it was called The Ultimate Guide.

That’s the one. Yeah- most of it was sickeningly bad. They did indeed mock the visual effects in Planet of the Spiders, and decided to present Pertwee’s tender regeneration scene with shit pop music superimposed over it. They barely covered the essence of the character beyond the most superficial of features, and it seems so frantically edited as to appear as patronising as possible. “Clips and Cunts” indeed.

Although they did refer to Tennant’s Doctor as a “lothario” at one point, which came across as a piss take at first glance, although it was followed up with the Tenth Doctor being declared a “tragic hero” in reference to his love dynamic with Rose. If so, he’s certainly no Othello- the sycophants.

Cunnus Maximus wrote:These show's contents aren't always negative.

Skins? Isn't that about 5 years old?!

iank wrote:

Cunnus Maximus wrote:These show's contents aren't always negative.

Skins? Isn't that about 5 years old?!

The first episode aired 12 years ago. I thought it was repugnant.

It's still pretty recent for a "nostalgia" show, isn't it? What's next, Game of Thrones?!

iank wrote:It's still pretty recent for a "nostalgia" show, isn't it? What's next, Game of Thrones?!

You didn't watch it, did you?

He's using Skins as a contrast to two 70s shows about kids and teens - Children of The Stones and The Changes.

Instead of mocking the 70s shows, he demonstrates their vast superiority to the 'modern' Skins.

Cunnus Maximus wrote:

iank wrote:It's still pretty recent for a "nostalgia" show, isn't it? What's next, Game of Thrones?!

You didn't watch it, did you?  

He's using Skins as a contrast to two 70s shows about kids and teens - Children of The Stones and The Changes.

Instead of mocking the 70s shows, he demonstrates their vast superiority to the 'modern' Skins.

Apologies for not seeing this earlier.

Indeed. It’s an honest examination of the panderingly infantile nature of the 2000s counterpart “Skins” in comparison to the more inviting yet more bizarrely other, surreal and challenging “The Changes” and “Children of the Stones”. His point concerning how “Skins” would incite a stronger sense of isolation within him if he were a teenager when compared to the 70s series is especially pertinent, and one that encapsulates a key issue with much of modern youth-orientated TV. It adheres to superficial depictions and insights into the minds and thought processes of such people, with little emotional or intellectual awareness.

In case you couldn’t tell, I thought that what I saw of Skins was fucking awful.

Cunnus Maximus wrote:

iank wrote:It's still pretty recent for a "nostalgia" show, isn't it? What's next, Game of Thrones?!

You didn't watch it, did you?  

He's using Skins as a contrast to two 70s shows about kids and teens - Children of The Stones and The Changes.

Instead of mocking the 70s shows, he demonstrates their vast superiority to the 'modern' Skins.

Are you a businessman?

Cunnus Maximus wrote:

iank wrote:It's still pretty recent for a "nostalgia" show, isn't it? What's next, Game of Thrones?!

You didn't watch it, did you?  

He's using Skins as a contrast to two 70s shows about kids and teens - Children of The Stones and The Changes.

Instead of mocking the 70s shows, he demonstrates their vast superiority to the 'modern' Skins.

I'm supposed to be working. I ain't got time to watch fucking videos.

I kinda liked Skins