I’m a bit of an Australian Idol fan, have been since the show started. I started out watching the 2007 installment of Australian Idol expecting to see another batch of up and coming Australian musicians however it all started to go south when the judges had to start culling the top 100 down.

Out of the bunch that made it through to the top 24, only a handful of them honestly earned their position for Australian Idol 2007. Lets take a look at a handful of people that were put through to the top 24, just for the sake of discussion:

Husny Thalib

Fantastically unique, looks great on camera and with a pretty reasonable voice – however I honestly don’t think he could sell records.

Lana Krost

Pretty as a picture, quite good vocal range but just doesn’t have the power or ummphh in her voice at the moment to punch out a tough song.

Dave Andrews

Reasonable voice but generally boring to listen to on stage.

The other thing that has been absolutely infuriating for the 2007 season of Australian Idol has been song choice. The judges harp on about it every year, however this year has to be the worst year in the history of Australian Idol. The Australian Idol contestants have been selecting songs, some of which people recognise, some which no one will realise – all the while, abandoning the tried and true songs that every Australian would recognise and show support for. I think the contestants in 2007 have honestly forgotten that they need to sing songs which appeal to the mass populous most of the time, as most people have the musical vocabulary of a gnat. I’m by no means saying that they should sing all mainstream songs, as they were originally performed – however if they sing an unknown song and put their own spin on it as well – how can they honestly expect the public to vote for them.

The bottom line of it is, for the first time in a long time I was more than happy to watch another TV show last night after an absolutely lack luster performance on the rock & roll night. Out of the contestants, only one of the contestants sang a true rock song – it was an AC/DC classic and while the performance probably needed a little work – at least it was rock and it was delivered like a rock song should be.

If the general quality of the performances doesn’t improve next week and the uninspiring crap continues, I’ll be switching off Australian Idol and embracing some other form of entertainment on a Sunday night.

If you haven’t seen the new TV series featuring David Duchovny named Californication, you need to do yourself a favour and watch it. David Duchovny plays Hank Moody, a previously successful but currently troubled novelist who struggles with his life after separating from his long time partner. Channel Ten are airing it on a Monday night at 9:30 and it is spectacular; if you liked Sex & The City – you’ll love Californication.

Last month I voiced my opinion about the new Channel Ten game show named The ConTest and noted that I thought it was some what anticlimactic.

A month after my initial review of The ConTest game show and one of the items on my hit list have been addressed. This makes me think that either Channel Ten deliberately launched a crap game show, knowing they were going to make improvements or they’ve been scanning the headlines on the internet and maybe they’ve stumbed across my ever so slightly critical view of their game show; who knows but it is one less thing on the list so its definitely improved the show.

You’re probably wondering which item on the hit list was addressed, well it was the one regarding knowing whether the contestants story was real or not. It’s such a small thing but knowing if they are telling the truth about that helps set the scene for their future habits on the show. The thing I find funny or interesting is to see just how far a contestant will push the truth about their story – some tell the truth, some stretch it a little bit while others try to reinvent themselves for the duration of the show. There also seems to be a reasonable relationship between how far someone pushes the truth regarding their story and what their behaviour is regarding the con.

Now Channel Ten just need to work some sort of a challenging system into their new game show and it’d get really interesting. The obvious implementation involves a contestant being able to optionally challenge an opponent once per round. If they get the challenge correct, they get to keep their opponents money; if they get it wrong they lose all of it.

On the surface, implementing a challenge system into The ConTest is nice in theory and hard in practice as it’ll add other problems which would change how the current game is played. First off, if a contestant bluffs and gets caught out and loses their winnings – how would they bluff during the elimination if the other contestants know they don’t have any money.

One possible solution might be rolling the challenge and elimination into the same event. At the end of a round, the winning contestant can, if they choose, challenge one of their opponents about their winnings. If they get it right, they person caught out is eliminated. If the contestant gets it wrong – the normal elimination takes place.

I’d personally love to see them implement the challenge system into The ConTest but I appreciate that it might be a relatively complex task. However, if they are confident that it’d improve the game – then I’m sure Channel Ten could hype up a new feature which would let them change the rules a little.

Either way, I’m glad to see the small slice of information about the truth behind each contestants story being presented; it definitely improves the game I think.

Eddie McGuire is back hosting the latest Channel 9 game show offering, 1 Vs 100. The new game show goes something like this, someone is picked as the one. Once selected, they have to answer a series of questions and so do the mob of 100 opponents.

The contestant is also given three chances or from the millionaire days, three life lines. Each of the changes or life lines can only be used once each, just like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. The twist on the chances or life lines this time is that they all involve the mob in some way:

Ask the mob

Two of the mob are singled out who have a correct and incorrect answer. Each mob member can tell the contestant why they chose that option and the contestant can also discuss their choice. Since there are only two of the mob selected, this in effect acts like the 50/50 from the days of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.

Poll the mob

Polling the mob will tell the contestant how many of the mob voted for each of the three options

Trust the mob

The contestant rests their game show fate into the hands of the mob. Whatever option the mob has the most votes for, is the option that is selected on behalf of the contestant and they don’t have a choice but to see the decision followed through.

After successfully answering a question, the answers from the mob are revealed as well; at which point everyone with an incorrect answer are eliminated from the following round. After the results of the dwindling one hundred opponents are revealed, the contestant then gets a choice to complete the game and leave with the money he or she has accumulated or play on.

The decision making process of the contestant was the most painful point in the entire show, where the mob are just yelling at the contestant trying to convince he or she to play one more round. Of course, they are all waving their hands and gesturing, yes, come on, just one more round. This went on and on for far too long in my opinion and it has no real bearing on the game; its as if it was there to simply amp up the noise level and the crowd a little for the sake of it.

Overall, it was a pretty reasonable game show I suppose. 1 Vs 100 bears striking resemblance to Who Wants To Be A Millionaire on many fronts, however the one which it doesn’t complete on from what I noticed was the difficulty of the questions. It seemed as though they were considerably easier than what you’d expect on millionaire – then again, it is a different show, which should draw different contestants; so that is probably ok.

On a side note, does anyone else think it is inappropriate for Eddie McGuire to be hosting a game show when he is the Chief Execute Office of one of Australia’s largest television networks? I was quite shocked in February 2006 when he was appointed as the CEO of Channel Nine and to see him still hosting a game show; it just seems wrong.