Oz And James's Big British Adventure

[vg007]

I think it would be far easier to just stick a mars bar in the microwave...or alternately an oven, even though I've never had one I'm sure the deliciousness comes from the melted innards rather than batter + fishy oil. Healthier too.

Woooo! Getting 0.7k on seekmybits!

edit: Just watched it, cracking episode! James' beer looked a bit...weak

[ahpadt]

Another great episode today.

[robybobey]

Brilliant! Just Brilliant!

[Anttwan]

Originally Posted by whodunnit

http://www.seekmybits.com/details.php?id=2398

no public torrent yet. god do i love that site

ahh i didnt check that site thanks :

[Mayhem]

Still sporting a 360° grin after watching tonight's episode.
Pretty dangerous stuff - James' laugh is so infectious I always end up underneath the table.

What an excellent episode! Gonna set my SatNav to Romanian straight away...

[El_Poochino]

Torrentbox has another public torrent up.

http://torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=364261

.torrent
http://torrentbox.com/download/36426...5D.avi.torrent

[Cobol74]

Yep, great episode - best to date I think. Very, very funny - fancied some of that Ale at the end.

[NecroJoe]

Originally Posted by vg007

I think it would be far easier to just stick a mars bar in the microwave...or alternately an oven, even though I've never had one I'm sure the deliciousness comes from the melted innards rather than batter + fishy oil. Healthier too.

Woooo! Getting 0.7k on seekmybits!

edit: Just watched it, cracking episode! James' beer looked a bit...weak

Well, I don't know about the candy bard, but with a Twinkie, it's all about the deep fry. First you batter-dip the twinkie, the fry it. When it's fried, the inner "cream" filling melts and saturates the Twinkie's cake, creating a sugary/vanillay custard filling inside the crispy batter shell. In other words, imagine wrapping a fantastic bowel-emptying shit, in an orgasm. That's right, I've said it. A deep-fried Twinkie is edible blumpkin.

[Goose+]

That was brilliant. I found the bit with the Sat Nav hillarious

[beckstar2]

http://www.sendspace.com/file/vv0hx9

[Polly]

^+1 :]

[gemmiejewel]

I love this series. I hope they do more.

[Richmondgal]

Thanks for the links, I have been looking for one for a while

[Shawn]

Episode 4 was the funniest so far, this is getting better and better!

Does anyone know if the BBC actually would have frowned if they used the word Guinness? I really hate this gimmick they used in Top Gear too, it's just annoying. Otherwise, it was great.

[skylock]

Really like it this time. I even learned something too.

I like they are not hauling that dollar store caravan behind the car. They should have dumped the whole thing off the nearest mountain. Or let it slide into the sea.

I couldn't believe James let them do that to him.

[alihaig]

They are generally not supposed to use brand names where it can be avoided, as part of the ban on advertising - you quite often get people saying "other brands are available" or just using generic product names, even when there is 1 brand generally associated with the product. In this case they were making more of it than they needed too though - they could have just called it "stout" and been done with it. They used to be much more careful about removing commercial branding - taping over labels etc. but now they just don't seem to care and even bend the rules a bit to make some extra cash.

Interesting article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/m...eague-too.html

EDIT: From the Competition Commission: http://www.competition-commission.or...xt/325a2.7.pdf

(b) TRADE AND BRAND NAMES
When a product is named on-air the reference should be factual, fair, and editorially justifiable.
Any visual reference to a branded product must be justifiable in the context.

There is also this from section 10 of the Ofcom Broadcasting code, http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/edit...guidelines.pdf although it does say that this section does not apply to the BBC, I haven't yet been able to find the actual BBC guidlines. I am assuming they will be the same or stricter.

Products or services in programmes
10.3 Products and services must not be promoted in programmes. This rule
does not apply to programme related material.
(See Rule 10.6.)
10.4 No undue prominence may be given in any programme to a product
or service.
“Undue prominence” may result from:
• the presence of, or reference to, a product or service (including
company names, brand names, logos) in a programme where there is
no editorial justification; or
• the manner in which a product or service (including company names,
brand names, logos) appears or is referred to in a programme.

[Dieter Cabral]

Is there a torrent for the previous series of Oz and James?

If its somwhere in the forum please help me, I'm affraid I couldnt find it

[El_Poochino]

Originally Posted by Dieter Cabral

Is there a torrent for the previous series of Oz and James?

If its somwhere in the forum please help me, I'm affraid I couldnt find it

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=oz+and+james

[shellygrrl]

Originally Posted by skylock

I like they are not hauling that dollar store caravan behind the car. They should have dumped the whole thing off the nearest mountain. Or let it slide into the sea.

I couldn't believe James let them do that to him.

"Kill your caravan. Before it kills you."

Yeah; that thing is all sorts of ugliness. I think a game of Conkers may be in order.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by alihaig

They are generally not supposed to use brand names where it can be avoided, as part of the ban on advertising - you quite often get people saying "other brands are available" or just using generic product names, even when there is 1 brand generally associated with the product. In this case they were making more of it than they needed too though - they could have just called it "stout" and been done with it. They used to be much more careful about removing commercial branding - taping over labels etc. but now they just don't seem to care and even bend the rules a bit to make some extra cash.

Interesting article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/m...eague-too.html

It's the same over here too even though there's no BBC-like network. I took broadcasting like 10 years ago in high school, and I remember the first thing we learned was to avoid filming logos and such in our shots.

But this seemed a bit excessive, and they did the something similar on Top Gear where they said they had to make a factual documentary when they went to Bonneville, even though there's no branding issues there.

I think it's just a writing device I'd really rather see them stop using.