In all my often under-estimated naivety, I have been marvelling at one particular programme concept, 'Pete Versus Life,' screened by Channel 4. It struck me as a completely out of this world sit-com.
It just amazes me to see a TV programme employing a split-screen, technique to regularly show two other people doing a running commentary of what is transpiring in the actual programme.
It's like a double dose of comedy because apart from the hilarious escapades of the main character, the commentators also chip in with their own brand of humour. How ingenious!
But apparently, this is not that original. As a matter of fact, as reported in a Guardian online article, the concept's freshness goes back as much as 40 years ago.
So, the storyline could be different, the characters and even the overall treatment. But plainly speaking, that commentary style is not original. And the Guardian goes as far as besmirching the references to what it calls sports-casting cliches.
Pete Versus Life producers however can continue basking on the limited knowledge of viewers like me, who initially believe most of what they encounter for the first time is original.
The empirical interpretation of originality in my view, should not necessarily inform the perception of what constitutes original programme concepts. Unless a programme is outstandingly inferior to the known prototype.