Forum menu
Is there a thread on this yet? Not watched it but listened to the podcasts.
My basic summary would be:
[b]David Mitchell[/b], quite funny and witty - was a bit soft on Alistair Campbell
[b]Jimmy Carr[/b], quite funny
[b]Charlie Brooker[/b] - not so good really even though I like a lot of the stuff he has done - I think it's something about him playing to a baying studio audience that sort of grates after all the things he has slagged off in the past
[b]Lauren Laverne[/b] - at the risk of sounding like a Sky Sports-like sexist dinosaur - not funny/witty and only on there as a token woman?
The series has definitely improved from the first to the second episode. Seemed to have toned down the whooping audience, which is one of my pet hates from The Daily Show and Colbert Report.
Lauren Laverne does seem to have been put in purely to do the links, which I don't think the show needs and seems a waste of her talents (see The Culture Show).
Mitchell seems to be growing into the role of interviewing, but they seem to cut the interviews off too soon. The programme is an hour so give a bit more time, especially when interviewing big fishes like Campbell.
Jimmy Carr should not interview people after starting an interview with The Secret Economist by going "There has been a lot of economics in the news recently".
Brooker. I think he has done ok in the live format and always enjoy his VT segments. To be honest I think they could cut the show down to 30 mins with Brooker doing 20 mins and have Mitchell do an interview at the end.
.....or leave it as it is and I will just watch this and [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y6mz2 ]How TV Ruined Your Life[/url].
I think Carrs comment the other week about flying Nimrods in to buildings in Saudi was a little out of line and not at all funny.
I think Carrs comment the other week about flying Nimrods in to buildings in Saudi was a little out of line and not at all funny.
Too soon?
i tried to watch some of it last week,
having looked forward to it, i was disappointed
i found very little of it funny. I might see more of it and it might grow up a bit. I did think that perhaps its funny if you have no real idea about the issues discussed.
Do like the programme, and agree re Grumm about Lauren. Brooker is a bit of a secret star, just on the right side of 'the line' but not as insightful or well presented as say a Chris Morris. He does look as if he has just returned from a Greggs area sales meeting. However once each episode he does get it oh so right, which in my house relates to laughter. D.Mitchell should stop chucking in swear words to make a point, he's chuffing well better than that.
Overall best thing on Thursday @ 22:00pm.
Worth watching then? The adverts didn't sell it to me.
I find Mitchell's stuff great to listen to, especially when he gets a bit of a rant on.
But then I've loved that ever since his miracle one-in-a-million chance rant on QI a few years ago.
I only saw the first programme and all the whooping from the audience put me off a bit. Have they found a way of muting that since?
I only saw the first programme and all the whooping from the audience put me off a bit. Have they found a way of muting that since?
It does seem the tranq guns were out for episode 2.
Worth watching then? The adverts didn't sell it to me.
Better than the adverts suggest but not amazing imo. I think it could get into it's stride though.
Watching Lauren Laverne 'do' satire is like watching a goldfish fix a motorbike using a set of bag-pipes and a marshmallow.
An opportunity missed IMO. Three sharp, witty, intelligent presenters (and Jimmy Carr) able to speak about serious issues with good quality interviewees unfortunately shoe-horned into a format reminiscent of The Word.
If they stopped trying to cram in so many segments, ditched Jimmy Carr and the studio audience, gave Lauren Laverne more to say than just links for the others and allowed the discussions and interviews a decent amount of time, it could be great.
An opportunity missed IMO.
Only 2nd episode though. Patience young Jedi.
In an ideal world Mark Thomas would be involved in this programme.
in your ideal world; Mark Thomas is a dink
.
I like the Carr and Brooker segments, especially the recorded stuff (although that defeats the object of a live show) the Mitchell interviews have been a bit pants so far - sometimes shoehorned, sometimes laboured, sometimes picking at topics in a superficial way, sometimes amusing.
It's a difficult format and hopefully they'll fine-tune it over time as I think it has a lot of potential in a TV-age of repeats, reality drudgery and not actually re-invented but re-invented formats...
brakes - Member
in your ideal world; Mark Thomas is a dink
Really? Why is he a dink, in your educated opinion?
...and while we are on the subject. What is a dink?
I think it will get a lot better, but i do worry they have got the depth of technical knowledge to really grill the guests. Pretty apparent in the first episode when David MItchell was interviewing someone about bankers bonuses. Too many arts graduates on there!
I quite like charlie brooker though, especially his comments on sky news.
There are another ten episodes so there is plenty of time for it to blossom. Decent start IMHO.
The problem is that by Thursday news stories can seem old, and many of the jokes will have done the rounds. The Daily Show has the advantage of being able to keep up with the news, but often the best stuff is when they go and find stories - it would be great to see the 10 o'clock live team do the latter.
Really? Why is he a dink, in your educated opinion?
not an educated opinion, I just don't find him funny, he'd probably take the show a bit too seriously too
...and while we are on the subject. What is a dink?
not sure, seemed like a good word at the time, sounds offensive but isn't really because I made it up.
[i][caveat]although urbandictionary has various ideas about what it means, none of which were intended by me [/caveat][/i]