Doctor Who - the New Movie

So they want to make a new Doctor Who movie? As a good traditional Doctor Who fan I cried: “No!” when I first heard it. Some time has passed and I thought about the possibilities. There’s a lot possible, all of the possibilities equally exciting and dangerous. Just like most Whovians, I’m scared. David Yates, the man who directed the last four Harry Potter movies, said he wanted to start from scratch. You could hear the teeth gritting and the fist clenching. I must be honest; those sounds might have been my own.

And to keep in the process of being honest, nobody knows yet what that means. Does it mean he wants to reinvent the character the Doctor? Does that mean he wants to reinvent Doctor Who as a franchise? Or does that mean that he doesn’t want….? What!? Either way, it sounds like it’s not going to be canon, or will it? In most of the possibilities listed above, it sounds like it won’t be. Not necessarily a big problem, but I can tell you that I don’t usually enjoy works much which are canon-questionable or not canon at all. It takes the art of letting go of the reason why we, or at least I, love Doctor Who so much. I know why I am a fan and I’m not very likely to let that drift for the sake of a freakin’ movie, which to my ears sounds like ‘cashing in’ anyway.

And even when they decide to make it canon? Now I get even more scared. I can easily disregard a work that isn’t canon, but it’s hard to get over a work that says it is canon, but plays with the canon so much it brings tears to, well, my eyes. I’m still not over Paul McGann claiming he’s half-human, no matter how much I love his portrayal of the Doctor. I know certain aspects that popped up in the TV-show are hard to fit in the canon, but usually they could be filed away as one of the many lies of the Doctor, or time in flux, or some alternative timeline. It can be done, but still hurts a little. Things like the Doctor claiming he’s half-human, on his freakin’ mother’s side, just hurt so bad, nobody wants to even talk about it, but the scar tissue is there.

They could chose to fill in some gaps, like the Doctor’s life before it got well documented. I’m talking about the time before he kidnapped Ian and Barbara. That creates the risk of abandoning the Doctor’s mystery. Right now we don’t know much about the Doctor’s origin. We’re not even sure if he got born in the traditional way, got loomed into life, or even had a life before that. The uncertainty of his origins allowed a lot of writers to play with it. Make suggestions and turn ideas about who the Doctor is on its head. Always exciting, but never more than a tip of what might be. We might even run the risk of finding out what his real name is, though I hope David Yates is at least smart enough not to touch that.

Or, they could try to film the Last Great Time War. How that would work? Probably not very well. The Last Great Time War has grown so mythical and most fans have already envisioned such great scenes and ideas about that war, it can almost only disappoint. On the other hand, they could let Paul McGann come back and let him show what he can do with the character. And maybe, they can also show the regeneration from McGann to Christopher Eccleston. Oooh!!! But still, trying to capture that period of time in the Doctor’s life is very dangerous. Also, it doesn’t sound like that’s what Yates wants to do.

How will the movie be placed within the franchise anyway? The TV-show is still running and doesn’t really need a reboot, does it? And with the movie probably not being canon, I don’t see much of a place for it at all. Just like the Peter Cushing films, the ones made in the ‘60’s, the movie will then be snowed under by the canon Doctor Who stuff. Why would you make a product like that? Even if it is to pull in new audiences, as if that’s really necessary, how would that work? Those new fans then just have to drop in in the middle of the TV-show? Sure it can be done, but with no cooperation between the two, how is that ever going to run smoothly? If anything, the chances of alienating the existing fanbase is incredibly big. Is it worth a leap like that?

What about the casting? Yates said no-one ever involved in the series will be involved in this new project. Or did I understand that wrong? God I hope I did, cause this way it sounds even worse and less likely this movie is going to be about the character I love. It almost sounds like a bad biographical documentary by someone who was looking from the sidelines. Oh hold on, David Yates is looking from the sidelines.

*Hyperventilating*

I’m going to stop now; I don’t want to end up like Davros and be in a constant state of nervous excitement and blood pressure. Though on the other hand, I then could send the Daleks and exterminate the project.

Doctor Who and Violence - Part 3

In a documentary Peter Davison, who played the 5th incarnation of the Doctor, said it didn't bother him, the violence. LOL. Go figure.

So there you have it, the 5th incarnation of the Doctor is the most violent one.

Doctor Who and Violence - Part 2

Death counts per episode doesn't mean it's because the Doctor was particularly violent. However, so far I've found 2 avid Doctor Who fans (of which one is an anorak) who pointed out the 5th Doctor really is quite violent. Also the TARDIS index files site claims the 5th Doctor the most violent of all of the Doctor's incarnations.

Still laughing, though.

Sources:
Doc Oho's Big Finish Blog
the Anorak reviews
TARDIS Index Files

Doctor Who and Violence

This is an interesting subject, especially when discussed in combination with Doctor Who.

The show started as a children's (boys aged 8-15 and the occasional nerdy girl) show and grew out to be a family show. It's a science fiction/adventure (/fantasy/etc) show. The combination of the abovementioned soon sparked into discussions about the violence showed in the ...uh...show.

It's also said that the Doctor is a pacifist. Hmmm, yeah...Not quite true, he has been known to punch/fire/blast creatures out of the sky or in the face.

Interest in this subject and the fact that I'm setting up to write my first Doctor Who fanfic, I'm doing some research. Here's the first fun fact. Let's first look at the overall death count per episode.

I took this from The Big Doctor Who Death Count.

This made me laugh, because the top 3 stories are all 5th Doctor stories. The sweet, amiable 5th Doctor. Not sure the death count is so high because he's more violent, or less able to prevent death, or because he apparently doesn't go as far to prevent death (cares less?) than his predecessors and successors.

May I also point out there's no 6th Doctor story present, while this incarnation of the Doctor was always regarded as the angry/most violent one.

The research goes on.

Ressurrection of the Daleks (5th Doctor)
The Caves of Androzani (5th Doctor)
Earthshock (5th Doctor)
Spearhead from Space (3th Doctor)
Dalek Invasion of Earth (1st Doctor)
Seeds of Death (2nd Doctor)
Remembrance of the Daleks (7th Doctor)
the Tomb of the Cybermen (2nd Doctor)
the Ark in Space (4th Doctor)
Carnival of Monsters (3rd Doctor)

I'm like...

Hehehe...I must admit that sort of pleases me. I never know who my favourite Doctor is, but I did figure that I would probably get along best with the 5th or the 8th Doctor. So yes, very pleased!!!

Number 3 does worry me though and is incorrect if you ask me. 1) I'm not a tin dog 2) I suck at maths 2) I can't scream propperly (cigarettes and all which is also not Mel at all) 3) and once again, I'm not of tin making!!!

the Nathan Barley effect - Analysis 2

More intriguing thoughts:

“At the other end of the spectrum is Dan Ashcroft (Julian Barratt), a journalist who writes about the “idiots” and their fallacies. Much to his chagrin, he is a big hit with said idiots, Barley among them, who can’t seem to grasp the fact that he is writing about them. It’s not hard to see Dan as a stand-in for Morris: a world-weary writer who can’t quite believe that his work has been embraced by the very people that he set out to criticise. In fact, and argument can be made for Nathan Barley being the Charlie Brooker to Chris Morris’ Dan Ashcroft.”

To me it seems a little unfair and a bit of a weird stream of logic. What I get from that piece of writing is that the author doesn’t find Brooker’s work as worthy (if at all) as Morris’ with also the question what Brooker has done outside online stuff. I realize this was written pre-Screenwipe, but even then Brooker had done work in the media (comics and reviews in magazines and a radio show). Another problem I have with this piece is that it makes me wonder very hard, if Morris’ criticizes his followers of which Brooker is one and he finds Brooker an idiot, why does Morris choose to work with him on a series? I genuinely believe Morris liked Brooker and his work enough to try and make that series together with him.

I have to admit I’m a little surprised about Morris’ involvement and specifically about him willing to work with Brooker. I also think Brooker’s work is nothing compared to Morris’ work. But to say Brooker is Nathan Barley to Morris’ Dan Ashscroft goes too far.

On the other hand, like many others have noted, Ashcroft realizes he might be another idiot. If Morris’ is Ashcroft and realizes he’s another idiot, he might also find fewer objections in working with Brooker. However, looking back on the line of people Morris used to work with (the brilliant Armando Iannucci, Peter Baynhem, etc) I think it’s more to the point Morris’ saw potential in Brooker and the character Nathan Barley. I ask you, why would an idiot opt for another bigger idiot when he once knew brilliance? Even Dan Ashcroft doesn’t do that wilfully.

“With all the scene-setting out of the way, let’s move on to the merits of the show itself as a piece of entertainment. How much you get out of it will depend on how familiar you are with the sub-culture being satirised, because, when it comes down to it, there isn’t much else in the show.”

Besides dodgy punctuation, that piece is not true either; there’s more to it then the eye meets…apparently. At first sight it’s about the young trending media crowd. Look again and realize the weird hairdo’s and obnoxious gadgetry is not the aim. Like the author said before the aim are the unoriginal followers who quote while missing the point. Earlier on he wrote:

"If all this sounds familiar, then it should. In a sense, this would appear to be precisely the cult that have latched itself on to Morris’ work, proclaiming him to be a genius and the saviour of television. For many people, his work on The Day Today and Brass Eye was appealing simply because it was filled with off-beat, non-sequitur humour and controversial subject matter. In turn, these people tend to believe that, by parroting the same material, they too are being original and thought-provoking, completely missing the subtler political and social comments that Morris was making."

And now he says if only you know these types you’ll enjoy it, because the aim is so narrow. If you are willing to look beyond the superficial decorations you will find a richer base on which ridicule is made. If you find it funny is a different question.

Source: Home Cinema: DVD review

the Nathan Barley effect - Progress

Last Friday I spent a great deal of time reading reviews, articles and comments about "Nathan Barley". The general consensus is so confusing and ripped up in groups, it's almost incomprensible and therefore hard to keep up; I forgot most of what I've read. I do remember finding a lot of interesting views and analysis; we might be on to something.

I still don't think "Nathan Barley" is as good as Morris' and Brooker's other works and I still don't think it's a brilliant series, cause it simply isn't. I do think however, that the idea and the way they tried to do it was admirable and adds value. I believe this project holds value, but I can't quite pinpoint what it is. I can't help but see it as a bit of a failure and yet as an important piece of work.

I probably research on for a bit more.

the Nathan Barley effect - Analysis

Nathan Barley makes me laugh. Not the series or the character, but rather the aftermath to which I was late.

To me it seems the series is like the article written by the character Dan Ashcroft in the series. In a viewer’s comment I read an interesting observation:

“Before I watched this series on DVD, I was wondering why there were so many bad reviews by fans of Chris Morris. But now I kind of understood the reason why. Because the story is pretty much about Chris Morris himself; a caricature of what he has achieved and people who appreciate his comedy. Chris Morris's followers are all despised in there.”

Source: IMDB User reviews

I don’t completely agree with the conclusion, but I can see how Chris Morris could be regarded as the Dan Ashcroft figure. I don’t think however, that it’s specifically his followers who are despised in the series. I think it’s rather about those trend following media types, and I base my opinion on what I remember Charlie Brooker (the father of the creation Nathan Barley) saying in an interview. He said there was this kind of media type who followed the latest trends, which included wearing stupid clothes and gadgets, that he despised. Nathan Barley was created as the character despised by a narrator in the fictional not existing program Cunt which was thought up for the fake TV-listings on Brooker’s site TVGoHome. Basically, Cunt was Brooker’s outlet of frustration and irritation with those idiots.

It doesn’t say anything about Chris Morris’ intentions with the character though, but since the TV-series didn’t steer away from the trend following media types; those are still the people being portrayed. I still don’t think the series was aimed at specifically the Morris/Brooker following, but more generally at the quote-spouting spoon-fed pseudo intellectuals missing the point.

The brilliance in Nathan Barley lies in the parallels between fiction and reality. Without realizing it everybody, that includes me, contributed to the comedy of Nathan Barley, because the series is the article ‘the Rise of the Idiots’ complete with publication and reaction.

The yay-sayers, who most likely will quote lines like “That’s well Mexico” or “Keep it foolish” are very like the character Nathan Barley; oblivious to the fact they’re ridiculed while jumping on the trendy Nathan Barley wagon.
The nay-sayers are not quite like Dan Ashcroft; they’re rather the one character supporting Ashcroft while shaking the head; namely Sasha the receptionist.
That leaves the writers Morris and Brooker to fulfil the Ashcroft part; opposing the idiots while incidentally enjoying the occasional game of cock-muff-bumhole.

Nathan Barley sneers at a broad scale of potential idiots, it might even sneer at itself.

The series is skilfully written as in that we all fell in the trap including the writers/creators. The series however is more an accurate observation than a laugh-out-loud comedy. It might have failed in making most people laugh, but in the aftermath it turns out to be a cleverly set-up affair hence all the reactions and discussions between yay- and nay-sayers.

the Nathan Barley effect

This is effectively throwing someone’s words back into his face and I like it

The truth of this took a sadder turn recently with Brooker’s wrongcast, Nathan Barley, a sitcom he co-wrote with Chris Morris. Charlie Brooker and Chris Morris write a sitcom! How could it possibly go wrong? I don’t know, but it did. It had its moments, but after some of the poorer episodes, to nick yet more of Brooker’s images, I felt like sewing my eyelids shit with fishing wire, slicing the top of my skull off, and scooping the memories out with a spoon. A couple of good gags were stretched out into a complete Bo Selecta of a series. Not completely terrible, and better than most, but when Brooker and Morris get together, anything less than genius is a crushing disappointment.

Source: readysteadybook

Te stolen Brookerism is really funny, especially since it’s this time about him.

the Nathan Barley effect

The effect of the series, not the effect of the blithering idiots portrayed in the series.

The whole Nathan Barley thing and all the movement around it completely confuses me.

First of all is there the collaboration between Chris Morris and Charlie Brooker. How did they meet? How did that collaboration came about? Unfunny fact is that I already found out by reading the “Chris Morris biography” (I’m not sure I’m allowed to call it that, that’s why I put it in quotations, which seems a weird way to put it). Weirdly, even after reading about how they met and started working together, the fact that Charlie Brooker worked with Chris Morris still boggles my mind. I don’t know why.

Then there are the many negative reactions to the series opposed to the very few but passionate positive reactions. That I understand; it’s just regular online bickering and bitching. Though on the other hand, especially the negative reactions tend to bewilder me beyond comprehension. Here’s one (semi-negative reactions on a possible 2nd series):

Nathan Barley trundles on

According to Media Guardian’s Media Monkey, Chris Morris wants to do a second series of Nathan Barley, which surprises me. What’s not surprising is that Kevin Lygo doesn’t want a second series of Nathan Barley. Who said ratings weren’t important to Channel 4?

Personally, I’d rather have a speedy DVD release of Nathan Barley than a second series.

But Media Monkey continues:

“Just who, exactly did Morris base “self-facilitating media node” Nathan Barley on? Step forward Andrew Newman, a regular collaborator with Morris on the likes of Brass Eye and now head of entertainment at Channel 4.”

I think I saw Andrew Newman on Channel 4’s 50 Greatest Comedy Sketches last night, and he does seem a bit odd. Not necessarily Barley-esque though. That’s all by the by though. You see, Chris Morris didn’t create Nathan Barley. Charlie Brooker created Barley years before Morris got his hands on the character.

Source: doctorvee.co.uk

It’s funny how both authors get things a little wrong. The doctorvee author is correct in noting that Chris Morris didn’t create the Nathan Barley character as such, though he had a big hand in making TV-Nathan Barley the way he turned out in the series. And to say Morris got his hands on the character sounds like he took it off Charlie Brooker’s hands, which he didn’t; they created the TV-series together.

Yes, I know; I’m a pedant.

Just keep reading; as much as it is confusing it’s also funny. Well, I laughed.

More later; Nathan Barley keeps creeping back into my life (like a real cunt/prick/idiot does).

Giant Charlie Brooker Terrifies London

April 13th, 2011

Breaking News: Minutes ago, Minister of Defence Liam Fox gave a stuttering, panicked statement to the press attempting to allay fears for the safety of Londoners after popular TV commentator and writer Charlie Brooker was reported bursting out of his home, glowing and screaming in pain, before growing to over 450 feet in a matter of seconds and cutting a savage path of destruction across central London.



Nuclear scientist Professor Royston Biggs-Hoson explained that the broadcaster’s long-term viewing history of banal television shows had exposed him to the unprecedented and highly volatile level of gamma radiation, causing a dramatic change to his cell structure. Brooker is currently sleeping in Hyde Park, giving experts a brief respite to assess their options.


“Make no mistake, an irascible pundit of this size could endanger us all,” Mr Fox continued, “but we are doing everything we can to take control of the situation.”


“RAF fighters have been scrambled to keep a presence in the air. We are advising anyone who has appeared on or auditioned for a reality show in the last 10 years to remain in their homes. A cordon of military vehicles is being mobilised around Shoreditch, and the offices of Sky News and Channels 4 and 5 have been evacuated.”


The minister was then barraged with questions about what the government intends to do to resolve the crisis.


“We’re looking into various options and asking for help from our allies in the US and Europe,” he said. “We considered a tranquilizer dart, but there is simply not enough available to subdue him.”


“We’ve been advised that a distracting book might prove an antidote to such damaging levels of gamma exposure – though unfortunately they’re now all too small for him to read. Right now we are assembling a large PA system on a helicopter so that someone can fly by and read him The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.”


As the situation continues to change, the minister had to admit that other TV pundits are also showing alarming levels of radioactivity.


“Currently our worst-case scenario is the same fate befalling Harry Hill, who then storms into Brooker territory to claim supremacy. Who would pose the greater threat? Unfortunately there is only one way we are going to find out.”

Source: the Poke

Speaking My Mind

My mother has beaten good manners into me when I was a child. A great deal of these rules were communication based. I’m glad to tell you I’ve forgotten most of these lessons and can now delight in pissing people off.

It’s not really I’ve forgotten about those lessons, it’s just that I can’t be bothered. The self-righteousness of those people, those communication experts, those people who do social for the joy of it, they seem to get off on telling me how it looks to other people and how awkward I am communically (communicational and comically combined). As if I don’t know. I had my fair share of communication breakdowns. I’m perfectly aware of my short comings in communication. And now they seem to have infiltrated in my system, I’d like to tell them I can see what they’re doing and I know how I am contributing to it, but that won’t stop me from making a total and complete ass of myself.

The thing is I think I know better than a lot of people about communication and how to do it properly. I do, because I paid attention when I walked into these walls and I pay attention when I do. I’m fully aware of the effect it might have on them, on me, on anyone. It’s not my lack of knowledge about communication that makes me stumble; it’s my disinterest in communicating.

I never liked it for exactly the reason communication goes wrong so often. No matter how well you communicate, people will always have a different interpretation than you have of the matter. That’s not a criticism; it’s just a simple fact. I hate communication, because I’m always entirely sure that what I meant to say will be interpreted differently. I know the differences are often so slight it won’t harm the case, but to me it just almost feels like a waste of energy to try and be as exact as possible.

Yet, I can’t seem to stop being as exact as possible in word. As in non-verbal communication, then my dismay with the whole concept shines through.

And they, them, seem to think I don’t know and keep telling me the things I heard a million times, the things I already know. Knowing doesn’t equal action; those are two different things. There are barriers, problems and objections in place that will keep me from putting the knowing into action. My communication faults have more to do with other problems than me not knowing how to. What you people, communicating people, have to understand is that many a soul has tried to teach me about communicating, I did learn a few things over the years it’s true, but they fail to see the real problem; my lack in confidence of humankind.

"10 O'Clock Live"'s - Future

evanrobertmarshall says:…

Something else I didn’t really read (Take Us Seriously by Steven Howe on Suit101.com)

chicalolita

"10 O'Clock Live" - the Last Episode

Tonight will see the last episode of ‘10 O’Clock Live’. It’s been an interesting run if only to read all the criticism and some well meant advice. I’m guessing not many people will miss the show when it’s all over, and I’m guessing not many people are interested in discussing the possibilities for a second series. But looking back at the last few episodes, I think there is a promise we shouldn’t ignore.

It took long for the show to find its feet, if it has in the 15 episodes run at all. From start to finish the makers of the show have been trying things out, moving pieces around and pretty much stumbled to the finish line. It’s unfair to say it has been a total fail; there has been improvement and especially Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell have grown into their roles of live presenters.

You’d also think they must have learned something over the course of 15 weeks. It would be a waste of all that knowledge to evaporate. Also, a new series gives the opportunity to rebuild the show considerably giving it a new start. Maybe a personnel change could help too. They get almost a whole year to research and tweak the concept. Or for the first few months give it a rest and then return to look at it with fresh views.

Even though there are many reasons to not commission ‘10 O’Clock Live’ a second series, there are also a lot of reasons to commission a second series. If a second series is commissioned, a lot of work needs to be done, but it could grow out to be something good.

Looking back at the passed 14 weeks we saw a few things:
 What does the show want to be? A discussion program, a commentady (commentary/comedy) show or a sketch show?
 BTW, the sketches; what’s up with that?
 Why are they trying to cover the whole world every week; there are too many items in there? I don’t think we were ever granted the opportunity to enjoy a conclusive discussion, or to breathe at all.
 What’s the point of Lauren Laverne?
 It’s a lefty, Guardian writers and readers fest.
 And it’s not really a full fletched laugh out loud show, is it?

Improvements over the weeks:
 Charlie Brooker.
 David Mitchell is growing into his role of interviewer, be it very slowly.
 They shut up the audiences for an important great deal of the show.
 Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell have found their feet in the live format of the show; they’re less nervous than they used to be, or they now just think ‘Bollocks to them all’.

We’re still missing:
 A nice pace, especially for the interviews;
 Edgy comedy or if you will satire;
 The promised unashamed intelligence;
 A team that work well Together.

To conclude my ‘10 O’Clock Live’ rants series (I don’t think I will write a review for this evening’s show unless something remarkable happens which I don’t expect) I want to do a last rating of the presenters:
1. Charlie Brooker, because he’s the one who grew into it considerably and offers the most thought provoking and funny material.
2. David Mitchell, because he’s been from the start the most consistent even though his growth isn’t as notable as CB’s.
3. Jimmy Carr, because he sometimes says something intelligent at the table and he did at least 1 or 2 funny sketches, though overall he’s been sort of insufferable.
4. Lauren Laverne; just lost in translation. Such a shame.

Dig

Lately, I've been obediently obsessively trying to find out how Charlie Brooker got to work with Chris Morris (and even ends up being quoted in the closest thing that can be called a Chris Morris biography).

This blog is not about that, but rather about misconceptions and misperceptions easily made, observed and put down rather crudely:

Chris Morris a clown? Davina McCall a good sport and, what's more, "incredibly nice"? Brooker is definitely losing it.

Source: Scotland on Sunday's Brooker Prize guy - Charlie Brooker interview.

Or maybe the writer's perceptions of this world aren't as accurate as he (check: can't quite tell if it's a boy or a girl) thought.

"10 O'Clock Live" - General Progress

What number episode was it last night, 13? I must admit that I’m not following very strictly anymore. I do remember every Friday to read up on what happened and so far every week at least something happened that made me make a note to find the episode online and watch it, though I have to admit that I’m now 2 episodes behind (that’s including last night’s episode).

It seems I’m not the only one who ran out of steam concerning well meant analysis and advice. At the start of the run and 3 weeks in, there was so much to read I could easily fill a whole Friday reading up. There was also a lot to say about it, because everything they tried to do was new to them and for us, with our viewer excellence, expertise, knowledge and experience, a good reason to dump a shit-load of advice on them. After a good 10 weeks, after only minor improvements, there’s nothing new to say; you can only repeat so many times. Besides that, most people have lost interest and stopped watching all together.

Even though the show seems weaker than many a soul expected it to be, it’s been a run with fair quality, maybe even enough to have a 2nd series commissioned. I certainly hope a 2nd series will get commissioned, if only to give it the chance to let it mature. You’d think after 1 season they now have the experience under their belt to make it better, though that’s what we’ve been thinking after the 10th week as well. Just keep in mind it took ‘the Daily Show’ a few years to properly settle in as well. Maybe a change of personnel good do some good.

Two more weeks to go (I just counted and I was right; last night’s was episode 13) and then we and they will have about 7 months to breath and reflect.

And on....

By now you, reader, should have caught up on how I stumble upon new interests, usually in the entertainment business. I go from one person to another, most of the times linked in some way. The link only needs to exist; there’s no need for a close relationship between the two different persons for me to jump bandwagon. For instance, I got deeply interested in Alan Rickman, because John Sessions did a stellar AR-impression and AR was in ‘Truly, Madly , Deeply’. I came to watch that specific QI-episode because someone posted a link on the Dutch Jason Mraz forum. That’s how I jumped from Mraz to Rickman.

It happened again. My latest interest flow has been an incredible rollercoaster ride. I went very quickly from Alan Rickman to David Mitchell with a Steve Coogan impromptu to Charlie Brooker to Chris Morris with more Steve Coogan impromptu’s. It’s been a hot ride.

I was talking about how links were made. This particular jump from CB to CM has been an interesting and mind blowing one. Let’s just say that yesterday evening I spent a great deal of my evening (the whole evening) watching the first series of ‘the IT crowd’ in parts and bits and in every break from clip to clip I thought: “Fuck that’s hot,” referencing to the CB/CM link and had not that much to do with ‘the IT crowd’ even though I did develop a bit of a crush on Katherine Parkinson who plays Jen Barber the Relations Manager.

But that’s beside the point.

Just so you know how my mind has been boiling, I watched 5 episodes (1 I couldn’t find) in clips no longer than 2,5 minutes which results in every episode being watched in separate 10 mini clipped sessions. In between every clip I thought the above mentioned which resulted in me thinking “Fuck, that’s hot!” 50 times. Remember the link CB/CM. Yes, that.

I’m not even sure where in my brain things go wrong. Neither CB nor CM really attracts me physically. I can’t even point a finger on the reason why I think that or feel that way about, in this case, CM. Big difference, by the way, is that with CB I wasn’t even bothered about it. I always thought ‘that’s how it is, deal with it’. I can’t approach it like that with CM for some strange reason.

In some strange way it’s those long limbs. Or the slick back combed hair with stubborn curlies in his neck. Or the sneery, insisting bossy way of interviewing. Or the dominant bullying way of treating people. Or the absurd way of pushing people’s faces in stupidity. Or his arrogant I’m-above-you intellectual way of rubbing people the wrong way. Or the fact that all this is just an act in the name of comedy.

“Fuck, that’s hot!”

Now I come to think of it, the reason why I think the same about CB is shrouded in even thicker mists. CB has no long limbs. CB’s sneering tends to be more superficial. CB is actually quite a nice person. CB tends to be a bit lazy and single focused. CB’s sneering only carries that far. CB’s work is not as edgy as CM’s though he makes up in absurdness.

CB does have interesting hair with a life on its own though. Only his hair waves on top of his head prominently present instead of being slicked down in a vague attempt to rule it except for some mutiny in the neck. His hair is mutiny all over and he’s not even trying to rule it in.

That’s hot in a whole different way.

Maybe it has something to do with curlies. Jason Mraz had curlies. When his unruly hair grew a bit long it tended to curl up in his neck. Lovely. Steve Coogan has curly hair which supplied him with some pretty shoulder length curly wurly. It’s his face mainly though; those eyes and that utterly helpless look which makes his mouth drop open in a slight ‘oh’. Or that annoyed look with the pursed lips. And then we have a CM/SC link.

I love the scene from ‘the Day Today’ in which CM asks SC’s alter-ego Alan Partridge something to which AP guesses an answer. Don’t ever guess an answer around CM, cause he will call you out on it. AP gets seriously flustered and does that helpless look not knowing how to react or how to move away from that situation.

And there’s the scene in which CM, after announcing AP, throws a ball at AP and hits him in the neck causing AP to get annoyed (cue narrowing eyes and pursing lips) and straining to move on with his announcement. SC can pull brilliant faces. But what hit me as brilliant about it is that you know AP has the ability to go off in immature annoyance and behaviour, but he will think twice of doing that in front of CM.

Oh, hold on, I think I love Steve Coogan too. Hello impromptu!

Anyway, had to get that off my chest.

:-O

This is disturbing: Comedy Chippendale Dance

Bit O Rant-O-Rant (13 Minutes Rant)

…because it’s Monday....and because I haven't done a '13 Minutes Rant for 2 years'.


Some comment on some article about Keith Allen (Lily’s daddy) slagging off Charlie Brooker. Utter uselessness, so I won’t go in on that.
Under the article is a comment I like to react to:

”i quite like some of charlie brookers stuff like newswipe etc tho too be fair,Chris Morris got there 1st with Brass eye & the day today.”

Quoted with bad punctuation and all.

First of all, apparently, Charlie Brooker is not worth being written with first capital letters, but Chris Morris is. Ah, well…

The point this person is making (or trying to make) is completely lost on me. We know Chris Morris was there first; what’s your point? Because Chris Morris was there first Charlie Brooker is not allowed to do it? Strange logic which if we apply it to the rest of life on earth would mean not many people should be allowed to do anything anymore, because most things most people do on a daily basis has been done by others.

Even if the point is that what Charlie Brooker does has already been done BETTER by Chris Morris, then I’m still mystified about the point. So what? Because Chris Morris did it already and did it better doesn’t mean Charlie Brooker can’t do it anymore. Even applying this theory would lay still most of life.

What exactly is this commentator trying to say?

The rest of the comment doesn’t clarify anything to me either. The only thing I’m getting from it is that this person is not a big fan of CB, prefers CM, and thinks Lily Allen made a credible addition to pop music. I don’t think that was what the article was about.

Source: Radio Times article

a Walking Contradiction

There’s another issue concerning an item in ’10 O’Clock Live’ I think I should address, if only to stay consistent with what I said a few blogs ago. It’s just that I grew so tired with tackling this issue that I didn’t really feel like it.

Anyway, one(!) of Brooker’s monologues was about the whole Twitter/Rebecca Black debacle. His monologue took a turn scowling at the tweeters who left negative comments on Black’s twitter feed. Brooker seems to think those people work in Burger King (stores) and are scum. Ewww, what a contradictions.

If I read right Mr. Brooker himself worked most of his twenties in stores. If he hadn’t been lucky he would probably still working in stores. Working in computer store is hardly any better than working in a Burger King, if it is at all. Also, wasn’t he a paid critic who spew quite a bit of bile about all kind of programs and other stuff in a fucking nationally published paper off and online?

Maybe he has seen the light (which I doubt)?

I think it’s now my turn to receive some hate mail/posts.

His column about it is nice though: my Monday Happiness disguised as a column by Charlie Brooker for the Guardian, somewhat...

Reminds me, I have a Twitter account.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Response to Mr. Smith

I have to address this, because this is too funny to ignore it.

1. BCG
2. Chortle
3. There’s also an article on Digital Spy which I cannot access at work.

First it is admitted that all means, illegal viewing maybe too, have to be included to be able to say a reasonable amount of viewers watch the show. I can tell you why we don’t watch it live; because we can’t be bothered.

Then it is said that’s the reason why the show is broadcast live. My belly aches from laughing and my cheeks are wet with tears. Yes, Mr. Smith, it’s very exciting to watch them stumble and fluffing lines and the spontaneity, especially of the fucking audience, is very much appreciated. I really wanted to see on a weekly basis all the bits, which in a pre-record get cut out for good reasons. It’s such a shame most of the spontaneity makes me and a lot of other people cringe beyond reason. And I’m not even watching it live. What’s the point?

Can you imagine how cheated I feel? I'm watching a recorded piece and it's shit. Exaggerating here

"10 O'Clock Live" - Response to Review

Read this piece first before reading the text below.

It’s funny how different people have different views of the same thing. This is the first time though, I found someone thinking this was becoming ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show. Most criticisms have been that there’s not nearly enough Charlie Brooker. I don’t agree with either.

Charlie’s contributions have not been more or less than that it is now. Charlie’s contributions haven’t been more or less than the contributions from the others, except for Laverne’s. I think it’s also not fair to say that Charlie’s contributions have been more (or less) in quality compared to the others. When Charlie’s on about technical stuff like the Ipad or Twitter, he’s spot on. He’s not so much spot on when it comes to pure political analysis; that seems to be more David Mitchell’s area and sometimes Jimmy Carr says something sensible. (I’m just completely going to ignore Laverne for now).

David Mitchell, even though not a natural interviewer, has been quality wise quite strong. He’s learning too (Why do I seem to be the only one who sees that?). He stepped out of his comfort zone to do something new; Charlie hasn’t. He doesn’t even seem to be attempting to. Even Carr has stepped out of his comfort zone with doing these sketches (which I still absolutely hate, though I feel it is getting a bit better).

I don’t think this is turning into ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show. I also suspect that after Charlie did his thing, he mentally logs off. Around the table Laverne has to drag him into the discussions which usually only seem to go on between Mitchell and Carr. Even when they’re doing the headlines for the next days Laverne has to poke him in the ribs to lift up his cardboard fake of a front page. A few times she even lunged, grabbed and held the cardboard up herself (which made me laugh, to be honest).

Charlie Brooker is not naturally interested in politics and it shows, very clearly (lazily leaning cheek/chin in hand while not participating in discussions). That’s why ‘10 O’Clock Live’ will never turn into ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show as long it wants to be a ‘current affairs’ show.

Also people have to really use the correct name; it's '10 O'Clock LIVE', not the '10 O'Clock show'. Or are they trying to tell the producers of the show something?

the New Era of Wars

Today is a typical Monday.

It’s quiet in the office. Not because people stayed out of the office to enjoy the first sunny days of the years. They’re all here. They’re all silently typing and clicking away on keyboards and mice (does this plural also go for the technical devices we click away many an hours with?). Even though the first spring sun is happily out and about, the faces in here are characteristically down with concentration and the typical Monday blues. It’s good in a way; I tend to get things done on a Monday.

Last weekend I filled most of my days with lazing, cleaning and revising. I’ve been catching up on “10 O’Clock Live”; I’ve got a handwritten piece waiting. I’ve resumed reading the book I bought during my last visit to England; ‘In Europe’ that handles about 20th century Europe. I’ve been taking in a lot of politics; Second World War and the whole mess in Libya and other Arabian countries. I’ve been thinking about the new era in which wars are fought from a new angle. Europe is still almost constantly at war, just not on their own grounds. I can see how people see that as ‘meddling’.

I think we are learning be it quite slow. What do you expect? Human kind is not known for their rapid understanding and planning in new situations. We learn through faults, mistakes and personal dramas. We learn through genocide, fuck ups and economical collapses. We only move our arses when we think we have something to lose or something to gain. We usually don’t see the bigger picture.

I am all for the UN intervention in Libya. Maybe not in the form it worked out, but I can see some progress. I remember, vaguely Kosovo. I definitely remember Afghanistan and in a less involved way Iraque. I remember Sarkozy’s tactic for the Libya situation. You can say a lot about this mission, but he had the latest interventions lodged in his head when he called on the various partners to intervent in Libya. He said: “We’re not going in by forcing our way in shooting. We’re not going in to overthrow Gadaffi; we’re going in to protect the Libyan people, but we will not intervene further in the Libyan politics.” That sounds sensible enough.

The question is where to draw the line. If you see a fight in the street, are you going in with your fists clenched and ready to hit, or are those fists only to protect the attacked? When does hitting someone become supporting one party or self defence? Or are we going to stand aside, maybe call the police, but do nothing further?

In my mind only watching what was happening in Libya was never an option. You can’t stand aside watching, shrugging and moving on with your life while someone else, innocent, is being beaten senseless. How do you protect someone? By taking away the stick they were hitting with and then watch how it becomes a fist fight? Can you step in just standing there merely only being an obstacle? When is it all right to step in?

I lost sight a bit of what is happening in Libya. I think the UN is only shooting and bombing artillery of Gadaffi. The actual fighting between Gadaffi’s troops and the rebels is left to these two parties. The only thing I read about it in a paper is that some people think UN soldiers have given weapons to the rebels. This was denied by an UN spokes person.

I’m still all for the intervention, but I am also dubious about it, like so many people, because at some point it does become ‘meddling’ if we do too much. When is it too much? You don’t want something like Srebrenica happening again. Dutchbat, the Dutch troops, witness thousands of people being captured and killed under the term ‘ethnic cleansings’. So they should have stepped in? But what if they did and shot a few people? Then that would have been called ‘meddling’?

It’s a fine line to tread. It’s the new era of wars. As soon we get the hang of it, we’ll be entering a new era again. Maybe at this rate we might achieve world peace in 3384, if the world still exists, that is.

Charlie Brooker - the Product

Little children will grow up and some will be big and successful. I have to admit I tend to be attracted by people who are still doing their thing in a dark corner, or who at least don’t attract as much attention as other more ‘successful’ colleagues. Jason Mraz before he became big. Things got a bit crowded and weird when he was suddenly Mr. I’m Yours. That’s all good; he deserved all that success, but it made me feel a little uncomfortable.

And now Charlie Brooker. I was late to the party, yes. The reason I was attracted to him (his work, really) was that he was quietly doing his thing in a corner of entertainment during his Screen-, News- and Gameswipe period and earlier. He was genuinely observant, witty and brutally honest. He hardly had to adhere to boundaries, because hardly anyone (sensitive) was paying attention to him. I loved that; it can’t get more real and true than that. Now he’s Mr. Big Shot and I’m a little lost.

These days his words are quoted as if he’s a prophet. These days people feel he has a lot to answer for. People also feel he became too main stream. Charlie Brooker is no longer an individual doing his thing in a dark corner hardly being heard or seen by anyone. No, Charlie Brooker is now public property, property which anyone who feels like it can piss over or put on a pedestal. Whatever you like, because Charlie Brooker became a product.

I don’t quite understand people saying he’s got a lot to answer for. For instance the Zeppotron productions like ‘8 Out of 10 Cats’. He’s not Zeppotron, he’s only one of the founders. He doesn’t even run Zeppotron, he’s only one part of it. You can’t expect him to answer for the mess other people within Zeppotron make. The only Zeppotron production he’s in that makes me frown and grimace is ‘10 O’Clock Live’ and even there, he’s not the only one working on that show and his pieces, even though a bit shallower than I would like them to be, were quite good. All other Zeppotron productions his name bear were at least of a reasonable level of quality. So that shouldn’t be the reason he has to answer for anything. What is? I have no idea.

Then his work opposed to his marriage. I still haven’t worked out what the 2 have to do with each other except that Charlie’s involved in it and in some points Konnie was and still is. Except from that, we’re talking about two different things. And like I said before in another post, Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. That he’s married doesn’t mean he can’t say anymore some show is shit; it’s just probably not the best thing to do.
Also the fact that Charlie bites the hand that’s feeding him is not entirely true. I’m still convinced that Charlie was only bitching about certain shows because of his love for the medium TV, and those shows should have been better or hidden in a closet behind some old stuff that’s never get used anymore.

The whole discussion about his hair. What the hell is that all about!? What does his hair have to do with anything of his work? Charlie Brooker never was a looker. Charlie Brooker will probably never be a looker. Charlie Brooker was never and shall never be promoted as a looker, because that’s not the point of his work. His hair, being a part of his looks, is of no importance. Can we now stop talking about his hair?

And finally the Charlie Brooker lovers. I am one, I confess that readily. I will not however, put him on a pedestal. If he screws up, I will be one of the first to point that out, as I have in the past. Yes, Charlie said things that sounded fairly true, but so have wiser men than Charlie, more often than Charlie about subjects that really matter. Charlie’s not stupid, no, but he’s not the wise, half-god prophet some people seem to hold him for. He’s just another man who appears on TV quite a bit (much) lately. That’s all fine and he deserved all the success, but let’s not overreact; there’s no need, really.

I realize I sound a bit angry in this piece. I am not. I am actually quite amused. I am also very confused, but still more amused than confused.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Some Praise...

Ironically, this here article goes to show how '10 O'Clock Live' attracts the young(ish) people with no brain cells.



To be fair, I can't directly reference dumbness from this writer's piece. It's just unfortunate she recognizes smartness and intelligence where it's only available in sparse quantities. This in contrary to her not recognizing why most people don't like '10 O'Clock Live' me included. If they want my attention, I need more substance and with substance I mean political observations and analysis, not just what people look like.

Nobody Really Cares

How much do we really know about Libya?

This is an important question since everybody seems to have an opinion about what is or is not happening in Libya at the moment and since justifications for military interventions are now based on what we think we know.

Last weekend a resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya has been agreed on. It is said it’s agreed on to protect the Libyan people from Gadaffi’s army. That is what the European leaders say. That was what some Arabian partners agreed on. That’s not entirely what people believe is happening. Some of the Arabian partners have protested against the military actions executed over the weekend, or so they reported. Also China is now protesting against the current actions.

How can we really know? Some journalists are there in Benghazi, but they’re known for seeking sensation. Some people opposing Gadaffi say they’re attacked by Gadaffi’s army, but of course they would. Some people supporting Gadaffi say the bombs that killed are the European bombs, but of course they would.

By now I’m a bit mystified by all that’s happening, that is said and reported and justified in all kind of ways. I’m also not that sure about the intentions from any party involved in this mess. As usual everybody is covering up. Or that is my suspicion.

Nobody really cares about the well being of the people suffering. Gadaffi just wants his power. Europe just wants to make sure they can suck out all the oil. Russia just wants to keep selling weapons to Libya. And the Arabian countries as well as China are working on their image problems.

Maybe it’s only the people on the streets who care a little, but we are all ill-informed, lied to and deceived. And in the end, this evening we’ll be sitting eating our diner and watching the news while shaking our heads and maybe our fists, but nobody is really sure what to say or do. So we’ll zap to our favourite soap opera or panel show and forget so we can sleep in ignorant bliss again.

OMG I Found Something!!!

I love searching for collecter items. This is a Charlie Brooker one:


And this one:

Meat Market of Sorts...

Feel like browsing on a meat market? Yeah? Okay, go here.

It's actually a very noble kinda market. Please bid for I can't.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Last Advice

This is the last advice I’m going to write to/about ‘10 O’Clock Live’.

Pre-record the show and take your cut advantages. Let Charlie Brooker do another series of Newswipe, Lauren Laverne present some straight faced show and Jimmy Carr whatever else he can screw up I won’t be able to watch and let David Mitchell tackle the news on his own maybe with contributions from others. He can still do his interviews, but he has to learn to do interviews more impartial and let the interviewees actually talk. He has to learn what a more professional approach of interviewing is. And also give the show a different name and get rid of this damn awful audience.

In short dump this pathetic foetus of an abortion and try to develop something that might live up to the expectations you created for this show.

And please stop tormenting us.

Stop the Ridiculous Accusations

Normally I don’t take notice of people stating that someone doesn’t have the right anymore to say or do something, because he married someone. Yes, of course I’m talking Brooker/Huq again, but the inconsistencies and the strange way of measurement is starting to really piss me off.

This is a many heard statement: “Charlie doesn’t have the right anymore to mock dodgy presenters, cause he’s married one.”

What? Why not? I don’t think Charlie married Konnie because she’s such a fine/dodgy presenter. I think more personal reasons lead to their marriage. This is like being rejected from a job in a fish store because your partner is not a very good fisher(wo)man. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about crosswords, because your partner sucks at solving them. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about people who don’t know anything about computers, because your partner is one of them. That is bullshit!

Maybe he doesn’t have the right, because he became a dodgy presenter himself, but not because he married Konnie Huq. He’s not responsible for her behaviour, because that Mss. Huq still is herself.

I like to point out that a work relationship is not the same as a marriage. I don’t think Konnie stands besides the bed with a mic in her hand when Charlie wakes up in the morning telling him he’s watching his own marriage and today is going to be a fine day because Konnie is horny and in for experimentation, but first, breakfast.

Sure he still has the right to mock dodgy presenters, it’s just not very smart since if he wants to remain fair he, at some point, has to mock his own wife. That can be tricky.

Charlie doesn’t owe us anything except maybe the gratitude we did read and watch his work. He doesn’t owe us new work, or work in the same vain. What he wants to do in his career is his own choice and not ours. What he wants to do in his private life is completely his own choice and none of our business. Nor does his private life hold a relation to his work unless he decides to televise his marriage to Konnie which so far I don’t think he has.

Judging Charlie’s work on how his marriage goes or who he’s married to is not only unfair, but also wrong, because his marriage doesn’t represent his work. Konnie doesn’t represent his work. Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. And their marriage is a different subject all together.

If you want to blame any poor quality in his work to anything, blame it to his hair. His hair has proven to be distracting.

Maybe It's Because They're Stuck on an Island?

This is rather scary: Dim Brits think TARDIS IS REAL

24 Panel People and a bit of 10 O'Clock Live

Last weekend I spend a great deal watching the live internet feed of 24 Panel People for Red Nose day. David Walliams set up to stay up for 24 hours playing old and current panel shows. I'm not a big fan of David Walliams. I do love watching a panel show. For me 24 hours of panel show fun, setting up new stages and warming up the audience included, was a treat to me. Yesterday I calculated I watched nearly 15 hours of the telethon.

The whole event wasn't exactly advertised very well. I found out by chance, because I was doing my 10 O'Clock Live preresearch. At work I checked if I could watch it, but I got the regular 'this is not available in your area' notification. Thanks for that. This meant, on Saturday, I was watching old episodes of WILTY (Would I Lie To You) eefectively missing the start of the telethon with, you guessed it, yes David Walliams, d'oh! I was actually going to say WILTY. I was gutted when I found out, even though the schedules told me that wasn't what happened, but I happened to know that it did happened. I was quickly distracted by the somewhat underwhelming appearance of Charlie Brooker on It's Only TV.

Catching up with the last episode of 10 O'Clock Live was pushed back to Sunday evening. Overall a level we grew used to in this show. I've already forgotten what happened, and I even tried rewatching it yesterday, but I fell asleep and now I still don't remember what happened.

Anyway, the whole purpose of this blog is to end up here, at the end of the blog to direct you to this link and say: "Imagine being not quite awake at work behind your desk wondering and dreading the things you have to do that day and being confronted by this head." I love Charlie Brooker, but seeing his name popping up everywhere makes me think: "When did he become all Mister Big Shot?" Somehow it seems weird and he seems out of place. Can't stop loving him though, which is quite annoying.

Oh, btw, How TV Ruined Your Life tonight on BBC2.

"10 O'Clock Live" - an alternative (comedy) view

I wish they at least do the round table pieces like described in this alternative (comedy) view.

I pasted the whole thing here, because I don't want to lose it to corrupt links:



Lauren Laverne: It's 10 o'clock. We're live on Channel 4. Welcome to 10 o'Clock Live! This is one of the few times you'll see me this evening, so make the most of it. Get a load of my funky outfit and check out what hair and make-up have done with my look tonight!

(Cue opening credits)

LL, DAVID MITCHELL, CHARLIE BROOKER and JIMMY CARR sitting round a table, looking uncomfortable

LL: Well guys, this is the bit where you talk about all the exciting things you'll be doing tonight, and I try not to look like a spare part.

CB: I'll tell you which news item of the week I'll be having a rant about in a carefully pre-prepared segment. Actually, I could be saying burble, bibble, booble right now and you wouldn't care. You're just wondering if my quiff is higher or lower than last week, aren't you?

JC: I'll make a nervous joke because you big bullies make me go first every week and my nerves are shredded.

DM: I'm the only one of us the producers actually trust with hard news, so yet again this week I'll be talking to some Mildly Important People about Very Important Issues and getting cut off just as things get interesting.

LL: I'm off to fetch you hard-working men some tea and biscuits! Here's Jimmy with a review of the news.

JC: Yes, this is the part of the show people on Twitter love to slag off because some of the news I review is more than 24 hours old. Nobody ever says that about the BBC's "special reports", do they? Anyway, these are the stories I can be funny about. So long as I don't get too nervous and screw up my timing, that is. And so long as the audience aren't too dense or too liberal to leave big, awkward silences after the dodgier cracks. David.

DM: Thanks, Jimmy. (Clears throat) And welcome to the studio, Mildly Important Person. I'm now going to ask you a series of questions the producers have written down for me on cue cards. Which is a bit of a pain, to be honest, because it means everyone at home can see my hands trembling, so they and you know how nervous I am. (Clears throat) Also, things go so much better when I put the cards down and interject with a thought of my own. Oh, sorry, we've got to leave it there. It's time for a vaguely amusing sketch before the interval.

(Vaguely amusing sketch; during which LL brings the boys refreshments and introduces the ad break)

CB: (Waves unenthusiastically) Hello. This week, something really funny, odd and/or offensive happened. I'm here to tell you, in much the same acerbic style as my acerbic newspaper columns and acerbic TV shows, how that thing is just the tip of a hyperbolic iceberg! And now, it's time for Listen to Mitchell!

DM: I love this bit. It's just like my iPhone app, David Mitchell's Soapbox, so it's the one part of the show where I don't look like a deer caught in headlights. I get to perch on a stool and have a bit of a rant. Which is just what the audience needs after Charlie's rant. Jimmy.

JC: I also have a degree from Cambridge but I only get to interview sweet, decent, second-string guests and make fun of what they say. Well, there's no point in taking any of it seriously, is there? As soon as a guest makes a hint of a challenging statement, we have to cut to one of those excruciating sketches the producers are hell-bent on shoehorning in. Speaking of which, here's a sketch that's marginally less funny than the last one - this time starring Lauren Laverne! Well, she's being paid, she might as well do something…

(Marginally less funny sketch starring Lauren Laverne; ad break)

DM: (Clears throat) Welcome back. Joining me to discuss one of the Major Issues of the day are a Tory, a non-Tory and a token woman. No, not Lauren Laverne. Though I see what you did there. (Clears throat) Mr Tory, give us your opinion of the Major Issue, please.

TORY: Good evening. My take on all this is…

LIBERAL AUDIENCE: Boo! Hiss! (Mocking laughter)

NON-TORY: I completely disagree with everything you just said. Including "Good evening."

LIBERAL AUDIENCE: (Liberal applause)

TORY: But I didn't get to say anyth-

LIBERAL AUDIENCE: Boo! Hiss!

DM: Token woman, would you like to have your say before a pundit gets lynched or the floor manager tells us we have to "leave it there"? Oh, I'm sorry. We have to leave it there. Time for one more sketch before we go. Come on, people, don't groan. The hour's nearly up.

Final sketch (we hope)

LL, CB, DM and JC sitting round a table, looking relieved

LL: So, why don't you clever boys tell me how work was?

JC: Well, I hope some of the jokes I told tonight made some of my Twitter haters laugh. Even if they'll never admit it.

CB: I think I might have pulled my over-exaggeration muscle.

DM: I have a nice, middle-of-the-road opinion on today's Major Issue. Oh, why can't people just take the time to talk, and then listen to each other? The world would be -

LL: I'm sorry, David, I have to stop you there. And I'm afraid the extra three seconds we gave you to wind up your interview with the Mildly Important Person means we've no time to preview tomorrow's front pages. Tune in next week to see if we've ditched those godawful sketches, if David can get through an intro without clearing his throat, and if the producers finally find something useful for me to do. Good night, everyone!

(Cue closing credits)

"10 O'Clock Live" - Ed Miliband / Peep Show Piece

The f-yeah-CB site is quick; they already have the piece up. Yeah, was funny; I cracked a smile.

I'll see if I can find a YT-vid for it.

*A few seconds later* Nope,nope, no such luck.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 6

You might have noticed I didn’t do a preview, but if you insist on reading a preview, still, you can go here. I can tell you, you’re not going to get a Twitter review from me. Yesterday around “10 O’Clock Live” time, I went to bed and played a game or two on my mobile phone.

I did however read up this morning, just to check how the show yesterday was received. So far just dark clouds and a bit of rain. Sure no sunshine. Apparently, yesterday was not much good, like last week’s show. Episode 5 (from last week), I didn’t even find in the usual places giving me the impression most people have given up on the show. I’m afraid it’ll go the same for episode 6.

The only review you can find is the Metro review. All the others have given up. Even talk on the forums are slowly drying up. Most discussion can be found on CaB and some on the BCG forum.

By the sounds of it, they narrowed their demographic down to 18-25; that’s definitely not me. I think from now on I will rest happily in my bed when the show is on. Not caring at the ill executed half-baked jokes they unashamedly dare call intelligent. I just don’t feel the need to get disappointed any more.

I will try to find the Miliband/Peep show piece. From what I read, that was ‘ace’.

'LUCKY CHUCK FUCKS MUCKY HUQ'

I love this forum. The title of this blog is a quote from the forum.

Now I feel obliged to check out Chris Morris' work propperly. I feel like an incredible git for not having done that yet.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Sexism?

The article given as a source for this blog tickled my fingers to explain why all the criticism isn’t sexist, but a reflection on how she has handled her role within the team.

What I think happens here is that the program makers felt that next to all the testosterone and comedy skills they needed 1) a female and 2) someone with actual presenting (live) shows skills. They figured it would be easiest to find a female with said skills; as it were a 2 in 1. That left them with the problem that she wasn’t as “funny” as the males, that she was female and that they didn’t quite know how they wanted to apply her skills to the overly comedy format. As with a lot of things, Laverne’s involvement of the show and how she is perceived has to suffer under the sum of the mentioned problems.

I have to explain, the ‘being a female’ problem has not much to do with misconceptions that females are more stupid or less “funny” and less skilled than males, but rather that the question of sexism and the phrase ‘token female’ would soon raise its ugly heads.

They really tried to give Laverne a good sensible and fleshed out part in the show. It turned out she wasn’t very funny. It turned out she wasn’t as quick and witty as the guys and she had trouble with the delivery overall, which I think has much to do with the pressure of the word ‘comedy’; Laverne seems to feel the pressure to be moderately funny. Maybe if she stops trying so desperately, she might actually make an impression; not as a funny person, but with the skills she obviously has. Her contributions so far haven’t given any reason to extent her contributions to the show.

Even the criticism I read from reviewers and bloggers alike; the point of Laverne is missed. What was missed was a clear role for Laverne. With the missing of that clear role, her skills drowned in the things she wasn’t very good at. That didn’t reflect well on her. It had not much to do with sexism, because we really wanted her to do well.

In some cases it might have been a bit of sexism, of a perceived and expected sexism, because that is what we tend to expect, isn’t it? The combination of Laverne with the gentlemen was always an odd one. It didn’t help the perception she was only there to be pretty. I think if someone else, maybe less attractive and funnier, the question of sexism wouldn’t have been raised by so many. Keeping that in mind, it does look like sexism in Laverne’s case, but is it really? I’ve seen the question raised more often than the statement; “Is Lauren Laverne the token girl?”

It’s not to say the failing of the show so far has been her fault entirely; it hasn’t. She didn’t help to raise the bar though. When we compare her contributions to the ones of the gentlemen we can safely say David Mitchell has a clear and strong contribution, as has Charlie Brooker in a lesser extent. It is also noted that Jimmy Carr’s contribution hasn’t been very successful, but he did make a few ‘ok’ jokes and a few good points around the table during discussions. Laverne has not done any of that. Not because she’s the token female, but because she simply hasn’t, whatever the reasons.

I still come away with the impression she’s a fairly intelligent person with good presentation skills. I have these impressions because of what people have said about her online. Many people have said that. That doesn’t sound like sexism, does it?
Of course there have been people making sexist remarks, but you’ll always have those, especially on a medium that is as open as the Internet. But to say most criticism towards Laverne has been sexist, I think is not true.

Though I agree, describing Lauren Laverne as ‘the token woman’ isn’t very good journalism, but so far she hasn’t done anything to get rid of that title. A lot of us just expected more from her.

Source: Sexism in Disguise?

"10 O'Clock Live" vs "De Wereld Draait Door"

Today I tuned in to one of my favourite Dutch programs and I realized they are actually doing what those Brits with the "10 O'Clock Live" show are trying to do. "De Wereld Draait Door" or in short DWDD is a Dutch current affairs program that goes out every work day and is live for 45 minutes, and has been very succesful for the last nearly 10 years. They're not suffering from most of the stuff "10 O'Clock Live" suffers from. They're entertaining, amusing, informative and actually intelligent. The only thing they do also suffer from is the main left wing leaning. Still, though not as annyong as on "10 O'Clock Live".

I'd like to suggest the "10 O'Clock Live" makers should take a look at that. It might give them ideas. I'm even willing to translate.

DWDD's wiki page. The page is in Dutch, but once again, I am willing to translate. And the official website.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 5 Review

Nope nope, I definately lost some interest in '10 O'Clock Live'. This afternoon I decided I should watch episode 5 again to form a full opinion of my own. Concentration wise I managed to get through Jimmy Carr's News round; then I lost concentration.

I can say a few things concerning the News round. Jimmy Carr seemed even less comfortable and confident about his round this week. He stumbled through the jokes. He allowed too long pauses waiting for laughs that didn't come and even tried egging the audience on to laugh after almost every failed joke. I'm guessing the reason the audience wasn't laughing was because the jokes weren't funny and not even remotely smart.

Then on to Charlie Brooker's (first) monologue (I know I witnessed 2 CB monologues, but I can't even remember the first monologue). The one I can remember, slightly is the Berlusconi monologue, which was an easy target with even easier jokes. I'm less impressed with CB each week, it seems. Hmmm....

After CB it's David Mitchell's turn to turn my interest off. I honestly don't remember anything of his rant except that it was slightly better than CB's.

It seems Lauren Laverne's role has been even further reduced to linking a bit and spouting out unane things. However, this week she and Jimmy Carr hosted an interview with a 'Freakoconomics'. Laverne taking the lead with Carr backing her up. That was where I left off playing with the cats to write down my first impressions of ep 5.

So I blew it. I only have a very vague idea of what 'freakonomics' is. What I do know is that they let the guy talk with minimum (joke) interuptions. I did like that. Then I lost interest again.

While watching I did make some more notes, but I couldn't be arsed to write them down or remember them. The only thing I remember is that I absolutely hate the sketches. I think Carr did two and Laverne did well. So there you got it.


The ranking I did this afternoon (or a few blogs earlier) was mainly a rating based on episode 4. I'm not sure I can say anything sensible about the ratings drawn from my own experience of episode 5. But this will be it:
1) David Mitchell
2) Charlie Brooker
3) Jimmy Carr (my gawd, he was stumbling last thursday)
4) Lauren Laverne

Nearly 10 O'Clock Live related

While I count the dust and cat hairs in my food while listening with a half ear to 10 O'Clock Live, other people write crap like this when the show is on.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Quick points and Survey results

There’s a notable lack of articles about ’10 O’Clock Live’ on this blog since last week, sort of. Obviously, that’s not entirely true; even though I was sick I did manage to worm out a few words about the show and about how I did not catch it.

I am now up-to-date; someone very kindly uploaded the whole episode on YouTube and I watched it, somewhere in between sips of hot soup. I must admit I have already forgotten what happened. The negative sounds from the forums had left me suspicious, uninspired and uninterested. My cold might have had a stake in that state of mind as well. So, I did watch it, but I can’t yet say much sensible about it. There are a few points though:

 I get increasingly the feeling this show is not aimed at me, which leaves me feeling left out and suspicious with the current students’ level of intellectuality;
 The unbalanced political leanings are getting on my tits;
 The audience’s whooping and cheering is getting seriously on my tits;

And on a more positive note:
 They didn’t swear as much as in other episodes;

And another negative note:
 Less swearing, but more jizz jokes; Oh haha….

My dying interest results in me not as interested in rating anymore as I used to be. However, I’ve had contact with the very kind people of “Survation Ltd” who did the survey on the show. I linked you to the results of the survey last week, I think. As an answer to my questions about the respondents they very kindly sent me the full summary of the survey results. Another inquiry has provided me with permission to publish some interesting results on the question how funny the respondents found the 4 presenters.

Three measures are given; 1) the mean (average) score – adding up their ratings and divided by the number of respondents. 2) Then they looked at the extremes – those rating the presenters a ‘5’ and 3) Those rating the presenters a ‘1’. They expressed the results as a % of the whole.

In the results you can see Mitchell and Brooker can argue about who is the funniest depending on the method.
Only 3% of respondents rate Laverne a ‘5’. Carr is notably far less funny than the other males.

I absolutely loved these results and the different ways you can look at it, especially concerning Brooker and Mitchell.

Yeah all right; “I’m a complete nerd!”

So here's my rating:
1) David Mitchell: Because he stepped way more out of his comfort zone with the interviews than Brooker has. In episode 4 he even (almost) impressed me with his handling the round table discussion about 'the Big Society'. Kudos for that to Mr. Mitchell. Well done!

2) Charlie Brooker: He's just funny, though I wish he pulled his level of quality up. Not too much swearing, and not all the jizz jokes (or maybe just not talking about Berlusconi; a bit too easy a target.)

3) Jimmy Carr: Because he does more than Laverne, is less funny than Brooker and Mitchell, but never really manages to up his game to make a (positive) impression.

4) Lauren Laverne: I'm feeling increasingly more sorry for her. I never understood her presence along the three gentlemen.

Credit: Survation Ltd.
Link: Survey results

"10 O'Clock Live" - Silence

You may have noticed I didn't do a preview nor a Twitter review on the 5th episode of '10 O'Clock Live'. I've been sick this week and only caught 15 minutes of Twitter feed before returning to bed.

I haven't been able to download the ep yet, so I haven't seen it. Still working on that.

I did find this though: From Bleeding Cool.

Hm, they've got Laverne and Carr interviewing the guy...Curious change.

Source: Quote hpmons on CaB

OMG!!! Are the producers trying out my suggestions!?!?!?

"10 O'Clock Live" - Left or Right Wing

Last week I said I would research the whole left/right wing subject. I didn't quite start as yet, but I did read up on what was said on forums. Incidently, forummers are just intrigued by it as I am: BCG forum.

I did watch episode 4 and even I found the left wing leaning a bit annoying.

What else I find interesting are the typical right wing opinions on left. I suppose at some level they're right. In some other levels I'm not so sure.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Filling the Gaps

I'm slowly filling in answers. Someone said this on CaB:

I do imagine this show producing something historic or iconic at some point, something that captures the mood of the nation, or is just a slick politician getting jeered (Simon Hughes managed to avoid this tonight, by dint of his niceness mainly) or maybe chinned, haha. And that is the gamble that makes it worth being live.

Good point, I'd say.

Now the makers are cleaning up the wet patches a new phenomenon is rearing its head. It's not quite ugly, but it's not very pretty either. The thing is this (I was hoping I could drag this out a bit longer, but it seems this is pretty much it): when looking at the show on the surface (?) it looks like a very left wing program. Is this really true, or are the things said just sensible? Who are saying this? I'm planning to research that, because I have trouble determining if they are right. Maybe I am more left wing than I thought I was, but I don't think I am.

So here's what I'm planning to do:
1. Starting with watching episode 4 and maybe add 2 and 3 as well.
2. Writing down the places where left wing views could be seen/heard.
3. Analyze if it really was left wing or just sensible
3a. Trying to find the right wing example of said thing.

There were a few more I can't think of now. Just like with all of my other blogs, this all comes from the top off my head...and it's windy up there.

I almost forgot the link to help me:
the Guardian: To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the century
Sometimes you have to make hard decisions for the good of the countries future. But is this one of them? (This is probably a very lefty view of it. It was in the Guardian; what d'you expect?)

Ignore that if you don't agree; I just started exploring and this might help me find the left to the right swing.

I think I'm liberal.

"10 O'Clock Live" - For Good Measure

Here's 1 review I found on the last episode (4).

Metro's 10 O'Clock Live is becoming a party political broadcast

Metro, obviously.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Survey Results My Own Summary

I know you can read a summary on the link given in an earlier post, but I would like to highlight a few things.

First of all, when comparing the results to what I saw on Twitter, in reviews and on forums I think those social media and articles give a good idea of how people think. Pretty much the same results came out of the survey. The big difference is that the survey's summary is a bit less extreme in its judgement. But then again, the summary averages everything out.

Here are some numbers:
Average score for the show: 5.6 out of 10

Level of Funny per presenter:
David Mitchell: 3.75 stars out of 5
Charlie Brooker: 3.72 stars out of 5
Jimmy Carr: 3.1 Stars out of 5
Lauren Laverne: 2.27 stars out of 5

Importance of presenter to show:
David Mitchell with an average score of 7.5
Charlie Brooker with an average score of 6.9
Jimmy Carr with an average score of 6.0
Lauren Laverne with an average score of 4.7

The sketches don't score very well. Average score is 4.5.
The monologues score an average of 6.3. CB & DM score same average.
The interviews score an average of 5.6 with DM's interview with 1 person as a favourite.
The Round table discussion lead by LL scores low with an average of 4.6.
Just like in the 'funny' and 'importance' questions, DM scores highest and LL scores lowest.

A worrying (or when you are as sadistic as me, funny) result is that to the question: "would you stay watching 10 O'Clock Live without the clash with the likes of Question Time and Skins?" the most answers have been 'No'. It counted only 5 more than the answer 'Possibly'.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Survey Results

Call me a total nerd.

The results for the survey are there and of course I signed up to receive those results. I already took them over and there is a summary. I'm going to look at it a bit more and see if I can base my next piece on it.

Here's the summary: Survey Results: C4's 10 O'Clock Live - What Do the Viewers Think?

"10 O'Clock Live" - Nothing, really

'10 O'Clock Live' should be starting by now. As you probably have noticed I started writing early this time. I'm only here to say I'm not going to write a Twitter review this week; I decided to let it rest and breath for a bit, maybe it helps. If something extraordinary happens, I probably will post something, but after the weekend. Or at least after I've seen it myself. I'm not holding my breath though.

Twitter is strangely quiet. Did we start yet?

Watched now. Just a few remarks:
- Very/Too left wing/liberal, meaning there's not a good balance between left and right
- Too many cuts to the audience
- Not enough time for the papers

"10 O'Clock Live" - Pre-broadcast Post

It's Thursday again, so yeah...

In the week that was so far I've said enough to go into the next adventure of the show. I am doing my pre-research and reading up on discussions about the show. My favourite places to research are:
1. CaB forum
2. the British Comedy Guide forum
3. the Show's Facebook page

And of course Twitter: @10oclocklive / #10oclocklive.

A quote from CaB:

I think it's doing that, but simply not giving those with a 'young perspective' quite enough credit, currently.

Yes, you can put it like that as well.

This is unnecessary harsh:
Lessons in Live Shows For Channel 4

Can Anyone Answer Me This?

What is being reviewed in this piece? (See link) The British Comedy Awards, 10 O'Clock Live, How TV Ruined Your Life or Charlie Brooker in general? Or was this piece supposed to do something else, like bullet pointing how the British Comedy Awards could be better?

Stage Reviews

About My Disappointment in Charlie Brooker

Am I the only one thinking Charlie Brooker is losing it? I just checked Twitter and 95% of the tweets were honouring him for the “excellent” ‘How TV Ruined Your Life’ episode that went out yesterday. I’m now convinced I’ve been living and watching TV in a different Universe than those people, because I could swear I saw a lot before of what went out yesterday. Yesterday’s episode felt like a bad rehash of Screenwipe with different lines and clothes, but with the same set-up and less fresh and funny than the first time.

To be fair Brooker warned us, though he also noted it was his favourite episode of HTVRYL so far. Surely, he was joking?

Charlie Brooker: the emperor sells his clothes

Charlie Brooker is one of the most astute TV critics of the modern age. I bow at the altar of his now departed Screen Burn columns and consider Screen Wipe one of the finest television series about television to be made since Clive James turned TV criticism into a true art form. But don't look closely at the emperor of TV critics now because he's lost his clothes and got a silly haircut.

Now the problem with How TV Ruined Your Life, the latest vehicle for Brooker's rants, is not the rants themselves. Brooker is still on excellent form. The problem is that Brooker is no longer the outsider peering into the bacchanalian revelries within TV's tent and peeing into it with a scowl on his face. Now Brooker's one of the very insiders he castigates. He's doing David Frost as a hipster on 10 O'Clock Live and preparing to give Screenwipe a dust down again. And personally, he's married to Xtra Factor seat filler and auto-cutie Konnie Huq.

The emperor is still laughing at the other kings and their exposed genitals while his are swinging in the wind.

*snort*
Source: AOL Television – Scroll down till Brooker’s face comes in view

Must be said, his rants are still usually good; entertaining/funny. After hearing him going on about the same subject time and time again, and even using old jokes to try and make his point, it gets a bit tired and boring.

There’s a Screenwipe series, if I’m not mistaken series 5, in which in every episode the same commercial is being commented on. He does comically go from disconcerted and annoyed to insensitive to it; in every episode his attitude has changed a little due to the overload of seeing it. It did evoke my first angry and violent reaction at him. Actually, at a pie I was eating; I was blissfully eating a pie when the images were thrown in my face for the 4th time and I forked my pie violently.
I don’t like the recycling, but I seem to be the only one who’s bothered by that.

Another observation is that even though enlightening often, he doesn’t really do much more than stating the obvious that became so obvious we don’t notice it anymore. When he reminds us we go: “Yeah, you’re right; that’s how it is!” Of course he’s right, it’s painfully obvious he’s right, everyone can tell. It’s now that he’s running out of obvious errors to discuss and has to actually look at current affairs that he falls through. He knows nothing about politics. Gladly, he never claimed he did, but being one of the presenters of a show that has been advertised as an intelligent take on current affairs it’s only fair to expect more of him than observing someone is wearing jeans instead of a white sheet wrapped all around her body; her head included.

He keeps saying publicly the country (the UK) is in a bad state when people start looking at him for some guidance. That’s not exactly what he says; it comes more down to him not being that smart and him certainly not understanding what’s going on or how politics works. It’s safe to say he doesn’t know how politics works. I’m not so sure it has anything to do with him being stupid, because he’s obviously not. He has a good brain in that head of his, but his heart is not with politics or anything that even vaguely smells like it. And to say he doesn’t know what’s going on is not completely true either. He knows in certain cases very well what’s going on and he’s a master in explaining it to us. When it comes to politics he doesn’t as much dive into the subject, but rather into the shallow imaginary of what he can see on the surface. He’s not even attempting to analyze how it affects the country and the people in it. He’s not even attempting to understand it. If he’s not even trying to understand it, how on earth is he supposed to deliver an intelligent take on current affairs?

I’m not even touching the subject that he’s now on the inside still scowling at TV bobo’s. And his marriage to Konnie Huq and his haircut have nothing to do with anything that concerns the quality of his work.

He’s making me angry the way he used to be.

"10 O'Clock Live" - More Ideas

But first...

This must be the best review so far:

So the series so far:

1. OH GOD
2. Oh wait hang on
3. Meh

Source: Cook'd and Bomb'd Forums, last message on the page

And then some more thoughts and ideas:

It has been often asked: “Why does the show have to be live?” Maybe it adds a little excitement, but right now it does nothing for the show; it only takes away. If the show is pre-recorded you can cut out the bad bits. You can do bits over to get it right. And at least 2 of the 4 presenters would feel much more comfortable.

Chuck at least 1 person off the show, probably Laverne. Why do we think we need 4 presenters? It makes it even harder to create the magic you need between people to bring over that spark to the audience. And with less presenters you wouldn’t have to deal with 4 different styles and try to merge them. Merging 2 styles can be hard enough.

Get rid of the sketches; I find them nothing but awkward and it feels like it’s breaking the flow rather than helping it. Or make it feel less like it’s a sketch.

Bring in other celebs/comics to have their say about the current affairs. It only needs 5 minutes and every week you’ll have someone else.

I’m starting to understand why I don’t find the show very intelligent. It’s the lack of passion or at least interest in politics. The presenters half of the times don’t seem very informed, apart from Mitchell on the tuition fees. This results in them talking shit we had already registered ourselves and doesn’t provoke our thinking. Or it results in mixed up or downright wrong facts stating and in infantile and lame jokes which have nothing to do with the subject. They should care, if only to pull the show up to the satirical level it was advertised with. But who can muster up care for a subject you’re only allowed to think about for 5 minutes?

"10 O'Clock Live" - Another review

Mainly for my own convenience, because I haven't read this one. For tomorrow at work first thing in the morning, after coffee and some chit chat...and reading mail...and maybe doing some actual work. Maybe I'll read the papers first too. I think around noon I sure will have some time to devote to my newest addiction. After my lunch, obviously and cigarette: Tinned Goods

I Can Do Tiny URL's

And yet I am blogging, rather than tweeting. I just had to tweet my blog to #10oclocklive. They should know how I feel about the show. Ugh!

"10 O'Clock Live" - (Anchorperson) Ideas

Probably I think too much about this show which I can’t even see live since I don’t receive C4. I find myself caring more than I should and therefore thinking about it more than I should. Most frustratingly, I don’t have the answers to how to change things to turn the tides. That doesn’t stop me from caring, researching, reading and thinking about it. I’ve seen many suggestions for how to go about it. The most interesting and also with the most impact is the one concerning personnel and duty changes.

The two most successful in the format, and incidentally the two least fitted for live broadcasting, have been Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell. Votes have gone up to make one of the two the anchorman and have the other three revolving around him. Not literally, obviously. About which of the two it should be the votes are still being counted though I hear Brooker’s name quietly resonating in the main reasoning of this theory.

I’ve been juggling this idea around as well. My hesitation to throw any of them out has me considering all 4 of them for the role. Not all 4 at the same time, because then we should be still in the same situation. Let me see if I can make setups for all 4 situations starting with the least likely.

Lauren Laverne for Anchor..uh..woman
Laverne is the weakest link in the outfit. Having her linking the pieces together will give her enough to do, but can also take away the strain of having her do too much comedy which she just simply isn’t equipped for. She could also do an interview, but that might kill the comedic atmosphere. Yet, more in depth interviews? The 3 gentlemen can do their things.

Advantage: Less comedy on Laverne’s shoulders and yet enough to do.
Disadventage: Puts her in the maybe painfully obvious unfunny moments of the show and leaves her lingering in the unfunny ‘token female’ atmosphere.

Jimmy Carr for Anchorman
Jimmy Carr was pretty much ‘the anchorman’ in the ‘Alternative Election Night’ doing most of the linking and talking it all together. His one-liner nature is perfect for linking, if pulled up in quality level. I would grab the opportunity to steal away the sketches he has done so far. I feel a bit bad about that, but like I posted before, I really don’t care for his sketches. Maybe if the sketches felt less sketch like…
What he can do is take over an interview from Mitchell, ala Jon Stewart style. For some reason I still think he’s more suited for interviewing than Mitchell is. Don’t ask me why, because 3 episodes have proved me wrong so far. Contributions by Mitchell could be the sketches we lose from Carr. Surely he’d be better at it than Carr? Brooker can proceed as he does.

Advantage: Carr is someone who can do linking well and it could still be funny.
Disadventage: If his jokes remain as lame as they tend to be, this could be a bit of a killer to the show. I know I would zone out and forget to watch the upcoming piece. Carr tends to be a bit wooden and unnatural when reading off an auto-cue; he too obviously reads off an auto-cue. In this format, I’m not sure what to do with Laverne.

David Mitchell for Anchorman
Now I come to think of it, I’m not sure how he would do. I usually find David Mitchell reading off an auto-cue highly annoying though more natural and amusing than Carr. I just can’t picture him permanently behind a desk cracking jokes at pictures projected next to his head. But as long we haven’t seen, we can’t really judge. I’d say give it a go, unless they choose to go with another format.
Mitchell could still do interviews, but I would rather let Laverne or Brooker take over one interview from him. Every time I use Brooker’s name in combination with the word ‘interview’ I think: “He’ll be pissing himself.” Yet, still seems a sound idea.

Advantage: Mitchell can bring the funnies in the linking. You could easily fit his item ‘Listen to Mitchell’ in this format. You would have to listen to him all the time anyway.
Disadventage: Mitchell has no experience in this area, but then again, he doesn’t in interviewing either. We all know how that goes. This format leaves Carr a bit hanging in mid-air.

Charlie Brooker for Anchorman
This is the most interesting suggestion. Not only can you pretty much leave the others do what they already do, though hopefully better with the exception of Carr doing the News round, it will also give Charlie more to do which I honestly believe he can. He can do the linking in a natural and funny way. Evidence can be found in his Wipes which are pretty much a collection of links and items. I still think he should take over an interview from Mitchell, because he can do that too. He did interviews with scriptwriters for an episode of Screenwipe. He also seems to be the only one (with Laverne actually) who can deliver an auto-cue line in a natural way, and (unlike Laverne) in a funny way. I said that already, didn’t I? But surely, I don’t need to highlight that point?

Advantage: We would see more of him (and his quif) and it’s almost guaranteed laughs. He’s good at linking off an auto-cue in a natural and funny way. Proof: his Wipes. A monologue can still snugly be fitted in there; required even.
Disadventage: It would be harder/awkward to get him from behind the desk to do sketches, which he actually does wonderfully as well. Proof: several Screenwipe episodes. He’d probably be pissing himself for another 10/11 weeks.

Of course if you choose to make someone anchorperson, it will automatically push the other three back in the format of the show. They can still contribute wonderful stuff, but they will noticeably fall under the reign of the anchorperson.

Other suggestions
Watch ‘Top Gear’: How do the Top Gear presenters do it? They have 3 completely different personalities and yet they congeal.

What about doing the interviews with 2; 1 of them taking a more reserved place in the interview and 1 leading? The second man can jump in when required. I’d vote Laverne as main interviewer, Mitchell second? Or Laverne and Carr; Carr proved himself worthy in the Round table discussions/banter.

Why not take away one interview from Mitchell and have him do 1 sketch?

Have Brooker interview people. (Or maybe scratch that)

Have Laverne interview people.

Have them linking to each other. Not like: “Over to you Jimmy” but rather like: “What does Jimmy think about it?” Obviously, after the linker has done his/her say. What follows could be a sketch.
Don’t put 2 monologues after each other; it would feel like preaching by two different egos. If you want two talks by two different egos then have them talking to each other. There must be subjects were Brooker and Mitchell disagree with each other. That’s definitely cue for a funny discussion; probably with a lot of shouting.

Have them presenting different views on one subject. Or do they agree on everything? Left leaning?

Why is Laverne not doing more crowd participation stuff? What happened to the crowd participation stuff?