If you wonder what the current 'Domestic Comedy's Burning Issue' is look no further.
“Russell Brand, who received the Outstanding Contribution To Comedy Award, was unable to attend due to a friend's illness, though his filmed acceptance speech, mocking Newswipe presenter Charlie Brooker's celebrity wife Konnie Huq and fancy wavy celebrity haircut, showed that he is still in touch with domestic comedy's burning issues.”
Buahaha, Charlie’s hair is a domestic comedy’s burning issue.
Source: Evening Standard blogs: Bruce Dessau
To be complete, sort of, Brand wondered at Charlie: "Now you have a celebrity Blue Peter wife and a fancy wavy celebrity haircut? Come back Charlie!!!"
It looks like everybody is asking Charlie to divorce Konnie and cut his hair. I think this is the answer to Victoria Coren's question how Charlie is going to contribute to 'repeopling the globe' after apocalypse. I can see a problem with this solution.
Monday, January 31, 2011
the Oddest Thing
Disclaimer: In no way do I mean to annoy or hurt couple Brooker's feelings. I believe they can take it and I'm sure they're aware of the irony themselves. Hopefully they understand why I can't stop laughing about this ridiculous on-going tredmill of rumours, confused but fascinated gazes and unforgiving slashing.
It’s curious how much stick couple Brooker get. Granted, Mrs B is probably not the best presenter this world has ever known, and that coupled with the general complaint we know Mister B for, it remains an odd story, their marriage. I don’t think they deserve to get that much crap dumped on them. Yet I can’t help laughing. It’s too paradoxal and ironic to keep a straight face. Sometimes you wonder if they are in on the joke as well, because both have fed the irony around them. Mr B decided to take a few steps back from his trademark scowl at (current) television. He’s still scowling; he’s just avoiding having to scowl at his own wife which seems fair. It’s quite a bold suggestion he leaves; Does he also think she sucks at presenting the Xtra factor? And Mrs B made a program in which she tried to become a rapper. I didn’t see it, but only thinking about it made the corners of my mouth curl downwards in a cringy embarrassment. Could be good though, just like Mr B’s new program could be bad. Or maybe they’re just moving to a level where they can meet, somewhere in the middle. And have weird, sarcastic, beautiful babies and make average quality programs. This is how TV ruined their lives, I suppose.
It’s curious how much stick couple Brooker get. Granted, Mrs B is probably not the best presenter this world has ever known, and that coupled with the general complaint we know Mister B for, it remains an odd story, their marriage. I don’t think they deserve to get that much crap dumped on them. Yet I can’t help laughing. It’s too paradoxal and ironic to keep a straight face. Sometimes you wonder if they are in on the joke as well, because both have fed the irony around them. Mr B decided to take a few steps back from his trademark scowl at (current) television. He’s still scowling; he’s just avoiding having to scowl at his own wife which seems fair. It’s quite a bold suggestion he leaves; Does he also think she sucks at presenting the Xtra factor? And Mrs B made a program in which she tried to become a rapper. I didn’t see it, but only thinking about it made the corners of my mouth curl downwards in a cringy embarrassment. Could be good though, just like Mr B’s new program could be bad. Or maybe they’re just moving to a level where they can meet, somewhere in the middle. And have weird, sarcastic, beautiful babies and make average quality programs. This is how TV ruined their lives, I suppose.
Friday, January 28, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 2
Yesterday the second episode of “10 O’Clock Live” went out. Just like last week I didn’t watch, but I followed the movement on Twitter.
Pre-show tweets were mainly questions about who were going to give the show a second chance, or tweets about people wondering if they should watch “10 O’Clock Live” or “Skins”. The expectations were a bit deflated after last week’s (slight) disappointment. Things almost only could look up.
I’m not sure, but I think the show started late again, like last week. For about 10 minutes into the 11th hour tweets were about how it was time for the show and how it wasn’t on yet. No big deal, might have been the delay with which Twitter shows new tweets.
The first tweets were rather positive; though compared to last week’s introductions anything else was almost impossible. Only a few sour tweeters still found the show ‘shite’. Other tweets were commenting on Jimmy Carr’s suit. If you take with that Charlie Brooker’s hair from last week in account, you start wondering what Twitter will complain/go hot over next week.
Just like last week Jimmy Carr started off with the first segment; the news round. According to Twitter a 100% improvement; some even laughed. Then it got a bit quiet on Twitter. It was hard to make out what was happening. What was happening was David Mitchell’s interview with Alistair Campbell, the former Labour spin doctor.
Mitchell didn’t make as good an impression as last week. Campbell apparently ran away with the interview; Mitchell was not sharp enough. Other complaints were that he kept interrupting. I’m not sure that was during the Campbell interview though. A big improvement about the interview was it was allowed to run for longer giving the interview the chance to develop into more depth.
Next up was Charlie Brooker? I’m not sure, because people were watching the show instead of reporting what was happening. Only a few tweets came through saying Brooker was ‘brilliant’ once again. And for the first time people were happy it was live, or else one joke wouldn’t have made it through the cut.
At some point Jimmy Carr did an interview, but apparently that was not very interesting to tweet about. So nothing to report there for me, because I have no clue what happened then or how it was.
Remarkable Observations
1. Jimmy Carr’s News round has improved considerably. He even managed to claw his way back up to the top 2 presenters of the show.
2. The audience was a bit quieter than during the first episode, though still a bit of a ‘panto’ atmosphere.
3. Lauren Laverne was still underused (note the absence of mention in the above piece).
4. They took more time to explore subjects, particularly notable for the interview with Alistair Campbell. Though the rushed feeling remains, though in a milder manner.
5. David Mitchell’s interview techniques didn’t seem to please Twitter as much. It caused his ranking as top presenter of the show to decline.
6. Swearing on the show seems to be an important ingredient in the show which is not appreciated by all.
What I noticed last evening was how at some point a great deal of the tweets were about the subject instead of about how bad things were going. I think that's a clear sign of improvement. That is what you want people to discuss, not how bad David Mitchell's interviewing techniques are.
Overall the show improved enough for people to be positive. If their reactions had something to do with their expectations after having seen the first episode, I don’t know. Still, I had the feeling the “10 O’Clock Live” team has listened well to the reactions and acted upon it. From what I gather still a long way to go, but certainly on the right way.
Something I planned to do last week, but neglected to do was ranking the presenters. That’s why I’ll do the last week ranking this week on top of this week’s ranking. This week’s ranking is a sum of last week and this week.
Episode 1: 20 January 2011
1. David Mitchell (for his interviewing)
2. Charlie Brooker (for his pre-recorded piece and monologue)
3. Lauren Laverne (ranked 3rd, because her presenting was all right, though her jokes fell flat)
4. Jimmy Carr (last, because his News round felt uninspired and uncomfortable and his Tunesia skit was utter bullshit)(Note: I don't think my blog is a family blog; swearing is a okay, for a bit)
Episode 2: 27 January 2011
1. Charlie Brooker (because he was good last week and this week. He seems to be the most consistent of the four)
2. Jimmy Carr (because after last week’s wobbly start he clawed back wonderfully)
3. David Mitchell (because his interviewing leaves a bit to desire, but last week’s ranking saves him)
4. Lauren Laverne (someone, give her something substantial to do!!!)
Secretly I'm very proud of Charlie for being not as shite as the others. Sorry for the favouritism.
If I was handing out points, which I’m not, I would have to deduct points from all three male presenters (and the production team) for discussing sexism in the media, but not doing anything about it themselves. Lauren Laverne shouldn’t be the ‘token female’ and if she can’t do it, which I can’t tell because she doesn’t get a chance to properly show her abilities, she should be replaced by a female who can do the presenting and the funnies. Victoria Coren still seems a more suitable choice. She wouldn’t let them bully her into a minor role.
For a proper review go to link below:
1. Telly Talk
Pre-show tweets were mainly questions about who were going to give the show a second chance, or tweets about people wondering if they should watch “10 O’Clock Live” or “Skins”. The expectations were a bit deflated after last week’s (slight) disappointment. Things almost only could look up.
I’m not sure, but I think the show started late again, like last week. For about 10 minutes into the 11th hour tweets were about how it was time for the show and how it wasn’t on yet. No big deal, might have been the delay with which Twitter shows new tweets.
The first tweets were rather positive; though compared to last week’s introductions anything else was almost impossible. Only a few sour tweeters still found the show ‘shite’. Other tweets were commenting on Jimmy Carr’s suit. If you take with that Charlie Brooker’s hair from last week in account, you start wondering what Twitter will complain/go hot over next week.
Just like last week Jimmy Carr started off with the first segment; the news round. According to Twitter a 100% improvement; some even laughed. Then it got a bit quiet on Twitter. It was hard to make out what was happening. What was happening was David Mitchell’s interview with Alistair Campbell, the former Labour spin doctor.
Mitchell didn’t make as good an impression as last week. Campbell apparently ran away with the interview; Mitchell was not sharp enough. Other complaints were that he kept interrupting. I’m not sure that was during the Campbell interview though. A big improvement about the interview was it was allowed to run for longer giving the interview the chance to develop into more depth.
Next up was Charlie Brooker? I’m not sure, because people were watching the show instead of reporting what was happening. Only a few tweets came through saying Brooker was ‘brilliant’ once again. And for the first time people were happy it was live, or else one joke wouldn’t have made it through the cut.
At some point Jimmy Carr did an interview, but apparently that was not very interesting to tweet about. So nothing to report there for me, because I have no clue what happened then or how it was.
Remarkable Observations
1. Jimmy Carr’s News round has improved considerably. He even managed to claw his way back up to the top 2 presenters of the show.
2. The audience was a bit quieter than during the first episode, though still a bit of a ‘panto’ atmosphere.
3. Lauren Laverne was still underused (note the absence of mention in the above piece).
4. They took more time to explore subjects, particularly notable for the interview with Alistair Campbell. Though the rushed feeling remains, though in a milder manner.
5. David Mitchell’s interview techniques didn’t seem to please Twitter as much. It caused his ranking as top presenter of the show to decline.
6. Swearing on the show seems to be an important ingredient in the show which is not appreciated by all.
What I noticed last evening was how at some point a great deal of the tweets were about the subject instead of about how bad things were going. I think that's a clear sign of improvement. That is what you want people to discuss, not how bad David Mitchell's interviewing techniques are.
Overall the show improved enough for people to be positive. If their reactions had something to do with their expectations after having seen the first episode, I don’t know. Still, I had the feeling the “10 O’Clock Live” team has listened well to the reactions and acted upon it. From what I gather still a long way to go, but certainly on the right way.
Something I planned to do last week, but neglected to do was ranking the presenters. That’s why I’ll do the last week ranking this week on top of this week’s ranking. This week’s ranking is a sum of last week and this week.
Episode 1: 20 January 2011
1. David Mitchell (for his interviewing)
2. Charlie Brooker (for his pre-recorded piece and monologue)
3. Lauren Laverne (ranked 3rd, because her presenting was all right, though her jokes fell flat)
4. Jimmy Carr (last, because his News round felt uninspired and uncomfortable and his Tunesia skit was utter bullshit)(Note: I don't think my blog is a family blog; swearing is a okay, for a bit)
Episode 2: 27 January 2011
1. Charlie Brooker (because he was good last week and this week. He seems to be the most consistent of the four)
2. Jimmy Carr (because after last week’s wobbly start he clawed back wonderfully)
3. David Mitchell (because his interviewing leaves a bit to desire, but last week’s ranking saves him)
4. Lauren Laverne (someone, give her something substantial to do!!!)
Secretly I'm very proud of Charlie for being not as shite as the others. Sorry for the favouritism.
If I was handing out points, which I’m not, I would have to deduct points from all three male presenters (and the production team) for discussing sexism in the media, but not doing anything about it themselves. Lauren Laverne shouldn’t be the ‘token female’ and if she can’t do it, which I can’t tell because she doesn’t get a chance to properly show her abilities, she should be replaced by a female who can do the presenting and the funnies. Victoria Coren still seems a more suitable choice. She wouldn’t let them bully her into a minor role.
For a proper review go to link below:
1. Telly Talk
Thursday, January 27, 2011
To Charlie Brooker
What is this whole “sell out” accusation about? If those comments are based on how he wears his hair, then I misunderstood the meaning of “sell out”. I’m just as baffled about the hair discussions as Charlie himself is. It’s his hair and he can do with it whatever he wants to.
If the “sell out” accusations are based on him doing the “10 O’Clock Live” show, then I’m still confused. I’m not sure that’s what “selling out” is. They threw him a bone and he accepted it. It would have been impolite if he hadn’t, wouldn’t it? Unless he has a good reason, like he’s on a diet. I’m not sure bones are fattening though.
The only situation in which I would call him a “sell out” is when he decides to join Konnie on the “Xtra Factor”. But that might just be marriage counselling. Not that they have a bad marriage, I don’t think. Just a weird one. I can already hear Simon Cowell commenting on it, the bastard!
It’s not that I’m still in arse licking mode what Charlie Brooker concerns. I do think, like many others, his works from the past two months have left a bit to desire. His “2010 Wipe” was half a rehash of video material and jokes, which was disappointing. I can see how that happens in a news based program so I accept the same video’s, but still, reusing old jokes is just lazy.
Last Tuesday I watched his new program “How Television Ruined Your Life”. Even if the quality compared to a lot of other programs was better, it was below Charlie Brooker’s standard quality. Once again he rehashed old video’s and even old jokes. Charlie, you already did the whole ‘alone in the house’ gag. And the first time it was way funnier and fresher. Tell me, it really was “Screenwipe” in disguise, wasn’t it?
Maybe my expectations were too high and wrong. Maybe not getting what I expected ruined my joy. Tonight you get a new chance. Could you please try to raise the bar and not repeat what Jimmy Carr has already said, albeit he was less funny than you.
Do you think Charlie Brooker googles himself?
If the “sell out” accusations are based on him doing the “10 O’Clock Live” show, then I’m still confused. I’m not sure that’s what “selling out” is. They threw him a bone and he accepted it. It would have been impolite if he hadn’t, wouldn’t it? Unless he has a good reason, like he’s on a diet. I’m not sure bones are fattening though.
The only situation in which I would call him a “sell out” is when he decides to join Konnie on the “Xtra Factor”. But that might just be marriage counselling. Not that they have a bad marriage, I don’t think. Just a weird one. I can already hear Simon Cowell commenting on it, the bastard!
It’s not that I’m still in arse licking mode what Charlie Brooker concerns. I do think, like many others, his works from the past two months have left a bit to desire. His “2010 Wipe” was half a rehash of video material and jokes, which was disappointing. I can see how that happens in a news based program so I accept the same video’s, but still, reusing old jokes is just lazy.
Last Tuesday I watched his new program “How Television Ruined Your Life”. Even if the quality compared to a lot of other programs was better, it was below Charlie Brooker’s standard quality. Once again he rehashed old video’s and even old jokes. Charlie, you already did the whole ‘alone in the house’ gag. And the first time it was way funnier and fresher. Tell me, it really was “Screenwipe” in disguise, wasn’t it?
Maybe my expectations were too high and wrong. Maybe not getting what I expected ruined my joy. Tonight you get a new chance. Could you please try to raise the bar and not repeat what Jimmy Carr has already said, albeit he was less funny than you.
Do you think Charlie Brooker googles himself?
Monday, January 24, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" Response to the Response to the Twitter Response
Don’t get me wrong with this blog, because I find the article given as a source below a refreshing and reasonably sensible article. However, there are few things I would like to address.
For the sheer joy of confusion I’m going to start with the last paragraph of the article.
The writer says:
I was in many occasions under the impression a great deal of excitement concerning politics often lay in the subject or in the situation the economy is in. Granted, the credit crisis is the least sexy crisis I have ever experienced. However the current status Great Britain is in is an interesting one. Just like in many other countries due to the credit crisis. I’ve never been more interested in hearing whatever politicians cooked up this time, if only to see if the current Government, be it the British one or the Dutch one, can work it out and keeps standing. That’s why I’m watching and listening more closely than I ever have.
Beside that, what 10 O’Clock Live is trying, I’m using the word ‘trying’ deliberately because it doesn’t quite work yet, is not new. Political comedy shows are as old as TV is, almost. The writer should have realized that with all the comparisons which are made. For instance, the most obvious one, the Daily Show, is one and happens to have come up more than once or twice. So to say they’re trying something completely new is not completely true.
One paragraph earlier the writer talks about how people were complaining about the ‘left wing’ leanings. I agree a lot of the things said were simply sensible and should have a positive response, though there’s no need to cheer and whoop on every occasion a silence or no silence occurs. The audience was a bit too happy for my liking and they put off the presenters a few times which resulted in awkwardness. Even David Mitchell himself referenced to the atmosphere as ‘panto’, which was, I think, not necessarily a positive note. Also, I happen to know for the Alternative Election Night show the audience was selected on political conviction. But that was another show all together in another situation, so let’s not bring that up.
Then the third paragraph from the bottom. Here the writer assumes all tweeters are “people with increasingly short attention spans” and with “dull brains”. That’s not completely fair. I followed tweets all night long when the show was on. What I saw often was that people were actually disappointed certain subjects weren’t explored any deeper and that people were wishing they weren’t skipping through subjects so quickly. What I remember is that people were excited about David Mitchell’s interview with MP David Willetts about the tuition fees. To say that Twitter’s discontent had to do with their short attention spans is a downright lie.
The fourth and fifth paragraph from the bottom lead up to the third paragraph from the bottom. Here it’s quite obvious the writer based thoughts about the average tweeter on 1 tweet. One tweet hardly represents a whole population where every single member has a voice. Please do a proper research before spewing your impressions and opinions into the world or at least phrase them with more care the next time.
What I think the writer misinterpreted is why the tweeters generally weren’t happy with the show. The tweeters applauded the idea, just not the execution of the idea. With that said I have to agree the average tweeter was unnecessary harsh since they were complaining about a new show which is also live. Where I think a great deal of the twitter society went wrong is; their own patience. The word ‘fruition’ doesn’t seem to exist in their book.
Someone on twitter said (paraphrased): “Charlie Brooker could probably fill a whole episode of Screenwipe about this show”. He probably could, but I think if he hadn’t been involved, he would have had the decency to let the show run for a while before shooting it down and he would only shoot it down if the show didn’t improve after the first run. Twitter made me wish Charlie would make a Screenwipe. Not about how bad 10 O’Clock Live is, but about how hard it is to put a new (live) show on its feet.
Source: ATV Networks 10 O’Clock Live: The Twitter Response
For the sheer joy of confusion I’m going to start with the last paragraph of the article.
The writer says:
10 O’Clock Live gives politics a vibrancy that simply just doesn’t exist on any other political programme
I was in many occasions under the impression a great deal of excitement concerning politics often lay in the subject or in the situation the economy is in. Granted, the credit crisis is the least sexy crisis I have ever experienced. However the current status Great Britain is in is an interesting one. Just like in many other countries due to the credit crisis. I’ve never been more interested in hearing whatever politicians cooked up this time, if only to see if the current Government, be it the British one or the Dutch one, can work it out and keeps standing. That’s why I’m watching and listening more closely than I ever have.
Beside that, what 10 O’Clock Live is trying, I’m using the word ‘trying’ deliberately because it doesn’t quite work yet, is not new. Political comedy shows are as old as TV is, almost. The writer should have realized that with all the comparisons which are made. For instance, the most obvious one, the Daily Show, is one and happens to have come up more than once or twice. So to say they’re trying something completely new is not completely true.
One paragraph earlier the writer talks about how people were complaining about the ‘left wing’ leanings. I agree a lot of the things said were simply sensible and should have a positive response, though there’s no need to cheer and whoop on every occasion a silence or no silence occurs. The audience was a bit too happy for my liking and they put off the presenters a few times which resulted in awkwardness. Even David Mitchell himself referenced to the atmosphere as ‘panto’, which was, I think, not necessarily a positive note. Also, I happen to know for the Alternative Election Night show the audience was selected on political conviction. But that was another show all together in another situation, so let’s not bring that up.
Then the third paragraph from the bottom. Here the writer assumes all tweeters are “people with increasingly short attention spans” and with “dull brains”. That’s not completely fair. I followed tweets all night long when the show was on. What I saw often was that people were actually disappointed certain subjects weren’t explored any deeper and that people were wishing they weren’t skipping through subjects so quickly. What I remember is that people were excited about David Mitchell’s interview with MP David Willetts about the tuition fees. To say that Twitter’s discontent had to do with their short attention spans is a downright lie.
The fourth and fifth paragraph from the bottom lead up to the third paragraph from the bottom. Here it’s quite obvious the writer based thoughts about the average tweeter on 1 tweet. One tweet hardly represents a whole population where every single member has a voice. Please do a proper research before spewing your impressions and opinions into the world or at least phrase them with more care the next time.
What I think the writer misinterpreted is why the tweeters generally weren’t happy with the show. The tweeters applauded the idea, just not the execution of the idea. With that said I have to agree the average tweeter was unnecessary harsh since they were complaining about a new show which is also live. Where I think a great deal of the twitter society went wrong is; their own patience. The word ‘fruition’ doesn’t seem to exist in their book.
Someone on twitter said (paraphrased): “Charlie Brooker could probably fill a whole episode of Screenwipe about this show”. He probably could, but I think if he hadn’t been involved, he would have had the decency to let the show run for a while before shooting it down and he would only shoot it down if the show didn’t improve after the first run. Twitter made me wish Charlie would make a Screenwipe. Not about how bad 10 O’Clock Live is, but about how hard it is to put a new (live) show on its feet.
Source: ATV Networks 10 O’Clock Live: The Twitter Response
Friday, January 21, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" According to Online Community
This is not an actual review, because I didn’t watch it. What I did during the whole run of the show and now at work is working through as many comments and reviews as I can to get a bit of an idea how the online community feels after the first 10 O’Clock Live news broadcast. I think it should give a good idea of what people liked and disliked and I think it could even make clear where the show went well and where improvement is (desperately) needed.
I like to kick off with noting it was a first run of a new show with at least 3 out of the 4 hosts with minimal (just 1 show) live presenting experience. Of course the show wasn’t going to get to its feet and run off. Just like any baby it fell flat on its face a couple of times, but got up and made a new attempt. What I’ve been saying is, give them a chance to get used to this new vehicle of entertainment; there’s definitely a promise of a good show.
I read Twitter throughout the whole run of the show. The show was reported every second by someone giving the reader a clear view of what happened and how people (not in the studio) experienced it.
The start of the show was very wobbly and not appreciated much and downright disliked by many. I don’t think I read 1 positive comment about Jimmy Carr’s standup routine, if you can call it that. Can I call it that? From that point on people were complaining about how unfunny it was. About how wooden it seemed and how no subject was given enough time to be properly explored. This went on for 30 minutes. It wasn’t all negativity; some Mitchell and Brooker action spawned some positive reactions, but it couldn’t hold the attention of many. Unfortunately, the show only turned around somewhat around the 30 minutes mark; unfortunately because many viewers had just left around the 20 minutes mark to turn over to bbcq (not sure what that is).
Around the 30 minutes mark the C-bomb fell. From that point on suddenly everything started to speed up again (on twitter that is; the pace in the show had finally settled I believe) opposed to the slow down from 10 minutes into the show to the 30 minutes mark. Both Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell did something, I don’t know what. Because Twitter feed sped up it was harder to keep up and to remember what was said; I only know it definitely felt like the turning point. I think, if I remember right, Mitchell did quite good in his interview with MP David Willetts. Brooker did something good, but I honestly can’t remember what, because at that point I was getting excited again. Something about a monologue he did?
All in all, I went to bed a pretty contented little twitter sniffer, thanks to the 30 minutes turning point. It has to be said though, Twitter (and that is people who tweet) tend to exaggerate; when things don’t go as expected it’s called “shite” and when something better happens it’s a “show saver”. I’m not sure how much value I should give it. The reviews seemed milder.
Remarkable Observations as in that everybody seems to agree with the below points:
1. Jimmy Carr’s standup routine was not found successful due to the feeling he was doing jokes that had been circling on Twitter for the past few hours. It also felt like he was trying too hard to show he followed the news.
2. There was no cohesion in the show since the format kept jumping around between the 4(?) hosts.
3. No time was taken (in the first half) to explore a subject properly. Too many subjects were too old to be called news in the week that was. Too many subjects were introduced for a more in depth and informative show.
4. Even in the longer subject handling not enough time was taken; they kept having to cut because time was up.
5. Lauren Laverne was terribly underused. If you want her on the show, give her something of substantial to do.
6. There was too much audience. They were too loud, too frantic and eager to laugh hysterically at anything (probably drunk?) and too many (view) cuts to the audience.
Those were the 6 main negative points I see returning in almost all comments and reviews.
Overall not a bad start for a live show with 3 inexperienced presenters and the token female who doesn’t get much to do, but be the token female. There’s definitely a promise.
Online reviews
1. The First Post
2. The Guardian
3. The Independent
4. Beehivecity
5. New Statesman
6. the Telegraph
7. publicservice.co.uk
I like to kick off with noting it was a first run of a new show with at least 3 out of the 4 hosts with minimal (just 1 show) live presenting experience. Of course the show wasn’t going to get to its feet and run off. Just like any baby it fell flat on its face a couple of times, but got up and made a new attempt. What I’ve been saying is, give them a chance to get used to this new vehicle of entertainment; there’s definitely a promise of a good show.
I read Twitter throughout the whole run of the show. The show was reported every second by someone giving the reader a clear view of what happened and how people (not in the studio) experienced it.
The start of the show was very wobbly and not appreciated much and downright disliked by many. I don’t think I read 1 positive comment about Jimmy Carr’s standup routine, if you can call it that. Can I call it that? From that point on people were complaining about how unfunny it was. About how wooden it seemed and how no subject was given enough time to be properly explored. This went on for 30 minutes. It wasn’t all negativity; some Mitchell and Brooker action spawned some positive reactions, but it couldn’t hold the attention of many. Unfortunately, the show only turned around somewhat around the 30 minutes mark; unfortunately because many viewers had just left around the 20 minutes mark to turn over to bbcq (not sure what that is).
Around the 30 minutes mark the C-bomb fell. From that point on suddenly everything started to speed up again (on twitter that is; the pace in the show had finally settled I believe) opposed to the slow down from 10 minutes into the show to the 30 minutes mark. Both Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell did something, I don’t know what. Because Twitter feed sped up it was harder to keep up and to remember what was said; I only know it definitely felt like the turning point. I think, if I remember right, Mitchell did quite good in his interview with MP David Willetts. Brooker did something good, but I honestly can’t remember what, because at that point I was getting excited again. Something about a monologue he did?
All in all, I went to bed a pretty contented little twitter sniffer, thanks to the 30 minutes turning point. It has to be said though, Twitter (and that is people who tweet) tend to exaggerate; when things don’t go as expected it’s called “shite” and when something better happens it’s a “show saver”. I’m not sure how much value I should give it. The reviews seemed milder.
Remarkable Observations as in that everybody seems to agree with the below points:
1. Jimmy Carr’s standup routine was not found successful due to the feeling he was doing jokes that had been circling on Twitter for the past few hours. It also felt like he was trying too hard to show he followed the news.
2. There was no cohesion in the show since the format kept jumping around between the 4(?) hosts.
3. No time was taken (in the first half) to explore a subject properly. Too many subjects were too old to be called news in the week that was. Too many subjects were introduced for a more in depth and informative show.
4. Even in the longer subject handling not enough time was taken; they kept having to cut because time was up.
5. Lauren Laverne was terribly underused. If you want her on the show, give her something of substantial to do.
6. There was too much audience. They were too loud, too frantic and eager to laugh hysterically at anything (probably drunk?) and too many (view) cuts to the audience.
Those were the 6 main negative points I see returning in almost all comments and reviews.
Overall not a bad start for a live show with 3 inexperienced presenters and the token female who doesn’t get much to do, but be the token female. There’s definitely a promise.
Online reviews
1. The First Post
2. The Guardian
3. The Independent
4. Beehivecity
5. New Statesman
6. the Telegraph
7. publicservice.co.uk
Thursday, January 20, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" New C4 Show
A lot of noise has been made about this new program that will be broadcast live on C4 this evening. Especially, since it hasn’t been on air yet. It is described as “a fresh and unashamedly intelligent take on current affairs from a young perspective.” A series of 15 episodes of an hour long over 15 weeks is planned for this show, and it’s live.
The show has its origins during the British Election Night last year. That evening it ran for 4 hours and was presented as “the Alternative Election Night”. The show proved such a success; soon rumours were going around about a series sprouting from the show. Only now not just politics will be subject, but other interesting things as well like “How Wayne Rooney looks like a potato”.
There will be interviews, discussions and critical and satirical elements. It has been reported politicians have already agreed to be guests. All in all an exciting outlook; though still expectations are mixed.
Many times this new show has been compared to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and it will be up against Newsweek and Question Time. It has yet to be unfolded how things will go down for this new satirical news program.
The show is a production by Zeppotron, an Endemol company and is commissioned by C4’s Darren Smith, the lead commissioner for this series.
It will be presented by the same group of hosts that presented the Alternative Election Night, namely Jimmy Carr, David Mitchell, Lauren Laverne and Charlie Brooker. And it’s called “10 O’Clock Live”.
The first broadcast will be this evening.
<>
Okay, that was really just an exercise in writing. I suppose not too bad, but not exactly great either. Reading back I realize it’s really a mishmash of facts and other nonsense. All true however and some free advert for the show.
I won’t be watching; I don’t receive C4.
The show has its origins during the British Election Night last year. That evening it ran for 4 hours and was presented as “the Alternative Election Night”. The show proved such a success; soon rumours were going around about a series sprouting from the show. Only now not just politics will be subject, but other interesting things as well like “How Wayne Rooney looks like a potato”.
There will be interviews, discussions and critical and satirical elements. It has been reported politicians have already agreed to be guests. All in all an exciting outlook; though still expectations are mixed.
Many times this new show has been compared to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and it will be up against Newsweek and Question Time. It has yet to be unfolded how things will go down for this new satirical news program.
The show is a production by Zeppotron, an Endemol company and is commissioned by C4’s Darren Smith, the lead commissioner for this series.
It will be presented by the same group of hosts that presented the Alternative Election Night, namely Jimmy Carr, David Mitchell, Lauren Laverne and Charlie Brooker. And it’s called “10 O’Clock Live”.
The first broadcast will be this evening.
<>
Okay, that was really just an exercise in writing. I suppose not too bad, but not exactly great either. Reading back I realize it’s really a mishmash of facts and other nonsense. All true however and some free advert for the show.
I won’t be watching; I don’t receive C4.
Monday, January 17, 2011
The Most Depressing Day of the Year
Today it was brought to my attention someone declared this day, January 17th, the most depressing day of the year. Apparently that was news, because it was something that could be read in a paper.
I do agree this is not the most cheerful day I’ve ever experienced. It’s dark and misty outside. It’s also a Monday, which never helps, apparently. And all the festivities have come to an end for a while.
I must admit, I have felt better. I have experienced days without a headache and with floods of sunshine and days that are not Mondays or days on which we are celebrating something. And yet, I have the feeling we can’t yet say this is the most depressing day of the year. I’m even sure more depressing days are ahead of us. Maybe not for you, but certainly for a lot of other people. Fact is, no one can tell yet, unless they have the ability to look into the future which they don’t.
Why is that news anyway? If you don’t have anything worthwhile to say, why do you feel the need to air a depressing unfact? Who even put energy in justifying why this is the most depressing day of the year? You don’t know and nor does anybody else. Why depressing yourself and everybody who was unfortunate enough to read it or come across it in some way?
This been an irritating day, to me. Yes, it could have been better. It also could have been worse. Overall, this was not a too bad day. I was stuck at work, like so many other days, and tried to wrestle my way through incomprehensible problems. No, not the most inspiring or motivating way to spend a day, but at least I’ve got some work done. Actually, I’m pretty contented with how today things went (apart from the whole ‘Alarm Clock Affair’).
Today I brought a few bags of candy to work, which resulted in hilarity. I had some funny and rather tense relieving conversations with a colleague. I handed in a few documents which I could tick off as finished (for now). Also a few incomprehensible problems turned out to be not as incomprehensible as expected, which was good.
So, I’ll be going home with an OK feeling about today. Nothing more, nothing less.
Good day!
I do agree this is not the most cheerful day I’ve ever experienced. It’s dark and misty outside. It’s also a Monday, which never helps, apparently. And all the festivities have come to an end for a while.
I must admit, I have felt better. I have experienced days without a headache and with floods of sunshine and days that are not Mondays or days on which we are celebrating something. And yet, I have the feeling we can’t yet say this is the most depressing day of the year. I’m even sure more depressing days are ahead of us. Maybe not for you, but certainly for a lot of other people. Fact is, no one can tell yet, unless they have the ability to look into the future which they don’t.
Why is that news anyway? If you don’t have anything worthwhile to say, why do you feel the need to air a depressing unfact? Who even put energy in justifying why this is the most depressing day of the year? You don’t know and nor does anybody else. Why depressing yourself and everybody who was unfortunate enough to read it or come across it in some way?
This been an irritating day, to me. Yes, it could have been better. It also could have been worse. Overall, this was not a too bad day. I was stuck at work, like so many other days, and tried to wrestle my way through incomprehensible problems. No, not the most inspiring or motivating way to spend a day, but at least I’ve got some work done. Actually, I’m pretty contented with how today things went (apart from the whole ‘Alarm Clock Affair’).
Today I brought a few bags of candy to work, which resulted in hilarity. I had some funny and rather tense relieving conversations with a colleague. I handed in a few documents which I could tick off as finished (for now). Also a few incomprehensible problems turned out to be not as incomprehensible as expected, which was good.
So, I’ll be going home with an OK feeling about today. Nothing more, nothing less.
Good day!
WHAT NOT TO SAY - the Alarm Clock (Britain) Affair
Good Morning!
Yes, a good morning to you ‘Alarm Clock’ people. As if...
This morning I had the misfortune to wake up to two, yes two, ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ columns respectively by two of my favourite columnists/comedians. Unfortunately too, I am not a member of ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ and even if I was, this whole ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ affair leaves me incredibly baffled. I suppose that was the point of both columns; so they certainly didn’t miss their points.
Neither did Nick Clegg, the cause of the whole consternation. They, CB and DM, wrote about it. I am writing about it. Unfortunately (it’s a real unfortunate choice of words resulting in an unfortunate situation), he misses his goal. What the hell or rather who the hell is he talking about? I can only conclude this is the start of the apocalypse.
I am not willing to discuss the choice of words any further. Go read Charlie Brooker’s and David Mitchell’s columns for that; they said it all.
Sources:
1. David Mitchell's column and
2. Charlie Brooker's column
I am going to be sarcastic about it though.
I woke up, sort of, to my alarm clock. Like on every Sunday evening I set my alarm clock to 7 am. Not with the intention to wake up or something, rather with the intention to pretend I’m going to be a good girl and get up at the first sounds of a blaring alarm. I don’t think my zombie kind of state qualifies as getting up. Beside that, the only thing I do as a reaction to the alarm is turning it off for another blissful 9 minutes to repeat the procedure. Around 8 am thoughts start to form in my head that I really should get up or I’ll be fantastically late at work.
This morning was an exceptional sleepy affair. Unlike many other mornings my mind registered the whole ‘Alarm Clock Affair’. For good measure I’m now going to explain what an ‘Alarm Clock Affair’ is.
An Alarm Clock Affair is the affair of reaching some level of consciousness, due to a blaring alarm clock, and getting into an upward position out of the bed to make my way to the alarm clock and turn it off for 9 more minutes, then I return to the bed. This procedure is repeated till 8 o’clock am. This whole procedure, from 7 am to 8 am, is the ‘Alarm Clock Affair’.
Anyway, registered but not as much as awake. I realized I needed to clean out my cats’ lavatory (or lavalibdem in this case *snigger* ergh...) which meant I needed some extra time before leaving the house for work.
Only now I reached a higher level of being awake. Nothing special, but I was very quickly aware of the dodgy state of mind of this day.
Does that make me an ‘Alarm Clock’ person? I suppose it does, yet I feel it has nothing to do with me. Not only because I’m not British, but also whenever Mr. Clegg uses that phrase I feel strangely alienated from whatever he’s trying to express. I wish he knew what he was talking about; I have the daunting suspicion he doesn’t, like no one seems to know.
I now go laugh/cry/scream in a corner.
If I had said something like ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ at work I would have received my resignation letter.
This whole 'Alarm Clock' Affair made me angrier than I should have become! That's why half of the title is in capitols.
I did however edit this piece a mere 7 times for your enjoyment. Not that I was actually counting.
Yes, a good morning to you ‘Alarm Clock’ people. As if...
This morning I had the misfortune to wake up to two, yes two, ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ columns respectively by two of my favourite columnists/comedians. Unfortunately too, I am not a member of ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ and even if I was, this whole ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ affair leaves me incredibly baffled. I suppose that was the point of both columns; so they certainly didn’t miss their points.
Neither did Nick Clegg, the cause of the whole consternation. They, CB and DM, wrote about it. I am writing about it. Unfortunately (it’s a real unfortunate choice of words resulting in an unfortunate situation), he misses his goal. What the hell or rather who the hell is he talking about? I can only conclude this is the start of the apocalypse.
I am not willing to discuss the choice of words any further. Go read Charlie Brooker’s and David Mitchell’s columns for that; they said it all.
Sources:
1. David Mitchell's column and
2. Charlie Brooker's column
I am going to be sarcastic about it though.
I woke up, sort of, to my alarm clock. Like on every Sunday evening I set my alarm clock to 7 am. Not with the intention to wake up or something, rather with the intention to pretend I’m going to be a good girl and get up at the first sounds of a blaring alarm. I don’t think my zombie kind of state qualifies as getting up. Beside that, the only thing I do as a reaction to the alarm is turning it off for another blissful 9 minutes to repeat the procedure. Around 8 am thoughts start to form in my head that I really should get up or I’ll be fantastically late at work.
This morning was an exceptional sleepy affair. Unlike many other mornings my mind registered the whole ‘Alarm Clock Affair’. For good measure I’m now going to explain what an ‘Alarm Clock Affair’ is.
An Alarm Clock Affair is the affair of reaching some level of consciousness, due to a blaring alarm clock, and getting into an upward position out of the bed to make my way to the alarm clock and turn it off for 9 more minutes, then I return to the bed. This procedure is repeated till 8 o’clock am. This whole procedure, from 7 am to 8 am, is the ‘Alarm Clock Affair’.
Anyway, registered but not as much as awake. I realized I needed to clean out my cats’ lavatory (or lavalibdem in this case *snigger* ergh...) which meant I needed some extra time before leaving the house for work.
Only now I reached a higher level of being awake. Nothing special, but I was very quickly aware of the dodgy state of mind of this day.
Does that make me an ‘Alarm Clock’ person? I suppose it does, yet I feel it has nothing to do with me. Not only because I’m not British, but also whenever Mr. Clegg uses that phrase I feel strangely alienated from whatever he’s trying to express. I wish he knew what he was talking about; I have the daunting suspicion he doesn’t, like no one seems to know.
I now go laugh/cry/scream in a corner.
If I had said something like ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ at work I would have received my resignation letter.
This whole 'Alarm Clock' Affair made me angrier than I should have become! That's why half of the title is in capitols.
I did however edit this piece a mere 7 times for your enjoyment. Not that I was actually counting.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Hello Charlie
There are quite a few new programs aligned to get broadcast this year. All in all quite exciting, especially since Charlie Brooker is involved. I wanted to say “people I like”, but I quickly realized it really mainly were Charlie Brooker “projects”.
However, it seems the Bubble is not going to return, because David Mitchell choose the 10 O’Clock Live live thing over the Bubble. Maybe a shame, but I was not that big a fan of the Bubble. I felt it would get boring quite quickly with all the (fake) reports. Also, how many more times can you put the same people in a house for a week while they have busy schedules?
Look how ably I steered this blog post away from Charlie Brooker and “new programs”. I’m almost proud of myself, but this lame paragraph shot my pride in the eye and now it’s dying.
For the first time in a long time I’m excited about what’s coming to us on the airwaves of television. Right while I’m at the point of losing the ability to watch TV at all. My ex wants the TV and I get almost anything else. And even though I really want “anything else”, I’m really going to miss the TV in this time and age. Not that I was able to watch 10 O’Clock Live as it is happening live; I don’t receive C4. Another Brooker project is going out on BBC2, which I do receive. So yeah, that sort of sucks. Or I have to buy a new TV which I think I’m going to, because I really don’t want to be without at this point in this spring.
I’m still a bit deflated over my friends not liking Charlie. As usual, in my direct surroundings, no one likes him or knows him which leaves me alone to celebrate and it’s a lonely party this way.
Here’s a piece I wrote earlier, but didn’t post because it doesn’t really reflect my feelings and I felt Charlie didn’t deserved to be shouted at for handing over the Screen Burn Column. I just like the flow of words.
Hello Charlie
For years you observed the (TV) world and described it in bold capital letters, scolding people and breaking down programs, games and news items alike to the core of what things were and had become. Not in it to make friends, but to point and groan. Maybe pointing out all that is wrong and went bad made you wary and despising mankind even more than you did.
Soon people thought of you as profane, rude, crude, angry and maybe even aggressive. You started to feel bad for some people you gave a beating. You became confused by how people saw you. You thought it all went slightly worse with your own contribution, so you decided to stop.
Turns out the worse thing you’ve done so far.
Extra instructions:
Ignore the spelling and grammar mistakes.
Grace Dent took over the Screen Burn Column; Go Read It!
Screen Burn
Loads of Screen Burns of Grace Dent and Charlie Brooker alike. (scroll down for Grace)
And some more randomness:
Could have gone on Twitter (yes yes, I have a Twitter account)
And another one for Twitter?
And...
The last one is actually too big for Twitter. And Charlie-related...like I'm not, WAHahahe..ehumm...
Right. That's said.
However, it seems the Bubble is not going to return, because David Mitchell choose the 10 O’Clock Live live thing over the Bubble. Maybe a shame, but I was not that big a fan of the Bubble. I felt it would get boring quite quickly with all the (fake) reports. Also, how many more times can you put the same people in a house for a week while they have busy schedules?
Look how ably I steered this blog post away from Charlie Brooker and “new programs”. I’m almost proud of myself, but this lame paragraph shot my pride in the eye and now it’s dying.
For the first time in a long time I’m excited about what’s coming to us on the airwaves of television. Right while I’m at the point of losing the ability to watch TV at all. My ex wants the TV and I get almost anything else. And even though I really want “anything else”, I’m really going to miss the TV in this time and age. Not that I was able to watch 10 O’Clock Live as it is happening live; I don’t receive C4. Another Brooker project is going out on BBC2, which I do receive. So yeah, that sort of sucks. Or I have to buy a new TV which I think I’m going to, because I really don’t want to be without at this point in this spring.
I’m still a bit deflated over my friends not liking Charlie. As usual, in my direct surroundings, no one likes him or knows him which leaves me alone to celebrate and it’s a lonely party this way.
Here’s a piece I wrote earlier, but didn’t post because it doesn’t really reflect my feelings and I felt Charlie didn’t deserved to be shouted at for handing over the Screen Burn Column. I just like the flow of words.
Hello Charlie
For years you observed the (TV) world and described it in bold capital letters, scolding people and breaking down programs, games and news items alike to the core of what things were and had become. Not in it to make friends, but to point and groan. Maybe pointing out all that is wrong and went bad made you wary and despising mankind even more than you did.
Soon people thought of you as profane, rude, crude, angry and maybe even aggressive. You started to feel bad for some people you gave a beating. You became confused by how people saw you. You thought it all went slightly worse with your own contribution, so you decided to stop.
Turns out the worse thing you’ve done so far.
Extra instructions:
Ignore the spelling and grammar mistakes.
Grace Dent took over the Screen Burn Column; Go Read It!
Screen Burn
Loads of Screen Burns of Grace Dent and Charlie Brooker alike. (scroll down for Grace)
And some more randomness:
Could have gone on Twitter (yes yes, I have a Twitter account)
I See
So that is how it all works?
And another one for Twitter?
Holla
For a while now, I have been wanting to fly.
And...
He stops Screen Burning and I saw that as the perfect sign to start following him. Bollocks!!! Another regular fixture down the drain. What am I supposed to do on Monday mornings now?
The last one is actually too big for Twitter. And Charlie-related...like I'm not, WAHahahe..ehumm...
Right. That's said.
Friday, January 7, 2011
the Online Society
This has to be said.
I am one of the many people inhabiting this online society. I have met many people online since I've been born on here. Some are good people, some are bad apples. Isn't that just how life works?
I remember hearing and reading several fame inflicted people complaining about the comments sections on YouTube or below paper articles and columns. I suppose the advice not read it still stands for them famous people. However, I have to stand up for the occasional normal person with some intellect and the ones with wit. Even though I believe a lot of those comedians operate on a high level, I do also know I have laughed sometimes even harder at online comments.
It's there. Just like I endure some (self acclaimed) artists to get to the good bits, I do endure the many stupid comments to get to the good ones. Thing is, it's all there and like with everything good in life you have to search for it and it never lasts very long. But it's there and I wouldn't want to miss it.
What does scare me about those online comments is; These all come from people living somewhere in real society. Isn't that frightening?
Just a pet peeve. *off soapbox*
I am one of the many people inhabiting this online society. I have met many people online since I've been born on here. Some are good people, some are bad apples. Isn't that just how life works?
I remember hearing and reading several fame inflicted people complaining about the comments sections on YouTube or below paper articles and columns. I suppose the advice not read it still stands for them famous people. However, I have to stand up for the occasional normal person with some intellect and the ones with wit. Even though I believe a lot of those comedians operate on a high level, I do also know I have laughed sometimes even harder at online comments.
It's there. Just like I endure some (self acclaimed) artists to get to the good bits, I do endure the many stupid comments to get to the good ones. Thing is, it's all there and like with everything good in life you have to search for it and it never lasts very long. But it's there and I wouldn't want to miss it.
What does scare me about those online comments is; These all come from people living somewhere in real society. Isn't that frightening?
Just a pet peeve. *off soapbox*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)