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)
Friday, February 25, 2011
"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.
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’.
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’.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
'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.
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?
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?
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
"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.
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.
Monday, February 21, 2011
"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
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
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
Saturday, February 19, 2011
"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.
Source: Quote hpmons on CaB
OMG!!! Are the producers trying out my suggestions!?!?!?
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!?!?!?
Monday, February 14, 2011
"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.
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.
Friday, February 11, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" - Filling the Gaps
I'm slowly filling in answers. Someone said this on CaB:
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.
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.
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'.
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?
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?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
"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
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:
Yes, you can put it like that as well.
This is unnecessary harsh:
Lessons in Live Shows For Channel 4
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
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
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
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?
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.
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*snort*
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" - More Ideas
But first...
This must be the best review so far:
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?
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?
Monday, February 7, 2011
"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?
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?
"10 O'Clock Live" - Proper Review
Over the weekend, actually Friday, I watched the 3rd episode of ’10 O’Clock Live’. For the first two episodes I didn’t write a proper review, because the Twitter feed gave me enough information on how things were going. Beside that, there were already good reviews available by people who are more skilled in writing and program reviewing than me. The reasons I choose to write a review for this episode is that my Twitter response review didn’t really say much about the show and was inaccurate on several accounts. I feel I should address what actually happened rather than what Twitter said that happened, or neglected to say what happened.
I’m not going to review it chronological, because I can’t remember the order everything happened in and it would just be boring if I discussed every single item/piece separately. For my comfort and other purposes I’m going to review it per presenter. This will also help in giving valid arguments for the ranking of the presenters. But to keep my reviewing traditionally confusing I will start with what happened next and with who has his first piece.
The show starts with the four of them planted on and around a desk stating their names and one of them reminding you what show you stumble upon. This has been like this since episode 2 and makes me miss the start of episode 1. In episode 1 the camera was first aimed at David Mitchell sitting on a desk stating his name then moving to Charlie Brooker just walking away from his spot and stating his name to Jimmy Carr just walking away from his desk stating his name and finally ending its round on Lauren Laverne standing somewhere stating her name. When the camera zooms out the gentlemen will have arrived in a line next to Laverne and someone announced which show you were watching. Cue theme music. I loved the coordination it required, but maybe that’s just my weird mind.
Like every week they started around the table telling us what we could expect of the show this week. Lauren Laverne typically leads this conversation touching on every subject each of the presenters will present with the 3 gentlemen chipping in on their contribution with a funny line. Laverne is last to say what she’s going to contribute.
The first item always is the News round of that week presented in stand-up form by Jimmy Carr. One liners and predictable (edgy) jokes as can be expected from Carr. Usually I’m not a big fan of Carr’s work; I don’t find it very smart or funny. To me it always feels like easy shots at easy targets. His News round in episode 3 is a good example of what he does. I must admit I did laugh at his round in episode 2.
Next to the News round Jimmy usually does 1 sketch and 1 interview. Much has been said about sketches and interviews, usually aimed at Laverne (sketch wise) and Mitchell (interview wise).
Compared to Laverne Carr is obviously a comedian which you can tell when you compare his execution to Laverne’s execution of sketches. Even though he does better than Laverne, I usually don’t like his sketches much. I’m not sure it has anything to do with the lame jokes he gets to make or with his delivery; probably with both I think.
His interview techniques are less obviously bad compared to Mitchell’s, mainly because he doesn’t get to do the big interviews. It’s still not very pleasing though. What seem to be lacking is him listening and the interview going into depth. What it overbears are, once again, lame jokes. I find his jokes more bearable than in his News round, so that’s not exactly why I don’t care for his interviews. Maybe it has something to do with the interview not touching on really interesting stuff. Thinking back at his 3rd episode interview…To be honest, I don’t even remember that interview anymore; can’t have been very exciting.
Charlie Brooker was up next in episode 3. Next to his monologues he doesn’t seem to be contributing to the show much more, though in episode 3 he did a sketch like thing with Laverne which was actually excellent. In that sketch he showed what he is capable of, that he is more a performer than he always says he is. Even after watching it countless times it’s as convincing as the first time and an absolute joy to watch.
His monologues, no matter how small, are usually the funniest thing about the show. Unfortunately, it does remind us a lot of Newswipe and makes us wish he would make a new series of that rather than the small titbits he does for ’10 O’Clock Live’. Unlike in episode 1 he does all his stuff live though it did reduce his contribution somewhat. In episode 1 he had a pre-recorded piece about Sarah Palin next to a live monologue about Tunesia. The only negative about Brooker is his lack of contribution at the table when they’re sitting down together.
This morning I took part in a survey about the show. One of the questions was who I thought was the most important contributor. I answered David Mitchell, because he does the big interviews. That doesn’t mean I like those contributions. Watching him getting grilled rather than his interviewees is cringy. It could be a great part of the show if only they would figure out the balance between seriousness and comedy. It can be done, only Mitchell hasn’t found out how. Neither does he show real leadership which you have to as an interviewer. Interviewees easily run away with the interview leaving Mitchell looking lost and beaten. I’m suspecting he’s a bit too preoccupied with his questions and trying to lead the interview to be sharp and truly witty like he can be.
I’ve said this before and I repeat it here; David Mitchell is not a host/presenter/interviewer. As a panellist he’s the best you can get. He needs the freedom to run free and kick around. As an interviewer you don’t have that freedom and you can only kick around in a confined space.
Lauren Laverne is still a weird choice to me. Even though she might be a great presenter, in this format she has not much to offer. She’s not a comedienne and she’s not an (comedic) actress which goes to show quickly. A good example is the piece around the table about Rebranding Ed Miliband. For good measure some jokes were thrown in, in her explanation what was going on, but all it evoked were blank stares and some polite muffled laughter. Must be said that the 3 gentlemen didn’t really help; I was mainly laughing at their blank stares. It might have had something to do with the subject; any conversation about Ed Miliband seems to end up just as dusty as the subject itself.
Yet her sketches don’t go very well either. It’s simply not funny, badly delivered and just not funny. Her guidance around the table is not much funnier either. Just not funny.
Overall I think the show is slowly finding its feet. Yet the feeling remains the show is missing something. I’ve been complaining about the level of intelligence, but I think they pulled that up, though still not completely satisfied. I think the show could be funnier and I’m missing the satire. And last, the show still skips around ego’s which doesn’t seem to merge very well. The magic is not quite there. Somewhere an advantage is left unchallenged.
Still quite a crap review with all things already said in better ways by many others. Sorry for hogging your time.
In my next blog I’m going to write about some ideas to make things better.
I’m not going to review it chronological, because I can’t remember the order everything happened in and it would just be boring if I discussed every single item/piece separately. For my comfort and other purposes I’m going to review it per presenter. This will also help in giving valid arguments for the ranking of the presenters. But to keep my reviewing traditionally confusing I will start with what happened next and with who has his first piece.
The show starts with the four of them planted on and around a desk stating their names and one of them reminding you what show you stumble upon. This has been like this since episode 2 and makes me miss the start of episode 1. In episode 1 the camera was first aimed at David Mitchell sitting on a desk stating his name then moving to Charlie Brooker just walking away from his spot and stating his name to Jimmy Carr just walking away from his desk stating his name and finally ending its round on Lauren Laverne standing somewhere stating her name. When the camera zooms out the gentlemen will have arrived in a line next to Laverne and someone announced which show you were watching. Cue theme music. I loved the coordination it required, but maybe that’s just my weird mind.
Like every week they started around the table telling us what we could expect of the show this week. Lauren Laverne typically leads this conversation touching on every subject each of the presenters will present with the 3 gentlemen chipping in on their contribution with a funny line. Laverne is last to say what she’s going to contribute.
The first item always is the News round of that week presented in stand-up form by Jimmy Carr. One liners and predictable (edgy) jokes as can be expected from Carr. Usually I’m not a big fan of Carr’s work; I don’t find it very smart or funny. To me it always feels like easy shots at easy targets. His News round in episode 3 is a good example of what he does. I must admit I did laugh at his round in episode 2.
Next to the News round Jimmy usually does 1 sketch and 1 interview. Much has been said about sketches and interviews, usually aimed at Laverne (sketch wise) and Mitchell (interview wise).
Compared to Laverne Carr is obviously a comedian which you can tell when you compare his execution to Laverne’s execution of sketches. Even though he does better than Laverne, I usually don’t like his sketches much. I’m not sure it has anything to do with the lame jokes he gets to make or with his delivery; probably with both I think.
His interview techniques are less obviously bad compared to Mitchell’s, mainly because he doesn’t get to do the big interviews. It’s still not very pleasing though. What seem to be lacking is him listening and the interview going into depth. What it overbears are, once again, lame jokes. I find his jokes more bearable than in his News round, so that’s not exactly why I don’t care for his interviews. Maybe it has something to do with the interview not touching on really interesting stuff. Thinking back at his 3rd episode interview…To be honest, I don’t even remember that interview anymore; can’t have been very exciting.
Charlie Brooker was up next in episode 3. Next to his monologues he doesn’t seem to be contributing to the show much more, though in episode 3 he did a sketch like thing with Laverne which was actually excellent. In that sketch he showed what he is capable of, that he is more a performer than he always says he is. Even after watching it countless times it’s as convincing as the first time and an absolute joy to watch.
His monologues, no matter how small, are usually the funniest thing about the show. Unfortunately, it does remind us a lot of Newswipe and makes us wish he would make a new series of that rather than the small titbits he does for ’10 O’Clock Live’. Unlike in episode 1 he does all his stuff live though it did reduce his contribution somewhat. In episode 1 he had a pre-recorded piece about Sarah Palin next to a live monologue about Tunesia. The only negative about Brooker is his lack of contribution at the table when they’re sitting down together.
This morning I took part in a survey about the show. One of the questions was who I thought was the most important contributor. I answered David Mitchell, because he does the big interviews. That doesn’t mean I like those contributions. Watching him getting grilled rather than his interviewees is cringy. It could be a great part of the show if only they would figure out the balance between seriousness and comedy. It can be done, only Mitchell hasn’t found out how. Neither does he show real leadership which you have to as an interviewer. Interviewees easily run away with the interview leaving Mitchell looking lost and beaten. I’m suspecting he’s a bit too preoccupied with his questions and trying to lead the interview to be sharp and truly witty like he can be.
I’ve said this before and I repeat it here; David Mitchell is not a host/presenter/interviewer. As a panellist he’s the best you can get. He needs the freedom to run free and kick around. As an interviewer you don’t have that freedom and you can only kick around in a confined space.
Lauren Laverne is still a weird choice to me. Even though she might be a great presenter, in this format she has not much to offer. She’s not a comedienne and she’s not an (comedic) actress which goes to show quickly. A good example is the piece around the table about Rebranding Ed Miliband. For good measure some jokes were thrown in, in her explanation what was going on, but all it evoked were blank stares and some polite muffled laughter. Must be said that the 3 gentlemen didn’t really help; I was mainly laughing at their blank stares. It might have had something to do with the subject; any conversation about Ed Miliband seems to end up just as dusty as the subject itself.
Yet her sketches don’t go very well either. It’s simply not funny, badly delivered and just not funny. Her guidance around the table is not much funnier either. Just not funny.
Overall I think the show is slowly finding its feet. Yet the feeling remains the show is missing something. I’ve been complaining about the level of intelligence, but I think they pulled that up, though still not completely satisfied. I think the show could be funnier and I’m missing the satire. And last, the show still skips around ego’s which doesn’t seem to merge very well. The magic is not quite there. Somewhere an advantage is left unchallenged.
Still quite a crap review with all things already said in better ways by many others. Sorry for hogging your time.
In my next blog I’m going to write about some ideas to make things better.
"10 O'Clock Live" - Continues
This must be the subject I most diligently or obsessively research and write about.
Guardian article: Is It Getting Any Better?"
I should really start with making the actual dossier for this show; I think I have enough material to make a fleshed out clipping.
Guardian article: Is It Getting Any Better?"
I should really start with making the actual dossier for this show; I think I have enough material to make a fleshed out clipping.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Is (British) Comedy Dead or Just Lame?
The question in the title is mine. The article posted below is not, but I think we're both asking the same question? Almost.
The British Comedy Awards: Gallery and Review (of sorts)...
I agree mucho with what is said.
Then there's also this: Comedians are taking over the world, but funnily enough, I'm not laughing
Isn't it funny how women are complaining about the state of (British) comedy? It just made me laugh. Sort of...*le sigh*
If only I was funny...
I just realized I could have tweeted the last two posts, but I don't know how to do tiny url's and too lazy to find out. Also, I prefer this corner of the Internet.
The British Comedy Awards: Gallery and Review (of sorts)...
I agree mucho with what is said.
Then there's also this: Comedians are taking over the world, but funnily enough, I'm not laughing
Isn't it funny how women are complaining about the state of (British) comedy? It just made me laugh. Sort of...*le sigh*
If only I was funny...
I just realized I could have tweeted the last two posts, but I don't know how to do tiny url's and too lazy to find out. Also, I prefer this corner of the Internet.
"10 O'Clock Live" - Sourcery
I thought this one was pretty nice: Metro's 3rd week review.
All the different and mixed up opinions are making me dizzy. The public knows just as less what they want from the show as the makers do.
All the different and mixed up opinions are making me dizzy. The public knows just as less what they want from the show as the makers do.
"10 O'Clock Live" - Twitter advice
I didn't want to keep this from you. I don't necessarily agree on all points, but most...Yes.
Actually, I just found it sort of funny and it sums up neatly thoughts that been floating around a lot. Harsh in places, but that is what "we" are thinking.
Actually, I just found it sort of funny and it sums up neatly thoughts that been floating around a lot. Harsh in places, but that is what "we" are thinking.
"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 3
Yesterday evening saw the third episode of ‘10 O’Clock Live’. The novelty has gone off the ‘new’ status of the show and people got impatient and bored enough after 2 episodes to ignore the show all together. Twitter was quiet 15 minutes before the show started. Some stray tweeters were waiting for the show to start, but the floods the show has known for the first two episodes were not there yesterday.
The lack of interest from Twitter made it harder to analyse the perception and reception from the viewers. The ones that were left were going to watch anyway, because they’re Carr/Mitchell/Brooker fans or some stray Laverne fans; nothing credible to go by (as if ever…). Though there were some people there dipping in their toes before moving back to Question Time. (Obviously @bbcqt is Question Time twitter) Overall Twitter gave a very mixed, incoherent and useless commentary.
The show started late like it had the first two weeks. I think this time they were about 8 minutes late. The first reactions were about Lauren Laverne’s hair. I don’t know what was up with her hair, because that never came through on Twitter. However, earlier that day Jimmy Carr tweeted a picture of her with curlers in her hair saying she had “hair from the future”. That might have something to do with it.
As good traditions do, the observations and commentary soon turned around and settled on the old topic of Charlie Brooker’s hair. Apparently, “his quif” was exceptionally high yesterday. Some liked it, but most were scared/unsettled/uncomfortable/confused and therefore left or fell asleep. This observing of his hair went on for about 15 minutes in which presumably Carr’s News round and Brooker’s pre-recorded quip were happening. I have no reference to what was happening since it wasn’t reported on Twitter and the show’s producers haven’t decided on a standard flow of events yet.
About 15 minutes in (10.22 pm) a load of confusion came through. Something happened what sounded like a “fuck up” by Brooker. Or maybe not, maybe it was planned? All I got to see were 40 tweets filled with question marks, exclamation marks, the name “Brooker”, the words “Fuck(ed) up” and in about 20 tweets the word “fake” was added. Let’s guess what happened:
1. Brooker choked on a piece of paper, but fortunately he only ate the words he had already spoken.
2. Brooker tripped over his “quif”, but fell comically which gave away it was an act.
3. The “quif” started to threat to take over the world, Brooker told it to shut up. (It was obviously scripted)
4. Brooker’s “quif” was reaching out for Laverne’s hairdo. A few pats on the head made it settle down, relatively.
After 40 tweets of confusion we returned to the regularly schemed non-specific and non-eventful twittering (here Twitter really lives up to its name). It was time for one of the Mitchell interviews. I’m guessing nothing much changed in his techniques, which isn’t good but people ceased to report on how his interviewees ran away with the interview. I’m concluding it couldn’t have been too bad this time. A complaint was that he was mixing up his facts which he’s done before in the other runs as well. I would be one of those people who can get quite irate over that, but since I’m pretty clueless about what happens in Britain I tend to not catch the little incorrectness’s. Still, freakingly annoying.
And then this was reported, or did I dream it? For the first time some advantage was taken from the aspect of being live. Did I read right that the possibility was given to phone in to discuss science with Carr and presumably with his guest? No idea if this was true, because I didn’t read any comments on callers.
To me it sounded like the quality of the show has not gone up much since episode two. The presenters however seemed more relaxed and some people believed the show was finally finding its feet. Still the subjects still didn’t get enough time to be properly explored and especially in the first half of the show a guy in the audience with a tiger jumper on attracted more attention than the subjects at hand.
Somewhere halfway through even me got bored and was longing for bed. Even though I was only half reading the tweets at that point I was still refreshing to get the latest 20 tweets in. Thirteen minutes before ending even Twitter seemed to have given up and refreshing resulted in the message: “No nearby Tweet results for #10oclocklive”. Oh dear.
I did manage to get Twitter to work properly just in time to register that the best jokes were made in the last minutes. A shame they made us wait so long.
Based on Twitter there’s no way I can make a good ranking for yesterday’s show. However, I have a little clue for the ranking:
1. Charlie Brooker: Still consistent, but mixed reactions. His pre-recorded stuff is usually received well. This format is not for him. Call for new series of Newswipe gets stronger.
2. David Mitchell: can’t actually do a proper interview, but his ‘Listen to Mitchell’/Soapbox piece tends to be a high point for the show.
3. Jimmy Carr: Reasonably consistent though his News round was not as topical as the other two shows according to someone. I think I lifted that from the below first article. He just doesn’t stand out enough.
4. Lauren Laverne: Good presenter, but pointless in this format. She’s not very good at the comedy stuff.
I’m hesitant to put Brooker on top, but considered he’s the only one so far who didn’t make a complete twat of himself in this show yet, leaves him still at the top. Also the fact that I know ‘Live’ is not his thing adds to his points if I was giving out points which I’m not.
I bumped Mitchell up, because his soapbox thing tends to pull the quality up, be it for 5 minutes, but still. Jimmy Carr has not done such thing, though he’s rather good at the table when they come together for… what exactly?
Last and unfortunately least, Lauren Laverne can’t seem to lift her contribution from the ‘token woman’ level. I honestly feel sorry for her, because I’m convinced she’s a good presenter and reasonably smart. This is certainly not the right vehicle for her.
Leaves me to question why these four people have been selected to do this. I can half answer that: For the Alternative Election Night show that was the line-up you want. The concept was partly and obviously lifted from that night. Unfortunately for them, the elections are over and they can’t deal with a normal week’s news. (I am convinced Brooker can, but his newswipe like segments fall somewhat flat somehow)
I do have some complaints of my own: The promo said this was going to be:
1. It’s not fresh; this has been done in many forms at many times more successfully.
2. It’s not that intelligent; half of the time people leave feeling talked down to and it’s not as insightful and high brow to be called intelligent or satire. Might have something to do with the pace and interviews being cut short.
3. If the “young perspective” means whooping and booing I don’t want to be young anymore. It also doesn’t add to the “intelligent” -take, rather to the dumb run-along-take.
4. The “intelligent” thing really gets me annoyed for several reasons:
a. It’s not that intelligent and I’m not completely ignorant.
b. I honestly believe all four of them are more intelligent than loads of the jokes have been. They could have gotten more out of the subjects than they have.
c. Even though I don’t mind swearing, it’s not per se funny. If it doesn’t add anything I’d rather not have them swearing, cause it’s just swearing and dumbs down. Then again, the audience seems to love it. Cheap laughs.
5. The only thing it is is “unashamed”, which is not necessarily a good thing.
It seems my analysis becomes lengthier every week. I think it has everything to do with a deep fear this thing will kill both Brooker’s and Mitchell’s career. I’m not convinced it will, I think if this one fails they could bounce back from it. Especially for Brooker it’s a bit of a painful thing considered his CV so far looked incredibly pretty.
I don’t care enough for Carr or Laverne to be afraid for them. I only feel sorry for them for many reasons. And who could hurt Jimmy Carr’s career more than Jimmy Carr?
…BTW, who is Lauren Laverne?...
Here is a more coherent piece and advice:
Six Ways to Fix 10 O’Clock Live
And here’s a nice titbit about which links from external websites were used for episode 3:
Extra links: episode 3
Gotta love that picture.
The lack of interest from Twitter made it harder to analyse the perception and reception from the viewers. The ones that were left were going to watch anyway, because they’re Carr/Mitchell/Brooker fans or some stray Laverne fans; nothing credible to go by (as if ever…). Though there were some people there dipping in their toes before moving back to Question Time. (Obviously @bbcqt is Question Time twitter) Overall Twitter gave a very mixed, incoherent and useless commentary.
The show started late like it had the first two weeks. I think this time they were about 8 minutes late. The first reactions were about Lauren Laverne’s hair. I don’t know what was up with her hair, because that never came through on Twitter. However, earlier that day Jimmy Carr tweeted a picture of her with curlers in her hair saying she had “hair from the future”. That might have something to do with it.
As good traditions do, the observations and commentary soon turned around and settled on the old topic of Charlie Brooker’s hair. Apparently, “his quif” was exceptionally high yesterday. Some liked it, but most were scared/unsettled/uncomfortable/confused and therefore left or fell asleep. This observing of his hair went on for about 15 minutes in which presumably Carr’s News round and Brooker’s pre-recorded quip were happening. I have no reference to what was happening since it wasn’t reported on Twitter and the show’s producers haven’t decided on a standard flow of events yet.
About 15 minutes in (10.22 pm) a load of confusion came through. Something happened what sounded like a “fuck up” by Brooker. Or maybe not, maybe it was planned? All I got to see were 40 tweets filled with question marks, exclamation marks, the name “Brooker”, the words “Fuck(ed) up” and in about 20 tweets the word “fake” was added. Let’s guess what happened:
1. Brooker choked on a piece of paper, but fortunately he only ate the words he had already spoken.
2. Brooker tripped over his “quif”, but fell comically which gave away it was an act.
3. The “quif” started to threat to take over the world, Brooker told it to shut up. (It was obviously scripted)
4. Brooker’s “quif” was reaching out for Laverne’s hairdo. A few pats on the head made it settle down, relatively.
After 40 tweets of confusion we returned to the regularly schemed non-specific and non-eventful twittering (here Twitter really lives up to its name). It was time for one of the Mitchell interviews. I’m guessing nothing much changed in his techniques, which isn’t good but people ceased to report on how his interviewees ran away with the interview. I’m concluding it couldn’t have been too bad this time. A complaint was that he was mixing up his facts which he’s done before in the other runs as well. I would be one of those people who can get quite irate over that, but since I’m pretty clueless about what happens in Britain I tend to not catch the little incorrectness’s. Still, freakingly annoying.
And then this was reported, or did I dream it? For the first time some advantage was taken from the aspect of being live. Did I read right that the possibility was given to phone in to discuss science with Carr and presumably with his guest? No idea if this was true, because I didn’t read any comments on callers.
To me it sounded like the quality of the show has not gone up much since episode two. The presenters however seemed more relaxed and some people believed the show was finally finding its feet. Still the subjects still didn’t get enough time to be properly explored and especially in the first half of the show a guy in the audience with a tiger jumper on attracted more attention than the subjects at hand.
Somewhere halfway through even me got bored and was longing for bed. Even though I was only half reading the tweets at that point I was still refreshing to get the latest 20 tweets in. Thirteen minutes before ending even Twitter seemed to have given up and refreshing resulted in the message: “No nearby Tweet results for #10oclocklive”. Oh dear.
I did manage to get Twitter to work properly just in time to register that the best jokes were made in the last minutes. A shame they made us wait so long.
Based on Twitter there’s no way I can make a good ranking for yesterday’s show. However, I have a little clue for the ranking:
1. Charlie Brooker: Still consistent, but mixed reactions. His pre-recorded stuff is usually received well. This format is not for him. Call for new series of Newswipe gets stronger.
2. David Mitchell: can’t actually do a proper interview, but his ‘Listen to Mitchell’/Soapbox piece tends to be a high point for the show.
3. Jimmy Carr: Reasonably consistent though his News round was not as topical as the other two shows according to someone. I think I lifted that from the below first article. He just doesn’t stand out enough.
4. Lauren Laverne: Good presenter, but pointless in this format. She’s not very good at the comedy stuff.
I’m hesitant to put Brooker on top, but considered he’s the only one so far who didn’t make a complete twat of himself in this show yet, leaves him still at the top. Also the fact that I know ‘Live’ is not his thing adds to his points if I was giving out points which I’m not.
I bumped Mitchell up, because his soapbox thing tends to pull the quality up, be it for 5 minutes, but still. Jimmy Carr has not done such thing, though he’s rather good at the table when they come together for… what exactly?
Last and unfortunately least, Lauren Laverne can’t seem to lift her contribution from the ‘token woman’ level. I honestly feel sorry for her, because I’m convinced she’s a good presenter and reasonably smart. This is certainly not the right vehicle for her.
Leaves me to question why these four people have been selected to do this. I can half answer that: For the Alternative Election Night show that was the line-up you want. The concept was partly and obviously lifted from that night. Unfortunately for them, the elections are over and they can’t deal with a normal week’s news. (I am convinced Brooker can, but his newswipe like segments fall somewhat flat somehow)
I do have some complaints of my own: The promo said this was going to be:
“a fresh and unashamedly intelligent take on current affairs from a young perspective.”
1. It’s not fresh; this has been done in many forms at many times more successfully.
2. It’s not that intelligent; half of the time people leave feeling talked down to and it’s not as insightful and high brow to be called intelligent or satire. Might have something to do with the pace and interviews being cut short.
3. If the “young perspective” means whooping and booing I don’t want to be young anymore. It also doesn’t add to the “intelligent” -take, rather to the dumb run-along-take.
4. The “intelligent” thing really gets me annoyed for several reasons:
a. It’s not that intelligent and I’m not completely ignorant.
b. I honestly believe all four of them are more intelligent than loads of the jokes have been. They could have gotten more out of the subjects than they have.
c. Even though I don’t mind swearing, it’s not per se funny. If it doesn’t add anything I’d rather not have them swearing, cause it’s just swearing and dumbs down. Then again, the audience seems to love it. Cheap laughs.
5. The only thing it is is “unashamed”, which is not necessarily a good thing.
It seems my analysis becomes lengthier every week. I think it has everything to do with a deep fear this thing will kill both Brooker’s and Mitchell’s career. I’m not convinced it will, I think if this one fails they could bounce back from it. Especially for Brooker it’s a bit of a painful thing considered his CV so far looked incredibly pretty.
I don’t care enough for Carr or Laverne to be afraid for them. I only feel sorry for them for many reasons. And who could hurt Jimmy Carr’s career more than Jimmy Carr?
…BTW, who is Lauren Laverne?...
Here is a more coherent piece and advice:
Six Ways to Fix 10 O’Clock Live
And here’s a nice titbit about which links from external websites were used for episode 3:
Extra links: episode 3
Gotta love that picture.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" Suggestion
It’s Thursday again. Tonight the 3rd episode of ‘10 O’Clock Live’ will go out. This means I’m reading up again on opinions and suggestions about the show. I’m getting to an interesting conclusion.
“Charlie Brooker should be the centre person and the others just contributors.”
I’m not saying that because as of today he is my favourite person on the planet (Blah! Ugh! Puke!) I’m saying it, because I’ve been counting and so far several people online suggested it, or something on the line of. (I didn’t actually count, but I read it enough times to write this piece about it)
Every time it was met by me with a: “Meh, don’t know.”. Every time I had a little think about it and concluded that they actually might be right. And here are the reasons why:
1. If Charlie was the centre person he would script the hell out of the show and with that pull it all together and it’ll be funny. This was not something I came up with; I read it actually on a forum and had to admit it sounded sensible. This wasn’t literally what I read, it’s heavily paraphrased.
2. He has been the most consistent in quality of work and most consistent in funny so far.
3. Charlie can do interviews. He’s done several interviews for Screenwipe and he did bloody well. He also interviewed cast members of the series ‘the Wire’.
And here we land at the reason I see as why Charlie shouldn’t be the centre person: “He lacks the political interest and passion.” And I think he would be too nervous. Another negative is, to me he still feels out of place in this show.
I’m still not convinced he should be the ‘Jon Stewart’ of ’10 O’Clock Live’, but I am warming up to the idea. Let’s just see how things will go tonight. Hopefully David took some interview lessons and Lauren some comedy lessons.
Why can’t I seem to get rid of that nervous feeling; I’m not on that bloody live show.
“Charlie Brooker should be the centre person and the others just contributors.”
I’m not saying that because as of today he is my favourite person on the planet (Blah! Ugh! Puke!) I’m saying it, because I’ve been counting and so far several people online suggested it, or something on the line of. (I didn’t actually count, but I read it enough times to write this piece about it)
Every time it was met by me with a: “Meh, don’t know.”. Every time I had a little think about it and concluded that they actually might be right. And here are the reasons why:
1. If Charlie was the centre person he would script the hell out of the show and with that pull it all together and it’ll be funny. This was not something I came up with; I read it actually on a forum and had to admit it sounded sensible. This wasn’t literally what I read, it’s heavily paraphrased.
2. He has been the most consistent in quality of work and most consistent in funny so far.
3. Charlie can do interviews. He’s done several interviews for Screenwipe and he did bloody well. He also interviewed cast members of the series ‘the Wire’.
And here we land at the reason I see as why Charlie shouldn’t be the centre person: “He lacks the political interest and passion.” And I think he would be too nervous. Another negative is, to me he still feels out of place in this show.
I’m still not convinced he should be the ‘Jon Stewart’ of ’10 O’Clock Live’, but I am warming up to the idea. Let’s just see how things will go tonight. Hopefully David took some interview lessons and Lauren some comedy lessons.
Why can’t I seem to get rid of that nervous feeling; I’m not on that bloody live show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)