Tuesday, February 8, 2011

"10 O'Clock Live" - More Ideas

But first...

This must be the best review so far:
So the series so far:

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

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

And then some more thoughts and ideas:

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

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

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

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

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

No comments: