I thought Laverne did a good job of pulling them all together. It must have been daunting to be the only female with those 3 big boys, I think a lot of male comedians would have struggled doing that, but she's got the confidence / experience to pull it off.
Quote: AngieBaby @ January 20 2011, 11:10 PM GMTI thought Laverne did a good job of pulling them all together. It must have been daunting to be the only female with those 3 big boys, I think a lot of male comedians would have struggled doing that, but she's got the confidence / experience to pull it off.
I'd lose Laverne and Carr, and make it half an hour of Mitchell and Brooker.
Quote: Griff @ January 20 2011, 11:14 PM GMT
I KNEW you'd do an emoticon at that.
Come on, she wasn't that annoying.
I think it needs a female so who would you have had in her place?
Jimmy Carr gave the sinister Bjorn Lomberg a rather too easy ride, and his Tunisia tourism piece was completely generic, and could have been used for any world troublespot; while the Lauren Laverne piece was a bit naff.
Oh, and Mitchell failed to challenge Willets on the key problem with student numbers =that people are having to pay to get degrees to do jobs that formerly they would have got without degrees.
Other than that though, pretty good, and it will doubtless become more relaxed in future weeks.
Quote: AngieBaby @ January 20 2011, 11:16 PM GMTI think it needs a female so who would you have had in her place?
Josie Long? Apparently she's got political in her latest stand up gigs.
A triple Ken! I am pleased!
Brooker just did excerpts from the episodes of Newswipe he could have otherwise been making.
Mitchell ranted a bit for the sake of it.
Jimmy Carr and Lauren Laverne were also in the vicinity, doing what they normally do.
It was okay, but nothing great. But given the lack of topical satire that is not in the form of a panel game just trying something else becomes great by default.
Mitchell was a big disappointment for me. Although I did find his Hunt rant funny, it was just easy point scoring for the sake of a rant while ignoring the fact he contradicted himself. And Willetts came over better in his interview. Mitchell just stuck to basic questions and never challenged him, and the last of which seemed to go on forever. Then immediately afterwards, Carr's comment about ideology versus cost rendered the whole interview a pointless waste of time.
Overall a bit better than Tonightly or the 10 O'Clock Show, but at least they had the worthwhile claim of giving new talent their TV breaks.
Oh for a British show like Yes We Canberra.
Did everyone notice Ellie clapping at 05:30? If you didn't, you lose 10 ellie points. Unless it wasn't her, and I lose 100.
I thought this was hit and miss. Entertaining, and sometimes insightful and satirical, but some of it felt a little ignorant or ill-informed (Carr's initial bit about Tunisa seemed like it was just jeering at the country's people rather than taking the oportunity to make some point, Laverne making the 'balls not in the cabinet' blunder -admittedly easy to do in a live situation, and Mitchell mixing up the final cost of the banking crisis with the national defecit and national debt).
I enjoyed watching (most) of it, but it's not (for the most part) the biting topical and political satire I was quite expecting).
Charlie Brooker saved it single-handedly.
Quote: Nat Wicks @ January 20 2011, 11:27 PM GMTDid everyone notice Ellie clapping at 05:30? If you didn't, you lose 10 ellie points. Unless it wasn't her, and I lose 100.
I *think* that's the bit when I saw her. 
Quote: Timbo @ January 20 2011, 11:17 PM GMTJimmy Carr gave the sinister Bjorn Lomberg a rather too easy ride,
Is he sinister? I'd never heard of him before, but some of it made sense, to me anyway.
Quote: Michael in London @ January 20 2011, 11:26 PM GMTOverall a bit better than Tonightly
Bloody Hell! Talk about damning with faint praise!!
Quote: AngieBaby @ January 20 2011, 11:29 PM GMTIs he sinister? I'd never heard of him before, but some of it made sense, to me anyway.
Bjorn Lomberg is a manipulative self-publicist who has made a lucrative living out of challenging the scientific concensus. Try:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/general.htm
Particularly revealing are the quotes setting out how he, in common with other climate change sceptics, has been obliged to shift his position over time:
"The greenhouse effect is extremely doubtful"
(article in the Danish newspaper Politiken, 12th January 1998)
"There is no doubt that mankind has influenced the CO2 content of the atmosphere and is well on his way to double it. But it is still not clear whether this will lead to severe temperature rises."
(p. 244 in the Danish book from September 1998, 'Verdens Sande Tilstand')
"There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will influence temperature. Yet, we need to separate hyperbole from realities . . . "
(p. 317 in 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' from September 2001)
"That humanity has caused a substantial rise in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past centuries, thereby contributing to global warming, is beyond debate. What is debatable, however, is whether hysteria and headlong spending . . . is the only possible response. "
(preface to 'Cool It!' from September 2007)
Global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront". . . "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century."
('Smart solutions to Climate Change', to be published about October 2010).
Quote: Nat Wicks @ January 20 2011, 11:27 PM GMTI thought this was hit and miss. Entertaining, and sometimes insightful and satirical, but some of it felt a little ignorant or ill-informed
Agree - but I think it's more likely not that they are ill-informed, but they think we are.
Jokes at the top of the show were good, though. The 'Johnson out, Balls in' gag was a good find at short notice.
I can't find any writers listed on the production details. Are we expected to believe that the performers write it all themselves - and that they are going to week in week out? an hour of material?
A somewhat shaky and nervous start but, hey folks, that's live television for you!... Except it didn't really feel much like live television. Despite having three of the current "big beasts" of British comedy fronting it (and Jimmy Carr), the rigid format of the programme smacked of a show lacking confidence in its own ability. Thus everything was regimented by strict segmenting and too much rigid adherence to the script. The audience seemed a bit too respectful and well-behaved too, as though they too felt constrained by respecting the pressures of live TV.
The "satire" involved was mainly nothing you wouldn't find on a run-of-the-mill panel show, i.e. topical gags which sound as though they have been written by (and for the benefit of) smug 6th form students. They didn't so much skewer the topics they went for, as simply throw paper darts at them (and, more often than not, missed). I was disappointed to see Charlie Brooker front a segment on Sarah Palin, the majority of which could have been written by any mediocre gag-smith in the last two years. Plus a segment on Tunisia which only seemed to demonstrate that the writers (apparently) didn't have any knowledge whatsoever about the political/social situation in Tunisia (nor really cared) - which is a bit of failure if you're trying to give your audience satirical content.
Predictably, the best and funniest bits were where the talent was allowed to do the kind of comedy they had become popular for doing. David Mitchell's "local news" rant (which, let's face it, was whimsical rather than satirical) was a highlight. However, when David came up against a proper politician (David Willetts), on a serious subject, he failed to land any blows whatsoever. It was a genial conversation, but the questions (which may have sounded challenging in rehearsal) were facile and easily batted away. Perhaps David didn't want a confrontational or adversarial debate with the Minister (which would be refreshing), but in the context of a satirical comedy show, it fell flat.
Jimmy Carr was as slick, polished and comfortable with performing live as you'd expect him to be. He's obviously the most comfortable as a presenter and should have his talents focused on anchoring the show. Brooker and Mitchell don't look comfortable when having to engage with the camera in terms of shepherding the broadcast along. Maybe their awkwardness will improve as the series progresses? Maybe not.
The best evidence that a good show could bloom out of this rather messy hotchpotch was the brief segment of round-the-table chat towards the end. Just having the hosts sit around a table and banter a bit should be allowed more of the running time. This is where the memorable material will come from. In general, the performers need to tell the producers to get out of the way a bit and just let them do some funny stuff. Enough with the format.
Anyway, hopefully this will improve as the wrinkles get ironed out throughout the series. It's got a long way to go though if it wants to be a satirical comedy show, as opposed to just another topical comedy show. Topical comedy is just making gags about current events, satire is making jokes about (and scoring points against) the causes of events.
(Oh, and though I've nothing against her, why the appointment of Lauren Laverne? I realise that she's filling the role of "sassy token female" in the show, but was there really no proper female comedian available for hire? Someone, you know, who earns their living telling jokes, for example? Her 'Americanised' segment of world news was dire, both in content and performance.)
Quote: Bomsh @ January 20 2011, 11:42 PM GMTI can't find any writers listed on the production details. Are we expected to believe that the performers write it all themselves - and that they are going to week in week out? an hour of material?
Shaun Pye etc ran by quickly in the credits, presumably under the usual production associate credit or something like that.
I don't understand the problem people have with Lauren Laverne, especially complaints that she isn't a comedian. Why the f**k does it need a comedian to do a presenting job anyway? She's a decent presenter with good live skills and she held the whole thing together pretty well.
Overall it was enjoyable, and after they iron out the creases it will be better. Definitely worth sticking with.
Quote: Badge @ January 21 2011, 12:06 AM GMTI don't understand the problem people have with Lauren Laverne, especially complaints that she isn't a comedian. Why the f**k does it need a comedian to do a presenting job anyway? She's a decent presenter with good live skills and she held the whole thing together pretty well.
It's not a problem with Lauren Laverne per se, merely pointing out that she's a presenter with no real ability as a comedian. If she's there just to be the token female and hold things together (whatever that means), then fine. It's just that it does seem to be missing an opportunity to give a proper female comedian a lead role in a big new comedy venture. I'm sure the three boys involved wouldn't have felt that threatened by someone who can actually write and deliver jokes.
