One thing I'll say for Channel 4 and 10 O'Clock Live, at least they don't take over 6 hours to upload their show to the internet. >_>
Seriously BBC, not everyone can be there to watch Question Time live.
10 O'Clock Live - Series 1 Page 17
I enjoyed the atrocious flirty-joking Carr did with the sexy sun-scientist that fell flat on its face.
Maybe it's me but I still can't watch more than half of this programme.
It's getting better. The hosts seem to be getting more comfortable and the chemistry's coming through a little better.
I still can't see the point of Mitchell's panels though. He's a great comic actor, but I don't think interviewing is really his thang.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ February 4 2011, 10:42 AM GMTI still can't see the point of Mitchell's panels though. He's a great comic actor, but I don't think interviewing is really his thang.
He's got a problem in that he still thinks he's writing for himself and because he's so fond of using infantile language that he loses authority and credibility. This programme has the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of 'That Was The Week That Was' and is blowing it.
He could be today's equivalent to David Frost but as clever as David Mitchell thinks he is, tellingly, he's just not that clever.
Quote: Baumski @ February 4 2011, 11:01 AM GMTHe's got a problem in that he still thinks he's writing for himself and because he's so fond of using infantile language that he loses authority and credibility. This programme has the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of 'That Was The Week That Was' and is blowing it.
He could be today's equivalent to David Frost but as clever as David Mitchell thinks he is, tellingly, he's just not that clever.
I think The Interview is a completely different beast to what it was back in sixties. Those being interviewed are far more practiced and skilled at deflecting questions. Hell, there's a whole industry built around schooling them to do just that. I can't think of a single interviewer around now who can get through the heavily-rehearsed answers, and I doubt David Frost in his heyday could.
I agree that the interviews are the weakest parts of the show, but they do break up the action and give the viewer a breather from a relentless stream of monologues.
The one-on-ones work for me. Jimmy's interview with the scientist was just as good as anything Jon Stewart does.
Just seems a bit pointless getting three guys on a panel for five minutes. You can't discuss anything in enough depth to do the topic justice, and there's not enough opportunity to ad lib any comedy.
The programme in general lacks something, but it's getting there. I'm not sure about the layout of the show, needs to vary. Might improve if there were a 'Bird and Fortune' type interview.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ February 4 2011, 11:13 AM GMTThe one-on-ones work for me. Jimmy's interview with the scientist was just as good as anything Jon Stewart does.
Because that was Learning Interview. Plus she was quite hot.
The problem with the Mitchell ones, especially with the ones in the first two episodes, is that they're with politicians/public figures and set-up to be Combatative Interviews with Mitchell scoring points off "the enemy". And failing.
I would agree with that analysis.
Quote: chipolata @ February 4 2011, 11:08 AM GMTI think The Interview is a completely different beast to what it was back in sixties. Those being interviewed are far more practiced and skilled at deflecting questions.
And David Mitchell should be equally prepared in how he deals with the answers which, sadly, he's not.
Quote: chipolata @ February 4 2011, 11:08 AM GMTHell, there's a whole industry built around schooling them to do just that. I can't think of a single interviewer around now who can get through the heavily-rehearsed answers, and I doubt David Frost in his heyday could.
If anything it was harder because the content relied on good journalism and that was what made TW3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDTdxa2y7c8
Quote: Griff @ February 4 2011, 11:05 AM GMTBaumski have you read any of David Mitchell's Observer pieces? The best ones are truly excellent and show that he does actually appear to be quite clever.
As I mentioned earlier, I think some people are confusing not being a good interviewer with not being clever; you can have all the smarts in the world and be ropey when it comes to chairing a good live interview.
Quote: Michael in London @ February 3 2011, 11:06 PM GMTI read the credits this week.
If John Finnemore falls in a forest, does David Mitchell make a sound?
Yeah, I noticed that too. Solves the earlier conundrum of no writers appearing in the production credits of the guide here.
So, do 'programme associates' not count as writers now?
Quote: chipolata @ February 4 2011, 11:17 AM GMT
The problem with the Mitchell ones, especially with the ones in the first two episodes, is that they're with politicians/public figures and set-up to be Combatative Interviews with Mitchell scoring points off "the enemy". And failing.
I don't know. I thought he got in a few good shots round the gloves this week - but he did seem to be snapping up the more obvious and gaglicious offerings when they presented themselves rather than taking them head on.
I wonder if it would contribute to the humour value if he tackled them directly on more substantive issues? I think I'd like to see it.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ February 4 2011, 10:42 AM GMTIt's getting better. The hosts seem to be getting more comfortable and the chemistry's coming through a little better.
This.
Quote: Tim Walker @ February 3 2011, 11:01 PM GMTSorry, but the hosts still come across as knowing no more than the average 15 year old about any of the stories they are (weakly) attempting to satirise.
Still this.
I haven't heard a single mention of this show outside this website. Not sure what that says about the people I knock about with.