10 O'Clock Live - Series 2 Page 6

Quote: Aaron @ February 23 2012, 10:07 PM GMT

Oh God, they weren't. They were absolutely abysmal. Mitchell admitted almost as much himself. There's many things he does well, but cross-examining political figures definitely ain't one of them. They walked over him like a slightly uneven pavement.

View original

I rather liked hearing an interview with a politician where they were allowed to finish a sentence. Not everything needs to be a cross-examination, and now that the Paxman/Humphreys style of interviewing (treating everyone like they've been caught beating up old ladies) has become standard (even when it's completely unnecessary and inappropriate) it's hard to get an idea of what a politician has to say because he's just defending himself. He asked interesting questions that allowed the person to respond without being defensive.

Quote: Harridan @ February 23 2012, 10:27 PM GMT

I rather liked hearing an interview with a politician where they were allowed to finish a sentence.

View original

Oh no, undoubtedly. But he was then amazingly poor at following up on what they had said. It just gave the interviewee a platform to speak pretty much unchallenged. I've no problem with that per se, but it has more of a place in the Chamber, on the Daily Politics, or Newsnight, not a supposed satire programme!

I like the cosy round table chats. They're like the "talky bits" from Steve Wright in the Afternoon. But with less bite.

Started strongly this week, some really good gags and Jimmy's cop sponsorship skit was well done and Brooker brought his rant pants to Putin. Even the first round table discussion was amusing.

Unfortunately, it then just tailed off, Lauren's bit about the police horse and then the gay marriage non-story discussion shoved great big massive nails into the comedy balloon of satire.

So close and yet so far.

I'm really enjoying this series. It seems to be getting more confident by the episode. Having said that, I wouldn't lose sleep if I missed it.

I don't usually bother watching Lauren's piece, but gave her a chance this week and now regret it. A laboured pun based on the word 'hack', this long after the event, really? Horrible. And it's quite beyond me why she chose to end her piece on a non-gag, with the inevitable stony silence from the audience.

The rest of them are good though, and I'm liking the extended chats around the table.

(error edited for zooo, apologies)

Oi, her name is not Laura. Only very special people get that name.

Watched it today (so excited by new episodes that I'll wait 2 days) and the overwhelming feeling I get when Lauren talks is "Ok, enough fun now, let's get back to work." I always skip through her solo bit, but when they're all chatting she's been given the job of making sure the show moves forward rather than allowing the comedians to joke with each other. I know it has to be done, but the fact that she's the least humourous and the director's mouthpiece just makes me wish she wasn't there. I think the show would be much improved without her, (it would allow the others more time for their bits) but they can't exactly get rid of her without leaving a bitter taste.

Agree with all that!

Quote: Harridan @ March 9 2012, 2:19 PM GMT

...but when they're all chatting she's been given the job of making sure the show moves forward rather than allowing the comedians to joke with each other. I know it has to be done, but the fact that she's the least humourous and the director's mouthpiece just makes me wish she wasn't there. I think the show would be much improved without her, .../

View original

I hadn't thought about it before, but maybe she functions as the straight (wo)man, and actually brings an important quality to the proceedings?

Quote: Nogget @ March 9 2012, 2:23 PM GMT

I hadn't thought about it before, but maybe she functions as the straight (wo)man, and actually brings an important quality to the proceedings?

View original

I don't think this sort of show needs a straight (wo)man except because it's live I guess they need to run on time, but can't David Mitchell be trusted with time-keeping? He seems like an organised person.

I reckon she's done rather a good job with the around-the-table sections, she leaves enough space for banter to occur but quickly moves it on if it's getting to the fellas talking over each other or if it fades. Tricky enough in any given situation let alone live telly.
Agree her sections don't work as well as the rest but maybe that's because an audience needs to trust someone as a comedian/personality to be able to laugh in that context- not her fault but perhaps the show can find a better way to use her given she seems an intelligent and amusing person.

Hmm, can't help but feel I've been slightly quoted out of context (and incorrectly at the start) in the newsletter

Yes, I think you have AJGO. I didn't realise our messageboard comments were being emailed out to everyone...yeesh!

So much better this week, real comedy and real satire. Lauren's bit fell a bit flat as usual but the women in the boardroom debate brought the show back to life.

I'm now going to consider the irony of the female quota argument in relation to Lauren being on the show.

That's how good the show was this week, both intentionally and unintentionally.