Jump to content

10 O'Clock Live


Kodamarama
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh, and coincidence Channel 4/More 4 majorly ditches the Daily Show the very week this comes on?

They ditched it from the start of the month, apparently it only got 80,000 viewers.

In fact:

Stewart's satirical news programme attracts an average of between 60,000 and 90,000 viewers in the UK.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but:

‘He acknowledged that this would be a disappointment for fans of The Daily Show, but pointed out that Channel 4 was launching its own political satire show, 10 O’Clock Show on January 20.’

http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2011/01/14/12552/hundreds_complain_over_daily_show_axe

Also (genuine question), how many viewers does anything on More 4 get? I've had a quick scout, but can't seem to find stats on this. Plus, I appreciate there has to be a justification for paying for imports, but it's still disheartening that More 4 will inevitably become even more "Property Shows Rpt Channel" as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never even heard of the Daily Show. Although to be fair, I barely watch any TV unless it's on iPlayer. I notice there's still one episode of it up on 4oD, I'll have to check it out...

That Lauren Laverne thing was painfully unfunny, though.

It's like they brought her in just for being an attractive female (that much is obvious enough) then realised they had nothing for her to actually do so stuck her in that godawful sketch and gave her a few links.

Much less than the sum of its parts.

Pretty much this, although I'll still keep watching for the Brooker segments. Mitchell was decent too, but not really worth tuning in for alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it was only the first episode, so they're still working out the format - and they have to be topical, too, so it's not like they can pre-prepare everything. I'm sure the show will get better as it progresses, but for a live first effort, I thought it was pretty good. Bit tooooooo left-wing in its political bias, but there ya go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Channel 4 would stop with this 'live' obsession. Just because something is live, it doesn't make it automatically better than something recorded.

Anyway, not as good as I had hoped. Both Brooker and Mitchell were good, the other two were rather poor. And the audience were infuriating. I'll watch on 4OD in the future and skip the bullshit, methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they want to capture the daily show feel, which they do and should, they need to slow down and promote one of the presenters (Jimmy Carr) to the main slot and have the other 2 have their segments. But, as the first show, it wasn't that bad. Just too much stuff, hopping from one thing to the next in case the ever present audience (get them behind the camera) get bored.

I've just realised, a main presenter with 2 other comedians doing their own segments, with occasional chatty bits, as a topical comedy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyPyzA3li-w

A modern version of this with Mitchell, Brooker and Carr could easily work. But the obsession with being live and trying to ram so much in the show hurts it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like they brought her in just for being an attractive female (that much is obvious enough) then realised they had nothing for her to actually do so stuck her in that godawful sketch and gave her a few links.

Dang, so she failed at both her tasks then? :(

She is terrible in any show she has sullied. Maybe she's fantastic live and free of the TV shackles, but in this (or Mock the Week or Buzzcocks or...) she looked embarrassingly out of her depth.

To pick up on the comments made by Futch and a big boy around the tuition-fees segment, I agree that David Willets (is that his name) was very articulate and got his point across well, but of course irrelevant of that he was only there to be a figure of fun; as a big boy points out, Mitchell only had one agenda, which was to stick his fingers in his ears and ignore any words the bad man said. But of course, that is always how the show is going to be set-up.

I caught part of a Colbert Report episode just after New Year in the States and he was interviewing a soon-to-be retired Senator - and the difference in class was unreal. Colbert masterfully-combined humour, topical questions and gave the guy a platform to respond without feeling that he was there to be the object of some pent-up left-wing rage(which is what Mitchell's "interview" did feel a bit like).

Whatever happened to the days when Channel 4 was genuinely challenging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the obsession with being live and trying to ram so much in the show hurts it.

Indeed. I thought the program as a whole was a bit long (I was getting a bit bored 40 minutes in), but felt a few of the segments - mainly bits with guests - were getting cut off in their prime because of the need to stick ridgidly to the schedule. If it was pre-recorded they could perhaps have extended those where appropriate, and shortened (or dropped entirely) some other parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laverne seems way out of her depth on anything I've seen her on. She's probably ok standing in front of a swaying crowd at 11pm at Glastonbury declaring how 'mental' everything is, but if I was pressed I can't think of one instance where she has ever said anything amusing on her 6 music show and I listened to it every day in the office for about a year. Not the first person who comes to mind to front a live comedy show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen her in anything before (don't watch much TV) but she came across as a bit "Fifth Gear", as in the sort of presenter you see on the lower budget rip-offs of hugely popular shows; the type of program you see on Channel 4 or 5 on a Saturday morning, attempting to ape a BBC prime time production but only having a quarter of the budget and lacking a certain sheen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a ridiculous world state-supporting lefty so you'd think it'd speak buckets of impotent volumes to me but this programme is disgusting and insulting. How dare it purport to cover world events, news and politics when it's a brash soapbox for idiots. My brother told me about this on Christmas eve (he had tickets) and I'd decried it as pointless. It's a shame I was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched this last night... It was too obvious that auto cues were being used and it really annoyed me. Record it, get rid of the audience, trim it to 30 minutes and tell Jimmy Carr that the Tunisia jokes were awful.

It's hardly like the Tunisia bit was the worst thing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen her in anything before (don't watch much TV) but she came across as a bit "Fifth Gear", as in the sort of presenter you see on the lower budget rip-offs of hugely popular shows; the type of program you see on Channel 4 or 5 on a Saturday morning, attempting to ape a BBC prime time production but only having a quarter of the budget and lacking a certain sheen.

Yet for some reason she gets this golden child treatment hither and thither. "She's a woman with feisty yet still generally inoffensive opinions - wowee!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing to see how Lauren Laverne has changed in the last 15 years. She used to be this droll, relaxed woman with a lush north-eastern drawl (she's from Sunderland so I guess not a true Geordie), but over the past decade she's dropped everything about her that appealed and become this slick presenter type that just doesn't inspire.

The show is on until late-April so plenty of time for them to hone the format. I'm guessing it's live so they can be really topical, but personally I'd prefer it if they recorded it earlier that evening then tightened it up a bit. Maybe C4 are hoping for some dangerous television - oh dear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Channel 4 dropping The Daily Show this same week is fucking typical. Main reason: they really don't want it airing to remind people just how much better it is than a poor home grown effort.

A little bit like BBC2 handling of Larry Sanders back in the day. They didn't DARE put it before or after one of their own sitcoms, because that would have been like seating a minger and a supermodel at the same table.

Wonder what wankbag producers are behind this and if they EVEN had anyone else on their list for a frontman other than Carr or Justin Lee Collins?

So does UK broadcasting have no one that approaches Jon Stewart's ability and appeal? Even on the radio?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were only getting 80,000 viewers for the Daily Show then surely that affects what they pay for the rights to show it? I can't imagine it was wildly expensive anyway and even if it was that's surely More 4's remit, to broadcast that kind of programme? What's the point in starting a TV channel with a set purpose then filling it with 2003 repeats of A Place in the Sun or burying Curb on a Sunday at about 11.40?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. It wasn't great. I think it needs to be slower-paced with more structure and time to breathe -- giving a quarter of the show to each main 'bit' would be the easiest way. The live audience was annoying too, for similar reasons to The Daily Show. Still, it could become better.

Mitchell was by far the best thing in it. His parts were both funnier and more insightful than the rest of the show. He could front a Daily Show-style format on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched this last night... It was too obvious that auto cues were being used and it really annoyed me. Record it, get rid of the audience, trim it to 30 minutes and tell Jimmy Carr that the Tunisia jokes were awful.

Er - of course it's using an autocue. This show would be impossible to make without an autocue. Every single show like this uses an autocue. And it's not like Jimmy Carr wrote those jokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just realised, a main presenter with 2 other comedians doing their own segments, with occasional chatty bits, as a topical comedy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyPyzA3li-w

A modern version of this with Mitchell, Brooker and Carr could easily work. But the obsession with being live and trying to ram so much in the show hurts it.

As much as i like the cast of The 10 O'Clock Live The cast of Friday Night Armistice. Armando Iannucci, Peter Baynham and David Schneider,were peerless they were soaked in politics and satire and the show reflected that. What this show needed was a more knowledgeable person on politics. As people have said the Daily Show/Colbert report pulls it off with the mix of pop culture and in-depth political interviewing skills.

This is where going for one or two unknowns could have worked. We'll see what happens with this though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the main reason the show is live is that they want politicians to come on, and apparently they won't if they think there's a chance they will be edited badly. It's pretty understandable.

I don't think that's a great justification. They could just promise not to edit the interviews. I'm pretty sure that's what The Daily Show does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.