10 O'Clock Live

[Gerontophile]

10 O'Clock Live

Harry Truscott wrote:

evilC wrote:

Oh no - I actually like Jimmy Carr. Possibly because he is even more cynical and un-PC than me. I just wish he'd learn when to step out of character, which it seems he's almost afraid to do. I simply think this format isn't best suited for him. He's a stand-up and presenter of end-of-year reviews and 'best of' run-downs.

What does "un-PC" actually mean?

Post-ironic, and fucking honest, with a ready made suitcase, just in case someone gets the hump.

(I think you will find that many 'comics' feel this way, and some of them have a bigger 'out' than Mr Carr...)

[Gerontophile]

10 O'Clock Live

Being un-PC is the same as being PC. Its all about being 'not a twat'. Believe what you will, just dont be a cunt about it.

[Wyatt Earp]

10 O'Clock Live

Sean of the Shed wrote:

One Gendarme?

[Wyatt Earp]

10 O'Clock Live

Sorry, meant to applaud there.

[wingco]

10 O'Clock Live

I missed the first and belatedly caught the second so I'm not in a position to make comparisons, but I wasn;t massively impressed. My suspicions that the four presenters have the awkwardness of a "supergroup" when shoved together were borne out. This added to the overall selfconsciousness which I think is impeding the programme.

Lauren Laverne wasn't that bad, though I didn't start with very high expectations. Her to-camera piece on Serco was the most politically pertinent segment of the entire programme, though it suffered a little in the delivery, with the heavy-handed sarcasm landing with a clunk.

Jamie Carr's presence I found simply annoying, inasmuch as he only seemed to be there to ride shotgun, out of nervousness that Brooker and Mitchell might be a bit left field. His one-liners were nothing like as funny or shocking as the TV audience, who appeared to be under the influence of some sort of gas, would have you believe.

Charlie Brooker had some of the best lines but wasn't quite up to his usual scratch and felt a bit under-used.

David Mitchell I found most disappointing, as I'm generally a big admirer of his work. But he doesn't seem to be a very natural or experienced interviewer, and it feels like he's trying too hard. It jarred with me in the Campbell interview, oddly, when he used the phrase "pissed off" - it felt, dare I say it, like gratuitous swearing and un-Mitchell-like in the context, and compensating for the fact that his wits had temporarily and uncharacteristically deserted him. And Campbell dealt with him rather too easily. His rant re Tottenham and Spurs and the Olympic stadium, meanwhile, failed to take into account the Orient factor.

I dunno, I found it hard to relax into - it still felt ill at ease with itself and its too-bitty format. Comparisons with Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are not flattering.

[David Agnew]

10 O'Clock Live

I think Lauren Laverne's "problem" is that she's very witty, and usually on TV she's been able to get that across because her co-stars have been on the same level (or lower, if you remember the BBC3 thing she did with Johnny Vaughan), or they've all been co-guests, so there's less pressure.

On this show, she's equally billed (and therefore appears to be expected to hang with) three co-stars, who are all experienced comedy writers, and I think therefore people are expecting her to be as funny, which is a bit harsh.

[Andy C]

10 O'Clock Live

As I see it, Mitchell is the one who is having to force himself furthest from his comfort zone, with the rather heavyweight interviews and invided discussions, and at the moment he's letting it show that he's in unfamiliar territory. The others have roles in which they're pretty much able to perform in their usual modes.

[ian.64]

10 O'Clock Live

As I see it, Mitchell is the one who is having to force himself furthest from his comfort zone, with the rather heavyweight interviews and invided discussions, and at the moment he's letting it show that he's in unfamiliar territory. The others have roles in which they're pretty much able to perform in their usual modes.

That's a fair point.

Last night's edition - in comparison with the first two shows - was terrific. There seemed a much more smoother feel to the proceedings and there's a sense that the performers are growing into their roles and are much more confident. Even Mitchell's discussion with Caroline Lucas, MEP for the Green Party was lively and enjoyable (possibly because she wasn't as joyless, jaded lizard like last week's guest), and Charlie Brooker - whose quiff is beginning to look like a maverick piece of beef - looked as if he was having a ball. Now, only if Jimmy Carr could stop butting in for laughs with his science/environment chat guests, it'd be even better.

And...er...Laurene Laverne...well...(cough)...she, erm...(fidget)..she was...er...quite good, actually.

[ad hoc]

10 O'Clock Live

Based on the podcast version of the first two shows, Mitchell was really struggling with the Paxman role. Glad to hear that this week's was better

[Ray de Galles]

10 O'Clock Live

Laverne was much better, wasn't she? Fantastic new hairdo and make-up too.

Carr's diversions with scientists are peculiar. Laverne would be much better handling them and letting Carr do some of the more obvious comedy bits.

The "round table" on forests/privatisations was awful though, the worst one yet. Absolutely nothing of value said by any of the contributors.

[Wyatt Earp]

10 O'Clock Live

Yeah, I must row back from my anti-Lavernism based on the first show, on which she was RABBISH. This week she was fine, and her thing on libraries was excellent.

[Gerontophile]

10 O'Clock Live

Nomnally, I dont do 'Twats'.

But its done. See it for what it is.

[Gerontophile]

10 O'Clock Live

and, tubes. all blessed, all of you (and one of you should sort yourself out, although busy)

The 'show' is exactly what it is: funny, and some fun.

Love it or hate it, its all that we have.

[wingco]

10 O'Clock Live

Jesus. There's plenty that's not quite working about 10 O' Clock Live but its problems aren't that it forces us to go a whole hour without a sugarlump of celebrity, or its lack of skinny trousered landfill indie interludes or that it harps on about things like libraries which are now obsolete in the age of Twitter, etc, anyway. http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2011/feb/04/10-o-clock-live

[Bored Of Education]

10 O'Clock Live

I saw the one last night for the first time and thought it was patchy but, as wingco says, better than a whole load of stuff. Like The Tonight Show, I am probably going to miss a lot of them but will quite happily watch any ones that I see.

I was interested that one of the 20 year old students I know seemed to think that it was the best thing ever when it started so I wonder whether we just have seen better versions of this over the years.

As far as Laverne is concerned, she is so obviously lighter then the rest of them but she will find her own role soon enough. Funnily enough, I was wondering if any "The News Quiz" regulars would have worked better than any of the four presenters and I thought that Sue Perkins would.

Even though she seems happy enough to work with Giles Coren, she is politically astute on TNQ especially when it moves away from the game show format into general political discussion. You just couldn't have a Jeremy Hardy, Mark Steel or Mark Thomas on there. It has to be a specific type of politically aware comedian and I think they have probably got it broadly right.

I was really irritated by Brooker in his monologue last night and couldn't put my finger on why. Then I realised it was his awful haircut which he then referenced so that was OK

[Guest]

10 O'Clock Live

Pisspoor weak and totally unfunny crap - it's hardly Swiftian in the savage satire stakes is it? For genuine satire there has to be anger and moral outrage behind it. Not some smug people going 'through the motions'.