|
gently caress yes, new Adam Curtis coming soon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/04/_in_order_to_see.html
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:02 |
|
|
I tried watching 10 O'Clock Live again last night. Good Lord it's bad. Not just "a bit bad" either, proper poo poo-balls-bad. The only redeeming feature is Brooker. David Mitchell comes across as a scared amateur bumbling his way through bad jokes and horrifically embarrassing interviews. I'm baffled at the love it gets in here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
Mitchell and Brooker are the ur-Goons. Simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Brainwrong posted:I tried watching 10 O'Clock Live again last night. Good Lord it's bad. Not just "a bit bad" either, proper poo poo-balls-bad. The only redeeming feature is Brooker. David Mitchell comes across as a scared amateur bumbling his way through bad jokes and horrifically embarrassing interviews.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
Brainwrong posted:David Mitchell comes across as a scared amateur That's just his normal facial expression! He's been getting steadily better at interviews and "Listen to Mitchell" is usually way better than last night's. I'd say the only really weak link is Jimmy Carr, but maybe we've all just lowered our standards because despite the simple format there's nothing else like it on TV right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
It needs to be the 10 O'Clock show without Jimmy Carr. He's redundant and not very funny. Brooker has the biting analytical satire, Mitchell has the ability to converse with people without it sounding awkward (You Have Been Watching is evidence that brooker can't really do this well) and Lavern is the person who will stop them rambling on during table segments and keep everything well contained like the professional presenter she is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
Kin posted:Mitchell has the ability to converse with people without it sounding awkward If they get another series and are dead set on keeping the same line-up, then let Brooker do the culture rants, have Mitchell do the round table debates and political rants, Carr does the one-on-one interviews and opening monologue and Laverne doing the "proper" presenting and the occasional VT. And for gently caress's sake don't do it live. It's fifteen weeks later and still none of you can get through a single segment without tripping over a word. You are BAD at it stop trying you massive tongued fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
I thought we'd all been pretty harsh on 10oCL tbh. Everyone's been complaining about bits of it since week 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
The only bad thing about 10oCL is Lauren Laverne. She is so god drat unfunny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Brainwrong posted:I tried watching 10 O'Clock Live again last night. Good Lord it's bad. Not just "a bit bad" either, proper poo poo-balls-bad. The only redeeming feature is Brooker. David Mitchell comes across as a scared amateur bumbling his way through bad jokes and horrifically embarrassing interviews.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Anyone checking out this Rock and Chips thing on iPlayer? the cheeky Liar from Inbetweeners is playing a a young sixties Mod and it hilariously fits.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
Graviton v2 posted:Watched it as promised, thought it was good. I dunno where the dislike comes from. Its not perfect but its better than 99% of the cack surely? I think the problem is that they tried to bill it as a brilliant late night satirical look at politics and the news, and while it has its funny moments, its really not that great at actual satire. Also I watch The Colbert Report (  / citizen  ) and can't help comparing the two which is unfair as different types of audience and show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
With a few different hosts and some freedom of expression it COULD be utterly brutal, but in doing so it would clearly pick a side. Channel 4 would then have to endorse it picking a side, and I very much doubt they're ready to do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
And the dropping of the live audience.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
goatface posted:With a few different hosts and some freedom of expression it COULD be utterly brutal, but in doing so it would clearly pick a side. Channel 4 would then have to endorse it picking a side, and I very much doubt they're ready to do that. Channel 4 receive a chunk of license money for public service broadcasting, which means they have to remain politically neutral or receive a butt-loving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Anyone checking out this Rock and Chips thing on iPlayer? the cheeky Liar from Inbetweeners is playing a a young sixties Mod and it hilariously fits. You know it's a Only Fools and Horses prequel right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
Did anyone watch the Graham Norton Show today? It was loving HILARIOUS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Zorba the Greek posted:Did anyone watch the Graham Norton Show today? It was loving HILARIOUS. I've had BBC1 switched off all day because no matter what there was some kind of wedding related thing being barfed at me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
The Graham Norton show is best when it's all Brits who aren't totally worried about their "image". Adele, Jack Whitehall, and Miranda Hart all sort of don't care how they come across and are just there to have a good time. It's when Americans come on or up-tight Brits and they refuse to just chill. It was an awesome episode tonight. Adele drunk seems like she'd be a lot of fun to hang out with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
Kin posted:I've had BBC1 switched off all day because no matter what there was some kind of wedding related thing being barfed at me. Every news item on the BBC online front page is wedding related. All five of them. Nothing else of interest has happened in the last 24 hours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 23:28
|
|
TheVertigoOfBliss posted:You know it's a Only Fools and Horses prequel right? gently caress me. It is good and I'm enjoying it too. I thought I heard the last name Trotter before.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
goatface posted:Every news item on the BBC online front page is wedding related. All five of them. Nothing else of interest has happened in the last 24 hours. I was glad to see libya is all sorted now 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 23:33
|
|
A5H posted:I was glad to see libya is all sorted now I'm having hilarious images of gruff looking African Mercenaries and the Freedom Fighters putting down all their guns and having a cry around on a black and white telly in the middle of a city centre watching some footage loop.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
Flatscan posted:Channel 4 receive a chunk of license money for public service broadcasting, which means they have to remain politically neutral or receive a butt-loving. Channel 4 get none of the licence fee. And all the TV channels are required to stay politically neutral, not just them (and the BBC). edit - http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?St=118,E=0000000000024285445,K=5344,Sxi=0,VARSET_PA=About_Us,PROBLEM=489,CASE=619 Cerv fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Apr 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Channel 4 get none of the licence fee. My bad, they were meant to be getting 14million from the license fee for six years but it got pulled at the last minute due to the EU throwing a fit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Sorry if this has been already posted in this thread, but this is a thing that is happening https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm8vDlj7jaU Its either going to be amazing or utter poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
Flatscan posted:My bad, they were meant to be getting 14million from the license fee for six years but it got pulled at the last minute due to the EU throwing a fit. It seems to get proposed in some form every couple of years before getting buried when everyone realised it's a terrible idea. Although S4C already get a bunch of BBC Wales produced programmes for free, so indirectly are getting some of the licence cash, and from 2013 will start being funded in part directly from the Beeb's budget. So the purity of the licence fee is already tainted with the touch of, eww, other channels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
LE0N posted:Sorry if this has been already posted in this thread, but this is a thing that is happening Oh my God. Yeah I think you've assessed it quite accurately. It is definitely a thing, and worth keeping track of if only for the trainwreck potential.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
LE0N posted:Sorry if this has been already posted in this thread, but this is a thing that is happening
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:gently caress yes, new Adam Curtis coming soon: Yes! This plus the new Comedy Vehicle means there are things to look forward to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
Zorba the Greek posted:The only bad thing about 10oCL is Lauren Laverne. She is so god drat unfunny. I've found she can be quite funny but her timing is terrible. She works a lot better on radio where it's just her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 09:51
|
|
|
LE0N posted:Sorry if this has been already posted in this thread, but this is a thing that is happening Ergh. Channel 4 has commissioned a series similar to The Only Way is Essex called Chelsea Girls: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s143/the-only-way-is-essex/news/a304340/e4-orders-chelsea-girls-series.html I saw a trail for it the other day, looked pretty repulsive but in a way that I won't be able to stop watching.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 09:54
|
|
|
wickles posted:Yes! This plus the new Comedy Vehicle means there are things to look forward to. And Psychoville
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 13:17
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:And Psychoville And The Thick of It, maybe, one day...
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 13:40
|
|
Mickolution posted:And Psychoville I honestly can't wait to see how hosed up things will get in the 2nd series. I will still miss the cast of the first though  .
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
Is this new series of Doctor Who still all about him pratting around Earth with Earth related dramas? Or is this heavy US infusion supposed to be some kind of pathetic attempt to address this by aking it feel "alien" to the typical it's all in Britain thing. Fake edit: Ugh, this is retarded. They've gone and said that there are these alien things that vanish from your memory the moment you see them, but the characters have been leaving tally marks on themselves to remind them of the times they've seen one. The only thing is, they keep on doing it on their loving face. How the hell do they even do that?  real edit: Can't believe i sat through all of that. What utter gash it was. Kin fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Apr 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
Kin posted:Is this new series of Doctor Who still all about him pratting around Earth with Earth related dramas? Or is this heavy US infusion supposed to be some kind of pathetic attempt to address this by aking it feel "alien" to the typical it's all in Britain thing. With a mirror? When they appeared on Amy in the attic she was looking at her reflection in the window before and after. It's the why not the how that bothers me. Neatly on the back of your hand/arm so you can easily count when it's changed? No, in a mess all over your face.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Cerv posted:With a mirror? When they appeared on Amy in the attic she was looking at her reflection in the window before and after. Yeah, so, these are enemies you have to be looking at to see lest you instantly forget them, so you need to be simultaneously looking at them while looking at yourself in a mirror to neatly draw a mark on your face. How is that possible? Why even look away from them in the first place? What i took from that lovely scene was that she was constantly looking at the same one but was a bit touched in the head because she kept looking away to draw a retarded mark on her face (despite that not supposedly being able to work according to how the show depicted the alien powers) then turning back to see it again, then turning away to draw another stupid mark on her face and so on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
Kin, dude, it's obvious you didn't like tonight's episode of Doctor Who, but do you really need to simultaneously poo poo up two separate threads?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:02 |
|
|
He reminds me of those people that complained in the old Dr Who thread about the Christmas episode being unrealistic because fish can't actually fly and the explanation in the episode for how they do doesn't hold up. If you're getting bogged down in details like that, then Doctor Who just isn't for you I'm afraid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 19:52
|
|
