Quote: Mark @ March 27 2010, 7:13 PM GMT

3. More footage from the house, because seeing the comedians interact with each other is interesting.

View original

The one thing this show certainly doesn't need is 'more footage from the house'. The 'locked up celebs/bubble' concept was devised purely to win the show its commission - by pulling the wool over the eyes of the increasingly stupid decision makers at the BBC. It's a classic sleight of hand: at first glance, the 'bubble' idea seems quite original but, in actual fact, it only exists to help mask an extremely tired quiz show format. It's all legal and above board of course, but the problem is, as time goes by, the audience recognise the deception - i.e., the show isn't new at all - and switch off.

But hats off to, er, Hat Trick for getting this made - and making a small fortune in the process. A big thumbs down to all the easily pleased that continue to watch.

Quote: don rushmore @ March 27 2010, 11:14 PM GMT

The one thing this show certainly doesn't need is 'more footage from the house'. The 'locked up celebs/bubble' concept was devised purely to win the show its commission - by pulling the wool over the eyes of the increasingly stupid decision makers at the BBC. It's a classic sleight of hand: at first glance, the 'bubble' idea seems quite original but, in actual fact, it only exists to help mask an extremely tired quiz show format. It's all legal and above board of course, but the problem is, as time goes by, the audience recognise the deception - i.e., the show isn't new at all - and switch off.

View original

So you're saying if they did have more footage, they wouldn't switch off.
So therefore it is what the show needs? Kind of goes against your opening sentence.

To be fair, few comedy panel shows hit the ground running with a flawless format and great audience approval. I remember the first series of HIGNFY going out and it wasn't at first such an obviously brilliant idea, with many episodes rather stilted and formal and some ideas for rounds not working at all. As I alluded to above, the format definitely needs some polishing and I'm sure this will happen. I'd give it a 2nd series before judging whether or not this show will engage a loyal audience in the long run.

(And I doubt Hat Trick have made that much money from this first series, especially after having to pay to acquire the format rights.)

Quote: zooo @ March 28 2010, 12:05 AM GMT

So you're saying if they did have more footage, they wouldn't switch off.

View original

No, I'm not saying that at all.

Quote: Tim Walker @ March 28 2010, 12:23 AM GMT

I'd give it a 2nd series before judging whether or not this show will engage a loyal audience in the long run.

View original

I disagree. Mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded; it sends out all the wrong signals.

The critics slated it, viewing figures weren't great; in fact, the whole thing was instantly forgettable and yet you think they deserve another series?

What happens if series 2 is a slight improvement on series 1, do they get a series 3?

The BBC should employ a zero tolerance policy: one strike and you're out. Hat Trick have had their chance with this. They took a format that had already been successful in Europe, changed it about a bit, and in the process - completely f**ked it up.

Quote: don rushmore @ March 27 2010, 11:14 PM GMT

The one thing this show certainly doesn't need is 'more footage from the house'. The 'locked up celebs/bubble' concept was devised purely to win the show its commission - by pulling the wool over the eyes of the increasingly stupid decision makers at the BBC. It's a classic sleight of hand: at first glance, the 'bubble' idea seems quite original but, in actual fact, it only exists to help mask an extremely tired quiz show format. It's all legal and above board of course, but the problem is, as time goes by, the audience recognise the deception - i.e., the show isn't new at all - and switch off.

View original

Or, in the world of correct, the bubble concept was devised in order to keep the contestants out of the reach of the news, when the format was originally broadcast in Israel.

If you want to go down the route of them pandering to the Beeb in desperation of getting a commission, then the only valid point would be in their using celebrities rather than members of the public.

Quote: don rushmore @ March 28 2010, 1:56 AM GMT

They took a format that had already been successful in Europe, changed it about a bit, and in the process - completely f**ked it up.

View original

Given that we don't see what goes on in the house, what have they changed that's f**ked it up? There seems to be little else one can deduce from your arguments other than the opposite of what you've already said: that they should in fact broadcast more from inside the house.

And I'm not entirely convinced by the format, but it was good enough to warrant a second run.

Oh, and Mark's wrong about the chandelier BTW.

Quote: Aaron @ March 28 2010, 2:11 AM GMT

Or, in the world of correct, the bubble concept was devised in order to keep the contestants out of the reach of the news, when the format was originally broadcast in Israel.

View original

In the world of the even more correct: the bubble idea was devised as a contrived way of masking the fact that, all this show really is, is a run of the mill current affairs news quiz. Without the 'bubble' element, the show doesn't get a commission.

If you want to go down the route of them pandering to the Beeb in desperation of getting a commission, then the only valid point would be in their using celebrities rather than members of the public.

I mentioned 'sleight of hand' and 'pulling the wool over the eyes of the BBC', at no point have I mentioned 'pandering'. So I don't know why you've brought that into the debate.

And I'm not entirely convinced by the format...

Neither am I; which has kind of been my point all along. And now you're half agreeing with me.

Pandering, wool, sleight, whatever. Different terms for the same principle.

And I'd say maybe a third, not a half.

Quote: Aaron @ March 28 2010, 2:11 AM GMT

Oh, and Mark's wrong about the chandelier BTW.

View original

It's always the little things that end up bugging me the most. I'm definitely not wrong about the shadow though. Just look at it - casting a massive ugly shadow!

Quote: Tim Walker @ March 28 2010, 12:23 AM GMT

I'd give it a 2nd series before judging whether or not this show will engage a loyal audience in the long run.

View original

Quote: don rushmore @ March 28 2010, 1:56 AM GMT

I disagree. Mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded; it sends out all the wrong signals.

View original

It definitely should be given a second series in my view. The Bubble had flaws, but it showed a lot of promise and would no doubt learn from its mistakes to come back bigger and better in series 2 (for starters, hopefully someone from Hat Trick is reading this thread and making notes about removing the bloody chandelier, ha ha).

I think almost every show deserves a second series (yes, even Big Top) as it can take a few series for something to find its feet and become a hit. By your logic Blackadder and Only Fools and Horses would never have made it past the first series.

The Bubble had flaws

Flaws that should have been corrected during pilot and broadcast.

By your logic Blackadder and Only Fools and Horses would never have made it past the first series.

At no point did I say the logic should also be applied to sitcoms.

The format of comedy panel shows is usually only a spurious device to let funny people be funny for a while but for some reason the high concept of The Bubble means it's a distraction. It's entertaining enough but there's something not working and I remain convinced they are choosing too many obscure stories and not enough big ones. The fact is they can derive humour from either.

Quote: Mark @ March 29 2010, 12:07 AM GMT

I'm definitely not wrong about the shadow though. Just look at it - casting a massive ugly shadow!

View original

I assumed it was a deliberate part of the set design.

Quote: Mark @ March 29 2010, 12:07 AM GMT

...hopefully someone from Hat Trick is reading this thread and making notes about removing the bloody chandelier, ha ha).

View original

That episode of Only Fools and Horses - the one in which the chandelier comes crashing to the ground, I'll bet you cheered watching that, possibly shouting: 'die, you b*****d, die!' as it fell.

I've quite enjoyed The Bubble, although I think I'm being a little more tolerant of it because I like David Mitchell. There's 'something' not quite right - the chandelier, apparently - but it did improve after the first, slightly awkward episode.

I think the chandelier made a greater impression than Shappi Khorsandi.

Incidentally, you know the BBC barred its journalists from taking part in the programme, for fear of being accused of faking the news? Matthew Amrilliwola is in Ashes to Ashes on Friday - playing himself, as a newsreader...

I've enjoyed The Bubble so far, but like all panel shows it greatly depends upon the quality of guests it can attract.

There seems to have been at least one guest each week who I haven't really warmed to.

Last week's episode with Robert Webb was undoubtedly the best to date.

I think it's worth a 2nd series, and as others have pointed out, with a few tweaks it has the potential to be a very good show.

I went to the one with Sarah Millican, Clive Anderson and Andy Hammilton! I thought it was absolutely hilarious, and really hope they do another series!!

Thought this was pretty good. Not always laugh out loud funny but still ratable. Bring on another series.