There was something in that that really didn't quite gel for me and felt a bit ... 'light', I can only describe it as, but there were some good laughs and on the whole I enjoyed it.

I wonder just how dependent on the guests the laughs will be...

To be fair, I probably laughed a few times, but not enough.

The guy hanging from the ceiling, singing, was one point.

Yes, that was good.

Quote: Nil Putters @ September 2 2010, 10:58 PM BST

Didn't spot TW in the credits so hopefully he's not responsible for tonight's offering.

View original

No, didn't write for this one, Nil. However, if you can struggle on manfully as far as Episode 3, then you will be rewarded with the opportunity to slate my meagre additional writing efforts.

Ok. Well, just for you.

And I thought the TNT show on CH4 was bad.

This was awful. Really, really awful. Will watch Tim's episodes with high-hopes

You know what, I think on the surface it appeared awful, but the writing was really good and there were some killer jokes. I think the thing that didn't work for me was the three hosts- all perfectly affable separately, but it was all too shambolic as it was. It felt like a load of kids had broken into the BBC studios and just dicked around. Albeit with good writers

All in all though, I enjoyed it. Though it made me hate James Cordon a little less, so I'm not too pleased about that. That's where I draw most of my smug.

Too many quick shots of the guests looking embarrassed and out of place. Looked like a student review.

The feebleness of the premise was matched by the poverty of execution.

Quote: Nat Wicks @ September 3 2010, 9:01 AM BST

You know what, I think on the surface it appeared awful, but the writing was really good and there were some killer jokes. I think the thing that didn't work for me was the three hosts- all perfectly affable seperately, but it was all too shambolic as it was. It felt like a load of kids had broken into the BBC studios and just dicked around. Albeit with good writers

All in all though, I enjoyed it. Though it made me hate James Cordon a little less, so I'm not too pleased about that. That's where I draw most of my smug.

View original

I agree with Nat here and Aaron earlier on. I can see potential in this and will stick with it.

James Corden was the best thing about it. It was that bad.

Peaches was never really going to work. She's not going to be funny, and it's better to take the piss out of her if it's not to her actual face.

I like all the components, so hopefully it'll work better with different guests. (and the Americanisms weren't really working for me, presumably the nature of the show means that won't be in it again.)

Didnt realise they'd changed the format and two of the actors of The Inbetweeners.

Still glad to see that Simon Bird is still good as Will.

I think the show, whatever one thinks of the opening episode, has noble intentions and is trying to do something a little different. It's a complicated format in which to get the balance right.

History suggests that, quite often in panel shows, the first series is the equivalent learning curve to a single pilot episode in sitcom. Some things will work, some may not. Naturally, I'd suggest this is one to give some time to find its feet, but I think this show (should it continue) has the potential to become more confidently presented/performed, tighter in content and more consistently funny.

Oh, and I must declare my continuing honourable intentions for the lovely (and naturally-funny-boned) Katy Wix.