Around The World In 80 Days - Well it is for charity - TV Programmes

grahamzxy · 14-10-2009, 00:26

Just started watching this on iPlayer, main thing is that it is going to kick start Children in Need 2009 fundraising.

Also we get the 2 worst presenters out of the way on Episode 1, Mack and Skinner are not what you call a cutting edge comedy double act.

Better episodes to look forward to, maybe skip the John Barrowman episode

Roll on episode 2

Ps Keep think of Kate from LFSF whenever Frank opens his mouth

DJPT · 14-10-2009, 05:35

I enjoyed watching last night, I thought Mack and Skinner were pretty good.

Not too sure about those two from The Apprentice next week - but we'll see.

ktboils · 14-10-2009, 07:06

Enjoyed last night. Not looking forward to Shane Ritchie and John Barrowman but hey, I could be wrong. It has been known; but not often.

chattamanuk · 14-10-2009, 07:40

Yep, another thumbs up for last nights episode with Mack and Skinner. Not sure how good next weeks episode will be though.

Marmite Baby · 14-10-2009, 08:30

I really enjoyed the programme too. I'll be interested to know what the OP considers cutting-edge.

angelafisher · 14-10-2009, 09:44

Liked last night's episode. There is a good article in the Radio Times about Nick Hewer and Saira Khan.

LondonKiwi · 14-10-2009, 10:21

It seemed to be a case of "jobs for the boys". Instead of paying to send them all around the world why not just donate the money spent on this series directly to Children in Need?

mb@2day · 14-10-2009, 10:24

I thought it was dull start after a good introduction but I was listening more than watching for most of it.

I'm optimistic it's going to improve now they have left europe behind and it promises to get even better once saira khan has gone too. I hope Palin doesn't feature too much in the series.

jtnorth · 14-10-2009, 10:38

Well, I liked it because I like Frank Skinner and I really like Lee Mack so I wanted to enjoy it. I liked them being cowboys and that rather odd meal with royalty. But I thought it a really strange format for a programme - it didn't know if it was a travel programme or a race. When they ran out of time at the end, I thought, well, yes, that's because you kept stopping to do things you didn't have to do, but it would have been a really boring show if it had just been them on trains and buses getting grumpy.

I felt like I didn't 'get it' as a programme idea, but I enjoyed the incidental bits. If I didn't like the presenters I think it would have been really boring.

currykev · 14-10-2009, 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonKiwi

It seemed to be a case of "jobs for the boys". Instead of paying to send them all around the world why not just donate the money spent on this series directly to Children in Need?

But if the BBC use this principal, they will lose half of their output.

meads · 14-10-2009, 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonKiwi

It seemed to be a case of "jobs for the boys". Instead of paying to send them all around the world why not just donate the money spent on this series directly to Children in Need?

Did the BBC pay for it? Many of these shows the travel companies etc donate the time to charity.

currykev · 14-10-2009, 11:29

Come and join the fun......with my new TV remote control game.
It's called "Dodge the Barrowman"
It's not as easy as you may think.

Devon Miles · 14-10-2009, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonKiwi

It seemed to be a case of "jobs for the boys". Instead of paying to send them all around the world why not just donate the money spent on this series directly to Children in Need?

I don't think footage of some BBC writing out a cheque will make very good TV

Doghouse Riley · 14-10-2009, 12:11

This programme can only appeal to viewers who are somewhat indoctrinated by the BBC's "cult of the celebrity."

I'm not the slightest bit interested in viewing a programme about these people sent on an all expenses paid holiday, with excuse that it's for "Children in Need."

It's "Tat TV" and I bet it isn't even cheap.

Stewing · 14-10-2009, 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonKiwi

It seemed to be a case of "jobs for the boys". Instead of paying to send them all around the world why not just donate the money spent on this series directly to Children in Need?

Mainly because BBC would have n TV to show..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ironical. Blow a mint, in order to make it back + with luck, in donations.

marks thespot · 14-10-2009, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtnorth

...But I thought it a really strange format for a programme - it didn't know if it was a travel programme or a race. When they ran out of time at the end, I thought, well, yes, that's because you kept stopping to do things you didn't have to do, but it would have been a really boring show if it had just been them on trains and buses getting grumpy.

I felt like I didn't 'get it' as a programme idea, but I enjoyed the incidental bits. If I didn't like the presenters I think it would have been really boring.

Yes, the "race" element was a bit pointless - why on earth would you choose to amble along on a horse over other modes of transport if you were under time pressure?

It was kind of "now we're racing - and we're really worried we might let the WHOLE of Children in Need down!" one minute and "lets stop here for a few hours and do something really leisurely" the next.

About as real as a "race" or "competition" on Top Gear "Oh no look waht's happened now..."

And the product (here I mean daft items to auction off for the charity) placement was a bit laboured too. That's enough Eukalele, Frank!

Would have been better as a straight travel programme, with a bit of humour.

Rorschach · 14-10-2009, 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devon Miles

I don't think footage of some BBC writing out a cheque will make very good TV

Damned if they do...

If the BBC put out a two minute advert one evening saying "We have donated £250,000 to Children in Need. Would you do so now please? Thank you" then two things would happen.

1. Very few people would bother purely on teh strength of that announcement.

2. Forums, newspapers and the BBC complaints department would received lots of complaints about how "That's my licenece fee you have given away. You should be using it to make programmes I want to watch 24 hours a day. If I wanted to donate my money to charity I would. It's a disgrace. You should all be sacked. The Licence Fee should be scrapped"

Rorschach · 14-10-2009, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley

This programme can only appeal to viewers who are somewhat indoctrinated by the BBC's "cult of the celebrity."

I love how you seem to be heading down the oft-travelled route of stating that anyone who likes a programme you don't is obviously an idiot, but then temper it slightly by adding the word "somewhat"

Doghouse Riley · 14-10-2009, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rorschach

I love how you seem to be heading down the oft-travelled route of stating that anyone who likes a programme you don't is obviously an idiot, but then temper it slightly by adding the word "somewhat"

Err..
Who said "idiot?"

Do my a favour don't read things into my post that aren't there just to suit your own interpretation. Try looking up the word "somewhat."

But I really don't care if you're an avid viewer of this or other such programmes. It is of no interest to me whatsoever.

Doghouse Riley · 14-10-2009, 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by marks thespot

Yes, the "race" element was a bit pointless - why on earth would you choose to amble along on a horse over other modes of transport if you were under time pressure?

It was kind of "now we're racing - and we're really worried we might let the WHOLE of Children in Need down!" one minute and "lets stop here for a few hours and do something really leisurely" the next.

About as real as a "race" or "competition" on Top Gear "Oh no look waht's happened now..."

And the product (here I mean daft items to auction off for the charity) placement was a bit laboured too. That's enough Eukalele, Frank!

Would have been better as a straight travel programme, with a bit of humour.

Some TV programmes rely heavily on "artificial time deadlines." "Will we get it finished in time?!"

Err.. Do we care?

The inclusion of such deadlines is often a pathetic attempt to ramp up the "drama."
"Time team" always makes my smile. The sight of a very fat Tony Robinson running about can hold my attention for ....nearly two minutes.
I doubt if there were many occasions where "time was of the essence."
If it takes another couple of days, what's the problem?

The latest nonsense is "60 minute makeover."
What a load of rubbish.

Rorschach · 14-10-2009, 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley

Err..Who said "idiot?" Do my [sic] a favour don't read things into my post that aren't there just to suit your own interpretation. Try looking up the word "somewhat."

Of course you didn't use the word "idiot" but you were implying that people who liked the programme only did so because they had had allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the BBC thereby implying a weakness of mind, lack of general awareness or other mental deficiency. Unlike yourself of course who as a superior being sees through all such attempts at manipulation and can therefore be trusted to judge a programme merely on the strengths and weaknesses of its' format.

You chose not only to pass judgement on the show itself, but also to judge the mental capacity of anyone who liked it.

(The word "cult" is rarely used in a non-derogatory manner.)

And thank you, but I am aware of the meaning of the word "somewhat". The fact that it watered down what many would read as an insult was the basis of my post.

And, whilst you really don't care, I haven't even watched the programme.

cassieconvinced · 14-10-2009, 14:44

I liked it, and was rather impressed by the Crown-Princess of Serbia having gone to the trouble of looking up Frank Skinner to have the conversation opener of West-Brom. Impressive Hostess! Well done to her.

Doghouse Riley · 14-10-2009, 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rorschach

///

And, whilst you really don't care, I haven't even watched the programme.

Hmm..

As I said, I don't care.

What you or anyone else might think of a programme wouldn't prompt my to post anything about your or their opinion, let alone voice my interpretation of the comments.
It's hardly important.

You obviously have a lot of time on your hands, given you've posted twice as many messages as have I in a fewer number of years.

Let's move on.

Rorschach · 14-10-2009, 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley

As I said, I don't care.

And yet you keep posting...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley

You obviously have a lot of time on your hands, given you've posted twice as many messages as have I in a fewer number of years.

Perhaps I save time by not watching or commenting on programs that I don't even like. Or perhaps I manage my time better than you. Perhaps I work faster. Perhaps I am housebound and unable to move away from my computer easily. Perhaps I just type a lot faster than you. Nothing is obvious really with so little information to go on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley

Let's move on.

Of course, to keep this discussion going after this post would be childish in the extreeme.

stirlingguy1 · 14-10-2009, 15:55

Frankly, I wish they had simply repeated Palins Around The World in 80 Days. Now thats when TV was good. It probably would draw a huge audience as well.

14-10-2009, 00:26	#1
grahamzxy Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Services: Virgin Media XL , Freeview, Tiscali Broadband Posts: 197	Around The World In 80 Days - Well it is for charity Just started watching this on iPlayer, main thing is that it is going to kick start Children in Need 2009 fundraising. Also we get the 2 worst presenters out of the way on Episode 1, Mack and Skinner are not what you call a cutting edge comedy double act. Better episodes to look forward to, maybe skip the John Barrowman episode Roll on episode 2 Ps Keep think of Kate from LFSF whenever Frank opens his mouth

14-10-2009, 10:24	#8
mb@2day Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Services: VMTV - VM4MB , Sky TV , DAB , Orange Posts: 5,376	All for a good cause I thought it was dull start after a good introduction but I was listening more than watching for most of it. I'm optimistic it's going to improve now they have left europe behind and it promises to get even better once saira khan has gone too. I hope Palin doesn't feature too much in the series.

14-10-2009, 05:35	#2
DJPT Forum Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: South Yorkshire Posts: 2,981	I enjoyed watching last night, I thought Mack and Skinner were pretty good. Not too sure about those two from The Apprentice next week - but we'll see.

14-10-2009, 07:06	#3
ktboils Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 70	Enjoyed last night. Not looking forward to Shane Ritchie and John Barrowman but hey, I could be wrong. It has been known; but not often.

14-10-2009, 07:40	#4
chattamanuk Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: West Services: Sky+ Posts: 464	Yep, another thumbs up for last nights episode with Mack and Skinner. Not sure how good next weeks episode will be though.

14-10-2009, 08:30	#5
Marmite Baby Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Northampton, UK Posts: 2,214	I really enjoyed the programme too. I'll be interested to know what the OP considers cutting-edge.

14-10-2009, 09:44	#6
angelafisher Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Birmingham Services: Freeview Tiscali Posts: 793	Liked last night's episode. There is a good article in the Radio Times about Nick Hewer and Saira Khan.

14-10-2009, 10:21	#7
LondonKiwi Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: London Services: Sky HD Posts: 122	It seemed to be a case of "jobs for the boys". Instead of paying to send them all around the world why not just donate the money spent on this series directly to Children in Need?

14-10-2009, 10:38	#9
jtnorth Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,816	Well, I liked it because I like Frank Skinner and I really like Lee Mack so I wanted to enjoy it. I liked them being cowboys and that rather odd meal with royalty. But I thought it a really strange format for a programme - it didn't know if it was a travel programme or a race. When they ran out of time at the end, I thought, well, yes, that's because you kept stopping to do things you didn't have to do, but it would have been a really boring show if it had just been them on trains and buses getting grumpy. I felt like I didn't 'get it' as a programme idea, but I enjoyed the incidental bits. If I didn't like the presenters I think it would have been really boring.

14-10-2009, 11:29	#12
currykev Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Services: Freesat coz itz free Posts: 384	Come and join the fun......with my new TV remote control game. It's called "Dodge the Barrowman" It's not as easy as you may think.

14-10-2009, 12:11	#14
Doghouse Riley Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,442	This programme can only appeal to viewers who are somewhat indoctrinated by the BBC's "cult of the celebrity." I'm not the slightest bit interested in viewing a programme about these people sent on an all expenses paid holiday, with excuse that it's for "Children in Need." It's "Tat TV" and I bet it isn't even cheap.

14-10-2009, 14:44	#22
cassieconvinced Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Services: Applying fake tan to Brendan and Matthew :) Posts: 2,572	I liked it, and was rather impressed by the Crown-Princess of Serbia having gone to the trouble of looking up Frank Skinner to have the conversation opener of West-Brom. Impressive Hostess! Well done to her.

14-10-2009, 15:55	#25
stirlingguy1 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Belfast Posts: 3,740	Frankly, I wish they had simply repeated Palins Around The World in 80 Days. Now thats when TV was good. It probably would draw a huge audience as well.