I'm a huge fan of Graham's show but that was One Really Boring Episode.
Michael Keaton seemed nice enough. So often American guests don't 'get' the British guests but he was doing ok. He wasn't give much air time though.
Victoria Wood - I used to like. Oh dear. I was only kind of half watching when she was offered food - was she really as rude as I thought she was about that? And having seen a clip of the film she was promoting, I am pleased to say that is 90 minutes I won't be wasting on Boxing Day.
Jamie Oliver - I don't mind. He could have been ok. Again, whisked off too soon. I didn't like the changing of guests half way through at all. Why do that? Just have less guests!
Ian McKellen - national treasure. Agree with previous poster that he would have been good with MK.
1D - who, apart from a few teens, cares? Bland song. Nothing they said will stay in my memory beyond - oh well, I have actually forgotten everything they said already.
Better to have had MK, IM and JO. Dump Wood and 1D.
Well, that was possibly the worst episode I've seen in a long time.
Here's some advice for the producers:
1. Don't give the braindead boyband who can barely string a coherent sentence together between them and have absolutely nothing of interest to say top billing.
2. Don't put the 75-year-old celebrated actor and Knight on alongside said braindead boyband who cannot offer any sort of conversation or repartee.
And 3. Don't give more airtime to the cook and the washed-up so-called comedian over the Hollywood actor whose myriad performances in a variety of roles over a long career you don't even bother asking him about.
Seriously disappointing episode. >:(
I'm sure all the 11-year-old girls who stayed up past their bedtime to watch their idols mutter a sum total of five words throughout the show will be delighted though.
Recorded this for the first time in ages because Michael Keaton was on. Barely got 10 mins out of him.
JO seemed really uncomfortable, like he felt they were taking the piss. Then when Victoria Wood didn't really take his "comfortable" comment, his face got redder!
Harry Styles just mumbled.
Should have just had Ian McKellen and Michael Keaton on!
Agree with pretty much everything you wrote. Shame the producers messed up so badly with what would otherwise have been some fairly entertaining guests.
Also, when Michael Keaton was talking about his new film and the character playing a superhero, he mentioned Batman and a few of the crowd cheered. GN made a comment that didn't really acknowledge it, like he'd forgotten Michael Keaton PLAYED Batman! That was why MK had said Batman! All MK got was a quick plug for his new movie.
Is that what high as a kite looks like these days?
I thought Harry looked unhappy or had a sore throat.
Hmm, just assumed high when I looked at him which is probably an over exaggeration. I'd say he was under some kind of influence though, he looked out of it.
Hmm, just assumed high when I looked at him which is probably an over exaggeration. I'd say he was under some kind of influence though, he looked out of it.
he looked either slightly merry and/or slightly stoned to me. having said that i'm not in the habit of watching them being interviewed so can't comment re is that maybe just his style ... if you'll pardon the pun
i thought ian mck handled being on with them pretty well but i reckon with that line up they should have had ian mck with michael k and victoria wood ... and jamie o with 1d.
I've come to the conclusion that Zayn is suffering from anorexia - yes men can get it. He looked absolutely awful tonight, Harry might have been high, or drunk or whatever, but at least he and the other 3 looked healthy. Liam and Louis are growing into handsome young men, whilst Niall is still cute.
Agree with what's been said, it was a really poor show tonight.
Harry is quietly spoken and that is just how he normally is. I thought he was really good I loved the rapport between him and Ian McKellam. I really don't understand the hate that 1D get. Regardless of what anyone thinks of them and where they came from, they are an incredibly hard working band, nice polite lads, and have won multi awards. They are the biggest band in the world right now. Yet instead of being proud people say that they shouldn't be on a chat show in the UK. Really? I just don't get it.
Harry is quietly spoken and that is just how he normally is. I thought he was really good I loved the rapport between him and Ian McKellam. I really don't understand the hate that 1D get. Regardless of what anyone thinks of them and where they came from, they are an incredibly hard working band, nice polite lads, and have won multi awards. They are the biggest band in the world right now. Yet instead of being proud people say that they shouldn't be on a chat show in the UK. Really? I just don't get it.
Oh and I am not a teenager I am 59!
I guess the 'hate' for 1D comes from the fact that they are yet another manufactured boyband (by Simon Cowell no-less) with very little real musical talent between them. It's not as if one of them is a budding John Lennon or Freddy Mercury.
I guess the 'hate' for 1D comes from the fact that they are yet another manufactured boyband (by Simon Cowell no-less) with very little real musical talent between them. It's not as if one of them is a budding John Lennon or Freddy Mercury.
Worst GN show for a long time, in my opinion.
Yes they were manufactured by Simon Cowell, that doesn't make them talentless. They now write a lot of their own songs as well. Their fanbase in the UK tends to be very young, that is not the case elsewhere. In Italy, for example the average age of fans is much higher. I am old enough to remember and to have been a huge Beatles fan. Strangely people were saying exactly the same about them! When the Beatles were at their most popular with young teenagers fainting at the sight of them, had DS been around I'm pretty sure the same comments would have been made about lack of talent.
I just think it quite sad that five hard working lads who are barely out of their teens get so much hatred thrown at them. There are plenty of bands that are not to my taste - but I appreciate that others like them and wouldn't dream of dissing them for the sake of it.
I think it is fair to say that a band isn't going to win Artist of the Year, Album of the Year and Band of the Year in the American Music Awards if they have no talent.
Yes they were manufactured by Simon Cowell, that doesn't make them talentless. They now write a lot of their own songs as well. Their fanbase in the UK tends to be very young, that is not the case elsewhere. In Italy, for example the average age of fans is much higher. I am old enough to remember and to have been a huge Beatles fan. Strangely people were saying exactly the same about them! When the Beatles were at their most popular with young teenagers fainting at the sight of them, had DS been around I'm pretty sure the same comments would have been made about lack of talent.
That's a insult to The Beatles, frankly. Drawing a few tenuous parallels does not make them in any meaningful way comparable. You may as well say, "Well The Beatles had long hair and 1D also have long hair, so they're actually quite similar." The Beatles played their own instruments, wrote their own music and lyrics (without the 'assistance' of co-writers), made creative, complex, experimental and all round excellent pop music that was regarded seriously at the time and has retained that status for half a century. No offense, but I can only assume that your appreciation of The Beatles was pretty shallow if you think they bear any serious comparison.
I just think it quite sad that five hard working lads who are barely out of their teens get so much hatred thrown at them. There are plenty of bands that are not to my taste - but I appreciate that others like them and wouldn't dream of dissing them for the sake of it.
The idea that 1D are 'just another band, like The Beatles or Led Zeppelin' is a joke. They are to The Beatles what Katie Price is to Dostoyevsky; there's simply no comparison. People dislike their music because they deem it somewhere between bland and awful, and because its very success contributes to the dumbing down of pop music in general. Truth is, they're five men who got extremely lucky through being in the right place at the right time. They worked hard? Well, so do millions out there. Who, in their right mind, wouldn't work hard of they got the chance to travel the world in luxury and be paid a fortune?
I think it is fair to say that a band isn't going to win Artist of the Year, Album of the Year and Band of the Year in the American Music Awards if they have no talent.
I don't think that's fair to say at all. Awards or record sales are crutches for baseless arguments, unless the argument is one about sheer popularity. Since the AMA's in particular are decided by public votes, they're essentially redundant. We already know who won the 'public vote' by how many records were sold. They're simply another means of self-perpetuating publicity; success is a self-fulfilling prophecy: Talentless act has the backing of one of the world's biggest music corporations and access to all the studios, advertising and other infrastructure that money can buy ---> Talentless act has huge commercial success! Shocking!
As for the records, people buy them for a variety of reasons, such as that the music is simple and easy to grasp, because the lyrics are flattering and the band members good looking, because they receive 100x more publicity than most other acts, to 'fit in' with friends at school, because they have concerts where one can feel part of something special, because they're presented as some kind of phenomena (notice the emphasis on Norton's show on 1D's fanatical fans? It's all to reaffirm the idea that they're amazing, even if for something as inane as a kiss curl. What came first - the fanatical fan or the PR campaign about fanatical fans?). 1D are much more a brand than they are a band: closer in nature to Nike than to, say, Captain Beefheart.
I don't consider the effort boybands put in to be equivalent to that of an ordinary job e.g. nurse; electrician etc. I'd learn a dozen dance routines if I could have partying in LA as a lifestyle.
I don't think anyone bar friends and family should be proud of One Direction's achievements either. It's not like they're a charity for which thousands of people have raised money to do something specific. They're out to make money with big backing. Whether or not they're successful at that is of no concern to me.
I was watching the one with Jennifer Aniston and others earlier and I wasn't at all happy or impressed at how quickly Norton is pulling the leaver on the red chair.
I think more and more he just wants to pull the leaver no matter what and he should leave it alone and let people complete their stories and then decide whether or not to pull the leaver or not!
I think they could have asked Michael Keaton a lot more about his wider career and I got the impression he wouldn't of minded talking about his past films either. They should have kept him on throughout the whole show! I've never seen Michael Keaton interviewed before ever or on anything so I thought that was a wasted opportunity.
I am afraid Ian McKellan and 1D are more appealing to a general audience. The other three were put on for 1/4 hour. Unless you want a couch with 10 people onwards..
I think it flowed fine - and that shot of McKellan at the window "you shall not pass" was hysterical
That's a insult to The Beatles, frankly. Drawing a few tenuous parallels does not make them in any meaningful way comparable. You may as well say, "Well The Beatles had long hair and 1D also have long hair, so they're actually quite similar." The Beatles played their own instruments, wrote their own music and lyrics (without the 'assistance' of co-writers), made creative, complex, experimental and all round excellent pop music that was regarded seriously at the time and has retained that status for half a century. No offense, but I can only assume that your appreciation of The Beatles was pretty shallow if you think they bear any serious comparison.
The idea that 1D are 'just another band, like The Beatles or Led Zeppelin' is a joke. They are to The Beatles what Katie Price is to Dostoyevsky; there's simply no comparison. People dislike their music because they deem it somewhere between bland and awful, and because its very success contributes to the dumbing down of pop music in general. Truth is, they're five men who got extremely lucky through being in the right place at the right time. They worked hard? Well, so do millions out there. Who, in their right mind, wouldn't work hard of they got the chance to travel the world in luxury and be paid a fortune?
I don't think that's fair to say at all. Awards or record sales are crutches for baseless arguments, unless the argument is one about sheer popularity. Since the AMA's in particular are decided by public votes, they're essentially redundant. We already know who won the 'public vote' by how many records were sold. They're simply another means of self-perpetuating publicity; success is a self-fulfilling prophecy: Talentless act has the backing of one of the world's biggest music corporations and access to all the studios, advertising and other infrastructure that money can buy ---> Talentless act has huge commercial success! Shocking!
As for the records, people buy them for a variety of reasons, such as that the music is simple and easy to grasp, because the lyrics are flattering and the band members good looking, because they receive 100x more publicity than most other acts, to 'fit in' with friends at school, because they have concerts where one can feel part of something special, because they're presented as some kind of phenomena (notice the emphasis on Norton's show on 1D's fanatical fans? It's all to reaffirm the idea that they're amazing, even if for something as inane as a kiss curl. What came first - the fanatical fan or the PR campaign about fanatical fans?). 1D are much more a brand than they are a band: closer in nature to Nike than to, say, Captain Beefheart.
You have chosen to misinterpret my post that's fine. The point I was making was that in their initial popularity the Beatles were considered talentless by pretty much everyone over the age of about 25. I know that because I remember having similar arguments to what I have now. Often talent is only appreciated in retrospect. Similar to One D today. Their first few records were very poppy. Their deeper stuff came after the hysteria had died down.
I have seen One D live and in my opinion they were brilliant. My husband who is a huge fan of 1960s prog rock enjoyed it as well, and although he is not as big a fan as me he can't understand the hate either.
I am afraid Ian McKellan and 1D are more appealing to a general audience. The other three were put on for 1/4 hour. Unless you want a couch with 10 people onwards..
I think it flowed fine - and that shot of McKellan at the window "you shall not pass" was hysterical
Comments
Michael Keaton seemed nice enough. So often American guests don't 'get' the British guests but he was doing ok. He wasn't give much air time though.
Victoria Wood - I used to like. Oh dear. I was only kind of half watching when she was offered food - was she really as rude as I thought she was about that? And having seen a clip of the film she was promoting, I am pleased to say that is 90 minutes I won't be wasting on Boxing Day.
Jamie Oliver - I don't mind. He could have been ok. Again, whisked off too soon. I didn't like the changing of guests half way through at all. Why do that? Just have less guests!
Ian McKellen - national treasure. Agree with previous poster that he would have been good with MK.
1D - who, apart from a few teens, cares? Bland song. Nothing they said will stay in my memory beyond - oh well, I have actually forgotten everything they said already.
Better to have had MK, IM and JO. Dump Wood and 1D.
Here's some advice for the producers:
1. Don't give the braindead boyband who can barely string a coherent sentence together between them and have absolutely nothing of interest to say top billing.
2. Don't put the 75-year-old celebrated actor and Knight on alongside said braindead boyband who cannot offer any sort of conversation or repartee.
And 3. Don't give more airtime to the cook and the washed-up so-called comedian over the Hollywood actor whose myriad performances in a variety of roles over a long career you don't even bother asking him about.
Seriously disappointing episode. >:(
I'm sure all the 11-year-old girls who stayed up past their bedtime to watch their idols mutter a sum total of five words throughout the show will be delighted though.
JO seemed really uncomfortable, like he felt they were taking the piss. Then when Victoria Wood didn't really take his "comfortable" comment, his face got redder!
Harry Styles just mumbled.
Should have just had Ian McKellen and Michael Keaton on!
Agree with pretty much everything you wrote. Shame the producers messed up so badly with what would otherwise have been some fairly entertaining guests.
I am afraid even with the wonderful Ian McKellan I could not take more than 4 minutes of the boy band and had to turn over.
I agree that it was a great shame Michael Keaton was not given more time.
Yep, I thought the same. He always seems to be in that state these days.
Agree with what's been said, it was a really poor show tonight.
Is that what high as a kite looks like these days?
I thought Harry looked unhappy or had a sore throat.
Hmm, just assumed high when I looked at him which is probably an over exaggeration. I'd say he was under some kind of influence though, he looked out of it.
he looked either slightly merry and/or slightly stoned to me. having said that i'm not in the habit of watching them being interviewed so can't comment re is that maybe just his style ... if you'll pardon the pun
i thought ian mck handled being on with them pretty well but i reckon with that line up they should have had ian mck with michael k and victoria wood ... and jamie o with 1d.
Harry is quietly spoken and that is just how he normally is. I thought he was really good I loved the rapport between him and Ian McKellam. I really don't understand the hate that 1D get. Regardless of what anyone thinks of them and where they came from, they are an incredibly hard working band, nice polite lads, and have won multi awards. They are the biggest band in the world right now. Yet instead of being proud people say that they shouldn't be on a chat show in the UK. Really? I just don't get it.
Oh and I am not a teenager I am 59!
I guess the 'hate' for 1D comes from the fact that they are yet another manufactured boyband (by Simon Cowell no-less) with very little real musical talent between them. It's not as if one of them is a budding John Lennon or Freddy Mercury.
Worst GN show for a long time, in my opinion.
Yes they were manufactured by Simon Cowell, that doesn't make them talentless. They now write a lot of their own songs as well. Their fanbase in the UK tends to be very young, that is not the case elsewhere. In Italy, for example the average age of fans is much higher. I am old enough to remember and to have been a huge Beatles fan. Strangely people were saying exactly the same about them! When the Beatles were at their most popular with young teenagers fainting at the sight of them, had DS been around I'm pretty sure the same comments would have been made about lack of talent.
I just think it quite sad that five hard working lads who are barely out of their teens get so much hatred thrown at them. There are plenty of bands that are not to my taste - but I appreciate that others like them and wouldn't dream of dissing them for the sake of it.
I think it is fair to say that a band isn't going to win Artist of the Year, Album of the Year and Band of the Year in the American Music Awards if they have no talent.
As for the records, people buy them for a variety of reasons, such as that the music is simple and easy to grasp, because the lyrics are flattering and the band members good looking, because they receive 100x more publicity than most other acts, to 'fit in' with friends at school, because they have concerts where one can feel part of something special, because they're presented as some kind of phenomena (notice the emphasis on Norton's show on 1D's fanatical fans? It's all to reaffirm the idea that they're amazing, even if for something as inane as a kiss curl. What came first - the fanatical fan or the PR campaign about fanatical fans?). 1D are much more a brand than they are a band: closer in nature to Nike than to, say, Captain Beefheart.
I don't think anyone bar friends and family should be proud of One Direction's achievements either. It's not like they're a charity for which thousands of people have raised money to do something specific. They're out to make money with big backing. Whether or not they're successful at that is of no concern to me.
I think more and more he just wants to pull the leaver no matter what and he should leave it alone and let people complete their stories and then decide whether or not to pull the leaver or not!
Same here. What a waste of Michael Keaton. This show used to be my must see of the week but not any more.
Oh for gods sake.
I am afraid Ian McKellan and 1D are more appealing to a general audience. The other three were put on for 1/4 hour. Unless you want a couch with 10 people onwards..
I think it flowed fine - and that shot of McKellan at the window "you shall not pass" was hysterical
You have chosen to misinterpret my post that's fine. The point I was making was that in their initial popularity the Beatles were considered talentless by pretty much everyone over the age of about 25. I know that because I remember having similar arguments to what I have now. Often talent is only appreciated in retrospect. Similar to One D today. Their first few records were very poppy. Their deeper stuff came after the hysteria had died down.
I have seen One D live and in my opinion they were brilliant. My husband who is a huge fan of 1960s prog rock enjoyed it as well, and although he is not as big a fan as me he can't understand the hate either.
Nothing wrong with that. The more the merrier!
Personally, I would have omitted Wood.