Ah Carl but you can't prove otherwise can you? The new series is a fallback to the old format with world tour bits from Pollyanna.
So it's a reasonable assumption that the disastrous would tour format has been binned.
Exactly - a more than reasonable assumption. If it was simply a temporary diversion from the original format, they'd have likely retained the original team and just had Suzi, Jon and Ortis on hiatus until the original studio format was resumed.
The World Tour was obviously meant to be the big reboot and "All New" Gadget Show and it failed.
The new series is a fallback to the old format with world tour bits from Pollyanna.
So it's a reasonable assumption that the disastrous would tour format has been binned.
Wasn't it always a one-off? There are only so many places they could go to, and they covered a lot of them in one series.
I didn't mind it. I don't mind this, either. For me the differences between this, World Tour and the previous format are not very great. Pretty much the same kinds of things covered (cameras, again; headphones, again).
Deary me reading though this thread is making me miserable lol stop moaning thought it was quite good but I've always liked the world tour format prefer 2 presenters
Only because you agree with it, with absolutely no proof
There's plenty of proof out there. But then it wouldn't be so bad if you at least attempted a counter argument that didn't amount to "no it didn't". As it is, it just paints you as rather petulant ..
Except that no-one can prove that that is what actually happened. So can we please stop stating it like it's a fact :mad::rolleyes:
The World Tour was promoted as an all new Gadget Show. Now after two series It has reverted to a format that the programme has had for several years, bring back a multi presenter studio based format and bring back Jon Bentley. If the World Tour format worked I'm sure they would have stuck with it. They never said the World Tour was going to be a temporary diversion.
So let's have it then. Not opinions or conjecture (which is all I've seen so far) but actual concrete, solid proof.
But then it wouldn't be so bad if you at least attempted a counter argument that didn't amount to "no it didn't". As it is, it just paints you as rather petulant ..
I never said that though. I said there was no proof and there isn't.
Of course I never actually said that at all :rolleyes: Now if you'd like to discuss things properly that's fine but please stop posting stuff that is clearly incorrect.
The World Tour was promoted as an all new Gadget Show.
And it was.
Now after two series...
I just checked and I don't think that entry is entirely accurate. It was always just called "The Gadget Show World Tour" and was never referred to on-screen as "The All New..." anything.
If the World Tour format worked I'm sure they would have stuck with it.
And you are welcome to your opinion.
They never said the World Tour was going to be a temporary diversion.
Am I the only person that actually quite liked the World Tour/All New Gadget Show format?
Yes
It was utter s****e. They got rid of everybody so that Jason and Polly could go on holiday and 'test some new cameras'. I still don't understand why they did it. It must've been about 1000x more expensive than the old (now current again) format.
So let's have it then. Not opinions or conjecture (which is all I've seen so far) but actual concrete, solid proof.
I never said that though. I said there was no proof and there isn't.
Of course I never actually said that at all :rolleyes: Now if you'd like to discuss things properly that's fine but please stop posting stuff that is clearly incorrect.
And it was.
I just checked and I don't think that entry is entirely accurate. It was always just called "The Gadget Show World Tour" and was never referred to on-screen as "The All New..." anything.
And you are welcome to your opinion.
And they never said it wasn't.
I'm basing my opinion on what the production team said in a thread on Digital Spy last year discussing the World Tour format.
Why has the presenting team been reduced to two? Is it because it better suits this new format and you'll be bringing everyone back when/if you return to 'normal' The Gadget Show, or do you feel that constantly adding new presenters made the whole thing a bit too sprawling, and this is a more permanent change?
Hi all,Jess from The Gadget Show here, looking forward to tonight but in the meantime I’ll try to answer your questions.
@beemoh@Arkudos The changes to both the presenting team and the format were made with the intention of updating the show and keeping it fresh. We’ve no plans to go back to previous formats- we want to keep it moving onwards and upwards!
And if you go to the thread you can see another member of the production team talk about the World Tour being the new version of the show, and how long running shows evolve.
@norwichredYes, the format needed refreshing, and it became apparent that two presenters was the best way to go
Now we wait for Carl to say "No it isn't" . Although reading that old thread, Carl actually says very little about the content of the show more often than not and just spends his time in the thread dismissing everyone's opinions ..
Didn't see that - thanks. I'd forgotten that the producers came on here in the early days to answer our questions.
Here's one to add to your quotes ..
Now we wait for Carl to say "No it isn't" . Although reading that old thread, Carl actually says very little about the content of the show more often than not and just spends his time in the thread dismissing everyone's opinions ..
You don't need the comments from the production team to realise the show has reverted to its old format. If Sherlock Holmes posted here he'd be saying "Isn't it obvious?" Well these worker come from the production team and it seems pretty conclusive to me. Polly should be number 2 presenter with Jamm as they have chemistry. Rachel is doing the Suzi role but isn't clicking with Jason at all yet in my opinion.
You don't need the comments from the production team to realise the show has reverted to its old format
We know this, but carl seems to require proof that the World Tour was only supposed to be a temporary diversion and wasn't a failure.
The producers confirming that they wouldn't be returning to the original format seems to suggest that it was the failure that many of us have said it was, since they have done just that and returned to the original format.
I can appreciate that Rachel won't really have a lot of chemistry with anyone yet as she's only just started working with them, and also that this is her first major on-camera presenting role as well, so she needs time to adjust.
Fair enough. I can help you out a bit though. I'll put you on ignore so when you're cutting and pasting everyone's posts into your reply to snidely dismiss everything, at least you won't have to bother with mine because I won't see your response anyway.
Comments
So it's a reasonable assumption that the disastrous would tour format has been binned.
Exactly - a more than reasonable assumption. If it was simply a temporary diversion from the original format, they'd have likely retained the original team and just had Suzi, Jon and Ortis on hiatus until the original studio format was resumed.
The World Tour was obviously meant to be the big reboot and "All New" Gadget Show and it failed.
I didn't mind it. I don't mind this, either. For me the differences between this, World Tour and the previous format are not very great. Pretty much the same kinds of things covered (cameras, again; headphones, again).
There's plenty of proof out there. But then it wouldn't be so bad if you at least attempted a counter argument that didn't amount to "no it didn't". As it is, it just paints you as rather petulant ..
The World Tour was promoted as an all new Gadget Show. Now after two series It has reverted to a format that the programme has had for several years, bring back a multi presenter studio based format and bring back Jon Bentley. If the World Tour format worked I'm sure they would have stuck with it. They never said the World Tour was going to be a temporary diversion.
I never said that though. I said there was no proof and there isn't.
Of course I never actually said that at all :rolleyes: Now if you'd like to discuss things properly that's fine but please stop posting stuff that is clearly incorrect.
And it was.
I just checked and I don't think that entry is entirely accurate. It was always just called "The Gadget Show World Tour" and was never referred to on-screen as "The All New..." anything.
And you are welcome to your opinion.
And they never said it wasn't.
So you can snidely dismiss it ?. Sorry, but I've got better things to do.
Yes
It was utter s****e. They got rid of everybody so that Jason and Polly could go on holiday and 'test some new cameras'. I still don't understand why they did it. It must've been about 1000x more expensive than the old (now current again) format.
I'm basing my opinion on what the production team said in a thread on Digital Spy last year discussing the World Tour format.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=57827634#post57827634
And if you go to the thread you can see another member of the production team talk about the World Tour being the new version of the show, and how long running shows evolve.
And now it has changed back.
I've just posted the proof. I'm sure you were asking some questions in the thread I linked to as well.
Didn't see that - thanks. I'd forgotten that the producers came on here in the early days to answer our questions.
Here's one to add to your quotes ..
Now we wait for Carl to say "No it isn't"
You don't need the comments from the production team to realise the show has reverted to its old format. If Sherlock Holmes posted here he'd be saying "Isn't it obvious?" Well these worker come from the production team and it seems pretty conclusive to me. Polly should be number 2 presenter with Jamm as they have chemistry. Rachel is doing the Suzi role but isn't clicking with Jason at all yet in my opinion.
We know this, but carl seems to require proof that the World Tour was only supposed to be a temporary diversion and wasn't a failure.
The producers confirming that they wouldn't be returning to the original format seems to suggest that it was the failure that many of us have said it was, since they have done just that and returned to the original format.
I can appreciate that Rachel won't really have a lot of chemistry with anyone yet as she's only just started working with them, and also that this is her first major on-camera presenting role as well, so she needs time to adjust.
Anyway welcome back to the Gadget Show - vast improvement on previous format.
They must have shares in the damn thing as that will be the 3rd time they featured it as an exciting new gizmo.
I never said it was or wasn't a "temporary diversion" and I certainly don't think it was a "failure" but that wasn't my problem either.
You all stated these things as facts with no proof. THAT is all I was saying.
Never ever and plans don't change?
Ok, simple question. Are you willing to let this go and accept that people don't share your view about the World Tour format?
Bit surprised to see her looking like a teacher on non-pupil day.
Don't the producers understand how shallow men who watch gadget shows are?
Aha, so that's a "no" then.
Fair enough. I can help you out a bit though. I'll put you on ignore so when you're cutting and pasting everyone's posts into your reply to snidely dismiss everything, at least you won't have to bother with mine because I won't see your response anyway.
That should save you a few minutes at least ..