JO
Seriously, the perils of including your hosts name in the title and making it a pun
Well it’s lasted them 18 years.
Yep exactly. It's a well established brand down the swanny
To be fair though, they probably didn’t expect it to last 18 years when it launched and it’s not the problem of the people who came up with the name either.
Seriously, the perils of including your hosts name in the title and making it a pun
Well it’s lasted them 18 years.
Yep exactly. It's a well established brand down the swanny
To be fair though, they probably didn’t expect it to last 18 years when it launched and it’s not the problem of the people who came up with the name either.
LL
London Lite
Founding member
And for most of that 18 year old period, it was cheap tabloid filler under Princess, which under RTL and Dirty Des did the job of padding the morning daytime schedule.
Viacom appear to have slightly different aspirations for TWS with ITN, of which some of the more inane padding under Princess simply doesn't cut it.
Viacom appear to have slightly different aspirations for TWS with ITN, of which some of the more inane padding under Princess simply doesn't cut it.
JO
I think rotating hosts until a permanent host is found will be the best option. I do think the show can survive without Matthew Wright, i wonder if Channel 5 will go for someone known like Richard Madeley for example I wouldn't be shocked if they go for a female anchor, they've used female guests hosts like Claudia from 5 News, Anne Diamond and Daisy McAndrews recently as well as Trisha Goddard last August
VM
Madeley is a good shout as he’s covered a few times previously, but he has said that neither he or Finnigan want to do a full time TV job anymore. He tends to just do cover for existing shows both on TV or radio nowadays. I think they were a bit put off after their Watch show wasn’t a success.
FG
If the show is to continue, I'd suggest adopting some sort of guest presenter format. I think if you had a different presenter each week the show would be less presenter driven (and hopefully the topics/phone-ins/callers would get more of a look in).
It has always bugged me that in a 15 minute discussion/topic, they would spend 11-12 minutes chatting with the panel and then squeeze 1 quick call in before moving on. I'd actually be interested to see statistics on how many calls actually make it on-air during the show - for the whole 2 hour run time, I'm betting it would average at 10 or less per day...
It has always bugged me that in a 15 minute discussion/topic, they would spend 11-12 minutes chatting with the panel and then squeeze 1 quick call in before moving on. I'd actually be interested to see statistics on how many calls actually make it on-air during the show - for the whole 2 hour run time, I'm betting it would average at 10 or less per day...
LL
London Lite
Founding member
It certainly needs some tweaks.
Move the news review to the start of the running order. It's really disjointed mid-way. This can be used to set the agenda for the phone in topics.
Reduce the panel to two guests, allowing other guests for the solo segments to sit behind the desk, instead of the really uncomfortable seat with the audience and Storm.
I'd be minded to keep the TV review during the final segment on Friday's show..
Does TWS really need an audience? It's obvious they can only squeeze in no more than 20. It is possible to host a topical debate show, such as Derbyshire without the wooping.
Give Storm a stool to sit by the plasma screen when not on-air instead of being with the audience.
Exploit more of their resources with 5 News. They can get in a correspondent to talk about a particular topic in the news.
Which gives me an idea for the name of a rebranded TWS. 5 News Talk.
Move the news review to the start of the running order. It's really disjointed mid-way. This can be used to set the agenda for the phone in topics.
Reduce the panel to two guests, allowing other guests for the solo segments to sit behind the desk, instead of the really uncomfortable seat with the audience and Storm.
I'd be minded to keep the TV review during the final segment on Friday's show..
Does TWS really need an audience? It's obvious they can only squeeze in no more than 20. It is possible to host a topical debate show, such as Derbyshire without the wooping.
Give Storm a stool to sit by the plasma screen when not on-air instead of being with the audience.
Exploit more of their resources with 5 News. They can get in a correspondent to talk about a particular topic in the news.
Which gives me an idea for the name of a rebranded TWS. 5 News Talk.
MA
This is going back a bit, but I remember Madeley saying when he was interviewed on the Moyles Marathon Show in 2011 that he and Judy had promised each other that they wouldn't take on full-time TV gigs any more post the Watch show.
Madeley is a good shout as he’s covered a few times previously, but he has said that neither he or Finnigan want to do a full time TV job anymore. He tends to just do cover for existing shows both on TV or radio nowadays. I think they were a bit put off after their Watch show wasn’t a success.
This is going back a bit, but I remember Madeley saying when he was interviewed on the Moyles Marathon Show in 2011 that he and Judy had promised each other that they wouldn't take on full-time TV gigs any more post the Watch show.
BR
The BBC is tipping Simon McCoy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43964450
OK, they're also tipping Tess Daly and Kit Harrington, but regardless of the tone of the article Simon McCoy isn't actually a bad shout.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43964450
OK, they're also tipping Tess Daly and Kit Harrington, but regardless of the tone of the article Simon McCoy isn't actually a bad shout.
LL
The article admits it's tongue-in-cheek.
London Lite
Founding member
Why does BBC News lower itself to that sort of rubbish. It’s trying to out do Digital Spy.
The article admits it's tongue-in-cheek.