The Bubble

So, last week BBC Two aired it's new show, The Bubble last week hosted by David Mitchell, with three 'panelists' every week. The concept of the show is where the panelists are kept out of the media for a week, and then Mitchell shows newspaper headlines and so on and the panelists have to pick the headline that actually took place in the week they were kept out of the media.

It's actually quite good, and last night they even made a fake Newsround-esque report, which the panelists thought was a Newsround report, after hearing on the first show that the BBC can't fake reports. Mitchell revealed that the backdrop looked like Newsround's, but didn't include an R, and the colours were switched. I think it's a great idea, and should be very successful.

Comments on the show/thoughts?

Follow David Mitchell on Twitter for some insights into the programme, which I intend to catch up on after the Olympics end.

It's alright. The fake reports are all pretty well done, but the funniest part last night was hearing about Germaine taking an interest in Ed's game of Modern Warfare.

It does make me wonder what the going rate for sequestering a celeb for a week is, though.

David

4 days, they go in on Monday and it's recorded on Thursday night. I suppose they can do other work while they're in the 'Bubble' such as write.

It is a bit disappointing really, all that effort to seal them away for a few days for a handful of questions. They need to make it a bit longer, it all seems a bit rushed

I think it struggles to fill half an hour. Although I love the concept, I don't think you can justify the cost it must incur over other panels shows which can be just as funny.

I think it has been disappointing so far, good idea but not very well executed. When the highlight of your show is Germaine Greer knitting while watching Ed Byrne playing Modern Warfare you know you've gone wrong somewhere.

Not really, it was over half way through this week's programme before they'd finished the first question! Like all panel shows they film a lot more and then edit it down (I believe Thursday's recording lasted almost 2 hours). The actual discussion between the guests of being in the house, which is entertaining, takes up time that could be used by the actual panel game.

There's plenty of material for another 15/20 minutes


But then it would just be another panel show, so the cost (if it is substantially more) can be justified just because of that - you get what you pay for

I think that's Jon Wells' point - they pad it out. It was way too slow for my liking. If the whole show was faster like the last round it would be much more enjoyable.

As said above, great idea, poorly executed.

Yes, they pad out the first 15 minutes and then rush the last 5... even though there's at least 90 minutes of material to work from