Talk:Popworld

Editing

Untitled

This sentence "..reflecting the times - in Popworld's case, it reflects confusing multi-media/blogging/downloading times" is really ugly and needs to be edited. It reads as if slots of different people have come along and added extra words or phrases to the sentence and does not look good at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.24.189 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Article replication

Most of this article appears to have been copied and pasted from here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,1748170,00.html

• • From Wiki:

Everything from a po-faced Gwen Stefani refusing a gift of cheese on the red carpet at this year's Brits; Ex-Host Amstell interviewing Natalie 'You're too beautiful!' Imbruglia with a paper bag over his head, or, famously, Girls Aloud's Cheryl Tweedy, fresh from her court case involving an incident with a toilet attendant, being asked whether people were frightened to see her walk into the ladies.

This is not forgetting such innovations as the talking horses, Richard and Trudy (voiced by ex-hosts Simon Amstell and Miquita Oliver), who conducted their beloved 'in-depth' interviews with varying degrees of success.

• • From Observer

Everything from a po-faced Gwen Stefani refusing a gift of cheese on the red carpet at this year's Brits; Amstell interviewing Natalie 'You're too beautiful!' Imbruglia with a paper bag over his head, or, famously, Girls Aloud's Cheryl Tweedy, fresh from her court case involving an incident with a toilet attendant, being asked whether people were frightened to see her walk into the ladies.

This is not forgetting such innovations as the talking horses, Richard and Trudy (voiced by Amstell and Oliver), who conducted their beloved 'in-depth' interviews with varying degrees of success.

Would rewriting the offending sections make it any better, or will we have to start them from scratch?

probably better starting again for the stuff before "History". After the first 2 sentances it just goes down hill very fast. The comparison with the tube is a joke. It's like comparing cheep wisky with beer (lite). I guess I should add that it just finnished (12/11/06 16:01 UK time) and the program is normaly less than an hour. Also E4 in 2006 has repeated the same program at different times during the day and week. This just reflects badly on the Observer. In fact it reflects very badly on who ever did the reserch. All they had to do was google the program & check here. If they had done that they would have found enough info to find some fan forums. It's not as if you normal fan of a show would not be willing to type for hours about the show if they thought you worked for a paper and they would get a plug (site/forum/whatever). Anyway i think this need a lot of pruning. there is so much speculation and plain wrong info.

Critisims

Is it worth putting a section about how the new presenters have not been received as walmly as Simon and Miquta? RuSTy 1989 28th May 2006

Yes it is. It's also worth noting that simon has been on a couple of other shows. It seems the powers that be in TV Land have taken notice of him.

This page needs to be pruned & edited.

I agree. Also the section comparing them to heat magazine is completely wrong. If anything the show was a reaction to the cult of celebrity - and held it's guest to be unworthy of TV time. In my opinion at least.

Avril Lavigne interview

If nobody objects, I'm going to edit the section about the interview with Avril Lavigne. I just saw it and what is written here is a little misleading as it stands. Shinigami27 04:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)