Comments on: The 7 – 8PM Project

By: Daqua_99

Daqua_99 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:24:53 +0000

I really like the way that ten have given them the time to improve the show and hopefully they will be rewarded for their loyalty. I personally think that the extra 30 mins will be great and I’ll be watching it a lot. From eeading these comments there will be nothing that ten can do to please everyone, especially the hosts, but they have a good formula going and I hope it works out with the extra 30 mins

By: Goonies

Goonies — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:33:32 +0000

@ rex – i know it is nice to have differing opinions, I just find Carrie’s to be so naive and immature a lot of time. I wonder if she thinks some things through at all sometimes.

Having said that however, when the show first started I could barely look at her. I have now become ‘accustomed to her face’ and my hatred has transferred to Ruby. Tom Gleesons comment about Angela Bishop last night was hilarious.

I miss Jane Hall, how come she hasn’t been back?

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:45:44 +0000

I enjoy the format, but one thing that majorly irks me to the point of changing channel is the constant waving and pointing of pens! Charlie is the worst offender. I noticed it had been brought up on their discussion forums, but they obviously don’t care because the pens wave around night after night. Do they need pens at the desk? It’s not like they need to write anything down…

By: rex

rex — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:42:10 +0000

@ Boogie Howser
Gold!!!

By: Dooga

Dooga — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:30:32 +0000

Hughesy looks uncomfortable most of the time and sometimes his jokes come out awkwardly. There even sometimes appears to be tension between the three regulars. Maybe I’m imagining that last part but its just a feeling I have. He wasn’t at all like this on the Glass House, which had a similar format.

Charlie is growing on me. I think his geekiness and his laid back delivery is suited to this kind of show, however Carrie I’m indifferent to. She’s not funny although to be fair, she doesn’t need to be.

Kitty Flanagan is great when she’s on, maybe she would be a better fit on the desk more regularly. Just my thoughts.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:04:22 +0000

This show is seriously going to dent Ten’s prime time figures. Sure summers fine, but if 10 don’t move it to late night they’ll really struggle next year.

By: Boogie Howser

Boogie Howser — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:38:16 +0000

David Mott has been quoted saying he reads this board, so I’ll save him some time and summarise the collective opinion of the replies here.

- Charlie is good; he needs to go.

- Carrie is good; she needs to go.

- Hughesy needs to go ASAP. He can stay.

- There needs to be more of Andrew G and Ruby Rose, neither of whom should be on television.

- The show should take the news more seriously because it’s not funny enough.

- Make it less like Rove by putting a live band at the end.

Easy. Why aren’t we all running a network?

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:39:20 +0000

Perhaps they should have a timer on the screen during interviews that shows the amount of time left for the story so its not so jarring when they have to end the story (might be embarrassing if they ran out of things to say before it ran out though)

By: Earthquake

Earthquake — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:28:23 +0000

The show went well with Andrew G hosting. I also preferred Jane Hall on Fridays too. Carrie is doing a fine job and having a rotating fourth panelist is working well.

There is no doubt that the talent is there in the show, it’s just about selecting the right stories in order to garner the best responses, whether they be informative or funny.

I’d prefer less stories with more discussion, rather than more stories with less discussion. Also, when it comes to interviews, I think the producer should speak with the interviewees in order to get shorter responses – therefore the interviewees don’t need to be cut off mid-sentence.

By: Jed

Jed — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:39:02 +0000

I admire Ten’s committment. It’s definitely a show that has promise and can be very good. Dave Hughes Must go. Scrap 9am and have Kim Watkins on 7pm Project. I like Jane Hall as well when she’s on. Charlie, Carrie, Kim Watkins, Jane Hall, Andrew G, James Matheson could all rotate as hosts. See who works best with who. I like the extended Mon & Fri too. I think the Whip-around is absolutely hilarious. And no more cutting off guests.

By: John Jackson

John Jackson — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:32:46 +0000

That is great! I really like the 7PM project but sometimes I feel like they end things too quickly so having the show go for an hour will now fix that.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:23:09 +0000

I’m certainly not a big fan of Andrew G, but he was So Much better than Charlie when he was hosting. Dave isn’t at all comfortable on the show compared to how he is with Kate on Nova, so he could easily be replaced by a rotating guest host. Carrie is fine, the only people who don’t like her seem to be the people who think she’s a comedian and not a serious news reader which has been her main job for years.

By: rex

rex — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:19:02 +0000

@Goonies
Carrie was having an opinion… and that’s what I like about this show. There are times i want to throw my shoe through the screen. I don’t…
a) cos the TV cost too much… and
b) everyone is entitled to an opinion
It’s nice to see someone not just agreeing with what the masses say.
You also mentioned sport. Do they have a sport segment? I IQ every night and granted I may have missed a couple but don’t think I have seen that much sport? Last night they talked about Tiger Woods and talked to the pole vault guy but to me that was news.
I agree with most of the comments on here… particularly about the interviews… but also wonder how do you give people more time to talk when they have so little time anyway? I’m happy to see stars on there rather than not see them at all and this is about the only show I get to see them on.
I like 7PM it gives me a very quick snapshot of stuff… sometimes makes me laugh… but always gives me a reason to find out more about stuff.

By: KFed

KFed — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:31:44 +0000

@Stan Andrew G should not be allowed on TV, radio or any other media ever again.

By: Stan

Stan — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:20:44 +0000

I actually like the program and agree with others that some interviews are too short and forcefully cut. I’m not sure if this show should go to a later timeslot, unless people want more stuff for grown ups and not such family friendly show. I’d like to see more Andrew G as well. I think he was good when Charlie wasn’t around.

By: Tepee

Tepee — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:15:57 +0000

I really hope more people give this show a chance. It’s not must see TV at the moment (just look at the fluctuating ratings) and I don’t watch it every day but it’s a whole lot better than an umpteenth repeat of 2.5 Men, the absurd Home and Away or the informative but serious ABC News.

I’m actually really beginning to warm to all three hosts after not liking Hughesy for a few months. And the rotating fourth host idea brings some variety and difference. The panelists are discussing things a lot more and actually having opinions which was lacking when the show began. I think the show is actually weaker when it reverts to comedy instead of pursuing further discussion and expressing more opinions, and this is perhaps why people note the similarities between this and Rove (the show). Perhaps bringing in a panelist with more divisive opinions or cutting humour would make this show more like appointment viewing – I’m thinking Catherine Deveny, Marieke Hardy, Robyn Riley etc. although these are just examples and may not be to everyone’s taste!

The issues discussed are probably more “Sunrise” than “ABC News Breakfast” if you know what I mean and it would probably be beneficial to get a news editor to organise the selection of topics discussed and the order in which they are presented. 7PM has improved a lot and I’m happy that TEN have confidence in it. But they should also implement changes to ensure a solid audience which at the moment it is not getting.