Can of Worms
For a show that promised no fence sitting, Can of Worms played too safe with an edited episode that went for gags over truth.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under Programming, Reviews
Dicko’s much-hyped new talk show Can of Worms premiered last night in a long, -very long- debut on TEN.
“Australia, we need to talk,” he promised.
But while there was conversation, and a hint of debate, there was a rush for punchlines. At almost every point, guests Craig Reucassel, George McEncroe and Jason Akermanis, were delivering gags to the questions “Is it offensive to call someone a bogan?” and “Is it ok to spy on your kids online?”
For the most part, the heavily-edited show lurched from one gag to another seemingly at the expense of debate and insight. As a show that had promised revealing truths this was unfortunate.
The core of the show, debating social questions, is a valid premise and television has done this since as far back as the 1960s with Beauty and the Beast. Geoffrey Robertson’s Hypotheticals did it particularly well during the 1980s.
But if Dicko is going to ask his guests “What do you think?”, “Why do you think that? and “Is it negotiable?” then I would like a follow up question: “Why should I care?”
Why do I care what a retired AFL footballer thinks about the concept of his wife having slept with more people than him? And why do I need an hour to learn this?
The three guests did not provide enough contrast in opinions to sustain the length of the show. Instead of giving us debate they spent more time laughing at each others punchlines.
But there was a moment of hope towards the end of the show when Dicko raised the subject of online bullying and suicide (one hopes the photo of a young man who suicided was included with family consent). It led to Akermanis talking about his teenage years and his belief that suicide was a selfish act. The serious moment in the show resonated much more than the gags.
The show’s biggest downfall is in not airing live and utilising the audience, two things Q & A achieves so well. Involving the audience will hold up a much better mirror than three celebs clamouring for the spotlight.
Including dated tweets (some were three days old) was pretty insulting, especially given Dancing with the Stars was widely hounded for this some weeks ago. This team knows better than that.
As a host Dicko will need to prove himself with the audience, but aside from some reliance on scripts I’ll give him a preliminary pass for a first show. But Dicko needs to be challenged to display his smarts rather than just serving as ringmaster. Meshel Laurie fitted easily into the mix in her support role.
The graphics used for the Roy Morgan poll results must have been done by the Hungry Beast guy at Zapruder’s.
I can see a role for the show in response to current news issues (Cronulla Race Riots, Carbon Cate etc) but much would depend on the guests.
Ironically, giving us a pre-recorded episode is the TV equivalent of doing exactly what Dicko said was a no-no: sitting on the fence.
Bite the bullet and air it live please.
Can of Worms airs 8:30pm Mondays on TEN.
87 Responses
Yes, as usual most debating style programmes in Austrlia lapse into lame quips by all including the host. I wish it was taken a bit more seriously a la, “Have I got news for you” a BBC program with wit and clever humour that doesn’t descend into the toilet as so often happens here in Australia.
You know there are a lot of Australians whom don’t find blokey behaviour or humour funny.
Keep the larrikin behaviour for the Footy shows.
Just get rid of this crap and Bring Back Good News Week.I stopped watching Ten on a Monday Night after GNW and Outrageous Fortune and Cleveland got the axe or finished.
great, so I didn’t miss anything then!
Axe this show ch 10 dicko as host idol is over and so is he nuff said
😀
Sounds s@&t
Mr Murdoch, I hope this show is on your list of things to get rid off.
The sad state of australian commercial television is that it almost insists that australian productions run at least one hour. Can of worms is not worth more than a thirty minute slot. In that time the show is setting tight deadlines and possibly raising the bar on production values. Yes the show has a few flaws here and there, but 30 minutes can make it refocus on whats done best.
But at the moment, can of worms is like a bad beer; hard to consume.
@Lindy — cool story, sis!
I was really looking forward to this. My thoughts.
Dicko was poor, guests apart from the chaser guy were disgraceful. Content boring.
In one word “disappointing”
0.5/5
Give it 3 weeks
take from some one who knows…live TV is about 2.5 times the cost of a pre record due to the timeslot. And Ch TIN would not be paying full price either, doing a deal with dicko so he could get his dial back on the box. Zapruder could only do so much with the limited $$ on offer, so narrow opinions aside, you got what TIN paid for. a dog.
@Lindy – the George McEncroe/John McEnroe analogy was part of the joke that you obviously missed and was a comment on how D-List Ms George with a R may well be 🙂
@ lillypilly It would not they interviewed all demos. I have worked for many research companies and the 18-35 age bracket would have been the last one they were looking for hence they just asked for people of those ages.
@Lindy: Dicko…is that you? 😀
The research company behind the show rang last week and only wanted to talk to people 18-35 yrs. Well that isn’t me, so I am not the target audience, and as a result I won’t be watching the show. Thanks Can of Worms.
This comments board would appear to be its own ‘Can of Morons’. ‘Cookie’ says ‘Who is George McEncroe – any relation to John? Probably not, given that his name is McEnroe. ‘Jayden’ refers to something called ‘The Guen Transfer’, ‘Nic’ says ‘Julien Cleary and the late Rex Mosphet made a good combinatiion on Steve Visard all those years ago’ – four spelling mistakes in three names! ‘Rob’ writes ‘a panel show where the talent makes jokes about topical issues…..what a concept!’ as though other shows like ‘MasterChef’, ‘Australia’s Got Talent’ and ‘Amazing Race’ are original concepts. ‘Can of Worms’ is like a MENSA conference compared to the empty-headed nonsense on here.
I gave it 4 out of 5 stars
Wouldn’t hurt if “Dicko” started calling himself Ian Dickson either. I’m a bit over middle aged men on TV calling themselves by their nickname.
People I don’t care about talking about topics I don’t care about.
I lasted 5 mins.
I found the show really boring, unfunny and uninspiring, which is a shame because I was hoping it would be something insightful and funny.
Perhaps it was the bad jump cuts (due to rushed editing?), Dicko’s unnatural facial expressions, George McEnroe’s “safe” answers or boring topics that most people couldn’t care less about (childless 20 or 30 somethings don’t care about looking at kids online habits).
Perhaps make it live with unscripted answers? I won’t be returning next week.
Agreed!! It should be live, and gags should definitely not be the goal :S The thing I liked about the promos was the serious nature of them, and how interesting it would be to hear people talk seriously about them. Not make disgusting “jokes” every ten minutes.
I liked it and will keep watching, but found some things were drawn out too long. Hoping for better guests but i don’t think this will last very long
More like Can of Squirms….such a lost opportunity to do something really worthwhile, intelligent and that challenged the commercial norms. The show started badly with graphics that didn’t even try to capitalise on the many great visuals the title suggests. It didn’t even start with a Can of Worms big question – but a simpering bore-o-meter… and sadly, “Dicko” (who would have given himself and the show a tad more cred by calling himself Ian Dickson) is Not a show host. Sorry. The panel was kind of B-D List, too. Who is George McEncroe???? (Any relation to John?) Mind you, she was better than the retired footballer. Why do we always have to ask so-called “celebrities” what they think? Why are they and their opinions even interesting? This show would have been better with a panel of “everyday” people – you know, real people – having a good, ethical chat and debate. And that was what I was expecting.. I felt like I was watching Channel Nine’s equally dumbed down The Big Question – yes, remember that of about 3-4 years ago …. Sorry, but I switched off after 15 minutes – and read a book! I won’t be back.
Like pulling teeth. What was the point in the drawn out meter rating in the beginning of the show? Show failed to flow and it was boring in opinion. None of the polish or spontaneous happenings of Good News Week. It lost me at or about the 20 minute mark. Will be surprised if this show lasts. Making it live would add edge and the guests need to be really opinionated and awful for it to be a real contrast and therefore interesting. Julien Cleary and the late Rex Mosphet made a good combinatiion on Steve Visard all those years ago!
Find some really ugly opinioned guests and you just might save it!!!
Can the exec’s just give us back GNW now?
I actually thought it wasn’t too bad. Meshel Laurie was a good inclusion. I disagree with you David, I don’t think it needs to be live, certainly not yet anyway.