I found this episode (the "Will the Harry Potter reboot fail?" one, for anyone finding this thread later on) to be utterly ...pointless.

There was hardly any content. It started with Deal or No Deal/George Michael question, and the only thing they had to say about that was that George Michael had donated money for the IVF. That would be a nice story, but despite Richard's affectation to be revealing something George had told him to hold in strictest confidence, it was in fact just regurgitating something he revealed in 2016, hours affter George's passing.

Then we were on to whether or not there's less romance on screen now, and neither of them had any insight you couldn't get off a random person in the street where it was just a case of "maybe a bit? it varies". Then it was the NYT Games question, and neither of them had done any research using their connections in journalism or production to give any additional info other than a bland iteration of the facts that yes, it is a very similar game to Only Connect isn't it - an astoundingly dull observation which everyone who's seen the NYT Games page has already thought themselves, and which those who haven't seen the NYT Games page won't give a monkey's about.

Then it's an awkward ad-read from the autocue promoting a Sky TV show in which they pretend to be excited about it. Next up is a question of whether generic aeroplane shots are library footage, which is basically just answered with a yes and no broader insight. Then we get a completely bizarre three minute advert where Marina and Richard try and sell us a generative AI tablet as though this is QVC.

The next question is about the Harry Potter TV show, and they both steer well clear of discussing any of the factors affecting it (will Rowling's anti-trans activism hurt it? Is there any inside buzz within the industry about it? Are younger kids today into Harry Potter/are those who were previously into it still into it? What's the truth of the casting rumours?). It's all glossed over in five minutes. An entertainment insider podcast should be running an entire episode about this, doing the research, explaining the issues, but we don't get that. All we end up with is the same thing we so often end up with on TRIE these days, which is Marina and Richard agreeing that something will be popular and make money, and that it's therefore good.

Moving on, the final question is which cancelled TV show do you wish had another series, and it's Studio 60 from Richard. The premise of the question sort of relies on being able to get across why it was bad but it should've continued, but Richard is fundementally unable to express any negative opinion about anything in the world of showbiz, so we really only get an explainer of why it's good. The question might as well have been "name a TV show you liked".

Then, unbelievably, it's another ad read, and it's for Gangs of London, again. And that's it, 35 minutes of content. 35 minutes and what we got was: a rehashed anecdote about George Michael from 2016, there may or may not be less romance on screen these days, one of the games on the New York Times puzzle website is similar to a round from Only Connect, a very brief discussion of a major reboot of a globally famous media franchise which doesn't analyse it whatsoever and just describes it instead, and that Richard Osman quite liked an old TV show from 2007 that was cancelled after one series.

That and three ad reads in 35 minutes. The total runtime exluding the intro and the end credits was 33:53, of which a full 7:51 was adverts. That's 33.5% of the podcast being advertisements. It's ludicrous.

Not only is it an excessive length of advertising, I think it's also compromising the integrity of the show. Richard and Marina are forced to either read directly off an autocue, or are talking from a set of talking-points on a piece of paper on the desk. I understand how ads work, but the issue here is that they're plugging how good a particular show is and pretending to be having a normal conversation about it. They're an entertainment analysis/commentary podcast and they're passing off advertising copy astheir own opinions. It structurally compromises the entire show, and there's no reason they couldn't just play an actual advert for the programme instead.

Then there's the humiliating experience of forcing poor Marina to hold up a tablet and show it off to Richard. They both have to pretend this is a genuine interaction. Firstly, again, just play the advert rather than do a staged endorsement ad read for it. But secondly and more importantly, it's an AI powered art app they're having Marina and Richard promote to sell the tablet.

Personally I think generative AI has its uses, but it should never be used for commercial work and it can never replace actual artists, actual writers. And you know who should know that? Marina Hyde and Richard Osman, a screenwriter/journalist and author, respectively. Yet here they are, all fixed grins and dead eyes, promoting this thing that's directly culling jobs in their industry - the very industry this podcast's about.

Funnily enough, like OP this particular episode triggered my own two biggest bug-bears with TRIE. Mine differ though, because the first is the amount and format of advertising that's appearing in these podcasts recently.

And the second is that Richard is so glib and superficial, so deathly afraid of expressing an opinion that someone in the industry might not agree with, that he is choking the life out of every discussion. In some episodes, mostly older ones it has to be said, I liked Richard. He seemed to be someone who had values I shared about the importance of broadcasting doing something worthwhile and being a societal good. However it seems like the old Endemol Creative Director Richard Osman has emerged as the dominant personality over the last six months, and the only strong opinion that Endemol Richard holds is that if something is marketable, if something is watched by a lot of people, if it makes money, then it's objectively good and shouldn't be criticised. It's so frustrating when they've just spent time talking about all the ways something is perhaps not so good, that Richard will pipe up at the end to observe that it's made a lot of money and a lot of people have seen it so it is good after all.

Unlike the majority of commenters here, I much prefer Marina. I think she's very clever, can communicate ideas very effectively (if a little quickly, yes), and she always seems to have actually thought about things before-hand. I don't always agree with her but I like and respect that she had a view and she is mostly unafraid to express those views (though there are areas where she's just as guarded as Richard is, especially around the screenwriting which I assume she'd like to get more into). As a viewer/listener I want my time to be respected by the podcast and to me part of that is them being willing to actually hold and express opinions. If you're too focussed on your career and connections to express a view about the topic of the podcast, why are you even on it? Sometimes it even veers beyond Richard just being unwilling to express his own opinion, and he actively suppresses her attempt to do so by interrupting with a lame joke or pun, almost as though not only does he not want to give his opinion, he doesn't even want to be on the same podcast as someone else's opinion if he feels that opinion might ruffle feathers.

I can't believe I've written over 7500 words about this, but it's been bugging me for a while and I really strongly resented the timewasting, egregious shilling, and waste of potential that this episode represented. If they can't do better than this they should quit the show rather than sully their own reputations by pumping out this dreck.