It is meant to be a comedy show, even during the early days, there was a balance between comedy and performance art. Many of the panelists weren't 'comedians', they were actors who happened to specialize in comedy. Much of the drama and anger on display very often was just an act, especially from Kenneth Williams (at least, most of the time), but the new breed of performers are all stand up comedians of one form or another.
Dean once said that the show is an entertainment, but it also needs structure because it is a game. If it loses that structure and people just get up and start telling jokes, it becomes silly, which is exactly what the show is slowly becoming. All sense of competition is being lost, because everything is just becoming one big joke, and even the best comedy programs and movies can't fully sustain itself by going joke to joke to joke nonstop. but then again we are talking about scripted
programs as opposed to the free form extemporaneous improvisation on display in shows like JAM and Whose Line.
But anyway, granted I will admit the change in direction has certainly breathed new life into the series, I just wish there were more moments where people would attack each other verbally like in the old days, instead of asking ridiculous questions in their challenges or acquiescing all the time. I mean, the notion of deviation seems to be a very moveable feast nowadays when it seems like you're not even sure what can be considered deviation, because one minute someone can go on a flight of fantasy, not get challenged or get the subject taken away, and then the next person does the exact same thing and gets the subject taken away for going on a flight of fantasy. It doesn't add up.
I mean if people would verbally assault one another and complain about this sort of stuff on the
show, it would make it much more funnier, because it would a sort of intense combination of a Kenneth Williams tantrum mixed with a Peter Jones like bit of piss taking.
I think that's also what the show is missing, someone who could take the piss out of the show the way Peter Jones did and the way Linda Smith did.
The last time anyone really argued and complained about the unfairness of the rules was Rob Brydon, and he did it brilliantly, he brought some of that much needed drama back. In addition, the show also needs someone with fire and intensity, like a Kenneth Williams or even a Wendy Richard, someone who could blow up at any given moment because of the unfairness of the game. Those sorts of reactions add just as much humor as any insults hurled at Nicholas on a weekly basis.
linda <irishmanufan@...>
wrote:
i wonder am i missing the point robert i always thought j.a.m was meant
to be a comedy show .
cheers
Linda
--- In
just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres
<bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
>
> Tis true. Arguably its a lot funnier and less serious, but he's also
taken a lot of drama and tension out of the show in some respects,
depending of course on the panelists that appears. I mean, no one
argues over points anymore, although there
are moments, but more often
than not, everything seems to be a joke, bonus points are handed out
willy nilly regardless of whether someone actually said anything
particularly clever, humorous or inventive, everyone gets so muddled
that no one knows anymore whether a person said a word twice or not,
people tend to acquiesce to the decisionmaking without a fight.