Just A Minute

Get-A-Life huh?  I bet you're the president and vice-president of that club ain't ya?  ;)  j/k

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Just a Minute, always have, always will, what I don't like is Nicholas' ludicrous stance that he is 'always fair' and yet time and again, for 40 years, he has proven to be anything but.  That is what really gets on my nerves.  Believe me, I wouldn't want this show to suddenly become 'Brain of Britain' or 'Who Wants to Be A Millionaire' or anything like that. 

 

And if driving from one side of Florida to the next in order to work with people with physical or mental handicaps is your idea of having too much time on one's hands, I'd hate to think what you might consider suitable for a bank holiday weekend.  the fact that I'm in the car, I need something to pass the time, listening to Just a Minute fits that category quite a bit.  I listen to it a lot because I get a real kick out of it.  I love the comedic aspects of the series, I love the interaction between the panelists, but I hate it when Nicholas tries to stick his big fat steaming conk into the proceedings in order to deflect another justified insult that's been hurled his way by one of the panelists.  I listen to the show for the panelists, NOT THE CHAIRMAN! 

 

And what I also can't fathom is this rather vain notion that Nicholas has that he's irreplaceable, something that you seem to echo.  Nicholas pretty much all but goes out of his way to say that he is the main source of comedy on the program.  Any time someone has a go at him, he tries to deflect it by saying something along the lines of, 'Oh I do give them marvelous cues don't I.'  pretty much saying that anything that results in someone insulting him is some grand plan that he orchaestrated.  This goes double for whenever verbally mangles the English language (or some other foreign dialect) for about the gazillionth time, and then doesn't realize it until a panelist points out that he's made a royal cock up of something, he'll usually then say something like 'I say these things on occasion to see if the panelists and the audience are still with us.' 

 

And I have also pointed out that Nicholas is replaceable, by quoting directly from Nicholas himself, to wit he stated categorically that 'the success of Just a Minute does not lie with ONE individual, it is a TEAM EFFORT'.

 

 

To paraphrase Barry Cryer, and with no malice meant whatsoever, I do
seriously think you should look into joining a local Get-A-Life club.

JAM is not bloody Brain Of Britain or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire -
contradictory rulings on the part of the presenter (sorry, chairman)
or elastic interpretations of what is or is not "deviation" should
not offend the general public or prompt the yellow press to take up
cudgels decrying such scandalous practice!

Nor was it designed to be held up under a bright light by devotees
with too much time on their hands and scrutinised, rather as an
entymologist might examine a Guinean flour moth for imperfections.

It is a COMEDY panel game. The clue in buried - granted, not very
well - in the previous sentence.

YES, Parsons can get on my tits mildly on occasions. YES, he needs
some new material. YES, he could out-patronise Greek Phil Windsor
himself were it made an Olympic event - BUT, and this is important -
NO ONE ELSE could make a better fist of it. He is unreplaceable.

(But then, what do I know? They said that about Humphrey Lyttleton.)

Anyway, that's my two penn'orth.

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres
<bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
>
> Here's what I often don't understand when it comes down to
challenging someone for deviation.  In the early days it was well
established that it was 'deviation from the subject', although tere
were exceptions here and there that seem more commonplace now, with
regards to deviating from the English language, or deviating from
established facts, or whatever.
>  
> But how is it that one thing that's challenged on for deviation one
minute is not considered deviation the next minute? 
>  
> I've listened to practically all the episodes from the early 60's
well into the episodes playing today (which I may add aren't all
listed on the download section, unless you really think that this
past season consisted of 4 episodes), and have been shocked, appalled
and generally confused by the inconsistency with the rulings
regarding deviation.  Sometimes it can be funny, but more often than
not it's just completely unfair to a panelist who is actually in the
right, and yet Nicholas comes up with some cockamamie justification
that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. 
>  
> In one particular episode, I can't remember which, but I know the
panelists were Clement, Kenneth, Derek and Andree Melly.  The subject
I believe was Tutenkamun, Kenneth started thing off rather well, then
lost the subject to Derek.  Now, Derek was going off talking about a
Spanish lady named Carmen and was going to make a humorous joke about
the weight she gained and her being referred to as Two Ton Carmen,
but unfortuately he never got the chance to finish it because Kenneth
challenged on deviation because Derek was talking about a lady named
Carmen and not Tutenkhamun, but Nicholas' justification was that they
were and I quote 'tooting at ol' Carmen, because she was blowing a
couple of raspberries to the audience', which is the most ridiculous
justification for leaving the subject with Derek I'd ever heard,
mostly because it wasn't what Derek was talking about at all. 
>  
> It was one of those weird things that seemed to waver back and
forth, in so far that you can take the subject and make something
SOUND like the words on the card, which has been done rather well
many times in the past to humorous effect, especially when Kenneth
tries to get that person on deviation and doesn't succeed. 
>  
> However, in the same episode, Clement was making an attempt to do
just was Derek was doing by talking about going to a Glaswegian fun
palace, his car number was two-hundred and ten, at the end of the
alotted minute.  He was trying to make a case that what the person
said in a Scottish accent sounded like Tutenkamun, but each time
Clement tried to explain, he kept on getting interrupted, not just by
Kenneth, but by Nicholas (who seemed hellbent in that episode to make
sure that Clement stayed in 4th place throughout the show), who said
that if Clement put on a Scottish accent, it would've been justified,
which is frustrating because earlier in that same round, Clement
challenged Kenneth for not using an American accent, and suddenly
he's being penalized for not using a Scottish accent and Derek was
trying to ask Nicholas about that and Nicholas' response was 'Shut up
Derek!' because he didn't want to hear it.
>  
> Another irritatingly frustrating example was during Josie
Lawrence's debut appearance.  The opening subject was 'Life Begins At
40', Clement gets the subject and is talking about Charles Forty,
when in actuality his name is pronounced FORTEE, and is talking about
food and not even about the man's life.  Chris Neil challenged on
that, and Nicholas didn't understand the challenge on deviation, even
though he said quite clearly that Clement was talking about Charles
Fortee, but didn't take the subject away from Clement, even though he
wasnt even on the subject which is 'Life Begins At 40', and Nicholas
even admitted 'Chris, I don't know what you're going on about my dear
fellow, but Clement wasn't deviating'.  Even though it was well
established that he was deviating. 
>  
> Here's another example that I just find appalling.  In one episode,
I think the subject was 'The Iliad', Kenneth had it and was doing
well on it, but at one point he gets challenged, I forget by whom,
but its not taken away, Kenneth continues, but starts talking about
how to get rid of wasps, which was the previous subject, he gets
challenged for blatant deviation, and again doesn't get the subject
taken away. 
>  
> I mean, granted I love it when people go off on flights of fantasy,
but at least the stick to the subject though.  And that's another
thing, how is it that one person goes on a flight of fantasy and
doesn't have the subject taken away for deviation, and yet when
someone else does the very same thing, they get the subject taken
away because they're going on a flight of fantasy and its deviation
because so and so doesn't believe that they've done whatever it is
they're doing. 
>  
> It's so irritating because it seems like you can get away with
practically anything nowadays, either you can be on the subject and
get it taken away for deviation, or be completely off the subject and
not be penalized for deviation, that just seems to be how the rules
are nowadays, and it just gets on my nerves.
>

From: pjfitchett <Philipfitchett@...>
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Deviation challenges
To: just-a-minute@...
Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 1:24 PM

I don't often write here but I do feel I have to agree with
Lapsedcat. I do sort of understand your point Robert because the
rules are certainly elastic. But I'm sure we mostly listen to the
game because it is fascinating, entertaining and overall funny. You
may hate this but I would much rather have a totally unfair game where
Paul Merton or Clement get to speak for whole minutes than have the
rules stuck to rigidly
just for the sake of it. In my personal opinion, after having
listened to the few episodes where others have attempted to take over
the chair duties, I've felt that they definitely lacked something.
Nicholas Parsons isn't the funniest, in fact I think he may be one of
the most unfunny that has appeared on JAM and it is cringeworthy
sometimes when he makes a terrible joke after others and gets a less
than enthusiastic reaction. But that is all I can really hold against
him, as a chairman he is excellent and keeps it flowing
magnificently. Sufficed to say, the rules for me are definitely
secondary, but each to their own.