I think that Clue should take a lesson out of Just a Minute in the 1980s post death of Kenneth Williams.
I used to love Clue as much as Just a Minute. In the last 10 years or so however, I have felt that Clue has become somewhat tired (and samey). This was really driven home to me when I went to see it a few years ago. It was recorded in one of the old London theatres and we had seats way up in the gods. I therefore had a great view of the top of the panel's heads and the notes they were reading from. I'd realised for some time that some of it was essentially scripted. However seeing how much was being taken from notes they had made beforehand (rather than spontaneously) made me much less positive towards it. The best bits of Clue remain the genuine off the cuff interactions; these have reduced in number over the years.
In the late 1980s and 1990s, JAM adopted a model of having lots of different guests. The only constant was (and is*) Nicholas Parsons, and I think the chair of something is a good constant. The most regular on the panel happen to be the most spontaneous (eg, Merton and Freud). This helps to keep a freshness to the material and keeps you listening. Yes, some guests work and others don't. But there is always the potential that you are going to hear something excellent.
If you go to a recording of JAM, all ages and types are represented. I took my wife to a JAM performance recently. I didn't tell her what we there to see and there were no signs in the theatre. I asked her to guess what we were seeing while we were having a drink in the foyer. She was confounded and observed the differences in ages (14 to 90); clothing (suited to tramp-like); hair styles/tattoo wearing; ethnic diversity etc etc. She couldn't guess what type of entertainment could produce such diversity. This was in stark contrast to those who attended Clue. I suspect Radio 4 (who pay for the show) will value this diversity increasingly (because it ensures its future).
As Dean says, it may be courageous to change a formula. I'd agree that there are some risks but argue that the greater risk would be to do nothing. In my view, Clue will die off relatively quickly (next 5 years). I think the producers have missed a trick to use Dee as a catalyst to vary the style and appeal of the programme. It's not that Dee doesn't deliver lines well (he does), we just hear the voice of Humph and - to be honest - we've heard the lines before. There's no compelling reason to listen to new episodes of Clue because you will get the same humour:
- Jeremy still can't sing (first couple of times it was funny)
- same definitions on Uxbridge dictionary
- those two scottish people (NB that wasn't even funny first time)
In many ways, the format of Clue is more flexible than JAM. It also encourages more interaction (which is where you get more innovation). My suggestion would be
- Have Dee adopt his own style
- Mix around the regulars
- Have 2 different younger comedians on the panel to inject some new ideas
Grateful to hear other views.
Julian
* Bobbie - please comment here!
--- In just-a-minute@..., "Dean" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> I agree - buit it is difficult... I mean if they did change things, we'd all be saying ït's not the same, it's going down hill..."
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Steven
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 2:06 PM
> To: just-a-minute@...
> Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: OT: Re Clue/Jack Dees Guardian Article
>
>
>
> I quite agree... somehow I find it rather unsettling and sad that they are still writing exactly the same kind of lines that they did for Humph, and I can hear Humph's wonderful delivery in every new episode. I do wish they'd change the approach somehow....
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "delmelza" <delmelza@> wrote:
> >
> > Via UK Comedy News at Twitter
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/jul/05/jack-dee-sorry-havent-clue
> >
> >
> >
> > Personaly I think Dees is a good choice BUT Clue needs to write more towards Dees Strengths and not STill to the Much Loved Humph's style.
> >
>