after having watched on Youtube an episode of 'Have I Got News For You' with Brian Blessed as the chairman, I often wondered what it would be like if Brian were ever asked to be on Just a Minute. certainly it would be a laugh riot since the man in question is a law onto himself, he's rather energetic and full of life for a man of his age, which is absolutely fantastic. plus, I would think his booming voice would play havoc with the sound engineers if ever he were to use his infamous Blessed Boom in the way he shouts out statements. I can imagine him challenging and saying at the top of his voice things like 'HESITATION!!' or 'DEVIATION!!' I also get the feeling he would have a lot to say, and has a good ear for anecdotes. I think the show would be even more of a laugh riot than the episode that featured Elaine Stritch. any thoughts? |
--- In just-a-minute@..., Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
>
> after having watched on Youtube an episode of 'Have I Got News For You' with Brian Blessed as the chairman, I often wondered what it would be like if Brian were ever asked to be on Just a Minute.
>
> certainly it would be a laugh riot since the man in question is a law onto himself, he's rather energetic and full of life for a man of his age, which is absolutely fantastic. plus, I would think his booming voice would play havoc with the sound engineers if ever he were to use his infamous Blessed Boom in the way he shouts out statements. I can imagine him challenging and saying at the top of his voice things like 'HESITATION!!' or 'DEVIATION!!' I also get the feeling he would have a lot to say, and has a good ear for anecdotes. I think the show would be even more of a laugh riot than the episode that featured Elaine Stritch.
>
> any thoughts?
>
--- In just-a-minute@..., Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
>
> after having watched on Youtube an episode of 'Have I Got News For You' with Brian Blessed as the chairman, I often wondered what it would be like if Brian were ever asked to be on Just a Minute.
>
> certainly it would be a laugh riot since the man in question is a law onto himself, he's rather energetic and full of life for a man of his age, which is absolutely fantastic. plus, I would think his booming voice would play havoc with the sound engineers if ever he were to use his infamous Blessed Boom in the way he shouts out statements. I can imagine him challenging and saying at the top of his voice things like 'HESITATION!!' or 'DEVIATION!!' I also get the feeling he would have a lot to say, and has a good ear for anecdotes. I think the show would be even more of a laugh riot than the episode that featured Elaine Stritch.
>
> any thoughts?
>
You're probably right. however, I must point out that chaos and anarchy pretty much go hand in hand with a show like Just a Minute. --- On Thu, 7/15/10, kj.naughton <kj.naughton@...> wrote: |
Speaking of Jean Marsh, she's one of my favorite guest panelists from the 70's, I thought she did marvellously. she was very informative, definitely wasn't intimidated by the other panelists, was very good at the game itself, and listening to her voice is simply a delight. Regarding Simon Williams, I always felt sorry for the poor blighter, he had a rough time during his two appearances. Although in his appearances, I always found it a source of confusion when Nicholas referred to Simon as being an actor from the 'legitimate theater'. He did the exact same thing to Martin Jarvis I believe, who actually appeared in the same series of episodes as Simon Williams. And it always struck me as odd that Nicholas should say that these people come from the 'legitimate theater'. What does he mean by that? Is he saying that comedy isn't a legitimate form a theater? Is he saying that the panelists aren't legitimate performers or actors? Anyway, back to Mr. Blessed. I hope they give a shot at being on the show, I think it would be a real hoot and a half. --- On Thu, 7/15/10, delmelza <delmelza@...> wrote:
|
Regarding Simon Williams, I always felt sorry for the poor blighter,
he had a rough time during his two appearances. Although in his
appearances, I always found it a source of confusion when Nicholas
referred to Simon as being an actor from the 'legitimate theater'.
He did the exact same thing to Martin Jarvis I believe, who actually
appeared in the same series of episodes as Simon Williams. And it
always struck me as odd that Nicholas should say that these people come
from the 'legitimate theater'. What does he mean by that? Is
he saying that comedy isn't a legitimate form a theater? Is he
saying that the panelists aren't legitimate performers or
actors? > |
--- In just-a-minute@..., "Dean" <dbedford@...> wrote:
>
> a quick google would have given you the answer...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_theater
>
But there it is, its like saying that one thing is a legitimate form of entertainment and another isn't. its like it puts people into separate classes or into a caste system, and then it gets into the whole 'its us or them' kind of argument. I don't know, maybe I'm looking too deeply into it, largely cuz I was always raised with the belief of equality between all things, races, sexes, religions, etc. so i guess the notion that someone would refer to an individual as a 'legitimate actor' or someone from the 'legitimate theater' makes it seem that comedians are in a different class system, that they aren't legitimate performers, that comic theater isn't legitimate either, and I don't think that's right. granted we all know that isn't the case, but its the fact that someone even makes that implication or indication that doesn't sit well with me, that's all. back to the subject, Charles Collingwood is an actor and he manages to survive quite well without a script during his appearances on JAM. Pam Ayers is a poet, and she does just as well too. Although Maureen Lipman I think has a harder time with it, because she can't go 5 seconds without screwing up. I do like the implication that Brian's appearance would be like Kenneth Williams at his most petulant, and with a louder voice. --- On Fri, 7/16/10, irishmanufan <irishmanufan@...> wrote:
|
But there it is, its like saying that one thing is a legitimate form
of entertainment and another isn't. its like it puts people into
separate classes or into a caste system, and then it gets into the whole
'its us or them' kind of argument. I don't know, maybe I'm looking too deeply into it, largely cuz I was
always raised with the belief of equality between all things, races,
sexes, religions, etc. so i guess the notion that someone would
refer to an individual as a 'legitimate actor' or someone from the
'legitimate theater' makes it seem that comedians are in a different class
system, that they aren't legitimate performers, that comic theater isn't
legitimate either, and I don't think that's right. granted we all
know that isn't the case, but its the fact that someone even makes that
implication or indication that doesn't sit well with me, that's all. back to the subject, Charles Collingwood is an actor and he manages
to survive quite well without a script during his appearances on
JAM. Pam Ayers is a poet, and she does just as well too.
Although Maureen Lipman I think has a harder time with it, because she
can't go 5 seconds without screwing up. I do like the implication that Brian's appearance would be like
Kenneth Williams at his most petulant, and with a louder voice.
--- On Fri, 7/16/10, irishmanufan <irishmanufan@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:
|
But there it is, its like saying that one thing is a legitimate form
of entertainment and another isn't. its like it puts people into
separate classes or into a caste system, and then it gets into the whole
'its us or them' kind of argument. I don't know, maybe I'm looking too deeply into it, largely cuz I was
always raised with the belief of equality between all things, races,
sexes, religions, etc. so i guess the notion that someone would
refer to an individual as a 'legitimate actor' or someone from the
'legitimate theater' makes it seem that comedians are in a different class
system, that they aren't legitimate performers, that comic theater isn't
legitimate either, and I don't think that's right. granted we all
know that isn't the case, but its the fact that someone even makes that
implication or indication that doesn't sit well with me, that's all. back to the subject, Charles Collingwood is an actor and he manages
to survive quite well without a script during his appearances on
JAM. Pam Ayers is a poet, and she does just as well too.
Although Maureen Lipman I think has a harder time with it, because she
can't go 5 seconds without screwing up. I do like the implication that Brian's appearance would be like
Kenneth Williams at his most petulant, and with a louder voice.
--- On Fri, 7/16/10, irishmanufan <irishmanufan@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:
|
But there it is, its like saying that one thing is a legitimate form of entertainment and another isn't. its like it puts people into separate classes or into a caste system, and then it gets into the whole 'its us or them' kind of argument. I don't know, maybe I'm looking too deeply into it, largely cuz I was always raised with the belief of equality between all things, races, sexes, religions, etc. so i guess the notion that someone would refer to an individual as a 'legitimate actor' or someone from the 'legitimate theater' makes it seem that comedians are in a different class system, that they aren't legitimate performers, that comic theater isn't legitimate either, and I don't think that's right. granted we all know that isn't the case, but its the fact that someone even makes that implication or indication that doesn't sit well with me, that's all. back to the subject, Charles Collingwood is an actor and he manages to survive quite well without a script during his appearances on JAM. Pam Ayers is a poet, and she does just as well too. Although Maureen Lipman I think has a harder time with it, because she can't go 5 seconds without screwing up. I do like the implication that Brian's appearance would be like Kenneth Williams at his most petulant, and with a louder voice. --- On Fri, 7/16/10, irishmanufan <irishmanufan@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:
|
From Nicholas' mouth its meant as an ironic remark? Well, I do understand the concept of irony, the unfortunate thing that everything Nicholas says is very much a 'straight' remark. Its like when one time the show was in Cantebury, and the subject happened to be 'The Cantebury Tales' and Clement admitted that he knew all of the Cantebury Tales by heart, and Nicholas stated at the end of the round that it took Clement all these years to prove that his education wasn't wasted. And his comment caused the audience to begin booing and hissing at Nicholas because they thought as I did that what Nicholas was saying was a snide remark, even though Nicholas immediately denied that that was his intention. You see, in order to convey the meaning of what you want to say, its not only a matter of what you say, but how you say it. its one of the reasons why there are so many arguments and challenges regarding deviation of grammar or deviation because someone had firmly established one thing, but is now saying the exact opposite of what they said before, etc. etc. regarding irony, the problem with understanding irony would probably lie in the fact that when it comes from the Brits, it comes about with a great deal of subtlety. everything is said very much fast and almost furious in the way some of the comedic Brits behave in a rather condescending or patronizing manner towards other people, and they call that comedy (whereas I just call it being disrespectful and insulting) because they obviously don't mean to behave in such a manner. its different for people who are actually funny (like Paul Merton), but something else entirely for individuals who try to be funny and consistently fail at it every time (like Angus Deayton) and just come across looking like a jerk or an asshole. I agree that comic actors and comic acting is slightly looked down upon, not such in Britain because the comedy across the pond is fantastic. The comedy here in the states is just... stupid, for the most part. Most comedic movies that come out nowadays fail in every single way, including being funny. --- On Sat, 7/17/10, Don Judge <don@...> wrote:
|
well, according to this information, in 1968 the split between so-called
legitimate and illegitimate theaters was ended. --- On Fri, 7/16/10, Dean <dbedford@...> wrote:From: Dean
<dbedford@...>Subject: Re:
[just-a-minute] Re: if Brian Blessed were a panelist...To: just-a-minute@...Date:
Friday, July 16, 2010, 12:30 PM a quick google would have given you the
answer... http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/
Legitimate_ theater From: Robert Torres Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:15 PMTo:
just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: if Brian
Blessed were a panelist... Regarding Simon Williams, I always felt sorry for the
poor blighter, he had a rough time during his two appearances. Although in his
appearances, I always found it a source of confusion when Nicholas referred to
Simon as being an actor from the 'legitimate theater'. He did the exact same
thing to Martin Jarvis I believe, who actually appeared in the
same series of
episodes as Simon Williams. And it always struck me as odd that Nicholas should
say that these people come from the 'legitimate theater'. What does he mean by
that? Is he saying that comedy isn't a legitimate form a theater? Is he saying
that the panelists aren't legitimate performers or actors?
>
well, according to this information, in 1968 the split between so-called
legitimate and illegitimate theaters was ended. --- On Fri, 7/16/10, Dean <dbedford@xtra. co.nz> wrote:From: Dean
<dbedford@xtra. co.nz>Subject: Re:
[just-a-minute] Re: if Brian Blessed were a panelist...To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. comDate:
Friday, July 16, 2010, 12:30 PM a quick google would have given you the
answer... http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/
Legitimate_ theater From: Robert Torres Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:15 PMTo:
just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: if Brian
Blessed were a panelist... Regarding Simon Williams, I always felt sorry for the
poor blighter, he had a rough time during his two appearances. Although in his
appearances, I always found it a source of confusion when Nicholas referred to
Simon as being an actor from the 'legitimate theater'. He did the exact same
thing to Martin Jarvis I believe, who actually appeared in the
same series of
episodes as Simon Williams. And it always struck me as odd that Nicholas should
say that these people come from the 'legitimate theater'. What does he mean by
that? Is he saying that comedy isn't a legitimate form a theater? Is he saying
that the panelists aren't legitimate performers or actors?
>
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 10 | 23 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 19 | 12 | 31 | 4 | 14 |
| 2018 | 4 | 7 | 21 | 8 | 9 | 37 | 9 | 5 | 19 | 25 | 5 | 14 |
| 2017 | 4 | 34 | 22 | 12 | 17 | 20 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 44 | 23 | 16 |
| 2016 | 13 | 49 | 39 | 57 | 60 | 87 | 10 | 32 | 24 | 12 | 9 | 23 |
| 2015 | 51 | 97 | 32 | 49 | 41 | 54 | 20 | 28 | 0 | 14 | 31 | 16 |
| 2014 | 9 | 75 | 68 | 33 | 28 | 33 | 52 | 82 | 51 | 32 | 38 | 79 |
| 2013 | 463 | 251 | 98 | 87 | 81 | 192 | 88 | 98 | 86 | 38 | 54 | 27 |
| 2012 | 92 | 121 | 180 | 199 | 125 | 88 | 71 | 155 | 118 | 166 | 125 | 144 |
| 2011 | 112 | 78 | 71 | 73 | 134 | 225 | 252 | 152 | 62 | 183 | 165 | 63 |
| 2010 | 142 | 117 | 153 | 94 | 69 | 49 | 69 | 183 | 82 | 71 | 68 | 75 |
| 2009 | 67 | 45 | 42 | 97 | 90 | 149 | 110 | 70 | 63 | 42 | 35 | 39 |
| 2008 | 200 | 120 | 175 | 120 | 70 | 109 | 87 | 115 | 71 | 45 | 58 | 38 |
| 2007 | 165 | 447 | 132 | 99 | 95 | 57 | 140 | 118 | 74 | 88 | 125 | 99 |
| FAQ | Contact | Services | Terms | Privacy | Credits |
[Page generated in 0.0797 seconds under 2.81% server load]
© 2012-2025 TVRDb.com. All rights reserved.