http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liza_Tarbuck
Don’t get me wrong Oz, I’m not trying to say that Lisa is a strong or even good player. However, when the likes of Paul Merton and Ross Noble are on the show, for me, it helps to have more subdued players like Lisa, or even John Sergeant there to produce a more balanced panel.
When La Perkins is on with either Paul or Ross, or both, she is so determined not to be overshadowed by them, that in my opinion she tries too hard. Mind you, being the fair person that I am, I haven’t given up with her. Every time I see she is a panellist, I hope that she is going to say something to make me laugh, even smile. It just hasn’t happened yet
There is no other panellist whose performance irritates me like hers. The only other performer who came close was Wendy Richards, who imo, seemed to take herself and the game too seriously. Unfortunately for her, she appeared to have neither the education nor the intellect to compete effectively with her more learned competitors.
From: just-a-minute@...
[mailto:just-a-minute@...] On Behalf Of Oz
Sent: 21 August 2010 12:39
To: just-a-minute@...
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Recent Shows/Classic Shows
Well I must admit I've had my problems with Sue
Perkins in one respect, namely her very basic lack of general knowledge on a
couple of cringe-inducing occasions. I can't say I hold anything against L.T.
at all. Simply that when talking on a subject she is neither particularly
interesting or funny. No more so than a likeable member of the public might be,
in fact. Come to think of it, other than having a very famous father, what is
her claim to celebrity other than being just another C list panellist on
various game-shows?
--- In just-a-minute@...,
"Steve Kenrick" <steve.kenrick@...> wrote:
>For
> I'll leap to the defence of Lisa Tarbuck. True, she's not in the Premier
> League of JAM players, but she does have an air of honesty and normality,
> that some of the more extrovert, surreal players choose not to exhibit.
> me, that produces a programme that is well balanced.[mailto:just-a-minute@...]
>
>
>
> I would choose Lisa over Sue Perkins every day of the week, in fact I'd
> choose anyone over..
>
>
>
>
>
> From: just-a-minute@...
> On Behalf Of Ozpool
> Sent: 21 August 2010 08:54
> To: just-a-minute@...
> Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Recent Shows/Classic Shows
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Dean,
>
> I do agree that that formula is best, averaging 3 regulars drawn from a
> of those I named in my 'top group'. However, I suspect that it just isn'twork
> possible due to the schedules of those people. Paul Merton would probably
> make time and Tony Hawks and Kit Hesketh-Harvey probably have time, but
> those such as Fry and Perkins seem to have an unbelievable amount of other
> work, Ross Noble has moved abroad, Clary and Norton probably have more
> than they can handle also. Even Jenny Eclair's mainstream career has takenthe
> off in a big way in recent years (I say 'even' because her stand-up is
> pretty crude stuff and nowhere near the mainstream).
>
> It really can only happen if such stars as these are prepared to put aside
> some of their other (most likely better paying work) simply for love of
> tradition of the game.just
>
> I'm surprised no one has leapt to the defence of Lisa Tarbuck. Does this
> mean everyone agrees with me that her run has been over-long? Or is it
> that people couldn't be bothered to read such a long post?<dbedford@> wrote:
>
> Keep safe on your travels, Dean
>
> Oz
>
> --- In just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dean"
> >say.
> > Hi Oz
> >
> > thanks for such an interesting post. I agree with a lot of what you
> >formula for
> > Do you agree with me that they may be better to go back to the
> the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s and have say four or five regulars, three ofwhom
> are in each show (sometimes two, sometimes four but three on average)?off
> >
> > I think that would help with the repartee and getting people to play
> each other more...that to
> >
> > Haven't heard this week's show yet (I've been travelling) so I've
> look forward to!lots of
> >
> > And yes thanks indeed to the kind people who share their files...
> love from me!<mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > thanks again Oz...
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Oz
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:58 AM
> > To: just-a-minute@...
>the
> > Subject: [just-a-minute] Recent Shows/Classic Shows
> >
> >
> >
> > For some time now I have been toying with the idea of posting about
> make-up of potentially classic shows. I'm sure many will disagree with mytheory:
> views and i'd be pleased to hear what you have to say. So here is my
> >J.A.M.
> > There are only a few people who have the skills and/or personality to
> speak on the given subject AND manage to be funny while avoiding the
> rule pitfalls. (Eg. P Merton, S Perkins, J Eclair, S Fry, KHesketh-Harvey,
> G Norton, R Noble and to a lesser extent J Clary, T Hawks).some
> >
> > In between talking on the subject there are many players who can make
> funny challenges or come out with one-liners or over-the-top reactions to
> what has been said and thus contribute and add to the fun eg. S Hancock, M
> Brigstoke, P Ayres, C Collingwood, G Brandreth, S Frost, M McErlane, P
> McLynn, D O'Brien, C Neill, F MacAuley, J Lawrence, T Rice and arguably
> others.eg.
> >
> > Another group are those with potential who have perhaps yet to prove
> themselves fully but have already had good moments such as D Mitchell, D
> Gorman, A Cochrane, J Dee, P Jupitus, R Brydon.
> >
> > Then there are those who have little or no business on a J.A.M. panel
> Lisa Tarbuck (fantastic personality but does little more than contributean
> infectious giggle and is mostly incapable of discoursing on a subject ANDthe
> being funny at the same time) John Seargent (It was all too apparent in
> recent show that the days of this kind of contributor are over) BillBailey
> (surprisingly inept at allowing the show to flow, perhaps wanting to betoo
> big a part of it). Greg Proops (plenty of chances but just can't get goingfrom
> when he has the subject). Victor Spinetti is another disaster that springs
> to mind. Included, it would appear, for geographic reasons, at least the
> mistake was not long and drawn out like poor Lisa has been.
> >
> > For a potentially classic show I contend that you need at least two
> the first group named above (which you will note is really quite small - Isecond.
> include only those who are still available) and one or two from the
> There is no guarantee of a classic show, of course, the mix has to beright
> as well as the players being on their 'game' on the day.clearly
> >
> > Fringe shows used to almost always be classics, with Paul Merton
> very much at home and excited audiences spurring on Freud, Jones and Nimmo-
> but too many Fringe shows of late have been disappointing. In recent yearsnames
> the producers have gone out of their way to show-case new talent perhaps
> taking advantage of the Fringe format allowing bookings for just a single
> show. But the fresh faces have often either been no good or just too
> inexperienced at radio/J.A.M. The producer should never have more than one
> beginner on at any given time and there should always be at least two
> from the top group involved. Of course it is essential to try new peoplefeeling
> from time to time but don't try two new players on the same show! It isn't
> Opportunity Knocks.
> >
> > So, having said all that, I'm a little surprised at the negative
> towards the 3 shows of the new season so far. Yes, the John Seargent andis
> Lisa Tarbuck on the same show was a casting disaster (and I assume there
> another show with this pair to come - how John Seargent comes back fromthat
> I do not know - for his sake I hope it was the second recording of theodd
> pair), but the other two shows have been RICH with talent and a fantastic
> mix of the top two groups of players with the ever-dependable Paul Merton
> (along with Nicholas, of course) giving the show the anchor it needs.
> >
> > If the Fringe shows end up with the right mix of experience and the
> new(ish) face I think this could end up being a classic season as Ialready
> rate episodes 1 and 3 as potential classics (only time will tell if theyshows
> deserve this appellation, of course).
> >
> > Lastly, Thanks to Paul Hurwood and all those of you who record the
> and make them available to us who don't have the ability/tools to do it
> ourselves. The service you provide is absolutely invaluable to what I
> suspect is a very large, mostly silent majority. Thanks again.
> >
>
| 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 0.0741 seconds under 2.89% server load]
© 2012-2025 TVRDb.com. All rights reserved.