Just A Minute

I agree with needing the right mix. If a panel had Merton, Noble and two more like them , well, it wouldn't be Just A minute and the flights of fancy in such a game might very well pall all too quickly.

Similarly, I believe there has to be some sort of competetive edge. Linda Smith and Graham Norton, both fantastic players in their own right, sometimes brought out the 'worst' in each other where they enjoyed each others company so much and having a laugh between themselves, even any pretence of playing to win went out the window. Without the competetive edge to some degree or other, the structure of the game breaks down. GAME being the operative word.

Funny you should mention Wendy Richard. You must have loved the two shows from Portsmouth where she AND Sue Perkins were on the panel together! Even more curiously, it was one of those shows that had me cringing at Sue and her failure to know anything about HMS Victory in front of a Portsmouth (home of the British navy) audience. Wendy may not have been one the most erudite of players, but she knew all about Britain's proud naval tradition and the most famous of all ships to ever grace the British fleet. (Sorry to those who remember me bringing this up before).

I quite enjoyed Wendy's appearances. She was never great at being funny within the subject, but her tongue-lashing unique [to JAM] personality and her 'acerbic' style, as Nicholas often referred to it, made for some wonderful contrasts with the likes of Tony Slattery. Also, her indignation and intolerance of Clement's lists was always good for a laugh, in my humble opinion. If she were still around I'd have included her in my second group of players, one of the criteria for which was 'over the top reactions'.

Steve, your opinions are very interesting to me (and of equal weight, obviously). Are you British at all? I must admit, Sue Perkins has been pushed so much in recent times as one of the latest darlings of the BBC it wouldn't surprise me if people were tiring of her a little, despite her undoubted talent at being able to talk successfully within the JAM restrictions - whether or not you find what she is saying to be funny.

I tend to agree with what Dean posted a year or more ago now, very likely Merton and Perkins might end up the main two anchor panellists, in which case you're going to be a little disappointed I fear. Personally, I think we could do a lot worse.

When Sue Perkins first appeared on our TV screens, didn't she used to be part of a double-act? What happened to the other woman, if indeed this was the case? Does anyone know? It might be an indicator to her sense of loyalty, or otherwise, which could be relevant to JAM if the producers have her pencilled in as co-anchor with Merton.

--- In just-a-minute@..., "Steve Kenrick" <steve.kenrick@...> wrote:

>
> 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@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> , "Steve Kenrick"
> <steve.kenrick@> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

> For
> > me, that produces a programme that is well balanced.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would choose Lisa over Sue Perkins every day of the week, in fact

I'd

> > choose anyone over..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of Oz
> > Sent: 21 August 2010 08:54
> > To: just-a-minute@...

<mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>

>
> > 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

> pool
> > of those I named in my 'top group'. However, I suspect that it just

isn't

> > 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

> work
> > than they can handle also. Even Jenny Eclair's mainstream career has

taken

> > 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

> the
> > tradition of the game.
> >
> > 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

> just
> > that people couldn't be bothered to read such a long post?
> >
> > Keep safe on your travels, Dean
> >
> > Oz
> >
> > --- In just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dean"

<dbedford@> wrote:

> > >
> > > Hi Oz
> > >
> > > thanks for such an interesting post. I agree with a lot of what

you say.

> > >
> > > Do you agree with me that they may be better to go back to the

formula

> for
> > the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s and have say four or five regulars, three

of

> whom
> > are in each show (sometimes two, sometimes four but three on

average)?

> > >
> > > I think that would help with the repartee and getting people to

play off

> > each other more...
> > >
> > > Haven't heard this week's show yet (I've been travelling) so

I've that

> to
> > look forward to!
> > >
> > > And yes thanks indeed to the kind people who share their

files... lots

> of
> > love from me!
> > >
> > > thanks again Oz...
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Oz
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:58 AM
> > > To: just-a-minute@...
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:just-a-minute%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > Subject: [just-a-minute] Recent Shows/Classic Shows
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For some time now I have been toying with the idea of posting

about the

> > make-up of potentially classic shows. I'm sure many will disagree

with my

> > views and i'd be pleased to hear what you have to say. So here is my
> theory:
> > >
> > > 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
> J.A.M.
> > rule pitfalls. (Eg. P Merton, S Perkins, J Eclair, S Fry, K
> Hesketh-Harvey,
> > G Norton, R Noble and to a lesser extent J Clary, T Hawks).
> > >
> > > 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

> some
> > others.
> > >
> > > 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

> eg.
> > Lisa Tarbuck (fantastic personality but does little more than

contribute

> an
> > infectious giggle and is mostly incapable of discoursing on a subject

AND

> > being funny at the same time) John Seargent (It was all too apparent

in

> the
> > recent show that the days of this kind of contributor are over) Bill
> Bailey
> > (surprisingly inept at allowing the show to flow, perhaps wanting to

be

> too
> > big a part of it). Greg Proops (plenty of chances but just can't get

going

> > 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 from

> > the first group named above (which you will note is really quite

small - I

> > include only those who are still available) and one or two from the
> second.
> > There is no guarantee of a classic show, of course, the mix has to be
> right
> > as well as the players being on their 'game' on the day.
> > >
> > > Fringe shows used to almost always be classics, with Paul Merton

clearly

> > 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

years

> > 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
> names
> > from the top group involved. Of course it is essential to try new

people

> > 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

feeling

> > towards the 3 shows of the new season so far. Yes, the John Seargent

and

> > Lisa Tarbuck on the same show was a casting disaster (and I assume

there

> is
> > another show with this pair to come - how John Seargent comes back

from

> that
> > I do not know - for his sake I hope it was the second recording of

the

> > 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 odd

> > new(ish) face I think this could end up being a classic season as I
> already
> > rate episodes 1 and 3 as potential classics (only time will tell if

they

> > deserve this appellation, of course).
> > >
> > > Lastly, Thanks to Paul Hurwood and all those of you who record

the shows

> > 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.
> > >
> >
>