Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.

Anyone agree?

Guy

Guy Barry wrote:
> Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.
> 
> Anyone agree?
> 
> Guy
> 
> 

I think it's brilliant, but I don't see it as a successor to ISIHAC.

In article <4827066f$0$10642$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, on Sun, 11 May 
2008, Hugh Oxford  wrote
>Guy Barry wrote:
>> Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.
>>  Anyone agree?
>>  Guy
>>
>
>I think it's brilliant, but I don't see it as a successor to ISIHAC.

Yes, very good, but far more structured than ISIHAC: it has a premise (a 
good one, granted). ISIHAC's main attraction was the way it wandered, 
Paul Merton fashion, completely. (And, sadly, Humph, though I am one of 
those who thinks it _should_ be given tries with others.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Essex home for sale, œ59,950: see http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/home/

I'm not going to be called chair - nobody sits on me, and nobody ever will -
Anne Widdicombe (British politician), on "Any Questions", 1998-12-19.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:33:09 +0100, "Guy Barry"
 wrote:

>Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.
>
>Anyone agree?

Not that keen, and I'm sure it's not the first series.
Just a weak variant of Call My Bluff.

Tiddy Ogg.
http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk

J. P. Gilliver (John) goes:

>In article <4827066f$0$10642$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, on Sun, 11 May 
>2008, Hugh Oxford  wrote
>>Guy Barry wrote:
>>> Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.
>>>  Anyone agree?
>>>  Guy

>>I think it's brilliant, but I don't see it as a successor to ISIHAC.

>Yes, very good, but far more structured than ISIHAC: it has a premise (a 
>good one, granted). ISIHAC's main attraction was the way it wandered, 
>Paul Merton fashion, completely. (And, sadly, Humph, though I am one of 
>those who thinks it _should_ be given tries with others.)

Not sure what language that was, but ISIHAC never wandered. It was as
structured at the end as it was in the beginning. Maybe you've been
listening to something else? Paul Merton was never involved, for one
thing. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) goes:
> 
>> In article <4827066f$0$10642$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, on Sun, 11 May 
>> 2008, Hugh Oxford  wrote
>>> Guy Barry wrote:
>>>> Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.
>>>>  Anyone agree?
>>>>  Guy
> 
>>> I think it's brilliant, but I don't see it as a successor to ISIHAC.
> 
>> Yes, very good, but far more structured than ISIHAC: it has a premise (a 
>> good one, granted). ISIHAC's main attraction was the way it wandered, 
>> Paul Merton fashion, completely. (And, sadly, Humph, though I am one of 
>> those who thinks it _should_ be given tries with others.)
> 
> Not sure what language that was, but ISIHAC never wandered. It was as
> structured at the end as it was in the beginning. Maybe you've been
> listening to something else? Paul Merton was never involved, for one
> thing. 
> 
> 

Perhaps what John is suggesting is that it was flexible. New games could 
be introduced, old ones removed. TUT is like JAM in the sense that it's 
one game.

In article <48286407$0$26084$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, on Mon, 12 May 
2008, Hugh Oxford  wrote
[]
>Perhaps what John is suggesting is that it was flexible. New games 
>could be introduced, old ones removed. TUT is like JAM in the sense 
>that it's one game.

Yes, that's what I meant. I know Paul Merton hasn't been on it (though 
he'd be great); I just meant it _can_ wander, within the rules of the 
individual segments - Mornington Crescent _of course_, for example.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Essex home for sale, œ59,950: see http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/home/

Laugh, and the world ignores you. Crying doesn't help either.

J. P. Gilliver (John) goes:

>In article <48286407$0$26084$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, on Mon, 12 May 
>2008, Hugh Oxford  wrote
>[]
>>Perhaps what John is suggesting is that it was flexible. New games 
>>could be introduced, old ones removed. TUT is like JAM in the sense 
>>that it's one game.

>Yes, that's what I meant. I know Paul Merton hasn't been on it (though 
>he'd be great); I just meant it _can_ wander, within the rules of the 
>individual segments - Mornington Crescent _of course_, for example.

I see. 

It was the antidote to panel games, you know. That suggests it
probably shouldn't be too much like other panel games. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:33:09 +0100, "Guy Barry"
 wrote:

>Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.
>
>Anyone agree?
>

No, I think it's uninteresting and short on humour, inkeeping with
much of R4's output in recent years.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in message
news:3ZjUEUFhGNKIFwc6@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In article <48286407$0$26084$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, on Mon, 12 May
> 2008, Hugh Oxford  wrote
> []
> >Perhaps what John is suggesting is that it was flexible. New games
> >could be introduced, old ones removed. TUT is like JAM in the sense
> >that it's one game.
>
> Yes, that's what I meant. I know Paul Merton hasn't been on it (though
> he'd be great);

Actually I seem to remember that Paul Merton *was* a guest on the programme
in the early days after Willie Rushton's death, but didn't return.  I
suspect this was due in no small part to his lack of singing ability...

Guy

"Tiddy Ogg"  wrote in message
news:iopf24p7cb9leg0ru3kj1h7amilqdqo1lf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:33:09 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>  wrote:
>
> >Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were
needed.
> >
> >Anyone agree?
>
> Not that keen, and I'm sure it's not the first series.

It's the second series.  Who said it was the first?

> Just a weak variant of Call My Bluff.

I disagree - *much* funnier and more original than Call My Bluff.  The
opportunities for sneaking in true statements to make them sound like lies
are tremendous.  And the panellists are genuine comedians rather than
out-of-work actors and other clapped-out celebrities...

And David Mitchell is hysterical as chairman.

Guy

Guy Barry wrote:

> And David Mitchell is hysterical as chairman.
> 
> Guy
> 
> 

I think Mitchell is more funny in theory than he is in practise. You 
hear that dry, sardonic, schoolmastery tone and you expect a punchline 
and then...  nothing.

On May 11, 12:33 pm, "Guy Barry"  wrote:
> Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed> Anyone agree?

It's going well, thanks to excellent contributions and cross-
fertilisation with _QI_, which I think everyone in the first show at
least had been on.  In the previous series I felt it didn't go so well
- another show, was it _True Lies_?, had the gimmick in reverse -
players had to slip lies into a remarkable but true narrative.  Eddie
Izzard was wonderful.  Maybe they ran out of weird stories for that,
or the "Horrible Histories" books made it too easy for other players
to research.  Finding the true nonsense in the false nonsense in the
current show seemed less skilful, and at least one of the
extraordinary truths turned out not to be when I looked into it -
something about a famous composer shooting cats in the street from his
study window.  I think that arose from a rival's joke about the aria
in act four, or something.

But, as I say, it's going nicely now.  It is difficult to do it well,
I think, and they have very good talent on it.

Robert Carnegie goes:

>On May 11, 12:33 pm, "Guy Barry"  wrote:
>> Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.

>> Anyone agree?

>It's going well, thanks to excellent contributions and cross-
>fertilisation with _QI_, which I think everyone in the first show at
>least had been on.  In the previous series I felt it didn't go so well
>- another show, was it _True Lies_?, had the gimmick in reverse -
>players had to slip lies into a remarkable but true narrative.  Eddie
>Izzard was wonderful.  Maybe they ran out of weird stories for that,
>or the "Horrible Histories" books made it too easy for other players
>to research.  Finding the true nonsense in the false nonsense in the
>current show seemed less skilful, and at least one of the
>extraordinary truths turned out not to be when I looked into it -
>something about a famous composer shooting cats in the street from his
>study window.  I think that arose from a rival's joke about the aria
>in act four, or something.

>But, as I say, it's going nicely now.  It is difficult to do it well,
>I think, and they have very good talent on it.

This one was invented by Graeme Garden, but apart from that tenuous
link, I fail to see how this show relates to ISIHAC in any way. It's
entertaining in its way, and David Mitchell is always good on the
hoof, but it's nothing like ISIHAC, not by a million limes. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Tiddy Ogg wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:33:09 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>  wrote:
> 
> >Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.
> >
> >Anyone agree?
> 
> Not that keen, and I'm sure it's not the first series.
> Just a weak variant of Call My Bluff.

Without the charming Robinson, Muir and Campbell.  Is Robert Robinson
still alive and kicking?

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

Guy Barry wrote:
> 
> Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.
> 
> Anyone agree?

I wouldn't say it was brilliant.  As with all these things the rules of
the game don't matter, its the quality of the participants that count. 
The only worthy successor to Clue will be repeated Clue on BBC 7--sorry,
but that's the way it is.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

Guy Barry wrote:
> 
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in message
> news:3ZjUEUFhGNKIFwc6@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <48286407$0$26084$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, on Mon, 12 May
> > 2008, Hugh Oxford  wrote
> > []
> > >Perhaps what John is suggesting is that it was flexible. New games
> > >could be introduced, old ones removed. TUT is like JAM in the sense
> > >that it's one game.
> >
> > Yes, that's what I meant. I know Paul Merton hasn't been on it (though
> > he'd be great);
> 
> Actually I seem to remember that Paul Merton *was* a guest on the programme
> in the early days after Willie Rushton's death, but didn't return.  

You're right; he was on it.  I was afraid he would try to dominate it as
does with JAM and that Masterson thing, but I don't now recall whether
he was good, bad or indifferent.

> I
> suspect this was due in no small part to his lack of singing ability...

What about Jeremy Hardy?  

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

Frederick Williams wrote:
> Tiddy Ogg wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:33:09 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> >  wrote:
> >
> > >Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed.
> > >
> > >Anyone agree?
> >
> > Not that keen, and I'm sure it's not the first series.
> > Just a weak variant of Call My Bluff.
>
> Without the charming Robinson, Muir and Campbell.  Is Robert Robinson
> still alive and kicking?

80 years old last December according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Robinson_(television_presenter)

Perhaps not "kicking" as such.  Patrick Moore isn't, and he's working
from home now.

On May 11, 12:33 pm, "Guy Barry"  wrote:
> Absolutely brilliant - and a worthy successor to ISIHAC if one were needed> Anyone agree?
>
> Guy

While The unbelievable truth is good, I wouldn't say it was a worthy
successor to ISIHAC. 'Clue was unique and Humph did a wonderful job as
chairman, I honestly can't think of anyone to take his place. Probably
best to let ISIHAC rest now and concentrate on new material - TUT is a
good start