Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted Thu Oct 5 07:53:25 BST 2000 by 'Jon'
I gave it another go, and it is better. I laughed quite a few times, which I never did at the old version (maybe once at Ali G, I don't remember).
The script is better, but also the presenters now have some warmth. They still have a few troubles with autocues, delivery, etc, but give 'em time. I'd never heard of Jon Holmes before, but he seems alright.
I didn't like the sketch about Polo, so I switched to Newsnight during that, and the 'Posh Boy' thing seemed a good idea that wasn't done well at all. But I didn't mind Bulla, and the Garry Bushell thing has more of a point to it. Wonder if they'll keep it going.
So I'm going to carry on with it at least to the end of the week.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By sheep on Thu Oct 5 09:56:10 BST 2000:
I watched the show up to the "Polio" sketch, and switched over as it made me cringe, and didn't go back. Up until then, I did quite like the jokes. Nothing special. Reminded me in a way of Huddlines material - rather weak but occasionally raised a smile, and nothing (in the few minutes I saw) that got it's humour simply frombeing offensive. I hope it continues to improve. Maybe I won't switch over after 5 minutes next time!
Jon Holmes co wrote Grevious Bodily Radio which I enjoyed, and has written for Milton Jones and various other radio shows - I usually find his stuff entertaining. I didn't really enjoy Buller on Comedy Nation, but I could see the humour it just wasn't my thing. Except when he and his cohort were running a wool shop - that had it's moments.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jake' on Thu Oct 5 11:15:20 BST 2000:
Well, if you've never heard of Jon Holmes, you can find out more than you'd ever wish to know at http://www.poorquality.co.uk - but in case you can't be arsed, he's done a fair bit on Radio 4, including as mentioned, GBR, but also The Now Show, The Way It Is, and also several things on digital TV. He did most of this with his usual comedy partner Andy Hurst, and also won the Gold Award in the Entertainment catagory at this year's Sony Radio Awards for their show on Power FM on the south coast.
Consider yourselves informed.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Thu Oct 5 11:28:06 BST 2000:
I also switched off at the Polo sketch - in my opinion the quality has actually gone down, although that may be because the presenters clearly couldn't present their way out of a paper bag.
Given time, they will clearly get better, but that doesn't excuse the fact that most of the jokes were terrible. I did laugh a few times, but what else can you do when confronted with a photo of Ann Widdicombe?
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By Dr. Hackenbush on Thu Oct 5 12:42:32 BST 2000:
I liked the animated Royal Family thing, although mainly for the bit where Camillahorse ate the dog.
Some of the Huddlines-type jokes were good, most of them were crap. That sort of thing is a bit tired, though. The interviews were neither wind-ups nor platforms for genuinely interesting people.
I think they're right to move the focus towards recurring things like Bulla and the animated Royal Family. They should make the topical stuff refer to ongoing issues and drop the kneejerk Weekending type stuff. People watched it for Ali G, not for pisspoor jokes about Tony Blair.
Oh yeah, "my seat's still warm" "Really, mine's still wet" dig at I. Lee was amusing.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'kinder surprise' on Thu Oct 5 15:01:28 BST 2000:
I say get rid of the presenters, they are just a feeble front for the bad joke writers to hide behind.
The show is a permission for coward's jokes. If such tripe must be thrust upon us I'd like to see the faces of those who are so proud to mount their work on the autocue.
Bulla wasn't bad though. I actually laughed when he described the Queen mum as stretching to 15 feet when her hips dislocated.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jake' on Thu Oct 5 19:29:32 BST 2000:
Well one of the writers does show his face - Jon Holmes.
There.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jon' on Fri Oct 6 09:18:35 BST 2000:
I think kinder surprise really is one of the writers.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'kinder surprise' on Fri Oct 6 18:38:05 BST 2000:
I'm not one to refuse an offer of humiliation from a man as appealing as yourself Jon, but that really is a cheap shot.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jon' on Sat Oct 7 09:40:19 BST 2000:
No, really. I think all the 'kinder surprise' postings are written by someone who writes for the 11OCS. I won't say anymore.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'kinder surprise' on Sat Oct 7 11:36:19 BST 2000:
What happened to the school girl accusations?
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jon' on Sun Oct 8 17:36:38 BST 2000:
Well, exactly.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'kinder surprise' on Sun Oct 8 18:08:26 BST 2000:
I liked those. I got a sense of pleasure from them.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Sam D' on Sun Oct 8 18:53:20 BST 2000:
Hmm.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By Dr. Hackenbush on Sun Oct 8 22:44:46 BST 2000:
I have it on good authority that "kinder surprise" is a sweaty 48-year-old bus driver.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Sam D' on Sun Oct 8 22:47:47 BST 2000:
Could it really be?
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By subbes on Sun Oct 8 22:53:59 BST 2000:
A balding one?
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'kinder surprise' on Mon Oct 9 15:21:27 BST 2000:
>I have it on good authority that "kinder surprise" is a sweaty 48-year-old bus driver.
Why do you use the word 'sweaty' in a detrimental way?
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jon' on Mon Oct 9 15:45:00 BST 2000:
The image of great rivulets of perspiration coursing down the fat-laden eyelids, pouched and saggy cheeks, and rime-encrusted mouth-edges of a 48-year-old bus driver has never been recorded in the history of romantic literature.
That's why.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'kinder surprise' on Mon Oct 9 15:48:26 BST 2000:
Am I to presume that you have been rigorously in search of such material?
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jon' on Mon Oct 9 16:09:51 BST 2000:
I never came across any whilst collecting odes to beauty. You're not in any of those either.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'kinder surprise' on Mon Oct 9 16:42:26 BST 2000:
lol
odes to beauty you say? You do realise you will never quite understand those unless you actually experience beauty for yourself. It's as hopeless as you trying to explain pomposity to all the decent folk in the world.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jon' on Mon Oct 9 16:44:03 BST 2000:
Perhaps someone who tried to explain pomposity would succeed in displaying it.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'kinder surprise' on Mon Oct 9 16:59:49 BST 2000:
>Perhaps someone who tried to explain pomposity would succeed in displaying it.
Would the same theory apply if I tried to explain beauty?
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jon' on Mon Oct 9 17:03:58 BST 2000:
If it were that simple, art critics such as Brian Sewell would acquire the resemblance of the works they describe, which they manifestly do not.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jon' on Mon Oct 9 17:08:48 BST 2000:
"Perhaps someone who tried to explain pomposity would succeed in displaying it."
Perhaps that posting proves its own point...
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'kinder surprise' on Mon Oct 9 17:28:25 BST 2000:
>If it were that simple, art critics such as Brian Sewell would acquire the resemblance of the works they describe, which they manifestly do not.
No, because they can only see things in the art that they themselves are personally aware of. They are seeing reflection of what they know.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Nunuf Urbuznuz' on Tue Oct 10 13:00:45 BST 2000:
Bulla is crap. Very very crap.
11ocs writer
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jon' on Tue Oct 10 13:05:08 BST 2000:
You took the King's Shilling again, eh Nunuf?
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Nunuf Urbuznuz' on Wed Oct 11 12:52:16 BST 2000:
Absolutely, Jon. I have mouths to feed, you know.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 11 12:55:12 BST 2000:
Got any other writing in the pipeline, Nunuf?
Incidentally, my e-mail is: jonni_2002@yahoo.co.uk
I do not work in TV or comedy, I have no axe to grind about anything, I'm just curious.
Subject: Re: Wednesday's 11OCS was alright, actually
Posted By 'Nunuf' on Wed Oct 11 13:34:01 BST 2000:
Endless exciting stuff that no doubt i'll be slagging off from within again in the near furure!
I've been out of circulation for a while (back problems abroad) but I'm easing back into work.
