Qi

*sigh* yes it was relevant in my humble, infinitely tiny opinion and I am entitled to that aren't I? You can't mention the train robbery without referring to Jack Mills, or must I check this with you first?
 
For your information, some of us are sad lonely people who had a Pot Noodle for Christmas lunch and spent Xmas morning with no other company than the 3 sock puppets we made to have someone to talk to.

And Sporty, Holey and Spunky don't mind at all if we want to post on rabroad.

So you can take your so-called life with your frienRAB, family and outside interests and shove it.
 
It's not shown again according to the listings i've looked at and the XL is not available online.

You can get the full series of the regular editions on iPlayer though.
 
Agree.

I thought that Vic Reeves might be the same as Vegas because he has that same slightly scary edge and flights of fancy but actually when he was on he was reasonable and interesting.

I just missed the opportunity last night of seeing David Mitchell and Stephen Fry's mutual admiration soceity. I really hope they don't book Johnny Vegas again, although I think from the look on Stephen's face, it's unlikely.
 
Actually, this was one of the times I thought "yes, that's right" because I have read about the Countdown clock theme being used in the past.

I'm toying with "Smoke gets in my eyes" for mine. ;)
 
Lee Mack was not very interested in trying to make any actual stabs at answers, he was more interested in just being the 'funniest' on the show.
I hope NOT to see him on the show again. I will admit that Bill Bailey was also a bit juvenile on the last ep too, which also encouraged Alan to be so, but both of them usually have a much better idea of what the show is about.

I like Lee Mack in 'Not Going Out' but he does think he is funnier than he is.

What QI neeRAB is to return to having at least one proper 'brainiac' on the show like it used to be and less comedians there who think it is about how funny they can be.
I am pretty sure the change happened before the move to BBC1 tho, so I am not one of those people complaining just because it moved - I am sure most people 'invent' the dumbing down issue because they have some pre-conceived idea that BBC2 is automatically more high-brow so the dumbing down is some kind of inevitability.

But please, NO more Lee Mack on QI.
 
I absolutely love QI, but feel something hasn't been quite right since its move to BBC1. I also agree that last nights show was one of the worst ever, strange, because I like all of the guests and SF but somehow it was just disappointing bordering on cringeworthy. I prefer more emphasis on 'sharing of knowledge' and being 'quite interesting' rather than people trying hard to appear funny (and failing miserably) which seems more prevalent in previous series'. I shall always watch QI, but it seems to have lost its quirkiness somewhere along the line. :(
 
OK a bit late but - re bullets; purely by coincidence if you'd watched the Mythbusters repeat an hour or so before QI on Friday, Jamie and Adam proved that dropped and fired bullets hit the ground simultaneously.

And way back they investigated the danger of a bullet fired into the air. If it goes straight up and falls/tumbles naturally at its terminal velocity it's not lethal. But it's more likely to follow a curved path (a "ballistic trajectory" because of its spin) and is potentially lethal; they cited some known fatalities.
 
Watched the xl episode this evening. So funny!

Totally agree with you about David Mitchell... he is my favourite QI guest, he is just so witty. Also thought he looked pretty cute in that blue shirt, but maybe that's just me!:o
 
Maybe the BBC should commission a special compilation programme - QI: Whoops! - where they correct all the facts that they got wrong previously.

"Stephen Fry, minus 250 points."

:D

(And do they owe anybody any points for deducting points for a obvious wrong answer that was actually a right answer? Remember when they deducted points from Dara O'Briain cos they give him points in an earlier programme for a "correct" piece of Quite Interesting knowledge about temperature scales that was slightly wrong. He wasn't have peeved by the pedantic viewer who wrote in to point out his mistake.)
 
How does that work then?
One person expresses one opinion about something subjective, and yet he is 'wrong' just because 'more people' think the opposite?

Ok, I am going to bring in Godwin's Law here (;)) and say that the few people brave enough in Nazi Germay to go against Hitler because they disagreed with Nazi policies were wrong then? Because from what I hear, more German people supported Hitler than opposed him.
By your logic that made Naziism right for Germany? :p
 
I agree about the lecture last night and there are many more relevant panelists for this kind of show. I notice next week is Jack Dee and whilst I like him (and Rich Hall) as stand-ups they are not suited to this show with their dead-pan delivery. There neeRAB to be a balance and whilst David Mitchell is brilliant there must be a lot of comics (many of whom are Oxford or Cambridge educated) who could add to the program.
 
Lee Mack and Bill Bailey are bringing the humour down with their unfunny retarded impressions. Was funny the first time but got old.
 
Back
Top