Qi

LOL that may be true when invoking Godwin as an attempt to end a debate, but not when it is used in jest to make a point. ;)

Face it, you can't say someone's 'opinion' is wrong - however many people disagree. :p
For the record, I am not a big fan of JV on QI (but I do like him as an actor like in Ideal etc.)
 
I don't really like QI and only watch if the guests look good (not a big fan of Davies and Fry). But this (long version) was about the best episode I've ever seen. A lovely, conversational balance to it, and some very funny stuff from Mitchell and Lock.
 
Mack, Davies & Bailey trying pathetically to outdo each other as to who can be the funniest and get the most laughs but turning out to look stupid and childlike.
 
After the guest appearance of Arthur Japin (NL equivalent of Stephen Fry) I saw the Dutch episodes of QI yesterday and I have to say that I'm not often impressed by formats being 'localised', but it was very good (dare I say better than the British version?).
 
A problem is that most of the intellectuals they get in are from the Oxbridge brigade. I'm not saying that is a problem in itself but maybe it is a consious decision not to overload the program with them and have a broader range of guests.

Saying that, David Mitchell seems to not go the same route as McGrath and just has a swearing rant. It seems to have become his speciallity over the last few years.



I'm also wondering if it is a consious desicion not to ask in people from other shows that could be good for QI.
Ian Hislop, Paul Merton, Will Self, Jack Dee, Robert Webb, Dr Phil Hammond etc. Ofcourse, it could be that they have been asked and don't want to appear on QI.



I was watching a couple of programs the other day and thinking about QI guests and up popped two people who could quit the show perfectly.
Michael Palin and Sir David Attenborough. Slightly leftfield for Sir Dave but after seeing him interviewed he has very good anecdotes, great knowledge and, I feel, a good sense of humour.
 
The site is a hoax and was discussed to death (fnarr fnarr) on Snopes.com.

If QI say its real, and they are quite wrong, what else have they been wrong about?
 
William G Stewart stated a couple of times on Fifteen To One that 'Syne' should be sang with a soft S sound and not as 'Zyne' which everyone seems to do.
 
That would be cool.

I don't get the Phil Jupitus hate but I can agree Vegas isn't great there. Humphires was good and I thought Rich Hall was particularly good on the XL version, he can be a little too subtle as was with the 'which moon' where not all the audience might have got it.
 
I think Clarkson has been ok on QI. He's come out with some interesting facts and some of his comments have made excellent setup lines for the other contestants.


I think that was for comic effect and it worked out well because the other panelist riffed on it (I think it was Reg D Hunter). It turned out to be one of the best episodes of the series as the first few were dissapointing.
 
It's interesting, isn't it? He is very edgy in his other personas (especially Sir Les) and has contributed a lot of original stuff to comedy over the years, so perhaps they thought he'd be quite interesting. Just goes to show that some people flounder outside their natural habitat.

I should think that Stephen and Barry both have incredibly strong personalities, and would fight to dominate a conversation in any normal situation, but Barry seemed very submissive here.

It wasn't the worst show, but it wasn't one of the best either.
 
Back
Top