TV Home Forum

Britain's Got Talent 2011

McIntyre, Hasselhoff join BGT! Cowell & Holden return! (December 2010)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
woah posted:
His comedy is definitely clichéd, but I'm sure all of this is enhanced by his ridiculous parading around the stage and voice.


I think what's telling is how easily lampooned he is by impressionists - not only the style but the "flimsy" observational humour.

That said, he does make me chuckle a bit, so he can't be all bad. I think I find his *incredulity* about, well, just about everything quite charming.
LJ
Live at five with Jeremy
I presumed Simon would be replacing Michael McIntyre for the live shows. Couldn't see them two working well together
IS
Inspector Sands
I don't get the whole anti-Macintyre thing in general, and getting him on board sounds like a good idea to me. I reckon he'll something a bit different to the judging panel, although I was kinda hoping that he was replacing Amanda Holden.

I know there's a problem with an even number of judges in the audition rounds but I assume that's not the case with the live shows?


Simon will bump it up to four come the live shows.

Yes, that wasn't my question though. I'm not that au-fait with the way the programme works, is there a mathematical problem with having an even number of judges in the live show in the way there was when they tried it last time?
IS
Inspector Sands
I can't speak for everyone, but I really don't find him very funny. His act just seems like very ordinary, lazy, run of the mill observational comedy. It's all very clichéd "Don't you hate it when..." or "Have you noticed when..." comedy by numbers.

Yes, I can't say he's in my top 10 of comedians but that doesn't mean I dislike him as so many apparently do. I think a lot of the criticism from his peers is jus professional jealousy, his rise has been very quick and he is extremely popular.

Certainly in terms of BGT, he's the first proper 'entertainer' on the panel. I never really understood how Piers Morgan was an authority on talent, Amanda Holden is an average actress famous for her ex-husband (mind you it's not as baffling as some of the choices of judge for The X Factor!)
MI
Michael
Comedy is about making people laugh. If you do that, then your job is complete. How you do it is largely irrelevant*. I've never understood the concept of "lazy" comedy when applied to entertainers like McIntyre. If there is any comedy to be called lazy, it's the kind of banal bore that You've Been Framed or TV's Naughtiest Blunders, and increasingly, sketch shows churn out.

To be able to find something witty in the behaviour and daily mundanity of the modern, media-sterilised metropolitan man of the type McIntyre portrays shows the abilities of the man. In terms of observational comedy, it may not have the fantasmagorical genius of Bill Bailey's surrealism, nor the sharpness of the bitiing, cynical tendencies of the likes of Jimmy Carr, Ricky Gervais and Frankie Boyle. It may not even be as endearing as the innocence of Ken Dodd, or the wonderfully bittersweet tales spun by Victoria Wood. But McIntyre has his place. Where? Slap bang in the middle. Not at the extremes of Billy Connolly, not at the obscurity of Jethro. He's a normal bloke telling normal jokes. And making people like me, a discerning, conscientious consumer, laugh. What's wrong with that?
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
Comedy is about making people laugh. If you do that, then your job is complete. How you do it is largely irrelevant*. I've never understood the concept of "lazy" comedy when applied to entertainers like McIntyre. If there is any comedy to be called lazy, it's the kind of banal bore that You've Been Framed or TV's Naughtiest Blunders, and increasingly, sketch shows churn out.

To be able to find something witty in the behaviour and daily mundanity of the modern, media-sterilised metropolitan man of the type McIntyre portrays shows the abilities of the man. In terms of observational comedy, it may not have the fantasmagorical genius of Bill Bailey's surrealism, nor the sharpness of the bitiing, cynical tendencies of the likes of Jimmy Carr, Ricky Gervais and Frankie Boyle. It may not even be as endearing as the innocence of Ken Dodd, or the wonderfully bittersweet tales spun by Victoria Wood. But McIntyre has his place. Where? Slap bang in the middle. Not at the extremes of Billy Connolly, not at the obscurity of Jethro. He's a normal bloke telling normal jokes. And making people like me, a discerning, conscientious consumer, laugh. What's wrong with that?


Yes, he definitely has a place in that roll call of artistes - but to use one of your examples; Victoria Wood (a genius), labours over the selection of every word, the phrasing of every utterance. She creates vignettes of British culture and life in a way that, I think, is almost unsurpassed.

Michael Mackintyre doesn't have the same "wordsmith" gift, but he is genuinley witty, and has an eye for humorous moments.

But if you hear him being interviewed, or appearing on a panel show, his shtick is exactly the same as his stage show. He has spontaneity of wit, but I think the more seasoned comedians you listed (and others), make a more considered craft of it.

All that said, he's probably just the right fit for BGT, as the gig calls for being sharp in the moment. I just think the panel should reflect higher standards, and for a show with such massive viewing figures, I'm bemused that they can't lure more worthy judges.

Holden, Moron, the Hoff? Gimme a break.

Anyway, good luck to Michael, although I won't break my habit of not watching the show.
MI
Michael
But if you hear him being interviewed, or appearing on a panel show, his shtick is exactly the same as his stage show. He has spontaneity of wit, but I think the more seasoned comedians you listed (and others), make a more considered craft of it.


This is partially my point - every time we have seen McIntyre on TV or stage, it's been a kind of hyper-reality, his comfort zone - interviews, MTW, HIGNFY etc... We have yet to see him (only 2 years into his career) in a so-called "real life" situation, which I believe the (supposedly) unscripted nature of the judge's chair on BGT may provide glimpses of.

Anyway... I've got his autobiog for the missus for X-mas (DAMN YOU TVF X FILTER) so once I've had a read through that I'll be able to form a better judgement on his true personality.
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
But if you hear him being interviewed, or appearing on a panel show, his shtick is exactly the same as his stage show. He has spontaneity of wit, but I think the more seasoned comedians you listed (and others), make a more considered craft of it.


This is partially my point - every time we have seen McIntyre on TV or stage, it's been a kind of hyper-reality, his comfort zone - interviews, MTW, HIGNFY etc... We have yet to see him (only 2 years into his career) in a so-called "real life" situation, which I believe the (supposedly) unscripted nature of the judge's chair on BGT may provide glimpses of.

Anyway... I've got his autobiog for the missus for X-mas (DAMN YOU TVF X FILTER) so once I've had a read through that I'll be able to form a better judgement on his true personality.


I have no doubt his true personality is much as we see it. Bursting with excitement and joie de vivre - not dry nor cynical.

BGT is more "hyper-reality", and arguably more scripted (or at least direction-led) than any of those panel shows - so I don't expect him to show a different side.

A dear pal of mine does the run of panel shows (a lot of them in Australia, oddly enough), and he's a similar "type" to Michael - but that just it - it's a convivial witty personality that can make a gag from chatting on any subject and with any person (usually in the audience).

It comes back to whether you're putting in the craft on the page or relying on a natural gift plus a lot of stage experience.

That's the distinction that causes me (perhaps unfairly or harshly) to call it a "lazy" thing.
BR
Brekkie
I don't get the whole anti-Macintyre thing in general, and getting him on board sounds like a good idea to me. I reckon he'll something a bit different to the judging panel, although I was kinda hoping that he was replacing Amanda Holden.

I know there's a problem with an even number of judges in the audition rounds but I assume that's not the case with the live shows?


Simon will bump it up to four come the live shows.

Yes, that wasn't my question though. I'm not that au-fait with the way the programme works, is there a mathematical problem with having an even number of judges in the live show in the way there was when they tried it last time?

With the auditions I think it really it was just an excuse to let Kelly go with some dignity, with the only problem being it takes four buzzes rather than three to stop an act, so hence less blackouts.

With the live shows that isn't so much a problem, but like The X Factor four judges means when it comes to voting on the second act to go through there can be a deadlock situation, which can be easily resolved be either going to the public vote or Simon giving himself the casting vote.
IS
Inspector Sands
With the auditions I think it really it was just an excuse to let Kelly go with some dignity, with the only problem being it takes four buzzes rather than three to stop an act, so hence less blackouts.

Wasn't the problem not about being buzzed to stop but more about the decision to go through.... an odd number meaning that you're sure of a consensus. As I say it's presumably less of a problem with the live shows
AM
Andrew M
Yes, that wasn't my question though. I'm not that au-fait with the way the programme works, is there a mathematical problem with having an even number of judges in the live show in the way there was when they tried it last time?

It's not so much of an issue at the finals stage. I can only remember one or two instances where a contestant was buzzed off in all 4 series. All he'll really do is pass comment, and will be interesting to see what he thinks of the people who have been put through when he isn't in control of the process.
JA
jay Founding member
Yes, that wasn't my question though. I'm not that au-fait with the way the programme works, is there a mathematical problem with having an even number of judges in the live show in the way there was when they tried it last time?

It's not so much of an issue at the finals stage. I can only remember one or two instances where a contestant was buzzed off in all 4 series. All he'll really do is pass comment, and will be interesting to see what he thinks of the people who have been put through when he isn't in control of the process.


He is still going to be an Exec producer on the show so will still have some say.

Also - The Hoff is a judge on America's Got Talent so I think he'll be a good addition.

Newer posts