Canned Laughter on 'Have I Got News For You'
Ian Jackson
canned laughter (a month ago, or so).
It seems to have been introduced to the new series of 'Have I Got News
For You' (BBC2, 9pm). It's almost unwatchable. I'm changing to
Autumnwatch (BBC1) or The Giant Squid Channel 4).
--
Ian
Woody
message news:b69dRbnf...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
Ah, maybe that's why you thought it was canned - Autumnwatch was
on 2 and HIGNFY was on 1!
--
Woody
harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
Ian Jackson
<harro...@ntlworld.spam.com> writes
oddly!
--
Ian
Brian Gaff
sounds forced and artificial in the extreme.
also often you can hear that a certain bit has the gain up to detect those
titter bits, and its so obvious its really surprising anyone would actually
add it, unless its to mask some odd sounds of course.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b69dRbnf...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
Robert Wilson
Mmmmmm...Kate Humble....puppies...drool...
Ian Jackson
Wilson <r...@you-know-where.co.uk> writes
What about
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1293259/Charlie-Dimmock-gar
den-goddess-blooming-calendar-girl.html>
?
These days, you don't see much of her.
--
Ian
Mark
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>It seems to have been introduced to the new series of 'Have I Got News
>For You' (BBC2, 9pm). It's almost unwatchable. I'm changing to
>Autumnwatch (BBC1) or The Giant Squid Channel 4).
I watched the repeat and I agree. It was truly awful :-(
I can't understand the need for this since there is a real audience.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
bugbear
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 21:11:11 +0100, Ian Jackson
> <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It seems to have been introduced to the new series of 'Have I Got News
>> For You' (BBC2, 9pm). It's almost unwatchable. I'm changing to
>> Autumnwatch (BBC1) or The Giant Squid Channel 4).
>
> I watched the repeat and I agree. It was truly awful :-(
> I can't understand the need for this since there is a real audience.
I know they sometimes use canned laughter when a joke/shot/take
is done for the 3rd or 4th time, for technical
problems (and/or libel!).
It's *very* difficult to get a real laugh from an audience
on the 4th take.
BugBear
Mark
Better if there's /no/ laughs than canned laughter IMHO.
Ian Jackson
<i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> writes
>On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 21:11:11 +0100, Ian Jackson
><ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>It seems to have been introduced to the new series of 'Have I Got News
>>For You' (BBC2, 9pm). It's almost unwatchable. I'm changing to
>>Autumnwatch (BBC1) or The Giant Squid Channel 4).
>
>I watched the repeat and I agree. It was truly awful :-(
>I can't understand the need for this since there is a real audience.
Although I gave up after the first ten minutes, but I got the distinct
impression that it wasn't anywhere near its 'normally very funny'
rating. In fact, it was hardly funny at all. That's what made 'noises
off' even more annoying.
--
Ian
wrights...@f2s.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 21:11:11 +0100, Ian Jackson
Funnily enough I see a parallel between laughter tracks and emoticons.
They are both intended as a cue to suggest to the audience how it
should react.
Bill
Richard Tobin
wrights...@aol.com <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>> I watched the repeat and I agree. It was truly awful :-(
>Funnily enough I see a parallel between laughter tracks and emoticons.
>They are both intended as a cue to suggest to the audience how it
>should react.
Smilies are intended to replace the visual and auditory cues of normal
conversation (notably intonation) that are unavailable in plain
written text. Those cues are not missing on television, so canned
laughter serves a rather different purpose.
-- Richard
Andy Burns
> wrights...@aol.com<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> I see a parallel between laughter tracks and emoticons.
>> They are both intended as a cue to suggest to the audience how it
>> should react.
>
> Smilies are intended to replace the visual and auditory cues of normal
> conversation (notably intonation) that are unavailable in plain
> written text.
Unlike the "Applaud" or "Laugh" signs that audiences were/are implored
to obey.
wrights...@f2s.com
> In article <b7d305a9-05ec-49ca-a183-f9093232e...@w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> wrightsaeri...@aol.com <wrightsaeri...@f2s.com> wrote:
> >> I watched the repeat and I agree. It was truly awful :-(
> >Funnily enough I see a parallel between laughter tracks and emoticons.
> >They are both intended as a cue to suggest to the audience how it
> >should react.
>
> Smilies are intended to replace the visual and auditory cues of normal
> conversation (notably intonation) that are unavailable in plain
> written text.
Shakespeare didn't see the need for them. They are simply a poor
replacement for the careful choice of words and the possession of an
adequate vocabulary. They are merely the sign of a lazy or incompetent
writer and are gereally eschewed by the properly literate.
Bill
Java Jive
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
> Shakespeare didn't see the need for them.
Perhaps not a good choice of comparison, as he was writing plays that
afterwards he either directed himself or had a close hand in their
directing. Any great author, especially a 'man of letters' (or woman)
would have been a better choice.
> They are simply a poor
> replacement for the careful choice of words and the possession of an
> adequate vocabulary. They are merely the sign of a lazy or incompetent
> writer and are gereally eschewed by the properly literate.
I tend not to use them, but occasionally find the humour in my posts
has gone over someone's head.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Richard Tobin
wrights...@aol.com <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>> Smilies are intended to replace the visual and auditory cues of normal
>> conversation (notably intonation) that are unavailable in plain
>> written text.
>Shakespeare didn't see the need for them. They are simply a poor
>replacement for the careful choice of words and the possession of an
>adequate vocabulary. They are merely the sign of a lazy or incompetent
>writer and are gereally eschewed by the properly literate.
As I said, they are to replace the cues of *conversation*. A usenet
posting is not meant to be a great literary work.
-- Richard
J G Miller
> Shakespeare didn't see the need for them.
Because the actors intrepreted the works and conveyed the non-verbal
cues to the audience via their facial expressions and body language.
So what we need for Usenet postings is embedded information [in the
form of smilies or stage directions] to convey that extra information.
[exits stage right]
wrights...@f2s.com
> In article <c0dc5607-6a45-4c78-b6f3-8744d69a6...@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> As I said, they are to replace the cues of *conversation*. A usenet
> posting is not meant to be a great literary work.
>
> -- Richard
We're discussing the medium not the message.
Bill
wrights...@f2s.com
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:28:11 -0700 (PDT), "wrightsaeri...@aol.com"
>
> <wrightsaeri...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
> > Shakespeare didn't see the need for them.
>
> Perhaps not a good choice of comparison, as he was writing plays that
> afterwards he either directed himself or had a close hand in their
> directing. Any great author, especially a 'man of letters' (or woman)
> would have been a better choice.
>
> > They are simply a poor
> > replacement for the careful choice of words and the possession of an
> > adequate vocabulary. They are merely the sign of a lazy or incompetent
> > writer and are gereally eschewed by the properly literate.
>
> I tend not to use them, but occasionally find the humour in my posts
> has gone over someone's head.
>
and then add a smiley, it completely spoils the joke. It's like a bad
comedian saying 'gettit?' after every joke. It takes away the
subtlety.
Bill
David Livingstone
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> writes
>These days, you don't see much of her.
Charlie Dimmock
Think her Mum & step Dad unfortunately died in the 2004 tsunami
--
David
Richard Brooks
Maybe if he had given direction as to speech style maybe we wouldn't
have had the William .... Shat....ner school of vocalisation.
Historians now tell us of some terrible assumptions by past (and
present) theatre groups as to how his and other historic works have
been played.