Ten Things I Think About JAM On TV

1. I THINK....

I have been slow in following up on my earlier post here about JAM on TV written at the end of the first week. I have been giving priority to transcribing and there are now 20 new transcripts up on the website. So now time to update the blog with thoughts after two weeks of JAM on TV. Anyway here goes...

2. I THINK...

Just A Minute on TV was good TV. The main criticism beforehand was that the format wouldn't work on TV. I think the programmes were good television. It was interesting to watch the players struggling to keep going, glaring at each other, their expressions and how they play to the audience. Because we could see them in close up shots, it was in many ways better than actually being there. I think too the thing seemed fresh, a strange thing to say after 45 years perhaps, but the variety of subjects - I thought the subjects were very well chosen - made it seem fresh. I think it compares well with the other comedy panel shows on British TV.

3. I THINK...

It was the right decision to try and stick as much as possible to the radio format. The only real innovation was the bell to announce the last round. I quite liked it though I think Nicholas would have to dream up some new jokes to make if they were going to make any more. It had a nice tone to it too. Other minor changes - the display of the subject on screen, the lighting up panel tables - were all fine too. I noticed that Nicholas appeared to be operating the time device himself, pushing something on his desk when he said "starting now" and I wondered why he needed to do that. Would you have liked to have seen a clock or the points on the screen? The producer Andy Brereton thought part of the fun is not being entirely sure when the whistle is to be blown.

4. I THINK...

The second week was better than the first week. The best of the 10 shows was the last with Paul Merton, Julian Clary, Stephen Fry and Shappi Khorsandi which was as good as Just A Minute gets. But Tony Hawks's two appaearances in the past week - joining Paul, Graham Norton and Sue Perkins, and then Paul, Gyles Brandreth and Liza Tarbuck - also made for top class JAM. The show with Paul, Sue, Marcus Brigstocke and Stephen Mangan was also very funny. The only disappointment was the show with Paul, Shappi, Jason Manford and Hugh Bonneville. All had their moments but there wasn't enough experience there to get the show to work. I think I would have retained Josie Lawrence from the first recording that night.

5. I THINK...

Nicholas Parsons was really outstanding. I was worried about having such an elderly man in the chair but he was really really good. He was sharp, funny and in command. He continues to hit the right tone for this show more often than not, and his vast TV experience meant he seemed to connect with the TV viewers. He was good at keeping his eye on the camera, eyeing the viewer and therefore keeping up a conversational manner. I don't think anyone could have done better. Paul's involvement was vital too. Firstly his presence gave the TV version credibility (it's not as if he does many TV panel shows apart from Have I Got News For You). And in the great tradition of Kenneth, he has the marvellous ability to get the show back on track if ever it begins to drag. He was tremendous.

6. I THINK...

The disappointments were in two categories. A reasonable number of newcomers were tried - Hugh Bonneville, Ruth Jones, Jason Manford, Stephen Mangan, Russell Tovey - but none of them really shone. I would say only Stephen and Jason were worth a try on the radio. Maybe Hugh too - he certainly has the gift of the gab. The other disappointment is that Sheila Hancock, Jenny Eclair, Kit Hesketh-Harvey and Ross Noble didn't get a run. Each has a distinctive style that would have worked well. They did try and book Sheila, Jenny and Ross - not sure about Kit.

7. I THINK...

I ran a poll on the Yahoo group about the series and what should happen now. People had five options in answer to the question "Was Just A Minute on TV a success"...* Yes! Let's see it on TV AND hear it on radio coz you can't get enough JAM * Yes! Put it on TV and wind up the radio version * Yes! It was a nice one-off but let's stick to radio * No! It doesn't work on TV, keep it on the radio * No! The whole thing is looking old, let's wind JAM up entirely and move on to a fresh idea The results are interesting. So far there are votes only for the first and third options - ie. everyone thinks the TV series worked and everyone wants it to stay on radio. Whether it should evolve into a regular TV series is the issue people are divided on. That vote is very close, but at time of writing, the third option has a slight lead.

8. I THINK...

I disagree with this poll result. If JAM does become a semi-regular part of the TV schedules, it means the show is getting a much much larger audience. That is the best way of keeping it on air in some form. And the TV version ADDS to the radio experience. If done properly a JAM TV show can be better than a radio show. I don't think it should run five days a week. But why not at roughly the rate they show other panel shows - 15 to 20 shows a year? I think that would boost the chances of the radio show surviving and, let's be honest, Nicholas's retirement or death is bound to raise the question of whether the show should continue.

9. I THINK...

Whatever I think what will matter is whether the wider audience liked it. Despite the use of the 45 year peg, the producers were hopeful of another run. Andy Brereton told me that and Jamie Ormerod tweeted the same sentiment. I haven't been able to find any ratings figures. Did it lose audience compared with Eggheads? I'd love to know.

10. I THINK...

it's harder than you think to think of 10 things...