Jonathan Ross

We are getting the Jonathan Ross show here starting on Friday, thanks to BBC America. I was wondering what people think of this man?

You poor unsuspecting souls.

He used to be quite good, but he some time ago became a parody of himself. No longer funny, often offensive in one way or another, painfully opinionated at times.

...in my opinion.

Possibly a bit too much Jonathan Ross over in this country. I can't understand why he can't bring his gentle humour of his Radio 2 show or his genuinely well-informed opinions on his film show onto his program. Probably because it wouldn't generate that many viewers.

So, yeah, capable of doing good things, but wants people to notice him so spends most of it being a bit of a numpty.

Yeah, top notch Friday night chat show entertainment. It's a laugh a minute. He's especially good when he's interviewing someone who he's a fan of - the Tarantino interview came to mind when he amazed Quentin with his knowledge of dodgy 70s films. Sometimes criticised for telling people he enjoyed their films when he gave them a bad review on his film review show - I call it politeness rather than hypocrisy.

Rich Flair wrote:Yeah, top notch Friday night chat show entertainment. It's a laugh a minute. He's especially good when he's interviewing someone who he's a fan of - the Tarantino interview came to mind when he amazed Quentin with his knowledge of dodgy 70s films. Sometimes criticised for telling people he enjoyed their films when he gave them a bad review on his film review show - I call it politeness rather than hypocrisy.

I agree with Rich. Wossy is a legend, and just as brilliant as ever. He is also currently displaying amazing grace under pressure as he is the subject of a hate campaign by the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph (and to a certain extent the Guardian) all of whom are trying to use him to destabilise the BBC to further their own commercial ends. In *my* opinion Beatly is utterly wrong, and Stanmore mainly wrong.


Wossy is also a big fan of Doctor Who, incidentally. Which is nice.

I think he should be given a knighthood for what he said to Manuel.

Thanks guys..I think I'm gonna have to take a look then

Rich Flair wrote:I think he should be given a knighthood for what he said to Manuel.

Yeah, these harmless old men have had it too good, too long.

My husband can't stand him at all. (But then my husband's a different generation.)

I like him a lot of the time, but I agree with Beatly's comment about him becoming a parody of himself. When he was on 'They Think It's All Over' (a comedy sports quiz show for those of you outside Britain) he was frequently inspired.

I thought that what he and Russell Brand did to Andrew Sachs was rather cruel and stupid. Ross got more of the flack because of his higher profile, I'd say.

Al Ronson wrote:Yeah, these harmless old men have had it too good, too long.

QFT!

Aspadistra wrote:I thought that what he and Russell Brand did to Andrew Sachs was rather cruel and stupid...

Which would have been fine, if it had been funny. But it wasn't.

Graymalkin wrote:Which would have been fine, if it had been funny. But it wasn't.

It was bloody hilarious.

I don't think it would have been fine if it was funny either. Taking comedy to the edge is a great thing to do, but only if you've got a reason.

It can be funny without being 'fine'. And here's a good reason for taking comedy to the edge - because it's funny.

Graymalkin wrote:

Aspadistra wrote:I thought that what he and Russell Brand did to Andrew Sachs was rather cruel and stupid...

Which would have been fine, if it had been funny. But it wasn't.

Doing cruel and stupid things to people who haven't been given a chance to opt-out shouldn't be acceptable comedy, IMO.

Dingdongalistic wrote:Doing cruel and stupid things to people who haven't been given a chance to opt-out shouldn't be acceptable comedy, IMO.

And yet, these are the things which make us laugh. We've laughed at these things for years, and we'll laugh at them for years. Acceptable or not!

He is often a genuinely good interviewer. I really enjoyed the interview with Benny from ABBA this week. It was warm, affectionate and informative. His problem is that when he hasn't got a guest that he's particularly fond of, or he can't be bothered with, he resorts to smut.

Now, I don't mind smut. But in the end, it gets terribly boring when he wallows in it. And he embarrasses himself more rather than us. I actually think the Sachsgate affair has made him raise his game and the TV show has been much better for it.

Whatever you think of Sachsgate, and I think it has more to do with a neo-con media attempt to dismantle the BBC than it has to do with prank phonecalls (a lot of double standards and hypocrisy there on both sides - from the BBC/Ross/Brand and from Sachs and his grand-daughter), he's needed a bit of slap for simply getting complacent.

Aspadistra wrote:I like him a lot of the time, but I agree with Beatly's comment about him becoming a parody of himself. When he was on 'They Think It's All Over' (a comedy sports quiz show for those of you outside Britain) he was frequently inspired.

Jonathan Ross is a very talented broadcaster, and I enjoy most of his programmes. However, he ruined They Think It's All Over he hogged the limelight, and should really have been renamed it I Think It's my Ego.

Frank wrote:Whatever you think of Sachsgate, and I think it has more to do with a neo-con media attempt to dismantle the BBC than it has to do with prank phonecalls (a lot of double standards and hypocrisy there on both sides - from the BBC/Ross/Brand and from Sachs and his grand-daughter), he's needed a bit of slap for simply getting complacent.

I have a similar POV: Ross can be brilliant and can also be pointlessly childish. Sachsgate was astoundingly bad judgement on the part of a producer (and on the parts of the perpetrators) - but...

...as Rich says, and Armando Iannucci is with him on this, a good chunk of the population loves to be offended and believes that humour and comedy should push the boundaries as far as possible. I think it performs a function; when MJ died, t'internet was flooded with MJ jokes which appalled some and amused others. It was interesting to see the way the hive mind responded to the news.

Rich Flair wrote:

Dingdongalistic wrote:Doing cruel and stupid things to people who haven't been given a chance to opt-out shouldn't be acceptable comedy, IMO.

And yet, these are the things which make us laugh. We've laughed at these things for years, and we'll laugh at them for years. Acceptable or not!

Maybe I'll qualify what I just said. There's a line. I don't personally find doing cruel things to people for fun to be pleasant at the best of times, but there are certain situations where things just aren't acceptable. The prank in question stepped well over that line.

And sadly, there are many people don't see the line (or pretend not to) and refuse to change their behavior - or simply think about others first.

Ross and co think first and foremost about maintaining their ratings - so that they can keep their jobs. It's only later that perhaps they realised that humiliating people on air in a nasty little school boy manner wasn't going to endear them to anyone.

The problem with the Ross/Brand segment is that if you objected to it, then it was assumed you must be a Daily Mail reader wanting the BBC banned or something. There was a more thoughtful middleground.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/jonathan-ross-russell-brand-radio

Fans of that particular segment remind me of a scene in the Simpsons, where Homer is watching a news item about a man who's hiccuped for 40 years, who says

"I (hiccup) want (hiccup) to (hiccup) die"

Homer responds to this by rolling around on the floor laughing and going "it's funny cause its not me".

Kate Seadevil wrote:And sadly, there are many people don't see the line (or pretend not to) and refuse to change their behavior - or simply think about others first.

Ross and co think first and foremost about maintaining their ratings - so that they can keep their jobs. It's only later that perhaps they realised that humiliating people on air in a nasty little school boy manner wasn't going to endear them to anyone.

To be fair - they didn't humiliate anybody on air. They never spoke to Sachs, they spoke to his answering machine, and it wasn't live. They didn't choose to broadcast these messages either - their producers in conjunction with management and the BBC6 compliance officer chose to broadcast the messages. There were no complaints from the people who actually listened to the show. The complaints came later after the newspapers, in conjunction with Sachs and his grand daughter, publicised the entire thing. Then we all got to share Sachs' delight in finding out that his daughter was a stripper who did porn. And how she felt about her night with Brand. Brand and Ross didn't write all these articles or publish photos of Sachs' grand daughter semi-naked.

Brand was SO concerned about keeping his ratings, as you say, that he quit his radio show, stating that it wasn't important to his career and that he only did it for a laugh.

And incidentally - those who have an opinion on Sachsgate - have you listened to it?

I listened to it Rich, and TBH thought that Ross & Brand were awful. It wasn't comedy, it was pathetic.