Thew second (12-part) series of Dave's panel game show Argumental kicks off next Monday (23rd March) at 21:40.

COMEDY: Argumental
On: Dave
Date: Monday 23rd March 2009
Time: 21:40 to 22:20

The confrontational comedy panel show returns for a second series. John Sergeant presides over team captains Marcus Brigstocke and Rufus Hound and celebrity panellists.

https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/argumental/

I quite enjoyed the first series - not excellent, but very entertaining and certainly watchabale - so am quite looking forward to this. Hopefully it'll continue with the standard of series 1.

Good (but not brilliant) start to the new series. Don't like the set change though.

I thought it was enjoyable, especially the bit with the bodybuilder. I wonder how nervous Rufus must have felt insulting him.

While we're here, could somebody tell me what Rufus Hound actually is? Is he a stand up turned TV presenter, or a TV presenter/frustrated stand up. I remember him a while back turning up on Top of the Pops as a presenter, quite out of nowhere.

I think he is a presenter-turned-stand up.

Ah, right. Interesting. Usually works the other way round, I guess.

Quote: Ian Wolf @ March 24 2009, 9:47 AM GMT

I thought it was enjoyable, especially the bit with the bodybuilder. I wonder how nervous Rufus must have felt insulting him.

View original

Yes, that made me laugh. A lot.

I read an interview with Marcus Brigstocke last year talking about the need for having a large group of gag writers, seeing the topics the day before and then sitting down with the gag writers to work out what they were going to say. That's kind of ruined it for me now, I find myself thinking that every joke has been written and pre-thought out. You can often tell when they link an improvised bit with a joke they've previously designed. Thing is, the standard of performers they have means they could easily do it off the cuff, or at least without a large gang of gag writers! People like Chris Addison and Sue Perkins are regulars on things like Just a Minute. Why bother to claim that they've never seen it before and that it's improvised when it's not? And I felt my toes curling at the jokes (and the manner he delivered them in) that John Sergeant told. Someone needs to teach him how to read the autocue!!
Other than that, I didn't mind the first episode - Chris Addison's first speech and Rufus's body builder speech were highlights for me.

Firstly, Sergeant's delivery is perfect for his persona and the tone of the show, IMO.

Secondly, are you suggesting that Just A Minute is or isn't scripted?

Of course, everything I say is totally subjective. And you know what it's like, you instinctively like or dislike something and whatever I feel isn't going to change the way anyone else sees the show. I find myself cringing at the jokes that John Sergeant is making. I'm not suggesting Just A Minute is scripted for a moment, that would defeat the point of it. What I was saying is that a lot of the guests on Argumental have been on Just A Minute and are very good at improvising, so why do they need to get the topics a day before and meet with a gang of gag writers?!
I don't mean to rip the show to shreds, but it has made me look at the show in a different light; I enjoy seeing proper impro (radio, live, musical, impropera etc) and I love stand up, but I just find the middle ground a bit funny. I feel quite the same about Mock the Week - I'm just a bit weird like that.

I can see where you're coming from. It's sort of sticky ground - claims to be an off the cuff challenge for the performers...but it uses scripting and preparation. It wouldnt bother me in the slightest if they stood there with a lectern and clipboard to make their points, but to make it appear as perfectly improvised goes against the grain a little. I love a good bit of scripting (who doesn't?), and impro (when done properly) is an absolute joy. It's this mish-mash inbetween that I don't understand. If it's really made up on the spot, I raise my hat to you. If it's not, why pretend? You've still written something bloody funny.

Maybe I'm just a bit of a stooge when it comes to people implying they're genius improvisors. It's the same thing when people on these kinds of shows stick in some of their pre-existing material, as if it's a reflex. "Hang on, someone's mentioned drugs... *ahem* What's Pete Doherty cutting his heroin with, a Hollandaise sauce?"

Argumental-ly, John Sergeant is the only thing I can't bear. To me, he just seems a step behind everyone else (including the brave writers who try to make him sound hilarious via the autocue)

I am too tired to think of anything other than: I agree. Apart from the JS bit, as established.

Whether Just A Minute is scripted is another matter entirely...

You think it is? Maybe. But I don't think it needs to be. I've seen Paul Merton doing impro as part of the Comedy Store Players heaps of times and I don't believe he would bother to think of it in advance; they play a game called die where they have to tell a story without stopping or tripping up. It's not as structured as Just A Minute and the story telling switches between players, but they manage it very well off the top of their heads.
(I've just reread my original post, and I realise it looks like I'm saying that I think JaM is scripted. That's just my poor syntax and grammar; I don't believe it is at all.)

I got around to watching the latest episode (Sean Lock and Phill Jupitus) last night. Two thoughts:

1. Lock having to argue against the tattooed man was funny. I like this new series two invention of bringing a real person into the studio.

2. I think I detected what was the first note of genuine hostility in the show? The bit where Marcus and Rufus were arguing over Rufus' tattoos - there was proper disagreement and insults under those false smiles?

Quote: Mark @ April 22 2009, 12:41 PM BST

I got around to watching the latest episode (Sean Lock and Phill Jupitus) last night. Two thoughts:

1. Lock having to argue against the tattooed man was funny. I like this new series two invention of bringing a real person into the studio.

2. I think I detected what was the first note of genuine hostility in the show? The bit where Marcus and Rufus were arguing over Rufus' tattoos - there was proper disagreement and insults under those false smiles?

View original

I thought that Sean Lock was hilarious when he was arguing against Tattoos.
(I hope he's on again soon)

Those jokes between Marcus & Rufus were a bit uncomfortable to watch.
It was definitely an awkward moment.