The show OTT Posted Thu Jul 27 14:12:51 BST 2000 by Jon

Any memories? I was too young to stay up for it. Caused a lot of fuss amongst the grown-ups, I understood at the time.


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Jon on Thu Jul 27 14:14:05 BST 2000:

The reason I called this strand 'The show...' is that several times I tried to start a strand called just 'OTT@ and they were all rejected. Was that a script thing, Rob?


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Jon on Thu Jul 27 14:14:57 BST 2000:

Whoops! That was a typo.


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Rob S on Thu Jul 27 14:27:28 BST 2000:

It probably didn't like the @ symbol... sorry!


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Jon on Thu Jul 27 14:44:46 BST 2000:

But the rejected message was identical to the first one here, except for the title. What was all that about?


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By RB on Thu Jul 27 15:12:30 BST 2000:

Border Television banned it, but eventually succumbed.
At the time, the Radio Times billed Not the Nine O'clock News at NOTT (NOT Thenineo'clocknews) "At last, the adult version of Play Away"


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Rob S on Thu Jul 27 19:29:24 BST 2000:

Yes, the forum code won't accept the @ symbol in the title...


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Jon on Fri Jul 28 09:00:54 BST 2000:

Yes, but I didn't put one in the title when it rejected it.


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By mk on Fri Jul 28 11:53:56 BST 2000:

so you tried to call it "OTT" and it was rejected?


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By An onymo us on Fri Jul 28 11:56:36 BST 2000:

This is easily the most fascinating thread on this forum. Come on, Jon, don't leave us in suspense - did it reject "OTT" without the "@"?


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Jon on Fri Jul 28 12:19:51 BST 2000:

Yes, that's what happened when I tried it on 2 different PCs. Almost as if the forum won't accept a strand called 'OTT'.


Subject: Not OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Dr. Hackenbush on Sat Jul 29 14:00:45 BST 2000:

Well... You're right. Didn't work for me either. Obviously another of Rob's clever mechanisms to stop us finding fake OTT recording transcripts.


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Rob S on Sat Jul 29 16:54:58 BST 2000:

Oh that's because it thinks 'OTT' is too short to be a subject title.... has to be more than 3 letters.


Subject: OTTB [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Dr. Hackenbush on Sat Jul 29 20:21:52 BST 2000:

Ah.


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By sheep on Sun Jul 30 01:43:52 BST 2000:

I quite liked it at the time.

But then, I was..umm.. about 12 years old when it was on. I might well enjoy 11 O Clock Show these days, under the same circumstances.


Or praps not.

I don't remember that much about it. Tiswas seemed more anarchic to me as a 12 year old, OTT seemed to be pre-scripted anarchism with swearing and *possibly* some bare breasts so keep watching folks.


Subject: Re: The show OTT [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Justin on Sun Jul 30 16:29:49 BST 2000:

Alexei Sayle did a Simon Fierce-type routine most weeks, which was incomprehensible/frightening/noisy/delete where applicable. I think Bob Godfrey contributed rude animated interludes. The show's presenters, apart from Tarrant, Henry, Carolgees and Gorman, were Helen Atkinson Wood from Radio Active and an American actress called Colette Hiller, who was fired after the very first programme.

Anyway, I got tired of it after about three weeks, and I was eleven. So who else watched it, I can't imagine.

Apparently, Angus Deayton was one of the show's writers, though. Apparently.


[ Add Your Comment On This Subject ]
[ Add Your Comment Quoting Message ]