Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? Posted Mon Jan 29 21:52:12 GMT 2001 by Ewar Woowar

Why is Danny Baker's TV output so bad when his radio efforts are so good? I've been puzzling over this and I just can't come up with any sensible reasons. So here are some silly ones: his stupid grin; his hair; the way he's always walking toward the camera a bit and then walking back again...

Seriouslythoughfolks, I realise that he's never been offered the right format that would allow him the same free reign he enjoys on the radio, but I believe him to be very funny and talented - surely that should come across no matter what the vehicle? The only TV show he's done that I can recall in which his wit really sparkled was the lamentable Win Lose or Draw. Surely his chat show gave him more freedom and flexibility, and yet as I remember it he just didn't pull it off.

Any theories?

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Justin on Mon Jan 29 22:53:30 GMT 2001:

The thing about the chat show ("Danny Baker After All", BBC1 1993-94) was that, as he pointed out on Radio 5 for months while they were piloting it, it was supposed to be an extension of the radio show. In other words, more audience involvement, and a lot more bizarre and less celebrity guest-reliant than it actually became. I really didn't think some of After All was too bad. The Danny Baker Show (BBC1 1994-95), however, was rather blander, and Baker clearly looked very uncomfortable trying to do sincere interviews with the likes of Esther Rantzen, for example.

But Baker wasn't a complete disaster on TV. I point towards the marvellous TV Heroes (BBC1, 1993-94) as a lesson on how to do intelligent and warm profiles of TV icons. And I think if he were ever allowed to write and star in a programme about pop, he would storm it.

BTW I have the Win Lose Or Draw episode where they pretty much unite the Morning Edition team. Tragically (for me, anyway), Allis Moss was not involved.

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Phil2' on Mon Jan 29 22:55:12 GMT 2001:

I thought TV Heroes was great, just Danny Baker talking about the sort of people he genuinely enjoyed watching in years past. Proof enough that he can do good TV when he tries.

Why he's chosen to whore out his talents to Chris Evans for so long, I've no idea.

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Dr. Hackenbush on Mon Jan 29 23:27:55 GMT 2001:

The best bits of the radio show were the bits where they got people to do stupid things. The spontaneity of someone using a blow-torch on his sister's battery-operated pterodactyl would be lost if it was set up as a TV stunt and they had to send a crew round - also, the noise alone and the mental picture it conjured up is probably funnier than the actuality on TV.
In general, spontaneous radio must be easier to do because you have time:
a) it's cheaper per minute to make
b) you can wait for stunts to be set up as the audience will stick around while you play records, whereas a similar delay on TV would be intolerable.
Also, the end segment where they drew on pictures and then described them while having hysterics was the funniest thing ever.
I made a Turin-shroud-like image of the bottom of a frying pan in a £700 wooden kitchen surface. Oops.

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'tim_e' on Tue Jan 30 01:09:34 GMT 2001:

>The best bits of the radio show were the bits where they got people to do stupid things.

Cue TJ.

>Also, the end segment where they drew on pictures and then described them while having hysterics was the funniest thing ever.

The University of Turmoil:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/t.emanuelfreedialup/turmoil.mp3

Also see:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/t.emanuelfreedialup/chainmail.mp3

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Bent Halo on Tue Jan 30 09:44:31 GMT 2001:

'The Bottom Line'

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Al' on Tue Jan 30 10:30:47 GMT 2001:

>'The Bottom Line'

HAIYA! HAIYA! HAIYA!

"Now Jack sent off for these tyres in 1972. He put £100 in an envelope - I'm sorry? £100 in an envelope? No-one does that - the world doesn't work like that..."

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Bent Halo on Tue Jan 30 14:59:14 GMT 2001:

It was "old Joe", memorable only because of Danny's wrist action as he described the camera crew's attitude to that man's tragedy.

'Room 101', 1994, in case anyone wondered. I was pondering with Justin the other week about why it never got repeated. Perhaps it had something to do with the QVC section, where they demonstrated how one of their products did not work. In sarcastic voices, natch.

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Dr. Hackenbush on Wed Jan 31 21:13:41 GMT 2001:


Thanks for the clips, I enjoyed these.


>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/t.emanuelfreedialup/turmoil.mp3" target="_top">http://homepage.ntlworld.com/t.emanuelfreedialup/turmoil.mp3</a>
>
>Also see:
>
><a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/t.emanuelfreedialup/chainmail.mp3
>
>

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'tim_e' on Thu Feb 1 01:02:15 GMT 2001:

> Thanks for the clips, I enjoyed these.

Well, there's more to come when I get round to it. On a related theme, does anyone know a decent free web hosting service where you can get away with having loads of MP3s and they don't just delete them? I've got 20 MP3 episodes of The Mary Whitehouse Experience waiting to be uploaded.

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'The whisperer' on Thu Feb 1 01:53:04 GMT 2001:

great Baker site..lots of Real media files: http://www.dannybaker.force9.co.uk/

Chris Moriss site with downloads:
http://www.rethink.demon.co.uk/laugh.html

Subject: Re: Danny Baker: Better on the radio, but WHY?? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Dr. Hackenbush on Thu Feb 1 21:27:30 GMT 2001:

>> Thanks for the clips, I enjoyed these.
>
>Well, there's more to come when I get round to it. On a related theme, does anyone know a decent free web hosting service where you can get away with having loads of MP3s and they don't just delete them? I've got 20 MP3 episodes of The Mary Whitehouse Experience >waiting to be uploaded.

If you're more concerned with distributing them widely than hosting them at a certain site, why not just pop them into Napster? The advantage of this is that the cost of storing and serving the files is spread out among all users.
Also, it'll make you less likely to be busted for copyright violation by whatever chunk of the BBC owns the rights.

*****
Disclaimer - this posting is made in the understanding that you are talking about distributing these files in a hypothetical fantasy world. Remember, kids, home taping is killing comedy. Well, that and the "That's better in a way" thread.

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