As a retired professional portrait artist, I have to defend Lee, who everyone is taking on. He is totally and completely right. That is one of the goals of the portrait when it is desired by the client.
trouble with artists, they get it wrong, sandi is correct, it is the 2d effect, and if you do not get this, is a good thing you are an artist, best you stick to drawing pictures, and not meddle with facts.
Right, but notr totally nor completely right. If Lee were totally and completely right, the same would hold for statues, but it doesn't. You actually can walk around a statue and get exactly into the subject's line-of-sight (if it had sight). Statues are, as I understand (I'm not very educated on this point), designed to be viewed generally from a certain favorable angle (sculptor's POV), but there can be no illusion of the eyes tracking the viewer in 3D.
I love him in QI and other panel shows, but I find him hard to understand in his own shows. He needs someone to bounce of of. Or maybe it's just that he leams towards the queens English here.
I love these old episodes - it's not that Sandi isn't a good host, it's that the guests now are crap compared to the star-studded lineups they used to get. There were just a lot of really talented and funny people around then, and the new up-and-comers are passable at best.
Yes, i like the older ones better too, and my (extended) guestlist would be besides fry and davies, bill bayley, phil jupitus, johny vegas, aisling bae, and i'll add some if i can remember them :)
Sandi is probably the best host there could be apart from Stephen, but she's an excellent guest too. Would love to see the No Such Thing As A Fish crew do an appearance, especially James Harkin, I think they have the perfect humour for it and are obviously very knowledgable too.
The questions and facts were better back then, too. A lot of people blame Sandi for the decline, but it was already going downhill in Stephen's later series
What bugs me about this episode is the moment when Lee explains the whole 'eyes following you' phenomenon and Sandy takes the piss out of him... His explanation is absolutely spot on, and this is exactly the kind of show where a brilliant explanation should be applauded instead of mocked.
Konrad Pawelec Yes, that was a pretty condescending reaction from Sandi. What Lee said made perfect sense, he just lost momentum and confidence because of the other guests' reactions. The assumption is that he's a kind of chimp they allow into the studio once in a while to do handstands, but who has to shut up if the humans start talking.
The Sprawl Not quite. He started off perfectly fine, its...when he tried to explain it again...he completely lost track of where he was going and i think didn't understand what he was saying himself anymore, Lol.
To be fair, Stephen seemed like he was trying to, maybe not applaud but at least support his description as a "beautiful" analogy. Before he got interrupted by both Sandy and Lee.
"One's mama is of such stupendousness, that she'd rather sit on the television set and watch the couch, than the reverse." A jolly good one on the streets of New York.
Quite. Indeed, one's mama is of such exquisite corpulence as to ensure that one's nieces and nephews shall always have recourse on their birthdays to a bouncy castle, sufficiently capacious for a score and more of their young playfellows.
Gotta credit Lee for tolerating the misdirected condescension and playing along with it. Some comedians get criticised for being overly aggressive/rude/etc., but you can tell when it's just part of the game when they display professionalism appropriately. This instance is a good example. Lee is incredibly quick-witted and talkative but he doesn't lash back, presumably because it wouldn't end well. If it were, for instance, David Mitchell, Lee would probably just get into a comedic row with him because it'd basically be familiar territory. That said, David's not likely to be this misinformed or rude.
@@francaperotti5934 yeah, anyone taking a medicine for a disorder they have would act different without it....? what point are you even trying to make?
Part of it is that they all have a pretty clearly defined 'persona', and Lee Mack's includes coming across as a bit buffoonish, even though he's obviously quite clever. Same reason they make fun of Alan Davies who's probably more generally knowledgeable than anyone else on the show. It's their role to take the 'insults' as part of a joke.
@@WalterLiddy To be a comedian at all I think you have to be quite clever. Even apart from that, Alan Davies is also very knowledgable, he just does his QI job well.
I read that there was an attempt to adapt it to the US, but somehow the thing that makes it so enjoyable is the combination of British charm, wit, intelligence and humor that is almost impossible to emulate anywhere else in the world.
@@Ralphieboy Yes! And the fact that the U.S. version would be over-produced, slick and way less spontaneous, even if half of the in this version is somewhat scripted. The Brits just do it better. /;)
@@cozyvamp There's that distinctly British character of being annoyingly pompous yet admirable in cleverness. In the US we're either a brainiac or a dumbass, which are really treated as two kinds of dumbass. We'd have to lure Stephen to the US to make it work. Or another highly respected British actor, like Patrick Stewart - he could pull it off! The panelists could be anybody with talent. I love seeing American comedians do well on QI. But they could never get away with the free-flowing conversation that always risks rubbing people the wrong way here.
I love how at 13:08, Jimmy laughs at his own little perverted royal joke, no one in the audience or panel seemed to get it. But it was brilliant I reckon! :D
+skvakagud The others are all hoping for a knighthood, so they wont want to be shown laughing at a joke about the Queen sucking Jimmy Carr off in public.
Despite the panelists' response, Lee's explanation of the following-eyes effect was spot on. Stephen's comment ("you have to paint the eyes looking straight ahead") is wrong: you have to paint the eyes looking straight to the painter. Which is how most portraits are painted.
bull - stick a bit of paper on your easel, crouch down in one corner, and draw the eyes "looking at you", then stand back, and look again - the eyes are looking straight ahead, they are not looking down at you, where you were painting from. it does not matter where the artist is looking from, any more than where the viewer is looking from.
Came here to say the same thing as I was watching it. Lee's response is extremely impressive, if anything hard to separate from his character, but he's 100% right.
@@INeedANewHandle He's close, but not quite right. Imagine the same effect on a statue. It's impossible in 3D. It's because paintings are 2D. @rewindustry - you are demonstrating the OP's point. Paint eyes as if looking at the painter, and they will always seem to be looking at the viewer. I don't think most portraits are painted that way though.
You're seeing a 2D image representing a 3D space, within an actual 3D space. Perspective within the illusion of 3D space created by the 2D image always has a fixed point of perspective. Even the curving light analogy kind of works if you're imagining translating the movement of light into the illusion. Lee is probably more right than he's ever been in his life.
He's only got part of the picture. Imagine trying to get the same effect with a statue. You simply can't. In a 2D representation of a 3D object, you get no relative motion when you move around, like you do in a hologram. That locks everything in place. A 2D representation only works from one perspective, but it's not because it's the artist's perspective. It's because it's 2D The artist chooses a perspective, but the 2D medium locks it in.
Lee is absolutely right about the eye-thing, that is until Sandi rudely interrupts him. He never got to finish his line of thought, but it's because of the two dimensional nature of a painting. Things like depth, eyes, shadows etc, will be the same for every direction you view it from. Because, unlike a real three dimensional person, it wont change when we change view-point.
Oh ffs it was just a joke and Lee himself agreed when he decided to riff on himself based on what Sandi said. You beta males always feel threatened by every single joke. Whiny fops
@@gd7681 G D hahahaha what are you on. She's a panelist here and it would be FIVE years until she became the host herself. It's two entirely different roles. And dont tell me you actually believe the roles comedians take on TV is reality. Either you're a sheep or a 12yo
@@Khobotov I feel the same way. She's a charming, funny, witty and around great presenter in this show, but it's incredibly hard to follow in Stephen Fry's footsteps. He's incredibile! So, the show is still very much enjoyable but just not the same anymore.
Interesting to read the outrage about Lee being interrupted. 1. This is the kind of show where people interrupt each other. 2. Being familiar with Lee from many many shows, he's the king of interruption. Of course he's not offended.
I think it's something to do with Sandi constantly commenting on how rude and patronising men are and then behaving exactly the way she apparently hates. Unfortunately her entire schtick these days
@@theyatter In her series as host of QI (N-S?) she has toned that down remarkably. I love her as host. She's definitely played the butt-hurt anti-man feminist in the past (especially in the previous episode!), but I think she's taken a different approach with her new responsibility. There would have been no series O if she hadn't changed.
yup, lee got it right. if you move around the plane of the painting changes in perspective but the image remains the same, if slightly compressed, so it still looks at you.
@@Philrc You're either incredibly ignorant of physics, art, both, or a complete moron. That WAS his point, he was literally explaining it like that, AND that is why, because the painting is always seen from the perspective of the artist, no matter where you stand.
It's because the others have all been on way more often than him. They're actually discouraged from using the buzzer because it disturbs the continuity of the program. It's supposed to come across more like a conversation than a quiz show
The "gaze" question is not so clear cut, because other studies found the exact opposite. When going through magazines, it were the women who focused on men's bodies, while the men made eye-contact with female faces first.
The great thing about doom is that once it happens, you won't be around for it to bother you. So don't sweat it. Just enjoy the hell out of the pending part.
@@R.Daneel I'm gonna go buy a bottle of scotch. Maybe the doom thing will look less menacing. BTW, 2012 was a very bad year for Stephen. He tried to commit suicide that year, presumably much earlier in the year than this was filmed.
Why are people in the comments so pissed? Sandi made a joke in her usual deadpan fashion. On the show it’s not uncommon to make jokes even though you’re in the wrong with them? It could’ve come from anyone on the panel and I doubt people would’ve made such a fuss over it if someone else had said it.
I have actually seen a lobster that was divided equally in half of colour. One side was red and the other is blue. Some start off blue and then turn red. and some don't completely turn the full colour. Most likely a defect or something. But it was pretty cool to see. It was at the Bonne Bay Marine station in Newfoundland. It was pretty neat to see, don't know if it's still there as it was a few years ago that I vacationed there.
How funny some say Lee is talking over the others, some that the others are talking over Lee. Its almost if youre opinion of a person influences how you percieve them
+Peter Tæthed: "How funny some say Lee is talking over the others, some that the others are talking over Lee. It's almost if your opinion of a person influences how you perceive them." Great observation. Sandi was rather obnoxious tonite with Lee. Also, her obsession about sexism is tiresome and tedious. Hope she's a better host than she is a player.
The lobster bit is also misleading, while it is true that lobsters do not experience cellular decay like most animals, the act of moulting requires a lot of energy, and eventually a lobster grows to such a size that it cannot get enough energy to sustain another moult so it either dies inside a shell that's too small, or it gets an infection that kills it. So they can kind of live forever, but in practice, they can't and its very likely these super lobsters they were theorizing here never existed.
For the record, that "lie flat" thing doesn't work as well with trains here anymore, because there's a hook on the back to clear roadkill or obstacles kicked up onto the track by the train. That hook will super definitely absolutely kill you if it hits you.
About saving somebody by getting on the tracks and push him down so the train doesn't hit you ... Don't try it. It may have worked back then, but trains are different now. They don't have enough of a gap these days. And they have steel brushes ... It won't look pretty
I do the happy Queen/sad Queen trick as well, can often get some laughs at the bar if the person never seen it before. Just crease at the eyes/edges of the mouth, and then one in the middle for the nose basically. Can do it with anyone on a bill, provided they're looking more or less in your direction. if you've got some strange bill where the person is looking off to the side, I don't think it'll work. Well... maybe. Given the angle, it might look like the mouth is tipped up in a smile or down in a frown. Interesting, perhaps it WOULD work. In Canada, we've got the Queen on our 20s, and different people on our other bills, so lots of variation. I think Sir John A McDonald, our first Prime Minister is on our 5s, Sir Wilfred Lauier on our 10s, who was Prime Minister during or before WWI, and I know Mackenzie King is on our 50s or 100s and he was our Prime Minister during WWII. The new plastic notes are quite cool; I'm a pretty big guy, 6' tall and having been working out off and on since roughly April 2013, however try as I might, I cannot rip one in half. I could give it my all, but the most I can do is wrinkle the area of which I tried to rip. Amazingly robust. They are, however, not flame nor scissor resistant :P
I just tried it with a US $1, $5, $10, and $20, and they all worked. It's creepy seeing Washington and Lincoln smiling because Washington always refused to smile because he was embarrassed about his teeth, and Lincoln was just so sad all the time (chronic depression). Hamilton worked well on the $10, even though he's looking off to the side quite a bit. Washington was trickiest because it's a much smaller portrait. My $20 has Jackson on the face. I don't know if they've released the Harriet Tubman $20s yet. I'll feel a little less unclean once we get that straightened out.
***** Good to know, none of my thermometers that have both scales go that far low and my outside one only shows Celsius but it goes from -50 to +50 and here is a nice pic that shows how correct you are, apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/graphics/tscales.jpg i stand corrected. (never bothered to learn Fahrenheit by heart, I am afraid) For me a good winter day here on the coast is -7 but of course in drier inland climate -20 is not so bad, the coast, of the Baltic and especially that of the North sea is really terrible at sub-zero even a few degrees...Never felt the cold as much in my life as once a windy December day in Amsterdam.
i think there are similar lobster related question in sandy days as the host. and they said, the rings of its body are the clue of the lobster’s age.... I love old episodes, stephen could make a mundane subject very interesting and triggers dynamic response of his guests.
Only warships ie Royal Navy fly the union flag from the Jack staff at the front the us navy is easier to note as it’s only the stars and none of the stripes that flies on the jack staff the ensigns been flown at the stern
yes, I have known about the aye aye for as long as I can remember... it is indeed crazy looking, I can kinda understand why the local people think it can curse you!
It feels ironic that Rasputin was right about trying to persuade the Czar not to enter the war. Had Russia stayed out they would’ve probably been fine, at least for a little while longer
Egeli Kirk They had an episode on that ^^ A special for outdated facts, apparently 80% of season A is now wrong, and 20% of season K or something :P Science moves fast
About Rasputin not being killed by being shot, the revolver that was in service at the time was the M1895 Nagant. Shot 7.62x38r, which might sound big, but it's a rather diminutive round. Only a small step up from .32 ACP which is kind of known to be an underpowered cartridge, and quite a bit weaker than 9x19mm. Around 100gr going 1000 ft/s vs roughly 115gr going 1300 ft/s or 147gr going 1000 ft/s. Pistol rounds in general aren't very lethal unless they're well placed, but of course it wouldn't hurt to have a bit more oomph. The later TT33 had a much more potent cartridge with the 7.62x25. Around 95gr going 1400-1600 ft/s if memory serves. It's essentially just a lengthened 9x19mm casing necked down to .31 cal (9mm uses the same sized bullet as .357 Magnum and .38 Special I believe).
***** I never said that the British used the M1895 Nagant. Did Stephen? I can't recall, been a while since I watched the episode. I was simply describing how the Nagant's 7.62x38r cartridge wasn't too powerful, so if the rounds weren't well placed, he could have very easily survived for a few minutes or hours at least. I might also add, it's basically the only mass produced revolver that's capable of being properly silenced, because it creates a gas seal when using the proper 7.62x38r ammunition. As for the British, yeah, they've used the old Webley style revolver for ages. Definitely advantageous over fixed-cylinder designs such as the M1895, or M1873 Colt SAA. Also the double-action trigger pull on the Webley Mk.VI isn't too bad, that's the model famously used in WWI. Enfield Mk.II was used in WWII if I recall correctly, using a smaller .38 calibre round I think.
Maybe trains are different across the pond, but in Canada you would still be dead if you tried to lay as flat as possible. Unless your body and head were lower than the rail. The plow sits just above the asphalt at road crossings. Sometimes it scrapes the road too
I've been to Ireland and England there is no discernible difference in their alcohol consumption any Friday night in England looks like projectile vomiting is the national sport
I literally just watched Series K's Kaleidescope episode where Sandi also mentioned her kayaking trip AND getting trench bottom! Incredible how the universe lines up some times.
this episode shows why i dislike sandy. she only talks to stephen, and when she says anything to another panelist its correcting them. and in lee's case about the painting, lee was spot on with the explanation
What he was trying to say made perfect sense (a 2D image looks the same no matter what angle you view it from). He just explained it _really_ badly. Possibly on purpose, after a bit, because once he got into that long, rambling explanation it was either bore everyone to tears, or turn it into a joke.
That point just isn't true. She talks to the others, laughs at their jokes and doesn't keep correcting them... Methinks your negative opinion of the woman might be clouding your judgement a tad.
@@lethe56 She did and still does occasionally have a rather ferral hatred for anything male though. When they discussed the invention of the chainsaw as a lifesaving device to help women in labour, she was just full of disdain because it was men who invented it. She's also said that when boys found out they played a role in conception, that ruined the world. I like Sandy, but she's really quite an unpleasant manhater at times, and most of the time it doesn't even make any sense. She's fortunately let a lot of that go when she became the host (probably because the producers told her to tone it down a bit). When I first heard her anounced as the host, I was rolling my eyes and convinced the show was going to end up as a soapbox for her irrational anti-male attitudes.
I can say something about the life expectancy of "this lobster." It doesn't have a life expectancy; it's an ex lobster. It has ceased to be. Lobsters don't turn red until you boil them...
Giving cyanide inside of desserts LOL they clearly didn't know how it fully worked... Sugar stops cyanide from activating in the right amount and desserts have lots of sugar...
The way Sandi explains stuff just makes me think when they were looking for Stephan s replacement they watched old episodes and thought oh look Sandi already acted like a host she's perfect
Actually, all letters were pronounced in old and middle English; that's why we have all sorts of silent letters in modern English spelling. So, in "the olde pork pie shoppe", olde and shoppe would have had 2 syllables. Further, pie would have been pronounced /pee-a/, that is, before the Great Vowel Shift that took place between 1400 and 1700. Just saying, . . .
13:02 nobody quite got Jimmy's joke about the Queen bowing down. When I see a dog I can honestly say its balls are not the second thing I look at... ... nor are they the first.
I rewatch the series quite often, especially to fall asleep so I often miss parts, and 33:50 is the first time I heard a clarkson for Sandi :D a miracle!
I think the average top speed of newly built aircraft also went up by a significant amount during WWII. Wouldn't surprise me if that also was in the order of 57%. Speaking of WWII: if you're interested in people who survived a lot, look up Alan Deere. Dude scrapped more Spitfires than most Germans did.
"Separate the men from the boys" is an English idiom that means "tell the capable people from the useless", but Stephen's joke hinges on using "separate" in a literal sense.
I think Stephen was just done with the whole show, he didn't find it fun or fulfilling any longer. Alan said he'd go to his room, have a drink and a lie down and come back and say "I don't want to do this." But that was just something I read in an article, who knows the extent or validity of it all.
