Datasets:

sam-paech

/

BuzzBench-v0.60

like 1

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Sean's first guest is Marie De Santiago, the guitarist in Sunderland's Kenickie. They've been called the Cities answer to the Spice Girls, which is of course ridiculous. Their music is much better and their combined age is still younger than Ginger Spice. Sean's second guest is actor and comedian Mark Little. He played Joe Mangle in neighbors and then spent two years doing The Big Breakfast with extra sausages by the look of it. Phil's first guest is Suggs. After his last appearance on the show the Madness frontman announced his total retirement from pop quizzes. He spent the last year hosting a pop quiz and here he is tonight on a pop quiz. Sean's other guest is Jamaican superstar Shaggy. He took his name from one of the characters in Scooby Doo. He chose Shaggy because "fat bird with the pleated skirt and glasses" didn't have the right ring to it.

Sean's first guest is Marie De Santiago, the guitarist in Sunderland's Kenickie. They've been called the Cities answer to the Spice Girls, which is of course ridiculous. Their music is much better and their combined age is still younger than Ginger Spice. Sean's second guest is actor and comedian Mark Little. He played Joe Mangle in neighbors and then spent two years doing The Big Breakfast with extra sausages by the look of it. Phil's first guest is Suggs. After his last appearance on the show the Madness frontman announced his total retirement from pop quizzes. He spent the last year hosting a pop quiz and here he is tonight on a pop quiz. Sean's other guest is Jamaican superstar Shaggy. He took his name from one of the characters in Scooby Doo. He chose Shaggy because "fat bird with the pleated skirt and glasses" didn't have the right ring to it.

# Marie De Santiago's intro Contains a series of jokes playing on the "Cities' answer to the Spice Girls" comparison, but the execution is lackluster. The "their music is much better" line is formulaic, while the age comparison feels tacked on. The humor primarily works through the Spice Girls being a reliable punching bag for the show, but even this familiar territory is handled half-heartedly. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets) # Mark Little's intro Simple weight gain joke playing off "The Big Breakfast" show title, but elevated by the unexpected and delightful phrasing "with extra sausages." While not breaking new ground conceptually, the execution makes this basic premise work better than it should. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Suggs' intro Built around the ironic contradiction of Suggs' "retirement" from pop quizzes followed by hosting one and appearing on another. The joke works through its triple-beat structure: retirement announcement, hosting a quiz show, now back on one. Beyond the surface irony, there's an existential undertone suggesting Suggs is trapped in a cycle he's desperately trying to escape, adding a layer of pathos to the basic hypocrisy joke. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # Shaggy's intro The joke attempts to subvert expectations about Shaggy's name origin with "fat bird with the pleated skirt and glasses" as the punchline, but the construction feels forced and inelegant. However, the unnecessarily vicious swipe at Velma (a completely undeserving target) somewhat redeems it in the context of the show's style of humor. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) The intro set demonstrates typical Buzzcocks humor: pop culture references, gratuitous jabs, and self-referential comedy. The strongest moments come from unexpected phrasings ("extra sausages") or unearned meanness (the Velma dig), while the weaker ones rely too heavily on formulaic constructions or expected targets. The Suggs introduction stands out for adding a layer of existential comedy to what could have been a simple hypocrisy joke, showing how even standard formats can be elevated with additional depth.

Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e01 - Marie DuSantiago, Mark Little, Shaggy, Suggs

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Sean's first guest is Shelly Poole from platinum album sellers Alisha’s Attic. Shelly’s dad Brian was a rock star in the sixties, so he’d shout things like turn that bloody music up! What time do I call this! And: get upstairs and trash your bedroom! Sean’s second guest is Math Priest from top five stars and Britpop heroes Dodgy. Dodgy recently went on a tour of Sarajevo, where they argued so much that the Bosnian Serbs offered to mediate a band meeting. Shelly and Math, ladies and gentlemen, Sean’s team. Phil’s first guest is legendary singer-songwriter Midge Ure. Midge has sung vocals on three number ones by different artists, and what an enjoyable evening’s karaoke that turned out to be. Phil’s second guest is comedian Graham Norton. Since Graham took over the nightly chat show on Channel Five, he’s become famous wherever he goes. Inside the Channel Five Building, ladies and gentlemen, Midge and Graham, Phil’s team.

Sean's first guest is Shelly Poole from platinum album sellers Alisha’s Attic. Shelly’s dad Brian was a rock star in the sixties, so he’d shout things like turn that bloody music up! What time do I call this! And: get upstairs and trash your bedroom! Sean’s second guest is Math Priest from top five stars and Britpop heroes Dodgy. Dodgy recently went on a tour of Sarajevo, where they argued so much that the Bosnian Serbs offered to mediate a band meeting. Shelly and Math, ladies and gentlemen, Sean’s team. Phil’s first guest is legendary singer-songwriter Midge Ure. Midge has sung vocals on three number ones by different artists, and what an enjoyable evening’s karaoke that turned out to be. Phil’s second guest is comedian Graham Norton. Since Graham took over the nightly chat show on Channel Five, he’s become famous wherever he goes. Inside the Channel Five Building, ladies and gentlemen, Midge and Graham, Phil’s team.

# Shelly Poole's intro A straightforward but effective role reversal gag. Takes typical parental scolding ("turn that bloody music up! What time do I call this!") and gives it a rock star twist, culminating in "get upstairs and trash your bedroom!" The humor comes purely from this role reversal - a rock star parent encouraging rather than discouraging stereotypical rock star behavior. **Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # Math Priest's intro The joke centers on Dodgy's band arguments being so severe that "the Bosnian Serbs offered to mediate." This works on multiple levels - it's a send-up of (likely fictional) arguments within an otherwise upbeat Britpop band, with added humor in suggesting that Bosnian Serbs of the mid-90s would be the voice of reason in mediation. The joke shows more craft than most, building multiple layers into a single punchline. **Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Midge Ure's intro "Midge has sung vocals on three number ones by different artists, and what an enjoyable evening's karaoke that turned out to be." The effectiveness comes from the surprise punchline that reframes the previous statement. While it does take a jab at Midge by undercutting their achievements, it works because the audience knows these are genuine accomplishments - making the karaoke comparison more playful than cutting. The cleverness and unexpectedness of the joke overcomes what might otherwise be too gentle for the Buzzcocks' typical tone. **Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # Graham Norton's intro "Since Graham took over the nightly chat show on Channel Five, he's become famous wherever he goes. Inside the Channel Five Building." A serviceable but uninspired joke that plays on Channel Five's lower status in UK broadcasting. The structure is solid - setting up with apparent praise before the deflating punchline - but the execution is fairly routine. Takes the expected jab at Graham while using Channel Five as the vehicle for the punchline. **Ratings:** - Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) The introduction sequence showcases the range of Buzzcocks' humor, from simple role reversals to more layered jokes, with varying degrees of success. The best jokes (like Math Priest's intro) demonstrate careful construction with multiple levels of meaning, while others rely on more straightforward techniques. The sequence maintains the show's characteristic irreverence toward its guests and the music industry, though some jokes land more effectively than others.

Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e04 - Midge Ure, Shellie Poole, Math Priest, Graham Norton

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Sean's first guest is Scottish singer-songwriter, Edwin Collins. Edwin's first job was as an artist in Glasgow’s parks. His finest works included Still Life with Park Bench, Dead Tramp in Hedge, and the classic Dog Crapping on Bowling Green. Sean's second guest is comedian Jeff Green. Embarrassingly, Jeff was once a fan of soprano choir boy Aled Jones, and then the penny dropped, among other things. Phil's first guest is Tony Wright, singer with Brit rock gods, Terrorvision. The band are such hellraisers that on a tour of America, they once carried on partying during an earthquake. In fact, the first they knew about it was when Charlton Heston appeared and led them to safety. Phil's second guest is Gary Barlow. He's now a successful solo artist, and we've been asked not to mention his boy band past. He can take almost anything but he can't take that. I'm sorry about that Gary.

Sean's first guest is Scottish singer-songwriter, Edwin Collins. Edwin's first job was as an artist in Glasgow’s parks. His finest works included Still Life with Park Bench, Dead Tramp in Hedge, and the classic Dog Crapping on Bowling Green. Sean's second guest is comedian Jeff Green. Embarrassingly, Jeff was once a fan of soprano choir boy Aled Jones, and then the penny dropped, among other things. Phil's first guest is Tony Wright, singer with Brit rock gods, Terrorvision. The band are such hellraisers that on a tour of America, they once carried on partying during an earthquake. In fact, the first they knew about it was when Charlton Heston appeared and led them to safety. Phil's second guest is Gary Barlow. He's now a successful solo artist, and we've been asked not to mention his boy band past. He can take almost anything but he can't take that. I'm sorry about that Gary.

# Edwin Collins's intro The humor operates through the contrast between high art pretensions ("Still Life") and crude/morbid subject matter, with three escalating park-based artworks: "Still Life with Park Bench", "Dead Tramp in Hedge", and "Dog Crapping on Bowling Green". The joke effectively plays with class distinctions while maintaining accessibility through universally recognizable scenarios. The progression from mundane to increasingly unsavory subjects creates a well-structured comedic build. Ratings: - Home Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Jeff Green's intro The intro plays with mild suggestions of darker themes around Aled Jones being a choir boy. The "embarrassingly" setup could be read innocently (being embarrassed about liking choir music) but sets up undertones about sexuality and pedophilia without fully committing to them. The punchline "the penny dropped, among other things" works primarily as crude physical humor about puberty (balls dropping), while leaving other interpretations open. The execution is somewhat muddled, though the audience would likely have enjoyed the suggestions at Jeff's expense despite this. Ratings: - Home Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) # Tony Wright's intro The joke works on multiple levels through its Charlton Heston reference. While on the surface it's about rock star excess (being too wasted to notice an earthquake), the payoff cleverly references both Heston's role in the 1974 film "Earthquake" and his iconic role as Moses in "The Ten Commandments" ("led them to safety"). This creates a sophisticated layer of film references while staying true to the wild party setup. The joke's effectiveness depends heavily on audiences catching these specific cultural references, meaning it will land brilliantly for some while potentially missing others entirely. Ratings: - Home Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Gary Barlow's intro The humor works through meta-commentary on celebrity image management and wordplay on "Take That", with the ironic structure of mentioning something while apologizing for mentioning it ("He can take almost anything but he can't take that. I'm sorry about that Gary"). While cleanly executed, the joke isn't particularly strong or memorable. Ratings: - Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose)

Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e02 - Gary Barlow, Edwyn Collins, Jeff Green, Tony Wright

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Sean’s first guest is the one and only Richard Fairbrass. Too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my shirt. So sexy. Formerly the singer with Right Said Fred it was only when he got the job on BBC Two's, Gay Time TV, that Richard had to sit his parents down and confess that he’d become a TV presenter. Sean’s second guest is Essex-born singer-songwriter Billy Bragg. In his youth, Billy joined the army but bought himself out after only 90 days. Later we'll be having a whip round to see if we can buy him back in. Phil's first guest is Sarah Blackwood, singer with glamorous Northern electropopsters Dubstar. Sarah was once scolded by her mum for saying the word “blimey” on Richard and Judy. Quite right too. The words “tosser” and “irritating old hag” would have been far more appropriate. Phil's second guest is Neil Morrissey. He's an actor who comes from Stoke where remarkably his hairstyle is still ahead of the times.

Sean’s first guest is the one and only Richard Fairbrass. Too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my shirt. So sexy. Formerly the singer with Right Said Fred it was only when he got the job on BBC Two's, Gay Time TV, that Richard had to sit his parents down and confess that he’d become a TV presenter. Sean’s second guest is Essex-born singer-songwriter Billy Bragg. In his youth, Billy joined the army but bought himself out after only 90 days. Later we'll be having a whip round to see if we can buy him back in. Phil's first guest is Sarah Blackwood, singer with glamorous Northern electropopsters Dubstar. Sarah was once scolded by her mum for saying the word “blimey” on Richard and Judy. Quite right too. The words “tosser” and “irritating old hag” would have been far more appropriate. Phil's second guest is Neil Morrissey. He's an actor who comes from Stoke where remarkably his hairstyle is still ahead of the times.

# Richard Fairbrass's intro A cleverly constructed joke that inverts the traditional "coming out" narrative by having Fairbrass need to "confess" to becoming a TV presenter rather than his sexuality. The setup uses his Right Said Fred fame ("Too sexy for my shirt") to lead into the punchline about having to tell his parents about his TV presenting job on "Gay Time TV." It's an elegant piece of misdirection that also manages to slip in a subtle dig at his career pivot to presenting. Ratings: - Audience: 4 (LOL) - Works on multiple levels and lands perfectly - Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Elegant construction with perfect misdirection # Billy Bragg's intro A straightforward but effective double-punch joke built around the concept of buying in and out of military service. The humor comes from two simple elements: the inherent comedy of "buying back in" to military service, combined with the implication that the audience would happily chip in to get rid of him. "Later we'll be having a whip round to see if we can buy him back in" delivers both elements efficiently. Ratings: - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Easy to grasp and lands well - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Solid construction but not breaking new ground # Sarah Blackwood's intro A joke that plays with the contrast between daytime TV prudishness and edgier comedy. The humor builds from three elements: 1. The absurdity of being scolded for saying something as mild as "blimey" on Richard & Judy 2. The suggestion of much ruder alternatives ("tosser" and "irritating old hag") 3. A direct shot at daytime TV hosts that resonates with the Buzzcocks' audience While the core concept is solid, the delivery is somewhat cumbersome and the joke itself isn't particularly sophisticated. Ratings: - Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Basic humor that works but doesn't soar - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Straightforward construction with clunky delivery # Neil Morrissey's intro A concise regional joke that manages to simultaneously mock both Stoke and Morrissey's dated hairstyle in a single line: "He's an actor who comes from Stoke where remarkably his hairstyle is still ahead of the times." While it's not breaking new ground in terms of originality, it's efficiently executed and hits both targets cleanly. Ratings: - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Clean delivery of a classic format - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Well-constructed if conventional The set shows a range of comedic approaches, from clever misdirection (Fairbrass) to straightforward double-punches (Bragg) to basic contrast humor (Blackwood) and classic regional comedy (Morrissey). The Fairbrass introduction stands out as the most sophisticated and well-executed, while the others vary in their effectiveness but all deliver recognizable comedy beats that work for the show's format and audience.

Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e03 - Billy Bragg, Sarah Blackwood, Richard Fairbrass, Neil Morrissey

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Phil’s first guest is Brian Molko, singer with top five fit goth blouses Placebo. The band are named after a type of medication, like many other groups: Brian Eno's adamant acid and Dexy's Midnight Rennies. Phil's second guest is heavy metal warrior Bruce Dickinson, formerly singer with satanic cock rockers Iron Maiden. In The Maiden, Bruce knew all too well the number of the beast; in fact, the beast has since gone ex-directory to get rid of him. Sean's first guest is Saffron, singer with top ten techno monkeys Republica. Republica's hit "Ready To Go" was played on Baywatch, the only show where both the soundtrack and the cast are available in vinyl. Sean’s second guest is comedian, author, and chart topper David Baddiel. David’s got a new video out right now. It’s called Swedish Lesbian Sauna Schoolgirls and it’s due back on Wednesday.

Phil’s first guest is Brian Molko, singer with top five fit goth blouses Placebo. The band are named after a type of medication, like many other groups: Brian Eno's adamant acid and Dexy's Midnight Rennies. Phil's second guest is heavy metal warrior Bruce Dickinson, formerly singer with satanic cock rockers Iron Maiden. In The Maiden, Bruce knew all too well the number of the beast; in fact, the beast has since gone ex-directory to get rid of him. Sean's first guest is Saffron, singer with top ten techno monkeys Republica. Republica's hit "Ready To Go" was played on Baywatch, the only show where both the soundtrack and the cast are available in vinyl. Sean’s second guest is comedian, author, and chart topper David Baddiel. David’s got a new video out right now. It’s called Swedish Lesbian Sauna Schoolgirls and it’s due back on Wednesday.

# Brian Molko's intro A strained attempt at humor that doesn't quite work. The description "top five fit goth blouses" is an awkward mouthful rather than clever wordplay. While there's an attempt to build jokes around medication-themed band names, the connections feel forced and don't land effectively. The transformation of Dexy's Midnight Runners to "Dexy's Midnight Rennies" might be clever in theory but fails to deliver in practice. Ratings: - Audience: 1 (Crickets) - Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets) # Bruce Dickinson's intro Strong opener with the deliberately over-the-top description "satanic cock rockers," which works as a standalone laugh line. The joke builds effectively from Iron Maiden's "Number of the Beast" connection to imply a stalker-ex relationship dynamic, with the beast having to go ex-directory to avoid Bruce's calls. The humor works on multiple levels - playing with metal music tropes while creating an amusing domestic situation with supernatural elements. Ratings: - Audience: 5 (ROFL) - Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL) # Saffron's intro Continues the running gag of alliterative band descriptions with "top ten techno monkeys," which becomes funnier as part of the pattern established through the intros. The Baywatch joke about the soundtrack and cast being "available in vinyl" works as a reference to the show's signature skintight costumes of the era. While not the strongest joke, it's serviceable. Ratings: - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # David Baddiel's intro Masterfully constructed joke that builds on the established pattern of alliterative descriptions, delivering perhaps the best one yet with "Swedish Lesbian Sauna Schoolgirls." What initially seems like a random non sequitur is brilliantly resolved with the revelation that it's actually a porn video rental "due back Wednesday." The punchline's timing and delivery through this mundane detail makes the joke land perfectly. The humor works through both the absurd title and the way the punchline reveals the context, managing to be both shocking and cleverly constructed. Ratings: - Audience: 5 (ROFL) - Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL) Overall, the intros demonstrate a running pattern of alliterative band descriptions that becomes a joke in itself, with varying degrees of success in the individual punchlines. The strongest moments come when the jokes build naturally from established references (like Bruce Dickinson's metal background) or when they successfully subvert expectations (like the Baddiel punchline).

Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e06 - Saffron, Brian Molko, David Baddiel, Bruce Dickinson

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Sean's first guest is Norman Blake, singer with jangly top five album stars, Teenage Fanclub. Teenage Fanclub have been compared to The Beatles – three of them are delighted and the drummer's suing for slander. Sean's second guest is Math Priest from Dodgy. The band once played at a village fete where they supported The Jam. They've been asked back next year to support The Cakes and the Tombola. Phil's first guest is pop superstar and official world's sexiest woman, Louise. Louise's boyfriend is Liverpool footballer, Jamie Redknapp. He's a romantic soul and often takes her to the ground for intimate candlelit dinners of pies, Bovril, and Wagon Wheels. Phil's second guest is comedian Jeff Green. Jeff's one of the country's most popular stand-ups and famous for his razor-sharp observation. Only this morning he came up with, "Christ, this razor's sharp."

Sean's first guest is Norman Blake, singer with jangly top five album stars, Teenage Fanclub. Teenage Fanclub have been compared to The Beatles – three of them are delighted and the drummer's suing for slander. Sean's second guest is Math Priest from Dodgy. The band once played at a village fete where they supported The Jam. They've been asked back next year to support The Cakes and the Tombola. Phil's first guest is pop superstar and official world's sexiest woman, Louise. Louise's boyfriend is Liverpool footballer, Jamie Redknapp. He's a romantic soul and often takes her to the ground for intimate candlelit dinners of pies, Bovril, and Wagon Wheels. Phil's second guest is comedian Jeff Green. Jeff's one of the country's most popular stand-ups and famous for his razor-sharp observation. Only this morning he came up with, "Christ, this razor's sharp."

# Norman Blake's intro (Teenage Fanclub) A well-constructed joke playing on multiple levels, centered around the line "Teenage Fanclub have been compared to The Beatles – three of them are delighted and the drummer's suing for slander." The humor works through subverting expectations about Beatles comparisons while playing on the "underappreciated drummer" trope. It effectively mocks both music journalism's endless Beatles comparisons and the cultural position of drummers in bands. The joke lands well with the Buzzcocks audience, who would understand both the weight of Beatles comparisons and appreciate the irreverent take on band dynamics. **Funniness Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Math Priest's intro (Dodgy) A surprisingly wholesome joke that works through both wordplay and status commentary: "They've been asked back next year to support The Cakes and the Tombola." The humor connects "The Jam" to typical village fete items while gently ribbing Dodgy's career trajectory. It's particularly effective for British audiences familiar with both village fete culture and The Jam's significance in British music. **Funniness Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Louise's intro The joke relies on the contrast between celebrity glamour and football culture: "He's a romantic soul and often takes her to the ground for intimate candlelit dinners of pies, Bovril, and Wagon Wheels." While it lands well with the audience through its use of recognizable British cultural touchstones, it's relatively straightforward humor that plays to the crowd rather than attempting anything particularly clever. The joke works primarily through its vivid imagery and relatable cultural references rather than any sophisticated comedy construction. **Funniness Ratings:** - Audience: 4 (LOL) - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) # Jeff Green's intro The attempt at meta-comedy around "razor-sharp observation" doesn't quite work as intended. While there's a decent concept in playing with the literal interpretation of the phrase and deconstructing comedy promotional language, the setup and delivery feel forced. The punchline "Christ, this razor's sharp" doesn't pay off the setup effectively enough. **Funniness Ratings:** - Audience: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) The overall sequence demonstrates Buzzcocks' characteristic mix of music industry commentary and cultural references, though with varying degrees of success. The strongest jokes (Norman Blake, Math Priest) work through multiple layers of meaning, while the weaker ones either pander (Louise) or fail to stick the landing (Jeff Green). The writing shows how British comedy of this era often relied heavily on cultural touchstones and industry in-jokes, with the most successful examples being those that managed to make these references work on multiple levels rather than just playing to obvious laughs.

Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e07 - Louise, Math Priest, Norman Blake, Jeff Green

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Phil's first guest is Richard Fairbrass from Right Said Fred. Richard is a singer and TV presenter who's brought his own weightlifting gym. He's now an expert at the clean and the jerk, but he curiously has no interest in the snatch. Phil's second guest is Radio 1 star DJ and TV presenter Lisa I'Anson. Lisa's had a long association with pop music and recently worked with Wings. She does the voiceover on the Bodyform ads. Shaun's first guest is Shovell, percussionist with M People. Shaun's second guest is heartthrob and platinum-selling pop sensation Mark Owen. Mark used to work in a bank but now gets hundreds of fan letters a week. He replies diligently to every letter and charges a mere 15-pound administration fee for each one.

Phil's first guest is Richard Fairbrass from Right Said Fred. Richard is a singer and TV presenter who's brought his own weightlifting gym. He's now an expert at the clean and the jerk, but he curiously has no interest in the snatch. Phil's second guest is Radio 1 star DJ and TV presenter Lisa I'Anson. Lisa's had a long association with pop music and recently worked with Wings. She does the voiceover on the Bodyform ads. Shaun's first guest is Shovell, percussionist with M People. Shaun's second guest is heartthrob and platinum-selling pop sensation Mark Owen. Mark used to work in a bank but now gets hundreds of fan letters a week. He replies diligently to every letter and charges a mere 15-pound administration fee for each one.

# Richard Fairbrass's intro Contains a sophisticated multi-layered joke playing with weightlifting terminology. "Clean and jerk" and "snatch" work as both legitimate Olympic weightlifting moves and sexual innuendo, particularly pointed given Fairbrass is openly gay. The line about being "expert at the clean and the jerk" is also a clever way of implying he's a wanker, while his "no interest in the snatch" works on multiple levels. The joke lands particularly well because: - It works on multiple levels (weightlifting terms, sexual innuendo, implied insult) - British audiences appreciate this style of layered innuendo - The personal context makes it pointed rather than gratuitous - It fits the show's irreverent tone perfectly **Funniness ratings:** - Audience at home: 4 (LOL) - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) # Lisa I'Anson's intro Contains no jokes - purely informational content establishing her professional background through references to Radio 1, Wings, and Bodyform advertisements. # Shovell's intro Contains no jokes - straightforward introduction identifying his role as percussionist with M People. # Mark Owen's intro Contains a joke attempting to subvert the boyband heartthrob image by suggesting Owen charges fans for responses to letters. The specific "15-pound administration fee" detail aims to add bureaucratic banality to celebrity culture. The joke attempts to work through: - Contrast between heartthrob image and petty bureaucratic behavior - Callback to his actual banking background - Commentary on commercialization of fan interactions - The precise amount adding bureaucratic absurdity However, while technically constructed well, it doesn't quite hit the mark in terms of humor. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience at home: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale)

Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e05 - Mark Owen, Lisa l'Anson, Shovell, Richard Fairbrass

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Phil's first guest is Slade's frontman, glam rock godfather, Noddy Holder. He's had no fewer than eight Christmas hits with the same song. Phil's second guest is feisty queen of Britpop and singer from Sleeper, Louise Wener. The band's new album features a photo of Louise as a weedy nine-year-old with gimpy clothes and glasses. Phil's team ends with television host Jonathan Ross, who made his first-ever TV appearance with a walk-on part in Dad's Army and is surprisingly still alive.

Phil's first guest is Slade's frontman, glam rock godfather, Noddy Holder. He's had no fewer than eight Christmas hits with the same song. Phil's second guest is feisty queen of Britpop and singer from Sleeper, Louise Wener. The band's new album features a photo of Louise as a weedy nine-year-old with gimpy clothes and glasses. Phil's team ends with television host Jonathan Ross, who made his first-ever TV appearance with a walk-on part in Dad's Army and is surprisingly still alive.

# Noddy Holder's intro A simple reference joke playing on Slade's "Merry Xmas Everybody" being a perennial Christmas hit. The line "no fewer than eight Christmas hits with the same song" is a low-effort observation about the song's repeated success and cultural ubiquity. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # Louise Wener's intro The attempted humor relies entirely on describing an apparently unflattering childhood photo ("weedy nine-year-old with gimpy clothes and glasses"). Without seeing the actual photo, this barely qualifies as a joke and comes across as lazy writing. While it attempts to play on the contrast between her Britpop image and childhood awkwardness, it fails to land effectively. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 1 (Crickets) - Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets) # Jonathan Ross's intro The joke attempts to play on Dad's Army's age by suggesting Ross had a walk-on role, leading to the punchline "surprisingly still alive." However, the setup is problematic as it relies on audience knowledge of when Dad's Army aired (1960s/70s) to make sense of why Ross being alive would be surprising. The reference is too opaque for most viewers to make the connection, rendering the punchline ineffective. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 1 (Crickets) - Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets) # Overall Assessment The introduction sequence demonstrates three different approaches to humor, none particularly successful: - A basic cultural reference (Noddy) - A weak attempt at visual humor through description (Louise) - A poorly constructed age joke with an unclear setup (Jonathan) The Noddy Holder intro manages to be marginally more successful simply by virtue of its straightforward reference to a well-known cultural phenomenon, while the other two suffer from either laziness or unclear execution. The writing feels perfunctory rather than sharp, with jokes that either require too much explanation or fail to develop beyond surface-level observations. The sequence as a whole suggests a somewhat phoned-in approach to the introduction writing, lacking the wit and incisiveness typically associated with Never Mind the Buzzcocks' better moments. While introductions don't need to be comedy masterpieces, these examples fall short of even modest humor targets.

Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e08 - Merry Mind the Buzzcocks Christmas Special - Boy George, Noddy Holder, Louise Wener, Jonathan Ross

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Phil's first guest is Andrew Roachford, main man in classic Brit soul combo, Roachford. Andrew Roachford, ladies and gentlemen, Phil's team! Sean's first guest is Catatonia's own hard-drinking, hard-singing, and hard-pronouncing Cerys Matthews. Sean's other guest is top stand-up Donna McPhail. Donna and Cerys, ladies and gentlemen, Sean's team!

Phil's first guest is Andrew Roachford, main man in classic Brit soul combo, Roachford. Andrew Roachford, ladies and gentlemen, Phil's team! Sean's first guest is Catatonia's own hard-drinking, hard-singing, and hard-pronouncing Cerys Matthews. Sean's other guest is top stand-up Donna McPhail. Donna and Cerys, ladies and gentlemen, Sean's team!

# Andrew Roachford's intro The introduction contains a mild attempt at humor around the self-titled band "Roachford" - introducing "Andrew Roachford" as the "main man in classic Brit soul combo, Roachford." The potential joke lies in the repetitive naming convention of a frontman naming their band after themselves, but it's weakly delivered and feels more like a standard introduction than a committed comedic bit. Ratings: Audience: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) # Cerys Matthews and Donna McPhail's intro The introduction attempts humor through the triple "hard-" description of Matthews ("hard-drinking, hard-singing, and hard-pronouncing"), but it's a fairly basic construction that doesn't quite land as a proper joke. While it references Matthews' Welsh accent and Catatonia's rock reputation, it feels more like descriptive color than actual comedy. McPhail's introduction is purely straightforward ("top stand-up Donna McPhail"), serving as a simple credential statement rather than attempting humor. Ratings: Audience: 1 (Crickets) Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) The overall sequence reads more like standard introductory patter with light attempts at color rather than crafted comedy. While there's potential in both the self-titled band angle for Roachford and the Welsh accent/lifestyle references for Matthews, neither is developed enough to really work as proper jokes. This kind of introduction often works better in live delivery, where the host's timing and personality can add layers of meaning that don't come across in the plain text. The writing itself, however, stays fairly close to standard variety show introduction territory with only mild comedic flourishes.

Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e01 - Donna McPhail, Roachford, Cerys Matthews, Tommy Scott

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Phil's first guest is Rick McMurray from chart-toppers Ash. The band wrote their number one album while still at school. They also wrote a brilliant follow-up but claimed the dog ate it. Phil's second guest is Lemmy, the main man with heavy metal mothers Motorhead. Lemmy's very proud that his band has been going ten years longer than the Third Reich, and funnily enough, they've also done more damage to Coventry. Sean's first guest is Mani, bassist with the mighty Primal Scream. Mani's previous band, the Stone Roses, went on a drunken rampage in their record company's offices, which cost tens of thousands of pounds. They rang accountants who commissioned another Chesney Hawkes album. Sean's other guest, yes he's young, gifted and back, Richard Fairbrass. Richard says, "Although I'm predominantly gay, I reserve the right to wake up with a big pair of tits," which is no way to talk about the other members of Right Said Fred.

Phil's first guest is Rick McMurray from chart-toppers Ash. The band wrote their number one album while still at school. They also wrote a brilliant follow-up but claimed the dog ate it. Phil's second guest is Lemmy, the main man with heavy metal mothers Motorhead. Lemmy's very proud that his band has been going ten years longer than the Third Reich, and funnily enough, they've also done more damage to Coventry. Sean's first guest is Mani, bassist with the mighty Primal Scream. Mani's previous band, the Stone Roses, went on a drunken rampage in their record company's offices, which cost tens of thousands of pounds. They rang accountants who commissioned another Chesney Hawkes album. Sean's other guest, yes he's young, gifted and back, Richard Fairbrass. Richard says, "Although I'm predominantly gay, I reserve the right to wake up with a big pair of tits," which is no way to talk about the other members of Right Said Fred.

# Rick McMurray's intro A simple but effective joke that plays on the classic "dog ate my homework" excuse, transposed into a professional music context. The setup about writing their first album while still at school makes the punchline land naturally. It's a wholesome misdirect that works without needing any special knowledge or context. **Ratings:** - Audience at Home: 3 (An audible snort) - Lands well as a gentle opener - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Simple but effective construction # Lemmy's intro The joke attempts to work through hyperbole, comparing Motorhead's longevity to the Third Reich and suggesting they've done "more damage to Coventry" than the WWII bombing raids. However, the joke fails to land because there's no clear connection established between Lemmy/Motorhead and Coventry. Without this crucial context, the audience is left wondering why Coventry specifically was chosen, making the comparison feel arbitrary and confusing rather than funny. **Ratings:** - Audience at Home: 1 (Crickets) - Lacks necessary context to work - Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) - Poorly constructed, missing vital connection # Mani's intro The joke hinges on the contrast between the Stone Roses' rebellious behavior and the commercial solution proposed. After describing their "drunken rampage" causing expensive damage, the punchline reveals that accountants commissioned a Chesney Hawkes album - implying this was to recoup the losses. It's a subtle dig at both the Stone Roses' commercial prospects and anti-commercial attitude, while also poking fun at Hawkes' mainstream pop appeal. However, the joke's construction is too subtle and requires too much context about British pop culture to land effectively for most viewers. **Ratings:** - Audience at Home: 1 (Crickets) - Too subtle and requires too much context - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - Clever concept but poor execution # Richard Fairbrass's intro The joke builds from Fairbrass's quote "Although I'm predominantly gay, I reserve the right to wake up with a big pair of tits" into a punchline about his Right Said Fred bandmates. It relies on the double meaning of "tits" as both a sexual reference and British slang for fools/idiots. While the risqué nature of the joke likely plays well with the audience, the actual payoff is relatively uninspired despite the setup suggesting a bigger punchline. **Ratings:** - Audience at Home: 3 (An audible snort) - Works well enough due to risqué element - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - Basic double entendre with underwhelming payoff

Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e02 - Mani, Rick McMurray, Lemmy, Richard Fairbrass

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Bill's first guest is former Misteeq star, now a solo artist and FHM's 98th sexiest woman of 2002, it's Alesha. Alesha's mum is a hairdresser and used to run the Misteeq fan club, giving her just 22 hours a day for hairdressing and two hours for lunch. His second guest is surely not Blue Peter, GMTV, Lottery and Wish You Were Here legend, Anthea Turner. Yes it is, it's Anthea Turner. Anthea has made a TV comeback with her BBC3 series, The Perfect Housewife. So now we can say Anthea Turner's washed up. In the nicer, slightly less accurate way. Bill's first guest is the front man of stadium filling Scottish rockers, Deacon Blue, it's Ricky Ross. Lorraine from Deacon Blue has a recurring nightmare where the band are playing to a baying crowd without the correct instruments. I have a recurring nightmare that I'm stuck in the middle of a baying crowd watching Deacon Blue. Only joking, I've never heard of you. Bill's second guest is the winner of this year's Edinburgh Festival Comedy Award, it's funny man, Phil Nichol. Phil plays the producer on a fictional TV panel show whose main joke is they can't get any decent guests. Oh the irony.

Bill's first guest is former Misteeq star, now a solo artist and FHM's 98th sexiest woman of 2002, it's Alesha. Alesha's mum is a hairdresser and used to run the Misteeq fan club, giving her just 22 hours a day for hairdressing and two hours for lunch. His second guest is surely not Blue Peter, GMTV, Lottery and Wish You Were Here legend, Anthea Turner. Yes it is, it's Anthea Turner. Anthea has made a TV comeback with her BBC3 series, The Perfect Housewife. So now we can say Anthea Turner's washed up. In the nicer, slightly less accurate way. Bill's first guest is the front man of stadium filling Scottish rockers, Deacon Blue, it's Ricky Ross. Lorraine from Deacon Blue has a recurring nightmare where the band are playing to a baying crowd without the correct instruments. I have a recurring nightmare that I'm stuck in the middle of a baying crowd watching Deacon Blue. Only joking, I've never heard of you. Bill's second guest is the winner of this year's Edinburgh Festival Comedy Award, it's funny man, Phil Nichol. Phil plays the producer on a fictional TV panel show whose main joke is they can't get any decent guests. Oh the irony.

# Alesha Dixon's intro The key joke is subtle and implied: By stating Alesha's mum spent "22 hours a day for hairdressing and two hours for lunch," the introduction cleverly suggests she spent exactly zero hours running the Misteeq fan club - implying they had no fans to speak of. The humor works through mathematical misdirection, leading listeners to focus on the impossible 24-hour schedule before the penny drops about the fan club implication. **Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Takes a moment to land but satisfying when it does - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Elegant construction of an implied punchline # Anthea Turner's intro A masterfully constructed burn centered on the line "So now we can say Anthea Turner's washed up. In the nicer, slightly less accurate way." The joke works because it suggests that the literal interpretation of "washed up" (doing housework for her Perfect Housewife show) is the nicer but less accurate reading, while the more accurate interpretation is that her career is washed up. The structure appears to pull back from the insult while actually reinforcing it. **Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Clever wordplay with a sharp edge - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Well-crafted double meaning # Ricky Ross/Deacon Blue's intro A straightforward setup that descends into entertaining viciousness. It starts with Lorraine's nightmare about missing instruments, builds to the host's nightmare about watching the band, then delivers the final blow with "Only joking, I've never heard of you." The humor comes from the unnecessary escalation of hostility, which perfectly matches Buzzcocks' irreverent style. **Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Direct hit that matches show's tone - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Effective use of escalating hostility # Phil Nichol's intro The introduction sets up a simple but effective jab: "Phil plays the producer on a fictional TV panel show whose main joke is they can't get any decent guests. Oh the irony." The punchline works by implying that Phil himself doesn't qualify as a decent guest. It's a clean, well-executed self-deprecating joke that fits the show's style perfectly. **Ratings:** - Audience: 4 (LOL) - Direct and effective - Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Sharp, economical writing The set demonstrates different approaches to comedy writing, from subtle implied punchlines (Alesha) to sharp wordplay (Anthea) to straight-up mockery (Deacon Blue) to self-deprecation (Phil). Each joke is well-tailored to the show's irreverent style while maintaining enough playfulness to avoid genuine cruelty. The writing shows particular skill in using implication and misdirection to deliver its punches, often letting the audience do some of the work to arrive at the punchline.

Series 19/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s19e01 - Anthea Turner, Alesha Dixon, Phil Nicol, Ricky Ross

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Noel's team tonight, the leader of Mercury-nominated New Young Pony Club. She's so cool. None of you squares probably know who she is, but I do, because a researcher told me. It's Tahita Bulmer. Also on Noel's team is one of Britain's most loved early morning impromptu doorstep cash prize givers. It's recovering TV presenter, Keith Chegwin. Phil's first guest is from urban collective N-Dubz. This year he won a MOBO, which you may say is worthless. However, it does entitle him to a mammoth 20 nectar points and free entry to the Keswick Pencil Museum. It's Dappy, ladies and gentlemen. And his second guest is the mighty Bruce Star and friend of Noel Fielding, but that's not why he's here. It's quiz show asset and valid booking, Rich Fulcher.

On Noel's team tonight, the leader of Mercury-nominated New Young Pony Club. She's so cool. None of you squares probably know who she is, but I do, because a researcher told me. It's Tahita Bulmer. Also on Noel's team is one of Britain's most loved early morning impromptu doorstep cash prize givers. It's recovering TV presenter, Keith Chegwin. Phil's first guest is from urban collective N-Dubz. This year he won a MOBO, which you may say is worthless. However, it does entitle him to a mammoth 20 nectar points and free entry to the Keswick Pencil Museum. It's Dappy, ladies and gentlemen. And his second guest is the mighty Bruce Star and friend of Noel Fielding, but that's not why he's here. It's quiz show asset and valid booking, Rich Fulcher.

# Tahita Bulmer's intro The humor operates on multiple levels through a self-referential joke that punctures the host's attempt to appear knowledgeable. The setup establishes faux coolness ("She's so cool"), uses dated slang ("squares"), then deliberately deflates it with "but I do, because a researcher told me." This works as both self-deprecation and commentary on music show conventions where hosts pretend expertise. The joke lands effectively because it's relatable (most viewers won't know her either) while maintaining Buzzcocks' tradition of deflating music industry pretension. The self-awareness prevents any mean-spiritedness. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Keith Chegwin's intro The humor comes from the absurdly formal description of a morning TV role ("one of Britain's most loved early morning impromptu doorstep cash prize givers") combined with the perfectly pitched "recovering TV presenter" tag. This plays both on addiction recovery language and Chegwin's career trajectory. The joke treats a modest TV career with mock gravitas while acknowledging Chegwin's public history without cruelty. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Dappy's intro A masterclass in extended mockery that builds through multiple stages. It starts by acknowledging his MOBO award, immediately undermines it ("which you may say is worthless"), then escalates through deliberately pathetic rewards: "a mammoth 20 nectar points and free entry to the Keswick Pencil Museum." The specificity is perfect - using a small, precise number of supermarket points and the real but inherently amusing Pencil Museum. This extended dunking on Dappy perfectly fits the show's style and what the audience expects and loves. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 5 (ROFL) - Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL) # Rich Fulcher's intro This is a well-constructed burn that works through multiple layers of undermining. First comes "friend of Noel Fielding, but that's not why he's here" - already undercutting his booking. Then it doubles down with the comically overcompensating "quiz show asset and valid booking." The fact that Rich is actually a comedy legend in these circles makes the repeated undermining even funnier. The deliberately corporate language ("valid booking") and defensive justification create humor through the contrast with Fulcher's actual status and talent. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) The Dappy introduction stands as the strongest piece of writing, delivering a perfectly constructed takedown that builds through multiple beats to a satisfying conclusion. The Fulcher introduction demonstrates how to construct a burn that gains extra power from the audience's knowledge of the target, while the Bulmer and Chegwin intros show how to handle different types of guests with appropriate levels of gentle mockery.

Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e03 - Dappy, Keith Chegwin, Tahita Bulmer, Rich Rulche

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Phil's team, one of the biggest impression-based comedians of the 80s, now starring in Eastenders and doing a pretty good Shane Richie, it's Bobby Davro. Also on Phil's team, he's so lovely, he's so lovely, he's so lovely. He's released his second single, whatever it's called. From Scouting for Girls, it's Roy Stride. On Noel's team tonight, the former star of Coronation Street, star of soap star superstar, now starring as a pop star, even his album's got one star, it's Richard Fleeshman. And finally from cult comedy hit Flight of the Conchords, it's another one of those cutting edge American comedians. What's going on? Bring back Bobby Davro. Oh he's still here. It's Kristen Schaal.

On Phil's team, one of the biggest impression-based comedians of the 80s, now starring in Eastenders and doing a pretty good Shane Richie, it's Bobby Davro. Also on Phil's team, he's so lovely, he's so lovely, he's so lovely. He's released his second single, whatever it's called. From Scouting for Girls, it's Roy Stride. On Noel's team tonight, the former star of Coronation Street, star of soap star superstar, now starring as a pop star, even his album's got one star, it's Richard Fleeshman. And finally from cult comedy hit Flight of the Conchords, it's another one of those cutting edge American comedians. What's going on? Bring back Bobby Davro. Oh he's still here. It's Kristen Schaal.

# Bobby Davro's intro The joke plays on Davro appearing in Eastenders, suggesting his performance is derivative by "doing a pretty good Shane Richie." It's a relatively mild jab, delivered without much commitment - more of a throwaway line than a fully developed joke. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # Roy Stride's intro The humor works on two levels. First, the repetition of "he's so lovely" directly references Scouting for Girls' hit song "She's So Lovely." The main payoff comes when the presenter immediately "forgets" the title of Stride's new single despite having just repeated a similar phrase three times in apparent praise. It's a classic comedy formula but lands well through the timing and delivery. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Especially for those familiar with the band - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Well-executed but standard format # Richard Fleeshman's intro The introduction builds through a series of apparent accolades ("star of Coronation Street, star of soap star superstar, now starring as a pop star") before delivering an unexpected punchline that completely deflates the buildup: "even his album's got one star." The humor comes from the misdirection - what seems like a list of achievements becomes the setup for a cutting review. It's good-natured ribbing that works particularly well due to the surprise factor. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 4 (LOL) - Strong setup and payoff that lands well - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Solid construction but familiar territory # Kristen Schaal's intro The joke plays on mock British-American rivalry in comedy. The humor comes from the absurd suggestion to "Bring back Bobby Davro" instead of this "cutting edge American comedian," made funnier because Davro is clearly not in Schaal's league fame-wise. The deadpan follow-up "Oh he's still here" perfectly punctuates the mock disappointment. While it's fairly standard material, the delivery and timing make it work effectively. The structure cleverly plays both sides - seemingly dismissing American alternative comedy while actually poking fun at British entertainment's old guard. It's a well-constructed piece of humor that works on multiple levels without being too clever for its own good. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 4 (LOL) - Multiple layers that land well - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Good execution of familiar territory The introduction sequence shows increasing sophistication in its humor construction, building from simple throwaway lines to more complex setups and payoffs. Each joke is tailored to both the specific guest and the show's irreverent tone while remaining accessible to the general audience. The writing demonstrates a good understanding of how to build and release tension for comedic effect, particularly in the Fleeshman and Schaal introductions.

Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e04 - Roy Stride, Bobby Davro, Kristen Schaal, Richard Fleeshman

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Phil's team tonight: Christ, by highest heaven adored, Christ, the everlasting lord, he put the Wine into Winehouse, it's irresponsible cool dude producer, Mark Ronson. And you can be the hottest, you can be the finest, it don't matter to me, it's one half of my favourite double act in the history of I'm a Celebrity, it's Vic from Vic and Nancy. On Bill's team: Oh holy child of Bethlehem, descend on us we pray, it's the singer from the band The Pigeon Detectives who's interestingly called Matt Bowman, it's Matt Bowman. And you could be the baddest, be the most stylish, you could be rolling in money, it's classically trained celebrity and reality TV mother, Myleene Klass.

On Phil's team tonight: Christ, by highest heaven adored, Christ, the everlasting lord, he put the Wine into Winehouse, it's irresponsible cool dude producer, Mark Ronson. And you can be the hottest, you can be the finest, it don't matter to me, it's one half of my favourite double act in the history of I'm a Celebrity, it's Vic from Vic and Nancy. On Bill's team: Oh holy child of Bethlehem, descend on us we pray, it's the singer from the band The Pigeon Detectives who's interestingly called Matt Bowman, it's Matt Bowman. And you could be the baddest, be the most stylish, you could be rolling in money, it's classically trained celebrity and reality TV mother, Myleene Klass.

# Mark Ronson's intro The introduction plays with religious imagery from "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" before delivering its main punchline: "he put the Wine into Winehouse." This works on multiple levels - it's a play on Jesus turning water into wine, but more pointedly, it's a dark joke implying Ronson's responsibility for Amy Winehouse's substance issues. The slightly sacrilegious tone and edgy implication perfectly match the show's irreverent style. The "irresponsible cool dude producer" tag serves as a perfect punctuation to the implied criticism while maintaining plausible deniability about the darker meaning. Ratings: - Home Audience: 4 (LOL) - The combination of sacrilege and dark humor hits the show's sweet spot - Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Well-constructed with multiple layers and clever misdirection # Vic's intro The core joke here is deliberately undermining Vic's legitimate comedy career by pretending his reality TV appearance with his wife Nancy is more significant than his actual famous double act with Bob Mortimer. The line "one half of my favourite double act in the history of I'm a Celebrity" delivers this perfectly. The joke is reinforced by mimicking double act naming conventions with "Vic and Nancy," making it even more absurd by treating this temporary reality TV pairing as if it were a genuine comedy partnership like "Vic and Bob." The opening lyrics seem to be attempting some light absurdist humor but don't add much to the main joke. Ratings: - Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Relies on fairly obscure references - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Clever concept but too niche to land broadly # Matt Bowman's intro This introduction is notably weak on actual jokes. It plays with religious lyrics again but without much purpose. The main attempt at humor comes from: 1. The obviously false suggestion that being "interestingly called Matt Bowman" is actually interesting 2. The redundant repetition of his name: "who's interestingly called Matt Bowman, it's Matt Bowman" It's a half-hearted attempt at making humor from the very lack of anything interesting to say about the guest. Ratings: - Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - The weak attempt at self-aware humor might get a sympathy laugh - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Basic structure but lacking real wit # Myleene Klass's intro The introduction opens with more seemingly random song lyrics before moving to its main joke: the contrast between "classically trained celebrity" and "reality TV mother." It's a gentle dig at the modern celebrity career trajectory, moving from high culture to reality TV. The humor is relatively straightforward, deriving mainly from the absurdity of the phrase "classically trained celebrity" and what it suggests about modern fame. Ratings: - Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - The cultural commentary is clear but not particularly sharp - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - A standard format without much innovation

Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e06 - Christmas Special - Vic Reeves, Myleene Klass, Matt Bowman, Mark Ronson

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Phil's first guest is the lead singer with The Foals... Well if their recent invasion of January is anything to go by, I wouldn't want to be February right now. It’s Yannis Philippakis. And an award-winning stand-up who fuses comedy with music, he could be a bit like Bill Bailey if it wasn't for his grotesquely freakish, almost non-human appearance. It's the very different to Bill Bailey, Tim Minchin everybody!

Phil's first guest is the lead singer with The Foals... Well if their recent invasion of January is anything to go by, I wouldn't want to be February right now. It’s Yannis Philippakis. And an award-winning stand-up who fuses comedy with music, he could be a bit like Bill Bailey if it wasn't for his grotesquely freakish, almost non-human appearance. It's the very different to Bill Bailey, Tim Minchin everybody!

# Yannis Philippakis's intro This introduction attempts a joke about The Foals' "invasion of January" and February being worried, but the intended humor is unclear and lacks clear referential context. Without understanding what specific January success or "invasion" is being referenced, the joke falls flat and comes across as confusing rather than clever. **Funniness Ratings:** - Audience at home: 1 (Crickets) - Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets) # Tim Minchin's intro This is a well-constructed piece of comedic misdirection that plays with ambiguity. The introduction sets up a comparison between Tim Minchin and Bill Bailey as musical comedians: "he could be a bit like Bill Bailey if it wasn't for his grotesquely freakish, almost non-human appearance." The key to the humor lies in the intentional ambiguity of who "his" refers to in "his grotesquely freakish, almost non-human appearance." While the setup appears to be building toward insulting Tim Minchin, the fact that Bill Bailey himself isn't known for his looks creates a layer of amusing uncertainty. The final line "It's the very different to Bill Bailey, Tim Minchin everybody!" deliberately maintains this ambiguity rather than resolving it, which is what makes the joke work so well. The humor succeeds through: - Initial legitimate comparison between two similar performers - Strategic use of ambiguity about who is being described - Over-the-top descriptive language ("grotesquely freakish, almost non-human appearance") - Deliberate non-resolution of the ambiguity in the punchline This is sophisticated comedy writing that rewards both immediate appreciation and closer analysis. **Funniness Ratings:** - Audience at home: 4 (LOL) - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) The stark difference in quality between these two introductions demonstrates how crucial clear intent and well-structured misdirection are to successful comedy writing. While the Philippakis intro fails due to unclear reference points, the Minchin intro succeeds by carefully managing audience expectations and playing with ambiguity in a way that enhances rather than obscures the humor.

Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e10 - Sophie Ellis Bextor, Yannis, Tim Minchin, James Lance

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Tonight, with just three outrageous lies in his intro, it's Matt Shultz! And she's a fiercely intelligent Oxford-educated comedian and actor. Stephen Fry'd better watch out, because she's also a murderer! It's Josie Long! On Phil's team tonight, former S Club Junior and now in new girl band The Saturdays. There's nothing wrong with dressing her all sexy now, and we can't change the past. It's Frankie Sandford! And also on Phil's team is the up-and-coming star of Mamma Mia, The History Boys, and The Duchess. Oh, him? I love him! Such a recognizable face. Go on, give us a clue. I'm sorry, your time's up. It's Dominic Cooper!

It’s the award winning, platinum selling singer of Cage the Elephant, and we’re delighted to have him here. Tonight, with just three outrageous lies in his intro, it's Matt Shultz! And she's a fiercely intelligent Oxford-educated comedian and actor. Stephen Fry'd better watch out, because she's also a murderer! It's Josie Long! On Phil's team tonight, former S Club Junior and now in new girl band The Saturdays. There's nothing wrong with dressing her all sexy now, and we can't change the past. It's Frankie Sandford! And also on Phil's team is the up-and-coming star of Mamma Mia, The History Boys, and The Duchess. Oh, him? I love him! Such a recognizable face. Go on, give us a clue. I'm sorry, your time's up. It's Dominic Cooper!

# Matt Shultz's intro A simple meta-joke playing with the show's format by explicitly stating "three outrageous lies in his intro." The humor comes from the fact that while this suggests fabricated accolades, his achievements with Cage the Elephant are actually legitimate. The joke is somewhat unfocused and doesn't fully commit to its premise. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # Josie Long's intro A straightforward setup-punchline structure that builds her up as an intellectual figure ("fiercely intelligent Oxford-educated comedian") only to undercut it with the absurd "she's also a murderer!" The Stephen Fry reference serves mainly to position her as someone who would interest him intellectually, making the murderer revelation more jarring. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 1 (Crickets) - Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) # Frankie Sandford's intro The strongest and darkest joke of the set. The line "There's nothing wrong with dressing her all sexy now, and we can't change the past" delivers a powerful punch by directly addressing the entertainment industry's sexualization of young performers. The joke works through careful construction - starting with her S Club Junior background before delivering the loaded commentary about her current image. The follow-up "we can't change the past" adds another layer of uncomfortable self-awareness about collective culpability. The humor is particularly effective (and uncomfortable) because Sandford is present for this commentary. It's dark, self-aware humor that forces the audience to confront their own participation in this dynamic. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 5 (ROFL) - Comedy Writer: 5 (ROFL) # Dominic Cooper's intro Cleverly parodies the viewer's internal monologue when seeing a familiar actor whose name they can't quite place. The structure "Oh, him? I love him! Such a recognizable face" perfectly captures this common experience. The game show quiz format ("Go on, give us a clue. I'm sorry, your time's up") adds entertaining window dressing to what is essentially a gentle ribbing about Cooper's status as a well-liked but not quite A-list celebrity. The joke manages to both compliment and slightly insult Cooper simultaneously, suggesting he's both beloved and somewhat forgettable - a neat trick that makes the humor land effectively. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort)

Series 22/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s22e02 - Dominic Cooper, Matt Shultz, Josie Long, Frankie Sandford

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Lee's first guest might be known for her role on a certain popular soap opera, but tonight she's stepping out of the cobbled streets and onto our panel. She's the girl-next-door with a quick wit and sharper tongue, it's Coronation Street's very own Sally Lindsay! And joining Sally is a music legend who's seen it all and performed with the biggest names in the industry. He's written hits that have stood the test of time, and he's still going strong. Please welcome, from the legendary band Squeeze, it's singer-songwriter Chris Difford!

Lee's first guest might be known for her role on a certain popular soap opera, but tonight she's stepping out of the cobbled streets and onto our panel. She's the girl-next-door with a quick wit and sharper tongue, it's Coronation Street's very own Sally Lindsay! And joining Sally is a music legend who's seen it all and performed with the biggest names in the industry. He's written hits that have stood the test of time, and he's still going strong. Please welcome, from the legendary band Squeeze, it's singer-songwriter Chris Difford!

# Sally Lindsay's intro This is a straightforward, non-comedic introduction that serves to present Sally Lindsay to the audience. While it references her Coronation Street background and personality traits ("girl-next-door with a quick wit and sharper tongue"), these are informational rather than attempts at humor. The mention of "stepping out of the cobbled streets" is simply a transitional reference to her soap opera role rather than wordplay. The introduction achieves its primary purpose of establishing who she is and why she's qualified to be on the panel, without trying to force humor where it isn't needed. No funniness rating required as this is not a comedic introduction. # Chris Difford's intro This is another straight introduction that focuses on establishing Difford's musical credentials and legacy. The language used ("music legend," "performed with the biggest names," "written hits that have stood the test of time") serves to properly contextualize his importance in British music for the audience. The introduction appropriately maintains a respectful, non-comedic tone that befits a guest of his stature in the music industry. This demonstrates how Never Mind the Buzzcocks balances its entertainment format with proper recognition of significant musical figures. No funniness rating required as this is not a comedic introduction. Both introductions demonstrate that panel show guest introductions don't need to contain jokes to be effective - sometimes a clear, straightforward presentation of the guest's background and credentials is the most appropriate approach.

Series 22/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s22e10 - 198th Episode Special - Arlene Phillips, Keith Murray, Dappy, Robert Webb

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Phil's team tonight, if you like top electro-pop band Hot Chip, you'll love this next guest. He's from top electro-pop band Hot Chip, it's Joe Goddard. You know, from Hot Chip. And Stephen Fry did pull out at the last minute, but I'm sure whoever we replaced him with will be a brilliant established or up-and-coming man or woman. Oh, it's the IT crowd's Chris O'Dowd, good. Phil's first guest is the star of Cold Feet and Murphy's Law, it's the thinking woman's drunken, slutty sister's crumpet, James Nesbitt. And taking the temporarily cool dude indie star seat tonight, it's Adam from Flipchart Hiatus. Sorry, hang on, I've just been told, Flipchart Hiatus have slipped a couple of places in the cool list and we're gonna have to replace him with the very talented cool dude indie star, Lightspeed Champion, everybody!

On Phil's team tonight, if you like top electro-pop band Hot Chip, you'll love this next guest. He's from top electro-pop band Hot Chip, it's Joe Goddard. You know, from Hot Chip. And Stephen Fry did pull out at the last minute, but I'm sure whoever we replaced him with will be a brilliant established or up-and-coming man or woman. Oh, it's the IT crowd's Chris O'Dowd, good. Phil's first guest is the star of Cold Feet and Murphy's Law, it's the thinking woman's drunken, slutty sister's crumpet, James Nesbitt. And taking the temporarily cool dude indie star seat tonight, it's Adam from Flipchart Hiatus. Sorry, hang on, I've just been told, Flipchart Hiatus have slipped a couple of places in the cool list and we're gonna have to replace him with the very talented cool dude indie star, Lightspeed Champion, everybody!

# Joe Goddard's Introduction This is anti-humor that works through conspicuous absence of an actual joke, combined with the redundant mentions of Hot Chip ("He's from top electro-pop band Hot Chip... You know, from Hot Chip"). The humor is deliberately thin and self-aware, but doesn't quite land. Ratings: - Home Audience: 1 (Crickets) - Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) # Chris O'Dowd's Introduction Sets up what could have been a good status joke comparing O'Dowd to Stephen Fry, but pulls its punch with the overly nice "I'm sure whoever we replaced him with will be brilliant." The Buzzcocks audience typically expects and appreciates sharper humor, making this a missed opportunity. Ratings: - Home Audience: 1 (Crickets) - Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) # James Nesbitt's Introduction A expertly crafted character assassination that subverts the established phrase "thinking woman's crumpet." By describing him instead as "the thinking woman's drunken, slutty sister's crumpet," it implies Nesbitt lacks the intelligence to attract thinking women, instead appealing to their less discerning siblings. The joke works on multiple levels: - Clever wordplay with an established phrase - Sharp but not cruel character commentary - Captures Nesbitt's roguish appeal while undermining his sophistication - Blends highbrow and lowbrow elements effectively Ratings: - Home Audience: 4 (LOL) - Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) # Flipchart Hiatus/Lightspeed Champion Introduction A somewhat muddled execution of some good comedic ideas. The fake band name "Flipchart Hiatus" parodies pretentious indie names by combining corporate mundanity with artistic pretension. The immediate demotion ("Flipchart Hiatus have slipped a couple of places in the cool list") satirizes the fickle nature of indie credibility and media's obsession with "cool." However, the execution is problematic because: - It's not immediately clear that Flipchart Hiatus is fictional - The satire of indie band coolness is too understated - The misdirect might confuse more than amuse - The intro fakeout is a somewhat tired trope It gets some points for being an in-joke that regular viewers might appreciate, but feels a bit lazy in its execution. Ratings: - Home Audience: 2.5 (Between minor exhale and audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 2.5 (Between minor exhale and audible snort)

Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e11 - James Nesbitt, Joe Goddard, Chris O'Dowd, Lightspeed Champion

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Phil's team tonight, he's on every other TV show to celebrate his "King of the Jungle" triumph; one more won't hurt, surely? It's Christopher Biggins! And taking advantage of nothing else being released at the moment, it's indie sensation and big fish in an empty pond, Get Cape Wear Cape Fly! Phil's first guest is a chart-topping pop phenomenon whose album is still nearly full price in many shops; it's Robin! And he also has a brilliant comedian and a talented author, yet strangely available during such a busy time for comedy and books, it's Mark Watson!

On Phil's team tonight, he's on every other TV show to celebrate his "King of the Jungle" triumph; one more won't hurt, surely? It's Christopher Biggins! And taking advantage of nothing else being released at the moment, it's indie sensation and big fish in an empty pond, Get Cape Wear Cape Fly! Phil's first guest is a chart-topping pop phenomenon whose album is still nearly full price in many shops; it's Robin! And he also has a brilliant comedian and a talented author, yet strangely available during such a busy time for comedy and books, it's Mark Watson!

# Christopher Biggins's intro A straightforward joke mocking Biggins's ubiquitous media presence after winning "I'm A Celebrity." The line "one more won't hurt, surely?" delivers light sarcasm about celebrity overexposure. It's a simple, recognizable reference that works because British audiences would be familiar with Biggins's frequent TV appearances during this period. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Mildly amusing but throwaway - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Basic execution of an obvious joke # Get Cape Wear Cape Fly's intro The introduction mocks the guest through the "big fish in an empty pond" metaphor and the direct statement about "taking advantage of nothing else being released." The joke suggests they can only achieve success when there's no competition. While the audience typically enjoys this kind of mockery on the show, the execution here isn't quite sharp enough to make it truly memorable. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Decent mockery that lands okay - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Serviceable but not particularly clever # Robin's intro A half-hearted attempt at humor using the phrase "still nearly full price in many shops" to undercut the "chart-topping pop phenomenon" setup. The joke seems to be suggesting the album isn't selling well enough to warrant discounting, but the execution is lazy and the punch doesn't really land. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Barely registers - Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) - Poor execution of a weak premise # Mark Watson's intro The most skillfully constructed introduction of the set. It builds beautifully through praise ("brilliant comedian and talented author") before the devastating pivot with "yet strangely available during such a busy time for comedy and books." The humor works through perfect comic timing and the ironic contrast between stated success and implied lack of demand. It's particularly effective because it plays into British appreciation of self-deprecation while maintaining a sharp edge. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 4 (LOL) - Lands perfectly with great timing - Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Expertly constructed burn The Watson introduction stands out as the clear winner, demonstrating how a well-constructed setup-pivot-punchline structure can deliver a memorable joke that works on multiple levels while maintaining the show's characteristic tone. The others range from serviceable (Get Cape Wear Cape Fly) to forgettable (Robin), with the Biggins intro falling somewhere in between as a basic but functional piece of light mockery.

Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e09 - Mark Watson, Christopher Biggins, Robyn, Sam Duckworth

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Mark's team tonight, she's usually chasing pavements, but tonight, pavements, you can take the evening off because she's not chasing you, she's chasing points! It's song sensation and points meshuggener, Adele. Also on Mark's team, not that we're panicking about the loss of anyone in particular, but it's comedian with a piano, Tim, just in case, Minchin. And on Phil's team tonight, "Honk! Honk!" That's the sound of a klaxon. But what does this one sound like? Like a bloody cool human, we hope, it's one of The Klaxons, Jamie Reynolds from The Klaxons! And Phil's second guest is an actor with the charisma and talent to make anything he's in, however bad the script, seem like it certainly should be good enough for BBC3. It's Ralf Little, everybody!

On Mark's team tonight, she's usually chasing pavements, but tonight, pavements, you can take the evening off because she's not chasing you, she's chasing points! It's song sensation and points meshuggener, Adele. Also on Mark's team, not that we're panicking about the loss of anyone in particular, but it's comedian with a piano, Tim, just in case, Minchin. And on Phil's team tonight, "Honk! Honk!" That's the sound of a klaxon. But what does this one sound like? Like a bloody cool human, we hope, it's one of The Klaxons, Jamie Reynolds from The Klaxons! And Phil's second guest is an actor with the charisma and talent to make anything he's in, however bad the script, seem like it certainly should be good enough for BBC3. It's Ralf Little, everybody!

# Adele's intro The joke deliberately leans into its own cringe-worthy, dad-joke nature, building up the tortured "Chasing Pavements" reference with increasing commitment: "she's usually chasing pavements, but tonight, pavements, you can take the evening off because she's not chasing you, she's chasing points!" The humor comes from how far it stretches this forced wordplay, making the audience both wince and smile at its self-aware corniness. The addition of "points meshuggener" (an obscure Yiddish term) adds an intentionally weird, unparseable element that compounds the intentionally awkward introduction. **Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - The self-aware corniness lands well - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Skillfully constructed anti-humor # Tim Minchin's intro The humor works on two clear levels: first, the mock-panicked suggestion that Minchin is a hasty replacement for some more valued guest ("not that we're panicking about the loss of anyone in particular"), and second, the deliberately reductive description "comedian with a piano" that perfectly pigeonholes Minchin's public persona. The "just in case" adds a perfect deadpan touch to the emergency replacement narrative. **Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Well-constructed insider humor - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Clean execution of multiple complementary jokes # Jamie Reynolds' intro The humor here likely relies heavily on delivery, appearing to riff on/bastardize "Whoop whoop! It's the sound of da police" but with silly klaxon sounds substituted. The setup "Honk! Honk! That's the sound of a klaxon. But what does this one sound like?" creates an intentionally ridiculous lead-in to introducing a member of The Klaxons, with the "Like a bloody cool human, we hope" serving as an amusing pivot. **Ratings:** - Audience: 4 (LOL) - The silly setup and delivery make this land - Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Clever construction playing with expectations # Ralf Little's intro This introduction is masterfully constructed with multiple layers of misdirection about whether it's praising or insulting Little. It begins with apparent high praise ("charisma and talent to make anything he's in"), immediately undercut by "however bad the script," before landing on the deliciously ambiguous compliment/insult of making things "seem like it certainly should be good enough for BBC3." The humor comes from the constant subversion of expectations and the lingering ambiguity of whether any of it was actually complimentary, similar to Bilbo's famous "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like" line. **Ratings:** - Audience: 5 (ROFL) - Perfect execution of layered humor - Comedy Writer: 5 (ROFL) - Technically brilliant construction with multiple payoffs

Series 22/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s22e01 - Adele, Jamie Reynolds, Ralf Little, Tim Minchin

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: And on his team tonight: Get off the Dog and Bone and rush down the Apples and Stairs, you'll never guess who's on the Bella Vision jet… It's cheeky Cockney and movie star, Danny Dyer! And from ratings-winning band The Long Blondes, it's the lead singer we've all very much heard of… Please don't turn off… It's Kate Jackson! And on Phil's team tonight: Look, it's the drummer from McFly! They totally appeal to me and my demographic. I'm going to watch this. It's Harry from McFly! He's a comedian and actor from the Flight of the Conchords. You can talk all the way through if you like, as long as you keep the TV on. It's Rhys Darby!

And on his team tonight: Get off the Dog and Bone and rush down the Apples and Stairs, you'll never guess who's on the Bella Vision jet… It's cheeky Cockney and movie star, Danny Dyer! And from ratings-winning band The Long Blondes, it's the lead singer we've all very much heard of… Please don't turn off… It's Kate Jackson! And on Phil's team tonight: Look, it's the drummer from McFly! They totally appeal to me and my demographic. I'm going to watch this. It's Harry from McFly! He's a comedian and actor from the Flight of the Conchords. You can talk all the way through if you like, as long as you keep the TV on. It's Rhys Darby!

# Danny Dyer's intro **Contains jokes?** Yes, multiple layers of humor. **Humor Analysis:** The guest is an actor who is typecast as a cockney. the joke progresses through levels of increasingly mangled Cockney: 1. 'Dog and Bone' (correct traditional usage) 2. 'Apples and Stairs' (mixing up a well-known one) 3. 'Bella Vision....jet' (completely falling apart trying to invent one on the spot for 'television set' -- or that's the conceit, anyway) It’s playfully making fun of cockney rhyming, and also Danny Dyer, who's known for being authentically Cockney and likely cringes at these terrible attempts at it. Well executed & funny. International audiences might miss some cultural references but can still appreciate the theatrical delivery. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 5 (ROFL) - The catastrophic attempts and cockney rhyming are charmingly awful - Comedy Writer: 5 (ROFL) - Comedy writers will appreciate the progression of the joke and the tight execution. # Kate Jackson's intro A deliberately mean-spirited introduction that works by being comedically over-the-top: "ratings-winning band The Long Blondes, it's the lead singer we've all very much heard of..." The sting comes from the fact it's absolutely true - most viewers won't have heard of her. The meta-humor stems from the host knowingly pushing past the expected boundaries of guest introductions while maintaining a light-hearted tone that lets him get away with it. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 3 (Audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) # Harry from McFly's intro Extends the previous bit through sarcastic commentary about audience demographics: "They totally appeal to me and my demographic. I'm going to watch this." The humor works on multiple levels - it mocks the audience while simultaneously taking aim at TV executives who make cynical booking decisions to appeal to younger viewers. The host is walking a fine line of what might be considered appropriate criticism of their bosses, which adds to both the comedic effect and likely their personal amusement. It's a good developing bit. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 4 (LOL) - Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) # Rhys Darby's intro A subtle and layered joke that plays with TV ratings mechanics: "You can talk all the way through if you like, as long as you keep the TV on." This could be interpreted as mocking how ratings systems only measure if TVs are on, not viewer engagement. More broadly, it continues the host's character bit of expressing cynical disaffection with the whole enterprise - they don't care if viewers like the show, just that they contribute to ratings. While less obvious than traditional setup-punchline jokes, this fits with the host's established persona of pushing boundaries through seemingly inappropriate honesty about television's commercial realities. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 3 (Audible snort) - Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) The sequence as a whole builds a running commentary on TV ratings and audience manipulation, with each introduction adding new layers to the host's carefully constructed character as someone who seems determined to bite the hand that feeds them while remaining just charming enough to get away with it.

Series 22/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s22e04 - Kate Jackson, Danny Dyer, Rhys Darby, Harry Judd

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Phil's team, Yorkshire's own Tony Wright of the top ten metal band, Terrorvision. Terrorvision's gigs have been described as a laugh, joke, and a crate of ale, just like a night out with Chris Evans, only with a laugh and the joke. Phil's second guest is Toyah Willcox, pop star, Good Sex Guide presenter, and the voice of the Teletubbies. She spends the day saying things like, let's play with Tinky Winky, eh-oh, and again, and again, and again. And after The Good Sex Guide, she does Teletubbies. On Sean's team, the first guest is Tim Booth from international student favorites, James. When the band played their biggest hit, Sit Down, the audience would respond by sitting down on the floor, which was fine until the Glastonbury Festival when 500 people drowned in three feet of mud. Sean's other guest is laconic stand-up, John Moloney. John is a favorite with the critics and was recently described in Time Out as "Man, 30, non-smoker, seeks woman any age for physical relationship."

On Phil's team, Yorkshire's own Tony Wright of the top ten metal band, Terrorvision. Terrorvision's gigs have been described as a laugh, joke, and a crate of ale, just like a night out with Chris Evans, only with a laugh and the joke. Phil's second guest is Toyah Willcox, pop star, Good Sex Guide presenter, and the voice of the Teletubbies. She spends the day saying things like, let's play with Tinky Winky, eh-oh, and again, and again, and again. And after The Good Sex Guide, she does Teletubbies. On Sean's team, the first guest is Tim Booth from international student favorites, James. When the band played their biggest hit, Sit Down, the audience would respond by sitting down on the floor, which was fine until the Glastonbury Festival when 500 people drowned in three feet of mud. Sean's other guest is laconic stand-up, John Moloney. John is a favorite with the critics and was recently described in Time Out as "Man, 30, non-smoker, seeks woman any age for physical relationship."

# Tony Wright (Terrorvision)'s intro The joke employs a setup-subversion structure comparing Terrorvision's gigs to a night out with Chris Evans. It establishes three elements ("a laugh, joke, and a crate of ale") then deliberately removes two for Evans, implying his nights out have only the drinking without the fun. The humor relies on audience familiarity with Evans' reputation as a party-loving media personality of the era. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 2.5 (Between a minor exhale and an audible snort) - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # Toyah Willcox's intro A cleverly constructed joke that sets up the expectation that Toyah is recording phrases like "let's play with Tinky Winky, eh-oh, and again, and again, and again" for the Teletubbies. The punchline then brilliantly subverts this by revealing these phrases were actually being recorded for The Good Sex Guide. The humor works through the unexpected conflation of an innocent children's show with adult sex education content. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 4 (LOL) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Tim Booth (James)'s intro The joke builds on James' hit "Sit Down" and takes it to an absurd extreme with the Glastonbury Festival scenario. The humor comes from the extreme exaggeration (500 people drowning) and the specific detail of "three feet of mud" which makes the situation even more ridiculous. The specificity of the details and the matter-of-fact delivery enhance the comic effect, while playing on the cultural understanding of Glastonbury's notorious mud. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # John Moloney's intro The joke hinges on a classic misdirection. It sets up the expectation that John was featured in Time Out magazine, presumably for his comedy, but then reveals he was actually in the personals section with a dating ad. The specific phrasing "Man, 30, non-smoker, seeks woman any age for physical relationship" lands particularly well, with the clinical "physical relationship" and desperate-sounding "any age" adding extra comedic punch. The construction creates a perfect surprise payoff. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience: 5 (ROFL) - Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL)

Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e03 - John Moloney, Toyah Wilcox, Saul Davie, Tom Wright

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Sean's first guest is Justin Currie, frontman for Del Amitri. Del Amitri have a reputation for being one of rock's most miserable bands. In fact, when they supported The Smiths in 1985, Morrissey used to have to cheer them up with his tickling stick. And it's a warm welcome back for Sean's other guest, the boy balladeer from Barking, Billy Bragg. Billy Bragg was once in the army but lasted for just 90 days, making his the least convincing military career since Colonel Sanders. Phil's first guest is Mary Anne Hobbs, rising DJ at Radio 1. Mary Anne's a woman who needs no introduction because, being a Radio 1 DJ, she'd only talk over it anyway. Phil's second guest - oh no, he's back again, it's Jonathan Ross. Jonathan's well known for his love of obscure low-budget trash and incidentally, this is his fourth appearance on the show.

Sean's first guest is Justin Currie, frontman for Del Amitri. Del Amitri have a reputation for being one of rock's most miserable bands. In fact, when they supported The Smiths in 1985, Morrissey used to have to cheer them up with his tickling stick. And it's a warm welcome back for Sean's other guest, the boy balladeer from Barking, Billy Bragg. Billy Bragg was once in the army but lasted for just 90 days, making his the least convincing military career since Colonel Sanders. Phil's first guest is Mary Anne Hobbs, rising DJ at Radio 1. Mary Anne's a woman who needs no introduction because, being a Radio 1 DJ, she'd only talk over it anyway. Phil's second guest - oh no, he's back again, it's Jonathan Ross. Jonathan's well known for his love of obscure low-budget trash and incidentally, this is his fourth appearance on the show.

# Justin Currie's intro A well-constructed joke that works as a gentle burn on Justin Currie while playing with multiple elements: - Uses Del Amitri's reputation for melancholic music as the setup - Creates delicious irony by having Morrissey (famously gloomy himself) be the one cheering them up - The "tickling stick" reference adds distinctly British humor through the Ken Dodd callback - Creates an absurdly funny mental image of Morrissey with a tickling stick The joke lands particularly well by combining music insider knowledge with broader British comedy references, managing to be both clever and silly. Funniness ratings: - Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Multiple layers and strong cultural resonance - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Well-constructed but not revolutionary # Billy Bragg's intro A solidly constructed introduction that gets mileage from both wordplay and comparison: - Fun alliteration in "boy balladeer from Barking, Billy Bragg" - Uses Bragg's brief military career (90 days) as setup - Lands with the Colonel Sanders comparison ("least convincing military career since Colonel Sanders") - Works purely on face value without needing deeper knowledge The joke is particularly effective because it's universally accessible while maintaining the show's characteristic wit. Funniness ratings: - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Clean, accessible humor - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Solid construction with good wordplay # Mary Anne Hobbs' intro A fairly standard but effective DJ joke that subverts the "needs no introduction" format: - Plays on the stereotype of Radio 1 DJs talking over music - Setup ("needs no introduction") efficiently enables the punchline - Industry-specific humor that connects with UK music fans - Somewhat lazy but gets the job done Funniness ratings: - Home audience: 2.5 (Between minor exhale and snort) - Relatable but obvious - Comedy writer: 2.5 (Between minor exhale and snort) - Clean but unambitious # Jonathan Ross's intro A straightforward bit of self-deprecating humor that works on two levels: - References Ross's well-known love of cult/low-budget entertainment - Turns that into a burn about his repeated appearances on the show - "Oh no, he's back again" sets up the tone perfectly - Works as both a dig at Ross's taste and his frequent returns to the show The effectiveness comes from its casual delivery and the way it pokes fun at both Ross and the show itself. Funniness ratings: - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Works well for regular viewers - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Solid self-referential humor Overall, these introductions exemplify the show's signature style of mixing music industry knowledge with British cultural references and irreverent humor. The quality varies from somewhat lazy (Hobbs) to quite clever (Currie), but all maintain the show's characteristic tone of playful mockery.

Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e07 - Mary Ann Hobbs, Justin Currie, Billy Bragg, Jonathan Ross

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Phil’s team, it’s Louie Eliot, singer with top 20 hipsters and media darlings Rialto. According to Rialto, whenever they want to say something dim they break into a Liam Gallagher impression. Whenever Liam Gallagher wants to say something dim, he just opens his mouth. Phil’s second guest is Zoe Ball. Zoe joined the Big Breakfast after Chris Evans left. On her first day, she broke an expensive prop intended for a stupid stunt, but he'd left the week before. Sean’s first guest is Boyzone’s Keith Duffy. While on tour in Japan, the boy's had voodoo dolls left in their hotel rooms with broken glass in them and the message "You Will Die", P.S. can I have an autograph for my sister? Sean’s other guest is comedian and television presenter Graham Norton. Amazingly Graham won an award for being the best presenter on the Jack Docherty Show - narrowly beating Jack Docherty. He's already tipped to win the award for best captain of Sean's team.

On Phil’s team, it’s Louie Eliot, singer with top 20 hipsters and media darlings Rialto. According to Rialto, whenever they want to say something dim they break into a Liam Gallagher impression. Whenever Liam Gallagher wants to say something dim, he just opens his mouth. Phil’s second guest is Zoe Ball. Zoe joined the Big Breakfast after Chris Evans left. On her first day, she broke an expensive prop intended for a stupid stunt, but he'd left the week before. Sean’s first guest is Boyzone’s Keith Duffy. While on tour in Japan, the boy's had voodoo dolls left in their hotel rooms with broken glass in them and the message "You Will Die", P.S. can I have an autograph for my sister? Sean’s other guest is comedian and television presenter Graham Norton. Amazingly Graham won an award for being the best presenter on the Jack Docherty Show - narrowly beating Jack Docherty. He's already tipped to win the award for best captain of Sean's team.

# Louie Eliot (Rialto)'s intro A straightforward joke mocking Liam Gallagher. The setup establishes that Rialto does Gallagher impressions "whenever they want to say something dim," leading to the punchline that Gallagher achieves the same effect by simply opening his mouth. The joke works by playing into the common perception of Gallagher as dim-witted, landing well with the show's audience who would be familiar with his public persona. Ratings: - Home audience: 3 (Audible snort) - Comedy writer: 2 (Minor exhale) # Zoe Ball's intro The humor here works through clever wordplay, using "stupid stunt" in a double meaning. While it appears to be about Ball breaking a prop for a TV stunt, the punchline reveals "stunt" is actually being used as a TV-friendly substitute word to essentially call Chris Evans a rather ruder name (rhyming with "stunt"). The joke's effectiveness relies heavily on delivery and might work better spoken than written, as the wordplay is somewhat oblique. Ratings: - Home audience: 3 (Audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (Audible snort) # Keith Duffy's intro The joke plays with contrast between threatening and mundane fan behavior. It starts with genuine menace ("voodoo dolls left in their hotel rooms with broken glass in them and the message 'You Will Die'") before undercutting it with the mundane fan request ("P.S. can I have an autograph for my sister?"). The structure creates a good comic effect through this juxtaposition, though it's not quite as exceptional as it might first appear. Ratings: - Home audience: 3 (Audible snort) - Comedy writer: 2 (Minor exhale) # Graham Norton's intro A simple but clean joke built around the absurdity of Graham Norton "narrowly beating Jack Docherty" as best presenter on Docherty's own show. The humor comes from the implicit suggestion that Docherty was somehow in competition for this award on his own show. The second line about being "tipped to win the award for best captain of Sean's team" feels unnecessary and doesn't add much to the initial joke. Ratings: - Home audience: 2 (Minor exhale) - Comedy writer: 2 (Minor exhale) Overall, these introductions demonstrate the show's typical approach to humor: celebrity mockery, wordplay, and absurdist situations. The Zoe Ball introduction is perhaps the most clever in its construction, though its effectiveness depends heavily on delivery. The Keith Duffy intro provides the most universal appeal with its stark contrast, while the Louie Eliot intro delivers a solid if straightforward celebrity jab. The Graham Norton intro, while competently constructed, is the most conventional of the set.

Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e04 - Zoë Ball, Louis Eliot, Graham Norton, Keith Duffy

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Phil's team tonight is Rick Witter, lead singer from Yorkshire's top indie combo, Shed Seven. Shed Seven were recently told they are absolutely huge in Thailand, but then I bet the bar girls say that to all the customers. Phil's second guest is Shovell, top thumper with megastars M-People. Shovell used to be a builder, which caused problems at the band's early gigs; he kept sitting on the lighting rig above Heather Small shouting, "Hello darling, wanna go on me bongos?" Sean's first guest is Mark Owen, ex of Take That and pop's cuddliest boy next door. Take That once agreed to do a national tour on behalf of the Family Planning Association, to promote safe sex, but they pulled out at the last minute. Sean's other guest is Richard Morton, stand-up comedy's only guitar-toting Geordie. He's been described as the most effeminate man in Newcastle; in the recent freezing weather, he was spotted on a street corner wearing a long-sleeved t-shirt.

On Phil's team tonight is Rick Witter, lead singer from Yorkshire's top indie combo, Shed Seven. Shed Seven were recently told they are absolutely huge in Thailand, but then I bet the bar girls say that to all the customers. Phil's second guest is Shovell, top thumper with megastars M-People. Shovell used to be a builder, which caused problems at the band's early gigs; he kept sitting on the lighting rig above Heather Small shouting, "Hello darling, wanna go on me bongos?" Sean's first guest is Mark Owen, ex of Take That and pop's cuddliest boy next door. Take That once agreed to do a national tour on behalf of the Family Planning Association, to promote safe sex, but they pulled out at the last minute. Sean's other guest is Richard Morton, stand-up comedy's only guitar-toting Geordie. He's been described as the most effeminate man in Newcastle; in the recent freezing weather, he was spotted on a street corner wearing a long-sleeved t-shirt.

# Rick Witter's intro The joke operates through clever misdirection around Shed Seven being "absolutely huge in Thailand." The punchline reveals this came from "bar girls" (Thai sex workers), with the key phrase "I bet the bar girls say that to all the customers" creating a double meaning about physical endowment rather than musical success. The construction is particularly clever, using the familiar format "I bet [x] says that to all the [y]" to deliver a risqué punchline while maintaining plausible deniability. While some audience members might miss the specific reference to "bar girls," the general thrust of the joke and its deflating nature would land well with the show's demographic. **Ratings:** - Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Multiple layers that work whether you catch all the references or not - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) - Technically accomplished with excellent construction # Shovell's intro The joke successfully combines multiple elements: Shovell's builder background, visual comedy of him on the lighting rig, and the builder stereotype of wolf-whistling. The line "Hello darling, wanna go on me bongos?" attempts to merge his past and present careers, though the innuendo doesn't quite work coming from a male perspective, which somewhat muddles the joke. Still, the visual imagery and character-based humor make it entertaining. **Ratings:** - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Strong visual comedy despite slightly confused innuendo - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Good elements but doesn't quite stick the landing # Mark Owen's intro A technically excellent joke built around the double entendre of "pulled out." The setup about Take That promoting safe sex for the Family Planning Association creates perfect context for the punchline. The joke works particularly well given Take That's wholesome image, and manages to be suggestive without being crude. Classic construction executed perfectly. **Ratings:** - Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Immediately funny with perfect delivery - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) - Exemplary use of double entendre and setup/payoff # Richard Morton's intro The joke attempts to play with expectations by establishing Morton as "the most effeminate man in Newcastle," then defining this through the specifically Geordie lens of wearing a long-sleeved t-shirt in freezing weather. It's meant to subvert expectations by using Newcastle's unique cultural standard of masculinity (where wearing weather-appropriate clothing is seen as effeminate). However, the construction makes this clever concept too opaque - the punchline doesn't clearly enough pay off the setup, leaving many audience members likely confused. **Ratings:** - Home audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Clever concept but too obscure in execution - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Good idea but needs clearer construction

Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e05 - Rick Witter, Mark Owen, Richard Morton, Shovell

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Bill's first guest is the star of sci-fi hit drama Torchwood and practicing homosexual, John Barrowman. His second guest is Liberty X songstress, Kelli Young. Kelli's last single stormed into the top 48. Phill's first guest is pop star and tormented genius, Daniel Bedingfield. Phill's second guest is music loving comedian, writer and broadcaster, Robin Ince.

Bill's first guest is the star of sci-fi hit drama Torchwood and practicing homosexual, John Barrowman. His second guest is Liberty X songstress, Kelli Young. Kelli's last single stormed into the top 48. Phill's first guest is pop star and tormented genius, Daniel Bedingfield. Phill's second guest is music loving comedian, writer and broadcaster, Robin Ince.

# John Barrowman's intro "Bill's first guest is the star of sci-fi hit drama Torchwood and practicing homosexual, John Barrowman." Contains a joke: Yes The humor comes primarily from the deliberately absurd and somewhat rude way to introduce someone, using the dated, judgmental-sounding phrase "practicing homosexual." The stilted phrasing deliberately apes an old-fashioned, pearl-clutching perspective for comedic effect. The joke works because: - It plays with outdated terminology that was once used seriously but now reads as absurd - Barrowman is openly gay and known for his flamboyant personality, making it playful rather than offensive - The contrast between the formal TV credit and the cheeky descriptor adds to the humor Ratings: Audience: 4 (LOL) Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Kelli Young's intro "His second guest is Liberty X songstress, Kelli Young. Kelli's last single stormed into the top 48." Contains a joke: Yes The humor relies on the specificity of "top 48" - a nonsensical chart position that implies they managed to get exactly 48th place. The timing works by setting up what sounds like a compliment ("stormed into the top...") before undercutting it with "48." It's essentially a condescending pat on the head. The joke's effectiveness is somewhat limited by the fact that not everyone might catch the reference to how music charts actually work. Ratings: Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Daniel Bedingfield's intro "Phill's first guest is pop star and tormented genius, Daniel Bedingfield." Contains a joke: Not really While there's a hint of caricature in the "tormented genius" description, it's too half-hearted to qualify as a proper joke. It's more of a slightly playful description than actual humor. Ratings: Audience: 1 (Crickets) Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) # Robin Ince's intro "Phill's second guest is music loving comedian, writer and broadcaster, Robin Ince." Contains a joke: No This is purely informational, listing Ince's credentials and establishing his relevance to a music quiz show. There's no attempt at humor or wordplay.

Series 19/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s19e05 - John Barrowman, Kelli Young, Daniel Bedingfield, Robin Ince

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: - Phil's first guest, it's Matt Priest of Dodgy. Matt's such a legendary ligger that he was once unable to appear on this show, because he'd already accepted an invitation to the launch of the PG Tips triangular bag. - Phil's other guest is Tom Robinson, one of the finest pop writers to come out of punk. One of Tom's early hits was "Glad to Be Gay." - Sean's first guest, Lauren Laverne, singer with Sunderland's indie All Saints, Kenickie. - Sean's other guest is Jeff Green, of TV and stand-up comedy fame. Jeff's been described in the press as a cheeky cherub, at least that's what he told the police when he was arrested on Hampstead Heath stark naked and holding a bow and arrow.

- Phil's first guest, it's Matt Priest of Dodgy. Matt's such a legendary ligger that he was once unable to appear on this show, because he'd already accepted an invitation to the launch of the PG Tips triangular bag. - Phil's other guest is Tom Robinson, one of the finest pop writers to come out of punk. One of Tom's early hits was "Glad to Be Gay." - Sean's first guest, Lauren Laverne, singer with Sunderland's indie All Saints, Kenickie. - Sean's other guest is Jeff Green, of TV and stand-up comedy fame. Jeff's been described in the press as a cheeky cherub, at least that's what he told the police when he was arrested on Hampstead Heath stark naked and holding a bow and arrow.

# Matt Priest's intro The humor centers on Matt being a "legendary ligger" (someone who attends events for free food/drinks/perks) and is enhanced by being presented as a true anecdote. The comedy comes from him choosing to attend the launch of a PG Tips triangular tea bag over appearing on television. The specificity of the "triangular" detail and the mundane nature of the event versus a TV appearance creates the absurdity that drives the joke. It works particularly well for a British audience familiar with both PG Tips and the concept of ligging. **Funniness Ratings:** - Audience: 4 (LOL) - The true anecdote aspect combined with the cultural specificity makes this genuinely amusing - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - While effective, relying on a simple anecdote is somewhat lazy writing # Tom Robinson's intro While appearing purely informational on paper, this intro attempts to generate humor simply by mentioning the song title "Glad to Be Gay." It's a rather basic attempt at getting a laugh that would have likely earned a mild reaction from certain audience members at the time of airing, particularly through delivery. **Funniness Ratings:** - Audience: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - Might have gotten a titter from the period audience - Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) - Lazy writing relying on the mere mention of the song title # Lauren Laverne's intro The joke works by describing Kenickie as "Sunderland's indie All Saints" - a comparison that's funny precisely because the bands are so different. All Saints were a massively successful, polished R&B pop group, while Kenickie was a raw pop punk band from Sunderland. The humor comes from this deliberate mismatching. **Funniness Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Works well for those who know both bands - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - A quick, effective comparison but not particularly sophisticated # Jeff Green's intro The joke works through simple subversion - setting up Jeff as a "cheeky cherub" before revealing he was "arrested on Hampstead Heath stark naked and holding a bow and arrow." The humor comes primarily from the mental image this creates, casting the guest as an exhibitionist pervert. While not particularly clever or layered, the visual absurdity of the scenario makes it entertaining. The setup ("described in the press as a cheeky cherub") leads perfectly into the punchline, with the bow and arrow detail providing a literal connection to the cherub description while amplifying the ridiculousness of being caught naked. **Funniness Ratings:** - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - The visual imagery and straightforward nature of the joke works well - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Solid construction but not breaking any new ground

Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e06 - Lauren Laverne, Tom Robinson, Math Priest, Jeff Green

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Bill's first guest is the funky regional McFly hunk, Danny Jones! Phill's first guest is the Feeling frontman and all-round respectable booking, it's Dan Gillespie Sells! Bill's second guest is GMTV's celebrity honey-trap and Scotland's answer to Lorraine Kelly, it's Jenni Falconer! Phill's second guest is saucy funny-haired jungle stunner, it's David-reassuringly-expensive-Gest!

Bill's first guest is the funky regional McFly hunk, Danny Jones! Phill's first guest is the Feeling frontman and all-round respectable booking, it's Dan Gillespie Sells! Bill's second guest is GMTV's celebrity honey-trap and Scotland's answer to Lorraine Kelly, it's Jenni Falconer! Phill's second guest is saucy funny-haired jungle stunner, it's David-reassuringly-expensive-Gest!

# Danny Jones's intro The humor comes from the deliberately overcrowded string of modifiers: "funky regional McFly hunk." Each word feels pulled from a different register or context, creating an absurd pastiche of celebrity introduction writing: - "funky" (trying to sound hip) - "regional" (oddly formal/administrative) - "McFly" (band name) - "hunk" (teen magazine speak) The introduction parodies how gossip magazines and tabloids string together random adjectives to describe celebrities, but takes it to an amusing extreme. The alliteration and rhythm make its artificial nature even more apparent. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # Dan Gillespie Sells's intro The humor centers on the phrase "all-round respectable booking" - a backhanded compliment suggesting The Feeling and Dan Gillespie Sells are solid but unexciting choices. It's damning with faint praise, like describing a wedding band that competently plays all the standards but isn't particularly thrilling. The joke is subtle and may have landed better in live delivery with the right tone. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 1 (Crickets) - Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) # Jenni Falconer's intro The "celebrity honey-trap" reference appears to nod to her work on I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!, with a slightly suggestive edge. The next half is difficult to parse: "Scotland's answer to Lorraine Kelly" - the intent may be an anti-joke since both presenters are actually Scottish. It subverts the typical "X's answer to Y" format where you'd expect a comparison between different nationalities. The joke relies on viewers realizing this contradiction is intentional. But this is perhaps a stretched interpretation and other interpretations may be valid. It likely doesn't land strongly. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # David Gest's intro The humor attempts come from two elements: 1. "Saucy funny-haired jungle stunner" - an intentionally awkward string of descriptors that serves as a mild insult 2. "David-reassuringly-expensive-Gest" - wordplay on Gest/Guest while suggesting the show spent significant money on booking him Neither element lands particularly well as actual jokes, though they might provide mild amusement. **Ratings:** - Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) Overall, these introductions rely heavily on British cultural references and a style of humor that plays with awkward phrasing and intentionally clunky descriptions. While they may not produce big laughs, they maintain the show's irreverent tone through gentle mockery and playful language.

Series 19/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s19e07 - Christmas Special - David Gest, Jenni Falconer, Dan Gillespie Sells, Danny Jones

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Phil’s first guest is the TV presenter of the moment, Vanessa Feltz. In 2004, Vanessa hosted Cosmetic Surgery Live on Channel 5, which is the only show to feature live anal bleaching – unless we have a draw tonight and have to go to a tiebreak. Phil’s second guest is former Busted star, now solo star, certain to make it, it’s Matt Willis. Last year, Matt Willis checked into the Priory to treat his alcohol problem. After two weeks in therapy, he finally found the emotional strength to stand up and say, 'My name is Matt Willis, and I have an album out.' Bill’s first guest is an 80s star who's still very famous and relevant today, it’s Paul Young. Paul has refused to write songs for Britney Spears, because he said she lacked credibility – as he walked off the set of Celebrity MasterChef after his cook-off with Timmy Mallett. Bill’s second guest is hugely well-known funny comedian, Will Smith. Okay, we don’t make a lot of mistakes on this show, but we’ve clearly booked the wrong Will Smith. Even worse than that, we’ve booked THE right Vanessa Feltz.

Phil’s first guest is the TV presenter of the moment, Vanessa Feltz. In 2004, Vanessa hosted Cosmetic Surgery Live on Channel 5, which is the only show to feature live anal bleaching – unless we have a draw tonight and have to go to a tiebreak. Phil’s second guest is former Busted star, now solo star, certain to make it, it’s Matt Willis. Last year, Matt Willis checked into the Priory to treat his alcohol problem. After two weeks in therapy, he finally found the emotional strength to stand up and say, 'My name is Matt Willis, and I have an album out.' Bill’s first guest is an 80s star who's still very famous and relevant today, it’s Paul Young. Paul has refused to write songs for Britney Spears, because he said she lacked credibility – as he walked off the set of Celebrity MasterChef after his cook-off with Timmy Mallett. Bill’s second guest is hugely well-known funny comedian, Will Smith. Okay, we don’t make a lot of mistakes on this show, but we’ve clearly booked the wrong Will Smith. Even worse than that, we’ve booked THE right Vanessa Feltz.

# Vanessa Feltz's intro The joke works through shock value and clever connection to the show's format. The setup uses Feltz's connection to "Cosmetic Surgery Live," but the real punch comes from the taboo-breaking mention of "live anal bleaching" - which the host then brilliantly connects to potential tiebreaks on Buzzcocks. The audience would particularly appreciate both the outrageous subject matter and the host's willingness to say it on TV, making it land stronger than might appear on paper. Ratings: - Audience: 4 (LOL) - The shock value and taboo-breaking nature really works for the Buzzcocks crowd - Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Solid construction with good use of format connection # Matt Willis's intro A perfectly constructed joke that uses the familiar framework of rehab/therapy narratives to deliver a killer punchline. The setup appears serious: "After two weeks in therapy, he finally found the emotional strength to stand up and say..." but brilliantly subverts expectations with "'My name is Matt Willis, and I have an album out.'" The timing is impeccable, using the confession format to suggest that having an album out is his deepest shame. The joke lands perfectly by hitting right at the end, reframing the entire setup as a burn on Matt and his new album. Ratings: - Audience: 5 (ROFL) - Perfect timing and execution make this land brilliantly - Comedy Writer: 5 (ROFL) - Technically flawless with perfect misdirection # Paul Young's intro A classic Buzzcocks-style burn that works through stark irony. The joke contrasts Young's supposed concern for "credibility" in refusing to work with Britney Spears against his participation in "Celebrity MasterChef after his cook-off with Timmy Mallett." The mention of Timmy Mallett (known for being a silly children's TV presenter) perfectly amplifies the credibility gap. The Buzzcocks audience particularly appreciates this kind of pointed commentary on celebrity career choices. Ratings: - Audience: 4 (LOL) - Hits the sweet spot for the show's style of celebrity mockery - Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Well-constructed irony that delivers its punch effectively # Will Smith's intro This introduction delivers a brutal one-two punch that perfectly sets up the show's tone. It starts with the obvious confusion between the famous Will Smith and the British comedian, but elevates it beyond the obvious by acknowledging it directly: "we don't make a lot of mistakes on this show, but we've clearly booked the wrong Will Smith." Then it lands an even harder hit with the callback: "Even worse than that, we've booked THE right Vanessa Feltz." The audience loves this kind of gleeful brutality in the show's opening moments, and the callback structure makes it even more satisfying. Ratings: - Audience: 5 (ROFL) - The combination of celebrity burns and clever structure hits perfectly - Comedy Writer: 5 (ROFL) - Excellent technical construction with a brilliant callback The entire introduction sequence demonstrates Buzzcocks at its best, combining clever writing with the show's trademark irreverence and willingness to mock its guests. The progression of jokes builds well, with each introduction landing solid burns while maintaining different styles of humor, from shock value to irony to clever callbacks.

Series 19/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s19e02 - Will Smith, Paul Young, Matt Willis, Vanessa Feltz

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Phil's first guest is modern pop star and MySpace hussy, Lily Allen. Lily was expelled from five schools. At 14, she ran away to go to Glastonbury and she pushed pills in Ibiza. His second guest is 80s pop star and party man, Steve Strange. Steve took part in Celebrity Scissorhands for Children In Need. It was an unusual reality show in that it had no winner, but nine losers. Bill's first guest is saucy pop minx and fertile mother of two, Jamelia. In 2004, Jamelia wore a £400,000 diamond-encrusted dress to the MOBOs. She almost looked three-quarters of a million dollars. His second guest is Welsh comedian, Mark Watson. Mark pretends to be Welsh in his act, but he's actually from Bristol.

Phil's first guest is modern pop star and MySpace hussy, Lily Allen. Lily was expelled from five schools. At 14, she ran away to go to Glastonbury and she pushed pills in Ibiza. His second guest is 80s pop star and party man, Steve Strange. Steve took part in Celebrity Scissorhands for Children In Need. It was an unusual reality show in that it had no winner, but nine losers. Bill's first guest is saucy pop minx and fertile mother of two, Jamelia. In 2004, Jamelia wore a £400,000 diamond-encrusted dress to the MOBOs. She almost looked three-quarters of a million dollars. His second guest is Welsh comedian, Mark Watson. Mark pretends to be Welsh in his act, but he's actually from Bristol.

# Lily Allen's intro This introduction is less about jokes and more about presenting information entertainingly. The "MySpace hussy" line is arguably the only true joke element, working as a deliberately provocative characterization that contrasts with her "modern pop star" status. The rest - her expulsions, running away to Glastonbury, and pushing pills in Ibiza - is essentially factual information delivered with a certain flair. Ratings: - Home audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets) # Steve Strange's intro The joke here centers on "Celebrity Scissorhands for Children In Need," with the punchline that it was "an unusual reality show in that it had no winner, but nine losers." The humor comes from the fact that these nine "losers" are literally losers - people who suffered amateur haircuts at the hands of celebrity hairdressers. It's a well-constructed joke that plays with reality TV conventions while delivering a specific punchline about the actual premise of the show. Ratings: - Home audience: 3.5 (Between snort and LOL) - Comedy writer: 3.5 (Between snort and LOL) # Jamelia's intro The introduction works on multiple levels. First, there's the deliberately inappropriate combination of descriptors: "saucy pop minx and fertile mother of two" - deriving humor from the jarring conjunction of "saucy minx" with maternal status. The main joke about the £400,000 diamond-encrusted dress is cleverly constructed. It plays with the familiar phrase "looking like a million dollars" while introducing specific numerical values that mangle the idiom. The humor comes from both the absurdity of currency-converting an idiom and the subtle suggestion that she didn't quite reach the full "million dollars" benchmark. While clever, it's perhaps too complex for immediate impact. Ratings: - Home audience: 3 (A snort) - Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL) # Mark Watson's intro A simple introduction that derives mild humor from pointing out that Mark "pretends to be Welsh in his act, but he's actually from Bristol." It's light ribbing based on his birthplace, without much complexity or depth. Ratings: - Home audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets)

Series 19/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s19e06 - Lily Allen, Steve Strange, Jamelia, Mark Watson

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Phil's first guest is former Spice Girl and retired sporting legend, it's Melanie Chisholm. Melanie once branded Cliff Richard's Millennium Prayer a complete pile of shit. Phil's second guest is former Adam and Joe sensation, it's funny comedian Adam Buxton. Adam says he gets really starstruck, especially with pop stars: "I want to impress them and be their friend, but I just get tongue-tied." Bill's first guest is Welsh woman and loud singer, it's Bonnie Tyler. On a recent flight from France to Mauritius, a group of Belgians complained when, at the request of the co-pilot, Bonnie Tyler sang Total Eclipse of the Heart. His second guest is saucy Channel 4 News sexpot, it's Krishnan Guru-Murthy. One of Krishnan's news high points was securing an exclusive interview with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Phil's first guest is former Spice Girl and retired sporting legend, it's Melanie Chisholm. Melanie once branded Cliff Richard's Millennium Prayer a complete pile of shit. Phil's second guest is former Adam and Joe sensation, it's funny comedian Adam Buxton. Adam says he gets really starstruck, especially with pop stars: "I want to impress them and be their friend, but I just get tongue-tied." Bill's first guest is Welsh woman and loud singer, it's Bonnie Tyler. On a recent flight from France to Mauritius, a group of Belgians complained when, at the request of the co-pilot, Bonnie Tyler sang Total Eclipse of the Heart. His second guest is saucy Channel 4 News sexpot, it's Krishnan Guru-Murthy. One of Krishnan's news high points was securing an exclusive interview with Mikhail Gorbachev.

# Melanie Chisholm's intro The intro works on two levels: the "retired sporting legend" reference plays with her Sporty Spice persona, while the Cliff Richard comment serves primarily as audience pandering - letting Mel C align herself with the audience's likely disdain for the commercial Christianity of "Millennium Prayer." It's a generous setup that helps establish her credibility with viewers. Ratings: - Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Strong audience connection through shared sentiment - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Effective but straightforward approach # Adam Buxton's intro This is primarily informational rather than comedic. While there's mild self-deprecation in his comments about being starstruck ("I want to impress them and be their friend, but I just get tongue-tied"), it's more about establishing character than generating laughs. This is scene-setting rather than comedy. Ratings: - Home audience: 1 (crickets) - Comedy writer: 1 (crickets) # Bonnie Tyler's intro This is essentially an amusing anecdote rather than a crafted joke: "On a recent flight from France to Mauritius, a group of Belgians complained when, at the request of the co-pilot, Bonnie Tyler sang Total Eclipse of the Heart." While the scenario has inherently funny elements, it represents somewhat lazy writing. Ratings: - Home audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Mildly amusing but lacks punch - Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets) - Relies entirely on the inherent quirk of the situation # Krishnan Guru-Murthy's intro The humor comes from subverting the way attractive female news presenters might be inappropriately introduced, instead applying "saucy Channel 4 News sexpot" to Guru-Murthy, who exudes dad vibes. The immediate follow-up about his Gorbachev interview adds to the dissonance. While the contrast is funny, it's a fairly straightforward gag. Ratings: - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - The subversion lands well enough - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Basic but effective contrast The intros demonstrate varying levels of comedic effort, from simple anecdotes to deliberate subversion, with Mel C's introduction showing the most craft in both establishing character and connecting with the audience.

Series 20/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s20e06 - Adam Buxton, Mel C, Bonnie Tyler, Krishnan Guru-Murphy

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Preston, Bill's first guest is Ordinary Boy and professional celebrity. Preston appeared on "Celebrity Big Brother" and then married the winner, Chantelle. Preston was worried it would alienate hardcore Ordinary Boys fans, but luckily, neither of them were in the country, or existed. Ed Byrne, Bill's second guest, is the voice of the Carphone Warehouse and one of those Irish-style comedians. Ed appeared on "Blind Date" before becoming a comedian. Going on a game show to get on TV and find a wife, imagine the desperation, Preston. And for Phil's team, GUILLEMOTS lead singer and a lovely man, Fyfe Dangerfield. GUILLEMOTS often start their show by running through the audience, screaming and banging biscuit tins, which is nearly as annoying an opening as hearing the words, "Hello, I'm Katie Melua." Finally, here she is, Bill's second guest. It's only Anne Maddock from Neighbours' Charlene. In 2005, Anne had cosmetic surgery on her neck on the Vanessa Feltz show, "Cosmetic Surgery Live." People with scalpels in the same room as Vanessa, and they slit *your* neck?

Preston, Bill's first guest is Ordinary Boy and professional celebrity. Preston appeared on "Celebrity Big Brother" and then married the winner, Chantelle. Preston was worried it would alienate hardcore Ordinary Boys fans, but luckily, neither of them were in the country, or existed. Ed Byrne, Bill's second guest, is the voice of the Carphone Warehouse and one of those Irish-style comedians. Ed appeared on "Blind Date" before becoming a comedian. Going on a game show to get on TV and find a wife, imagine the desperation, Preston. And for Phil's team, GUILLEMOTS lead singer and a lovely man, Fyfe Dangerfield. GUILLEMOTS often start their show by running through the audience, screaming and banging biscuit tins, which is nearly as annoying an opening as hearing the words, "Hello, I'm Katie Melua." Finally, here she is, Bill's second guest. It's only Anne Maddock from Neighbours' Charlene. In 2005, Anne had cosmetic surgery on her neck on the Vanessa Feltz show, "Cosmetic Surgery Live." People with scalpels in the same room as Vanessa, and they slit *your* neck?

# Preston's intro The intro is mostly straightforward information until it delivers its punchline: "Preston was worried it would alienate hardcore Ordinary Boys fans, but luckily, neither of them were in the country, or existed." The joke works through: - Initial setup in an informational tone - First burn suggesting they only have two fans - Childlike escalation with "or existed" - a nonsensical but effective addition that mimics playground insult patterns The childish insult structure softens the bite by establishing its playfulness. Ratings: - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Ed Byrne's intro The joke works through a simple but effective callback: "Going on a game show to get on TV and find a wife, imagine the desperation, Preston." It's structured to: - Set up with Ed's own game show appearance - Call back to Preston's identical behavior (going on Celebrity Big Brother and marrying the winner) - Indirectly but obviously call Preston desperate It works well because of the audience expecting a burn on Ed, but we instead get a second round of burns on Preston. The audience would appreciate the gratuitousness of it. Ratings: - Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) # Fyfe Dangerfield's intro A straightforward joke comparing two types of annoying openings: "GUILLEMOTS often start their show by running through the audience, screaming and banging biscuit tins, which is nearly as annoying an opening as hearing the words, 'Hello, I'm Katie Melua.'" The humor comes from: - Entertaining description of Guillemots' chaotic stage antics - The suggestion that the mere act of Katie Melua introducing herself is even more annoying - Basic but functional structure Ratings: - Home audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # Anne Maddock's intro The joke comes at the end: "People with scalpels in the same room as Vanessa, and they slit *your* neck?" The humor works by: - Setting up with factual information about the cosmetic surgery episode Anne was a part of - Suggesting that people with sharp objects would naturally prefer to use them on Vanessa Feltz (homicidally) - Implying Feltz inspires homicidal urges - Slight change of pace in directing the burn at someone other than a guest The joke relies on the audience having shared irritation with or dislike of Vanessa Feltz (to perhaps greater or lesser extents of hyperbole) Ratings: - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort)

Series 20/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s20e03 - Preston, Anne Charleston, Ed Byrne, Fyfe Dangerfield, and a special guest

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Bill's first guest is Mighty Boosh comedy man and lovely-haired cool dude, Noel Fielding. Noel hates traditional jokes, which is a shame because I was talking to an Englishman, Irishman, and Scotsman the other day, and something particularly funny happened, but you'll never find out, Fielding. His second guest is the Holloways' hip indie frontman, Alfie Jackson. Like the Libertines, the Holloways have two frontmen, but unlike Carl and Pete, Alfie and Rob don't have a highly charged erotic frisson on stage. They just have wonderful sex. Phil's first guest is tower of London punk frontman and reality punk TV star, Donny Tourette. Poignantly echoing punk legend Sid Vicious's untimely death from a heroin overdose, Donny Tourette once got thrown off a London bus after refusing to buy a ticket. And to think, the Sex Pistols only sang about anarchy in the UK. This guy's living it, man! Phil's second guest is Hollyoaks in the City star and winner of The Games, Sir Philip Olivier. Philip is known for his toned torso and beefcake physique, but just because he's a big, muscly guy doesn't mean he can't act. That's pure coincidence.

Bill's first guest is Mighty Boosh comedy man and lovely-haired cool dude, Noel Fielding. Noel hates traditional jokes, which is a shame because I was talking to an Englishman, Irishman, and Scotsman the other day, and something particularly funny happened, but you'll never find out, Fielding. His second guest is the Holloways' hip indie frontman, Alfie Jackson. Like the Libertines, the Holloways have two frontmen, but unlike Carl and Pete, Alfie and Rob don't have a highly charged erotic frisson on stage. They just have wonderful sex. Phil's first guest is tower of London punk frontman and reality punk TV star, Donny Tourette. Poignantly echoing punk legend Sid Vicious's untimely death from a heroin overdose, Donny Tourette once got thrown off a London bus after refusing to buy a ticket. And to think, the Sex Pistols only sang about anarchy in the UK. This guy's living it, man! Phil's second guest is Hollyoaks in the City star and winner of The Games, Sir Philip Olivier. Philip is known for his toned torso and beefcake physique, but just because he's a big, muscly guy doesn't mean he can't act. That's pure coincidence.

# Noel Fielding's intro **Intended humor:** The joke plays with the most clichéd setup possible ("Englishman, Irishman, and Scotsman") while acknowledging Noel's known distaste for conventional comedy. The key mechanism is setting up viewer anticipation for the punchline, then deliberately withholding it with "but you'll never find out, Fielding" - making the non-delivery itself the punchline while playfully blaming Noel for the audience's disappointment. **How it lands:** Works well for the Buzzcocks audience who appreciate meta-humor and are likely familiar with Noel's surrealist comedy style. The personal dig at Noel adds the show's characteristic irreverent tone. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) # Alfie Jackson's intro **Intended humor:** Sets up a comparison to the Libertines' famous onstage chemistry ("highly charged erotic frisson"), leading viewers to wonder where the comparison is going. The punchline "They just have wonderful sex" delivers both surprise and humor by suggesting they're actually lovers off-stage. The joke plays both as a risqué suggestion and, considering the era, potentially for homophobic laughs by implying they're closeted. **How it lands:** The careful setup and unexpected punchline create perfect comic timing. The suggestion manages to be both scandalous and oddly wholesome. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) # Donny Tourette's intro **Intended humor:** Brutally mocks Tourette's punk credibility by comparing two wildly incomparable events: "Poignantly echoing punk legend Sid Vicious's untimely death from a heroin overdose, Donny Tourette once got thrown off a London bus after refusing to buy a ticket." The satire escalates with "And to think, the Sex Pistols only sang about anarchy in the UK. This guy's living it, man!" - highlighting just how pathetic fare-dodging is as an act of rebellion. **How it lands:** The absurd comparison between genuine punk tragedy and minor fare evasion perfectly deflates punk posturing. The mock-serious tone and building sarcasm make this particularly effective. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) # Philip Olivier's intro **Intended humor:** Classic misdirection playing with the stereotype of attractive actors cast for looks rather than talent. Sets up what appears to be a defense of his acting abilities ("just because he's a big, muscly guy doesn't mean he can't act") before pulling the rug out with "That's pure coincidence." **How it lands:** A well-constructed example of setup-reversal that delivers its gentle mockery while maintaining plausible deniability. **Funniness ratings:** - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort)

Series 20/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s20e02 - Noel Fielding, Donny Tourette, Philip Olivier, Alfie Jackson

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Bill's first guest would be the leading comedian of his generation, if it wasn't for that ridiculous hair, it's Alan Davies. Men want to have a drink with him, women want to sleep with him, and people who've got their mortgages from the Abbey want to punch him in his trustworthy face. His second guest is Boy Kill Boy frontman, Chris Peck. Last year, when Ibiza, Boy Kill Boy went crazy in their rented mansion, smashing crockery, breaking windows and damaging a bathroom cabinet, causing a massive £10,000 worth of PR credibility.

Bill's first guest would be the leading comedian of his generation, if it wasn't for that ridiculous hair, it's Alan Davies. Men want to have a drink with him, women want to sleep with him, and people who've got their mortgages from the Abbey want to punch him in his trustworthy face. His second guest is Boy Kill Boy frontman, Chris Peck. Last year, when Ibiza, Boy Kill Boy went crazy in their rented mansion, smashing crockery, breaking windows and damaging a bathroom cabinet, causing a massive £10,000 worth of PR credibility.

# Alan Davies's intro **Intended Humor** The introduction works through two connected jokes: 1. The opening line ("would be the leading comedian of his generation, if it wasn't for that ridiculous hair") is superficially mocking Davies's hair, but the deeper humor comes from using this obviously absurd reason as a scapegoat - implying there's no legitimate reason for him not being the leading comedian beyond simple lack of merit. 2. The second part follows a classic build-and-destroy structure: - Builds with flattering statements ("Men want to have a drink with him, women want to sleep with him") - Delivers the gut punch: "people who've got their mortgages from the Abbey want to punch him in his trustworthy face" This punchline works by referencing Davies's role as spokesperson for Abbey National, implying he sold out his "trustworthy face" to a bank while creating a vivid image of frustrated mortgage holders. **How it Lands** The intro lands particularly well for the show's target audience who would be familiar with both Davies's comedy career and his Abbey National advertising work. The first joke works on a pure comedy level while the second has an extra bite for those aware of the context, making it especially satisfying. **Funniness Ratings** Audience at home: 4 (LOL) Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) # Chris Peck's intro **Intended Humor** The joke is built around a (likely invented) story of rock star excess, structured to misdirect the audience until the very final word: "Last year, when in Ibiza, Boy Kill Boy went crazy in their rented mansion, smashing crockery, breaking windows and damaging a bathroom cabinet, causing a massive £10,000 worth of PR credibility." The humor comes from the sudden perspective flip in the final word. The entire setup evokes judgment of typical rock star bad behavior, only to reveal it as a calculated PR move. The specificity of the damage report (particularly the bathroom cabinet) adds to the effect by seeming to take the incident seriously right until the punchline. **How it Lands** Works effectively as both a straightforward joke and as commentary on manufactured rock star behavior. The structure is particularly strong, with the entire weight of the joke resting on the perfect timing of that final word reveal. **Funniness Ratings** Audience at home: 4 (LOL) Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) Both introductions demonstrate the show's characteristic sharp wit and industry-savvy humor, with well-constructed jokes that land their punches through careful setup and precise timing.

Series 20/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s20e01 - Alan Davies, Chris Peck, Matt Baker, Nerina Pallot

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Bill's team tonight, the lead singer from one of those Snow Patrol-style bands, it's Joel Pott from Athlete! Also on Bill's team, not just Rod Stewart's daughter, she's also in her own right a friend of Paris Hilton, it's Kimberley Stewart! On Phil's team, oi! Who's that boy? Lethal Bizzle! Oi! Who's that boy? Lethal Bizzle! Oi! Who's that boy? Lethal Bizzle! Well, according to my notes, it's a rapper called Lethal Bizzle! His second guest is the comedy actress formerly known as Jessica Stevenson, who recently married and now wants to be known as Jessica Hynes. It's Jessica Stevenson!

On Bill's team tonight, the lead singer from one of those Snow Patrol-style bands, it's Joel Pott from Athlete! Also on Bill's team, not just Rod Stewart's daughter, she's also in her own right a friend of Paris Hilton, it's Kimberley Stewart! On Phil's team, oi! Who's that boy? Lethal Bizzle! Oi! Who's that boy? Lethal Bizzle! Oi! Who's that boy? Lethal Bizzle! Well, according to my notes, it's a rapper called Lethal Bizzle! His second guest is the comedy actress formerly known as Jessica Stevenson, who recently married and now wants to be known as Jessica Hynes. It's Jessica Stevenson!

# Joel Pott's intro **Intended humor:** The joke works by dismissively categorizing Athlete as "one of those Snow Patrol-style bands," functioning as a veiled insult. It effectively diminishes their uniqueness and artistic identity, playing on the perceived sameness of British indie rock bands of that era. **How it lands:** The mild musical snobbery works well with the show's music-savvy audience, with the veiled insult landing more effectively than might be apparent at first glance. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience at home: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Kimberley Stewart's intro **Intended humor:** The joke's effectiveness comes from its precise setup and devastating punchline. The phrase "not just Rod Stewart's daughter, she's also in her own right" creates expectation of some legitimate accomplishment, only to be brilliantly undercut with "a friend of Paris Hilton." The implication is crystal clear: she has no credible claim to fame beyond associations with other famous people. **How it lands:** The brutal takedown of celebrity-by-association culture lands perfectly, especially given the show's irreverent attitude toward celebrity. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience at home: 5 (ROFL) - Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL) # Lethal Bizzle's intro **Intended humor:** The intro directly parodies Lethal Bizzle's song "Oi" which features the call-and-response "Oi who's that boy? Lethal B." The humor works through multiple layers: - The host's presumably proper British delivery of the lyrics contrasting with the original track - The building tension as the audience wonders where this is going - The brilliant deflation with "Well, according to my notes, it's a rapper called Lethal Bizzle!" which treats the thrice-answered question as if it still needs checking The overall effect gently mocks rap/MC culture by highlighting the redundant self-aggrandizement common in the genre. **How it lands:** The combination of the performance aspect and the perfect comedic deflation makes this highly effective. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience at home: 4 (LOL) - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) # Jessica Stevenson's intro **Intended humor:** The joke works through simple defiance - setting up her preferred married name of Hynes, then immediately and pointedly using Stevenson anyway. While there might be subtextual readings (like implied attachment to her identity as Stevenson or comedic rejection of her marriage), the core humor comes from the unexpected defiance and perfect timing of the contradiction. **How it lands:** The clear setup-contradiction structure makes this immediately accessible, though it's not as clever or funny as the previous intros. **Funniness ratings:** - Audience at home: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose)

Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e01 - Jessica Hynes, Joel Pott, Kimberly Stewart, Lethal Bizzle

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: On Phil's team tonight... it's award-winning singer-songwriter KT Tunstall. Phil's second guest presents the Culture Show and recently became a mother. Ooh, isn't she highbrow and fertile! What's she going to do next, give birth to the Venus de Milo whilst wearing glasses? It's Lauren Laverne. Bill's first guest is from Sheffield indie electro funk legends Reverend and the Makers. While some pop shows will content themselves with just any old "Maker", we've only gone and got the actual "Reverend"! It's actually Reverend Jon McClure! And finally, it's former Hollyoaks, Holby City, and Rachel Stevens' hunk, now concentrating on solo hunk projects. It's the Incredible Hunk, Jeremy Edwards!

On Phil's team tonight... it's award-winning singer-songwriter KT Tunstall. Phil's second guest presents the Culture Show and recently became a mother. Ooh, isn't she highbrow and fertile! What's she going to do next, give birth to the Venus de Milo whilst wearing glasses? It's Lauren Laverne. Bill's first guest is from Sheffield indie electro funk legends Reverend and the Makers. While some pop shows will content themselves with just any old "Maker", we've only gone and got the actual "Reverend"! It's actually Reverend Jon McClure! And finally, it's former Hollyoaks, Holby City, and Rachel Stevens' hunk, now concentrating on solo hunk projects. It's the Incredible Hunk, Jeremy Edwards!

# KT Tunstall's intro Purely informational introduction establishing credentials as an award-winning singer-songwriter. No attempt at humor. # Lauren Laverne's intro The humor works through deliberate class-based mockery and absurdist escalation. It starts by mocking her for being "highbrow" due to presenting the Culture Show (playing to working class sensibilities), then commits to mocking her for being "fertile" despite this offering nothing actually mockable. The exclamation "Ooh, isn't she highbrow and fertile!" perfectly captures this intentionally forced combination. The joke then doubles down with gloriously absurd escalation: "What's she going to do next, give birth to the Venus de Milo whilst wearing glasses?" This creates a ridiculous mental image that perfectly combines high culture pretension with fertility in the most nonsensical way possible. Ratings: - Home audience: 5 (ROFL) - The absurdist imagery and class-based humor land perfectly - Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL) - Expertly constructed escalation with perfect timing # Jon McClure's intro The joke attempts to create humor from the band name "Reverend and the Makers" through intentionally forced connections: "While some pop shows will content themselves with just any old 'Maker', we've only gone and got the actual 'Reverend'!" The humor aims to work in two ways: 1. As an intentional non-sequitur implying a nonsensical connection between makers and reverends 2. Drawing attention to the inherent incoherence of the band name itself However, these elements don't quite come together effectively, resulting in a muddled impact. Ratings: - Home audience: 1 (Crickets) - Too forced to land effectively - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Points for attempting the meta-commentary # Jeremy Edwards' intro Builds humor through clever repetition and escalation of the "hunk" theme, mocking both Edwards and celebrity culture. Starting with his credits in "Hollyoaks, Holby City, and Rachel Stevens' hunk," it escalates to the deliberately pompous "concentrating on solo hunk projects" before landing on "the Incredible Hunk" - a perfect punchline that plays on The Incredible Hulk. The joke succeeds through: - Self-aware mockery of celebrity culture - Treating "hunk" as a serious career classification - Strong pop culture reference in the punchline - Building momentum through repetition Ratings: - Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Accessible wordplay with familiar references - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Well-constructed with good momentum and payoff

Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e08 - Jon McClure, KT Tunstall, Lauren Laverne, Jeremy Edwards

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: And his first guest is number four on the NME Cool List making him officially even cooler than Craig Finn, Eddie Argos, or Yannis Philippakis, it’s Ryan Jarman from The Cribs! Also on Noel’s team is the Emmy award-winning US star of Arrested Development, coming to our country sitting on our panel shows, Joe Pasquale could have had that seat but it's David Cross! On Phil's team, from one of the biggest pop groups in history, his brother might be Randy but he’s definitely called Jermaine, it's Jermaine Jackson! Also on Phil's team, the star of her own ITV2 comedy show, fighting a lone crusade against their policy that all programs must be exclusively shit, it's Katie Brand!

And his first guest is number four on the NME Cool List making him officially even cooler than Craig Finn, Eddie Argos, or Yannis Philippakis, it’s Ryan Jarman from The Cribs! Also on Noel’s team is the Emmy award-winning US star of Arrested Development, coming to our country sitting on our panel shows, Joe Pasquale could have had that seat but it's David Cross! On Phil's team, from one of the biggest pop groups in history, his brother might be Randy but he’s definitely called Jermaine, it's Jermaine Jackson! Also on Phil's team, the star of her own ITV2 comedy show, fighting a lone crusade against their policy that all programs must be exclusively shit, it's Katie Brand!

# Ryan Jarman's intro ** Intended Humour ** The humor centers on the dubious honor of being "number four on the NME Cool List." The listing of specific people Ryan is "officially even cooler than" serves as good-natured British tall-poppy shaming. A key comedic element is that Ryan didn't choose to be on this list - he's getting ribbed for someone else thinking he's cool, making it a simultaneous mocking-compliment. ** How it Lands ** Works well for the show's music-savvy audience who understand the absurdity of quantifying "coolness" through magazine lists. The gentle mockery lands because it's playing with established British comedy conventions around taking people down a peg, as well as taking a shot at the superficial inanity of pop music magazines. ** Funniness Ratings ** Home audience: 2 (A minor exhale) Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # David Cross's intro ** Intended Humour ** Multiple layers working together: - "Coming to our country sitting on our panel shows" deliberately echoes xenophobic complaints about immigrants - The suggestion that Cross is taking work from local talent, hilariously exemplified by Joe Pasquale - The absurdity of suggesting Pasquale as a comparable replacement - Added humor from Cross likely having no idea who Pasquale is The intro creates humor through a facetious defense of local talent while undermining itself with an inadequate replacement suggestion. The subtext acknowledges Cross is "slumming it" on British panel shows, but plays with that fact by offering mock-defiance rather than stating it directly. ** How it Lands ** Hits perfectly for British viewers who get both the immigration rhetoric parody and the Pasquale reference. ** Funniness Ratings ** Home audience: 5 (ROFL) Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL) # Jermaine Jackson's intro ** Intended Humour ** Functions as an anti-joke: "his brother might be Randy" sets up like a double entendre playing on randy/Randy, but then deliberately "wastes" that setup with the mundane clarification "but he's definitely called Jermaine." There may be additional subtle humor in specifically mentioning Randy rather than more famous Jackson brothers, but this element is understated. ** How it Lands ** The anti-joke structure is perhaps too subtle, leaving audiences uncertain about the intended humor. The deliberate deflation of the apparent setup doesn't quite achieve its potential impact. ** Funniness Ratings ** Home audience: 2 (A minor exhale) Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Katie Brand's intro ** Intended Humour ** Centers on the brutal assessment of ITV2's programming quality through the phrase "fighting a lone crusade against their policy that all programs must be exclusively shit." It's a mixed compliment to Brand - praising her show while insulting her network - but reserves most of its bite for ITV2. Also plays with inter-network rivalry. Much of the humour is in the surprising vehemence of "exclusively shit". ** How it Lands ** Works well for British viewers familiar with ITV2's reputation. The criticism feels earned rather than gratuitous, and the "lone crusade" framing elevates it above a simple insult. ** Funniness Ratings ** Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale)

Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e02 - Katy Brand, David Cross, Ryan Jarman, Jermaine Jackson

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]

Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks For each introduction, you need to: 1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes 2. If it contains a joke: - Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous. - Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering: * The show's typical audience * How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!) - Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale: 1: Crickets 2: A minor exhale out the nose 3. An audible snort 4. LOL 5. ROFL 3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke: - Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc) Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format: # [Character 1 name]'s intro ** Intended Humour ** ... ** How it Lands ** ... ** Funniness Ratings ** ... # [Character 2 name]'s intro etc. Now, examine this intro: Bill's first guest is lead singer with the chart-topping Hoosiers. You may know them from their in no way annoying TV advert which certainly didn't make me want to drill into my own brain and suck out the memories. It's Irwin Sparkes! Bill's second guest is from critically acclaimed comedies such as Nighty Night, I'm Alan Partridge and who could forget BBC2's Hyperdrive. Nope? 9ish? Thursdays at that woman... Okay, it's Kevin Eldon ladies and gentlemen! On Phil's team is the visionary, left-field, avant-garde, genre-defying, classically trained singer-songwriter, and he recently called Mika a twat. It's Patrick Wolf! His second guest is the shining light of Channel 4's popular youth strand T4. She's charmed everyone from Robert De Niro to 50 Cent and she recently called Mika a *bleep* riddled *bleep* basket of a *bleep*! It's my good friend and colleague, Miquita Oliver.

Bill's first guest is lead singer with the chart-topping Hoosiers. You may know them from their in no way annoying TV advert which certainly didn't make me want to drill into my own brain and suck out the memories. It's Irwin Sparkes! Bill's second guest is from critically acclaimed comedies such as Nighty Night, I'm Alan Partridge and who could forget BBC2's Hyperdrive. Nope? 9ish? Thursdays at that woman... Okay, it's Kevin Eldon ladies and gentlemen! On Phil's team is the visionary, left-field, avant-garde, genre-defying, classically trained singer-songwriter, and he recently called Mika a twat. It's Patrick Wolf! His second guest is the shining light of Channel 4's popular youth strand T4. She's charmed everyone from Robert De Niro to 50 Cent and she recently called Mika a *bleep* riddled *bleep* basket of a *bleep*! It's my good friend and colleague, Miquita Oliver.

# Irwin Sparkes's intro A straightforward joke playing to shared audience irritation over an overplayed TV advertisement. The humor comes from the host's deliberately over-the-top expression of annoyance ("certainly didn't make me want to drill into my own brain and suck out the memories"), gently mocking both the guest's song and its commercial use. There's an implicit criticism of selling out, delivered through hyperbolic irritation. Funniness ratings: - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) # Kevin Eldon's intro The joke centers on the contrast between well-known shows ("Nighty Night, I'm Alan Partridge") and the obscure "Hyperdrive." The humor comes from the increasingly desperate attempts to jog audience memory about this niche sci-fi/comedy ("Nope? 9ish? Thursdays at that woman..."), making Hyperdrive itself the butt of the joke. It's a straightforward gag that lands best with viewers familiar enough with British TV to appreciate the obscurity of Hyperdrive compared to Eldon's better-known work. Funniness ratings: - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) # Patrick Wolf's intro Uses bathos - building through increasingly pretentious descriptors ("visionary, left-field, avant-garde, genre-defying, classically trained") before deflating it with the crude revelation that "he recently called Mika a twat." The humour is derived from the sudden change of direction from highbrow to lowbrow. Though the delivery feels somewhat forced in text. The joke's effectiveness may depend on the live delivery, and whether the audience was aware of the actual incident with Mika. Funniness ratings: - Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Comedy writer: 2.5 (Between minor exhale and snort) # Miquita Oliver's intro The strongest of the introductions, building on the previous Mika reference while dramatically escalating it. The contrast between her professional description ("charmed everyone from Robert De Niro to 50 Cent") and the heavily censored tirade creates strong comedy. The multiple bleeps actually enhance the humor by letting the audience fill in the blanks with something worse than what could be broadcast. The callback to the previous Mika reference creates a satisfying running theme, while "my good friend and colleague" adds an extra layer of ironic contrast. Funniness ratings: - Audience: 4 (LOL) - Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) The sequence demonstrates smart construction, with the Mika references creating a through-line that builds to the censored climax. Each introduction employs different comedic techniques - from hyperbole to bathos to callback humor - while maintaining the show's characteristic irreverent tone.

Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e05 - Kevin Eldon, Patrick Wolf, Irwin Sparkes, Miquita Oliver

You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task. [Original Task Given to Model:] {original_prompt} [Gold Standard Answer:] {gold_answer} [Test Model's Response to Evaluate:] {test_response} [/Test Model Response] Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}): 1. How well it understood the jokes 2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions 3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour) 4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling. Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion. For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification. Respond in parseable JSON in this format: [ {{ "contestant": "contestant name", "judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant", "scores": {{ "understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>, "funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}> }} }}, ... ]