some sketches just drag on and on. I watched on sky+ and the forward wind button was in regular use! The panto sketch peaked with the girl and her strap on, likewise the vet gag was done once we saw the baking tray.
I dont like it when something starts as normal, is exposed as surreal and then they let the sketch run on in surreal mode.
Quote: chipolata @ February 29, 2008, 9:58 AMIt was weaker but the panto sketch was excellent. As was the vets who cook and eat the animals.
Ah yes, they were good - that's the trouble with sketch shows, you often forget the good ones because...
Quote: M Lewis @ February 29, 2008, 10:54 AMsome sketches just drag on and on
... which is a shame. The waving hands historian was funny... but not after the fifth time it came back.
I really like the man who couldn't control his arms.
Like others, I do find it a bit hit and miss. The thing is that the sketches are 'cleverer' than most other sketch shows and, even when the sketch doesn't quite work, you can see more thought went into it.
As for which other sketch shows I've enjoyed recently; all the relationship-y ones that were on in the last year or so: Swingers, Spoons and Man Stroke Woman which I think is more consistently funny to me than Mitchell & Webb but doesn't quite hit the heights that M&W hit in the last series. The 'Chip and Pin' sketch last series was absolute genius and one of the best sketches I've ever seen, as was the one where they're sat talking to each other discussing the script and leafing through it saying exactly what they're saying.
Series 2 hasn't hit these notes yet, but the ludicrous extensions of Numberwang are actually funnier than Numberwang itself from last series. It's taken me well over a year to 'get' it.
Dan
Quote: swerytd @ February 29, 2008, 6:07 PMThe 'Chip and Pin' sketch last series was absolute genius and one of the best sketches I've ever seen,Dan
Completely agree, it's one of those sketches that as a writer you would dream of writing. Not just a very funny idea, but very well written and executed.
I think going back to all this 'hit-and-miss' stuff, sketch shows by their very nature are. Mitchell & Webb have made it quite clear they don't want to do three series of recurruring catch-phrase characters and then move on to films. They're in the comedy sketch partnership for the long-term.
I don't care if not everything comes off. At least it's intelligently written, they're testing out different ideas and along the way there are some sublime moments.
The Two Ronnies, Morecambe & Wise, Smith & Jones - all did many, many series together. Go back an watch entire shows, rather than best-offs, and there were plenty of dud moments in an individual show. I'd rather have a M&W show than had only one moment of pure comedy gold in it, than a succession of shows that were consistently only mildly amusing.
Quote: Tim Walker @ February 29, 2008, 6:27 PMI'd rather have a M&W show than had only one moment of pure comedy gold in it, than a succession of shows that were consistently only mildly amusing.
Damn purist!
Agree with you Dan - that when it's good it's very good and when it's bad it's horrid (didn't somebody else say that?). Chip and Pin was a cut above; top drawer.
Problem is the show overall, IMO, it is mostly miss more than hit. Others have compared it to Fry and Laurie and I think that's fair. It has more of an intellectual dimension and sometimes it loses its way because of this.
The wavy arm guy for me didn't make sense. I don't think that anybody would exaggerate their arm movements like that after having been asked not to. For me it was a breach of one of the first rules of comedy (Spike) you gotta have reality. And by the time it was "take five" it was more "take the piss"
The wavy arm thing I really didn't like, although I thought the bit with his hands in his pockets was quite novel.
It wasn't quite as good as last week for me. That's not to say it was that bad or anything, and i thought there were a few good sketches. I liked the sketch spoofing American law drama's, where Rob is interrogating a criminal in court as to whether he killed this person, and he keeps saying no, so he shoots a gun in the air and then out of fear the criminal admits he did it. The bit at the end was confusing though.
I do agree that sketch comedy has always been hit or miss, and to me people always seem to concentrate too much on the negatives and not enough on the positives. I think you could have a sketch show with all the writers and performers from Monty Python, The Fast Show, Big Train, and every other quality sketch comedy show to ever exist, and even then there would be a few poor sketches among the brilliance. And it would be the bad one's that are criticised, because, well, that's what we do as viewers and critics.
The problem really is that sketch comedy is more miss than hit right now, and the misses seems to cancel out the sketches that are hits in a lot of our eyes. Things will improve: sketch comedy can't stay in a rut forever, and it will improve in the future.
One of the problems with sketch shows is budget. Sketch shows are historically notoriously expensive to produce if they are to have good production values. And with the way TV is generally going at the moment, commissioners are looking to squeeze as much product for their money.
People complain that performer-led, performer-written sketch shows use repetitive characters with a lot of weak sketches. Well, if you're holding the purse-strings then you can save a lot of money by having one or two performers write and perform the show, whilst dictating that they have to stick to eight to ten set locations with returning characters to fill six to eight episodes.
You don't have to be an accountant to realise you're going to save time and money by building one set and then shooting six sketches on it in one or two day's filming.
I'm not saying it's right, it's just a fact of life with the sketch show at the moment. I wouldn't expect another Big Train to chug along any time soon. (Multiple performers to pay, multiple writers to pay, one-off locations for a high production values single sketch? Sets, make-up, costume, time?)
An example of someone who was canny and well-respected enough to play the system and buck the trend was Armando Iannucci (with producer Adam Tandy) in 'The Armando Iannucci Shows'. Those eight shows took about two years plus to film and they cut a lot of corners to stretch the budget to as much screen time as possible. Also kept Channel 4 pretty much in the dark about what was going on (helped by the turnover of heads of Channel 4 was fairly constant throughout the filming).
Nothing personal to you Tim, but...
God, I hate this 'production values' wankery. It's all just f**king snobbery bollocks. As long as it's funny and doesn't look like it was filmed by a 13 year old girl on her webcam, I don't give a shit. It doesn't have to look sleek, there don't have to be Hollywood-esque special effects, it just has to be f**king FUNNY.
I've been watching repeats of The Kenny Everett Television Show on Paramount 2 recently, and it's the funniest sketch show I've seen in a long time. They obviously had no hang-ups about making things perfect with pin-point precision, but just had quality writing and performing. F**k you, "production values" comedy snobs. FUCK. YOU.
Grrrrrr.
Fair enough, Aaron, you can have all the 'comedy' you want filmed on a mobile phone. I'm not being a snob at all. And the quality of production can, does and has affected how well funny material comes across. (Don't be so dismissive of an opinion please.)
Quote: Aaron @ March 1, 2008, 9:49 AMAs long as it's funny and doesn't look like it was filmed by a 13 year old girl on her webcam, I don't give a shit.
The thing which gets me most is the criticism of 70s sitcoms, particularly ITV ones I find, as having "low production values". I know we've got quite a few reviews on the BSG saying how now "the low production values show". But unlike FAWLTY TOWERS, I've never seen those with wobbly sets or microphone shadows visible.
Like I say, as long as it doesn't look like it's been filmed on a webcam (or mobile, since you raise the point), all that matters IMO is that it's funny.
The point is, Aaron, I'm not a comedy snob. My post was not about the "right way" to produce comedy. All I was simply doing was responding to the regular criticisms of sketch shows by people that they're reliant on repetitive characters and very hit-and-miss. My comments relating to 'production values' were just hightlighting what networks want from their sketch shows at the moment (based on the few kindly meetings with producers I've had).
I haven't got the time or strength in life to be a snob, honest.
Of course, of course. I'm not having a go at you. Nothing personal, as I said at the top of the post. It just spurred me on somewhat. I think maybe this subject deserves its own thread...
