'Oh No! They killed comedy!'

Has the relentless repeats on digtal TV killed TV in the long term?

It's OK when it's shown a couple of times a year I guess but when it gets shown 2-3 times a night via a 3 hour programming rotation on an almost daily basis it's past saturation point.

Little Britain and Two Pints are now dead though you probably think the latter was anyway, any chance of some shows being payed in 10-20 years are over because everyone is sick to death of them.

The older sitcoms retain their appeal because the repeats were less frequent than they seem to be today.

Thoughts?

You do have a choice not to watch those shows. It's not like a scene from A Clockwork Orange where you're strapped into a chair and forced to watch them endlessly. And repeating them endlessly is purely a matter of economics, these channels have a lot of air time to fill and since filling them with new shows would cost money they don't have, they have to fall back on old popular shows.

And bingo was his name-o (except when it's chipolata).

I'd like to see Granada Plus returning with the 'classic' comedy lineup they had in the mid/late 90s, and UKTV Gold the same. It's quite depressing, looking back at schedules, and seeing the comparitively wide variety of stuff which was shown just a decade ago.

Quote: Leevil @ April 10 2008, 12:21 PM BST

And bingo was his name-o (except when it's chipolata).

View original

I agree with Aaron's point about the lack of variety, but the sad fact is if they broadcast a wider range of shows they probably wouldn't get the audiences. And the bottom line with all these channels is number of viewers. Personally, I'd love nothing more than to turn on BBC3 one night and find myself being able to watch How Do You Want Me, Joking Apart and Hippies, but bugger all people would watch them.

I like repeats, the older & more varied the better. I enjoyed Only When I Laugh on ITV3, for example, but BBC3 just broadcasts the same (recent) shows all the time. I wonder if the viewing figures actually change that much, on the digital channels?

Only When I Laugh, wasn't that show quite sinister. Those were in hospital for years, and all seemed quite fit.

Were they dying of something nasty, super contagious (Ebola, aerial Pathogen HIV?), or part of some sinister NHS experiment?

The only thing they might have been dying of was hypochondria!

I think Glover (Peter Bowles) was a hypochondriac, Figgis kept saying he had something wrong "down there" (the Dr played by Richard Wilson would often examine his lower abdomen), and I can't remember what Norman was in for. In one episode Glover is released, but soon ends up back in his old bed.

It's a good show, if you like James Bolam in the Likely Lads, then you'll like this.

I liked it's just that sitcoms, because they always go back to the starting point can be quite sinister.

Red Dwarf 4 horny hetro men stuck in space, in a universe where women no longer exist.

Steptoe and Son a father and son who hate each other, who spend all their lives together.

Fawlty Towers, a man in a deathly sexless marriage, living a life of unending frustration, and failure.

I like watching them, but I think sitcoms used to scare me. In some respects being in a sitcom would be a lot like hell.

Maybe the better ones do have that element in them.

Could you imagine waking up as a waiter in Fawlty Towers, knowing you're going to relive that day forever, and ever.

I think info dumping too much sitcom in one go, is a bit much, and can be wearing.

Quote: sootyj @ April 10 2008, 1:46 PM BST

Steptoe and Son a father and son who hate each other, who spend all their lives together.

View original

Oh no, I don't think that they hate each other. Albert is a manipulating old git, and Harold is thwarted in his desire to better himself by his father's manipulation and selfishness, preying on his (Harold's) good nature. Resent, perhaps. Hate? No, I wouldn't have said so.

Well they certainly don't much like each other, mututally codependent maybe?

Good description there, yeah.