Oo, I'll have to watch that one.
I think we've upset someone Page 6
Couldn't disagree more, it's a public service broadcaster. It has a duty to create and support tv people like, without being unduly influenced by comercial influences.
This includes encouraging new talent, and potential talent.
The alternative would be the arts council doing; great smelly farts of history and a collection of jelly moulds of big boobies.
We don't pay hefty taxes for safe, populist pap.
New writers are no less likely to produce safe, populist pap than existing ones.
It's the BBC's job to employ good writers, not to operate some kind of annual all-must-have-prizes quota. How they find those writers, and how often they go looking for them, is nobody's business but theirs. As a new writer, I think it's great when things like Tilt come along, in the same way I think it's great when I find twenty quid in the street. But I certainly don't think it's "my right" to have the BBC operate these schemes.
As Perry says, if you are a good writer, and persistent, eventually somebody somewhere will want your work. But they will want it because you are good. Not because you are 'new', which is no kind of virtue.
Quote: sootyj @ October 7 2008, 8:36 PM BSTCannon and Ball are born again Christians, Starr's a total piss head, and Davidson's an anal veruca.
I think their get togethers would be hilarious and quite violent.
Davidson only hits women.
Quote: Perry Nium @ October 7 2008, 8:34 PM BSTActually he was very good on Big Break. He is a skilled comedian and you can't deny that - (although I'm not a fan of the material) But that Piers Morgan interview didn't do him any favours. It was one of the few times I've ever seen Piers Morgan in a room with somebody else and actually liked Piers more.
It's the chubby girl hanging around with the really fat friend in order to appear thinner analogy again (I mentioned it, when talking about Frank skinner hanging around with David Baddiel, in another thread). I think Piers probably arranged that interview, just to take all the hateful attention off himself for half an hour.
It doesn't have to be all will have prizes.
Weekending, Hudd lines have filled the BBC with some real talent.
Reading people like David Mitchell who assailed fortress weekending for sometimes months till they got through.
Canada, the US who all have far smaller PSB channels don't feel the need to draw up the drawbridge quite so hard.
Watching the Wrongdoor is this a channel really fishing in the deeper end of the talent pool?
I have to say I just don't agree. It's not just new writers who dislike a lot of new comedy. Read any specialist comedy forum and most stuff is getting slated.
Don't want it getting trashed on internet forums? Then make something good.
Quote: Seefacts @ October 7 2008, 8:48 PM BSTDon't want it getting trashed on internet forums?
Then destroy the internet-because you're only ever going to find mountains of vitriol!
But even the good stuff gets trashed, really vitriolic...ally(word?).
But I guess that's just the way it is. 
Don't want it getting trashed on internet forums?
I think Micheal might be making the schoolboy error of "giving two shits what a load of f**king idiots on the Internet think".
But then, he did only give two paragraphs to it. It was hardly an extensive critique and/or defence of the comedy industry. Just an introduction to an article about the lifecycle of a comedy programme.
Although I only skim read bits of it, that's what I got the impression it was.
As Mantovanni said, I cried all the way to the bank.
My autobiography will be called
"I may be a c**t, but you paid £20 for this"
Quote: zooo @ October 7 2008, 8:50 PM BSTBut even the good stuff gets trashed, really vitriolic...ally(word?).
I was reading RTDs new book, The Writers Tale, and he was saying about how one of the writers on Doctor Who went on the internet to see what they were saying about her episode, and she was so shocked by the amount of (heres that word again) vitriol that she was actually visibly shaking, that she felt like she'd just been assaulted!
I think the difference in what people say isn't between writers and non-wirters. It's comedy fans and non-comedy fans.
I mean a lot of people don't seek out comedy. They don't look at anything made before about 2003. They take what they're fed on e4 and BBC3. These people are the kind of people who post in TV section of Digital Spy. Lots on there lap up comedy - "I luv it LOL!!!111" and okay some gets slagged, but it's nothing vitriolic.
I tend to think these people don't know better. But as comedy fans, aficionados, geeks, whatever - we do. We compare what we see to the Curbs, One Foots, Fawltys, Porridges - whatever. And we see just how poor it is. We have wider comedy palette to chose from.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ October 7 2008, 8:55 PM BSTI was reading RTDs new book, The Writers Tale, and he was saying about how one of the writers on Doctor Who went on the internet to see what they were saying about her episode, and she was so shocked by the amount of (heres that word again) vitriol that she was actually visibly shaking, that she felt like she'd just been assaulted!
Oh nooooo. 
Bless her.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ October 7 2008, 8:55 PM BSTI was reading RTDs new book, The Writers Tale, and he was saying about how one of the writers on Doctor Who went on the internet to see what they were saying about her episode, and she was so shocked by the amount of (heres that word again) vitriol that she was actually visibly shaking, that she felt like she'd just been assaulted!
Dr Who, like comedy generally, has some really intense fans.