Not Going Out - Series 3 Page 24

Like episode 1, I enjoyed it overall. In fact, it was an improvement. But I can't help disagreeing with everyone who has defended the use of the word "f**k". Yes, the plot needed something Tourettsy, but did it have to be so strong, in a show that is basically fun and silly? How much poorer would the joke have been if she'd said something shit-like instead? Did saying "f**k" make it worth excluding a fair number of viewers and future viewers who like gag-heavy shows that are clever and funny but not too up themselves, but have limits on language? It's 9.30pm on BBC1, not 11pm on Channel 4, remember.

Quote: Aaron @ February 9 2009, 11:03 PM GMT

Every instance of such a statement should be read with a big fat "(to me)" attached on the end.

View original

That's how the Chuckle Brothers began.

Quote: Badge @ February 9 2009, 11:31 PM GMT

But I can't help disagreeing with everyone who has defended the use of the word "f**k". Yes, the plot needed something Tourettsy, but did it have to be so strong, in a show that is basically fun and silly?

View original

(Nice use of a new word: Tourettsy!)
I would agree. I have been introducing my daughter to British comedy since she was in diapers (she's 15 now) and it always bugged me when there was a show that was absolutely fine for, say, a 10 year old, but a couple of random F-bombs or other strong words are thrown in, usually gratuitously. This would keep me from exposing her to some FANTASTIC comedy until she was older. If it were for overall content, that's one thing... but just a few words for a quickie joke?

I've just recently let her start watching the Boosh, since it follows that trend as well, and she's plenty old enough now to understand these contexts and we can talk about it. Not being prudish, just trying to be a responsible parent.

As for the way it was used in NGO this week, it makes sense in the context. And this may sound weird, but I think it's funnier when it's bleeped out (like Jen and the "profanity buzzer" on The IT Crowd - loved that!). It's kind of like a picture of a lady in a tiny nighty can be MORE sexy than the same lady fully nude. It's more about engaging the mind just a bit to fill in the blanks. Does that make sense?

Quote: Badge @ February 9 2009, 11:31 PM GMT

It's 9.30pm on BBC1

View original

Yep, 9:30pm on BBC1, after the watershed and supported by warnings about it's unsuitability. NGO isn't for small children. The subject matter is often adult oriented. But seriously, if you have a kid who is old enough to handle the subject matter and handle the jokes, one "f**k" isn't going to do them any harm. Any parent who thinks they don't hear the word fifty times a day at school is pretty naive.

Quote: Aaron @ February 9 2009, 11:03 PM GMT

Apart from when talking about Spaced.

View original

Quote: Aaron @ February 9 2009, 11:28 PM GMT

With episodes like this, Not Going Out could very well be the sitcom of the decade.

View original

Easy there now!

Quote: Dave @ February 7 2009, 4:36 PM GMT

I tried watching it as a lot of people on here like it - but I have to say I switched off when Tim Vine's sister came in and said, "What the f**k is going on?" Absolutely shocking and completely unnecessary! The writers clearly put that in to try and raise a shock-laugh in the absence of any real jokes. I switched off immediately and won't be watching it again.

View original

It was a pay-off - and a set-up - based on Lee's lie that he and Tim's sister had Tourette's. But hey, if you're offended by the f-word, nothing I say will make you feel any better.

Quote: Andrew Collins @ February 10 2009, 8:56 AM GMT

It was a pay-off - and a set-up - based on Lee's lie that he and Tim's sister had Tourette's. But hey, if you're offended by the f-word, nothing I say will make you feel any better.

View original

It did make me shuffle at first in surprise, not because swearing bothers me, it was just a surprise to hear it in NGO, but then I recalled the whole tourettes thing, so it made sense that it was about to set that up. I haven't watched them all, but this was certainly the funniest one of the episodes I have.

If it's after the watershed, I can't see the problem. All this fuss about swearing lately is getting on my nerves. I don't complain every time I hear someone 'going on' about God, or the Tories, and that offends me!

I'd like to see more of Tim's girlfriend, she's well funny.

Quote: Comedy Bloke @ February 9 2009, 12:32 PM GMT

I loved the first two series of NGO (most episodes were hilarious with only one or two average ones), and overall it has been one of the sharpest, most likeable and well-written new British sitcoms in the last few years.

So far, two episodes in to series 3 and I have been a bit disappointed. The 'bath' episode (ep 1) was poor, a stupid plot, with the script relying on crudeness instead of the razor-sharp wit of other episodes. It seemed totally out of place among previous episodes of series 1 and 2.

Episode 2 was much funnier in parts, with some good lines, but I can't help thinking that Lee Mack and his co-writers can do a lot better than the idea of pretending to be blind, parylysed, etc. I'm not one to get offended easily, I just think that this episode seemed to be lazy and very old-fashioned. And to be honest, blindness isn't that funny really. Before anyone accuses me of being too sensitive, I should point out that I love Extras and The Office, both of which have featured elements of 'disability', and done so hilariously.

I see that for this week's episode, according to 'Radio Times', the synopsis reads: 'Lee and Tim invite a lesbian couple round for dinner and Lucy discovers a side to her she never knew existed.' I might be wrong, but are the NGO writers running out of ideas?

View original

I would hope that the disability gags were all on Lee and Tim. If the episode had been about a blind person or a wheelchair user being made fun of, I would accept your criticism on the chin. I am, as anyone who knows me will verify, a woolly liberal who would rather die than offend any group of people or person. So I hope the consensus is that Winner didn't lazily stereotype any group.

Are we running out of ideas? Best watch the episodes rather than go by what the one-line description says, don't you think? Series One, Episode Two: Lee has to pretend to be Kate's boyfriend when an Australian comes to stay. That sounds like we've run out of ideas too.

Quote: Rick Skelton @ February 10 2009, 8:33 AM GMT

Any parent who thinks they don't hear the word fifty times a day at school is pretty naive.

View original

Quite.

I expect he would say that to see it broadcast on a mass-medium like television is to validate it, from being the naughty word on the playground, though.

But like you say, it's on at 9:30pm, so that's a load of rubbish.

Quote: Nil Putters @ February 10 2009, 9:01 AM GMT

I don't complain every time I hear someone 'going on' about God, or the Tories, and that offends me!

View original

Oh dear. Quite thin-skinned there, eh Nil? You might not like them, but to find offence...?

Quote: Andrew Collins @ February 10 2009, 9:01 AM GMT

So I hope the consensus is that Winner didn't lazily stereotype any group.

View original

Not that it's worth much coming from someone like myself, but I'd definitely refute any accusations of stereotyping. If anything, surely it served the opposite purpose: to show up someone who thought it would be clever to pretend to be disabled, when they're actually not at all.

Quote: Andrew Collins @ February 10 2009, 9:01 AM GMT

I am, as anyone who knows me will verify, a woolly liberal who would rather die than offend any group of people or person. So I hope the consensus is that Winner didn't lazily stereotype any group.

View original

It didn't, and I don't really understand how anyone could think it did.

Quote: Andrew Collins @ February 10 2009, 9:01 AM GMT

I would hope that the disability gags were all on Lee and Tim. If the episode had been about a blind person or a wheelchair user being made fun of, I would accept your criticism on the chin. I am, as anyone who knows me will verify, a woolly liberal who would rather die than offend any group of people or person. So I hope the consensus is that Winner didn't lazily stereotype any group.

Are we running out of ideas? Best watch the episodes rather than go by what the one-line description says, don't you think? Series One, Episode Two: Lee has to pretend to be Kate's boyfriend when an Australian comes to stay. That sounds like we've run out of ideas too.

View original

There has been some interesting points made about disabilty in comedy on Micheal Jacob's usually diverting blog this morning!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/writersroom/2009/01/cheap_and_chirpy.shtml#commentsanchor

Quote: Aaron @ February 10 2009, 9:08 AM GMT

Oh dear. Quite thin-skinned there, eh Nil? You might not like them, but to find offence...?

View original

I was only messing.... well apart from finding people who find swearing upsetting annoying.

Quote: Rick Skelton @ February 10 2009, 8:33 AM GMT

Yep, 9:30pm on BBC1, after the watershed and supported by warnings about it's unsuitability. NGO isn't for small children. The subject matter is often adult oriented. But seriously, if you have a kid who is old enough to handle the subject matter and handle the jokes, one "f**k" isn't going to do them any harm. Any parent who thinks they don't hear the word fifty times a day at school is pretty naive.

View original

I didn't say anything about kids, did I? There's a massive group of people over 50 who would like NGO's style of humour, but the F word is a word too far for them. They watch post-watershed shows all the time, so that excuse is a red-herring. My point was about the strength of the swearing for the Tourette's pay-off, not the swearing itself, and whether that was worth alienating a lot of people. I know my old man would love some of the humour in NGO, and he won't bat an eyelid at "What the shitting hell is going on?" but "What the f**k is going on?" will have him tutting and heading for the off switch (if he can find it).

Quote: Nil Putters @ February 10 2009, 9:40 AM GMT

I was only messing.... well apart from finding people who find swearing upsetting annoying.

View original

Ahhh, ok.

Quote: Badge @ February 10 2009, 9:45 AM GMT

I didn't say anything about kids, did I? There's a massive group of people over 50 who would like NGO's style of humour, but the F word is a word too far for them. They watch post-watershed shows all the time, so that excuse is a red-herring. My point was about the strength of the swearing for the Tourette's pay-off, not the swearing itself, and whether that was worth alienating a lot of people. I know my old man would love some of the humour in NGO, and he won't bat an eyelid at "What the shitting hell is going on?" but "What the f**k is going on?" will have him tutting and heading for the off switch (if he can find it).

View original

You simply cannot make a comedy to please everybody. If you took everything out that *might* offend somebody you'd end up with nothing. If I hear a character say, "What the shitting hell is going on?" I for one would know that it was a substitute for a stronger word and it would distract me. It was a very brief sequence about Tourette's.

One of my favourite TV programmes is The Wire; they swear all the way through it, which is an accurate reflection of the modern urban milieu in which it's set. I don't actually like the amount of f**ks in Gordon Ramsay's programmes, but I like the programmes and put up with them. If somebody said they couldn't watch his programmes because of the swearing, I'd understand. But one swear word? One single swear word used for comic effect? That's a level of sensitivity to language I can't really get my head around. Sorry.