Big Top critical and forum reaction Page 6

Dash it all Lime - my testicles are my affair!

I just wanted to make a point. That being that referring to people as 'snobbish' (or making a reference to their work as 'dire') can be taken badly when you're not standing face to face with them in a pub and having a bit of a laugh - even if you don't mean anything harm.

And you know what? In a weird way I think I did - After all, calling people 'c*nts' on the internet when they can't see the devilishly-handsome, rakish grin and twinkle in your eyes at the time is also ill-advised.

What do MJ and 2Christian Typists do when we mere forum comedy 'snobs' fall all over ourselves to praise a BBC sitcom?

Do they sit back in their leather recliners wiping away the accumulated sperm, foundation and coke dust from their faces, go to their blogging sites and type - the comedy nerds really liked this show, stupid bunch of wannbe writing snobs - or do they use our positive criticism as evidence to back up their commissioning decisions?

As always, you can't have it both ways, if you want a show to receive critical acclaim, then you have to expect that some shows will receive a critical battering. Either you welcome criticism or you don't.

And if our opinions mean so little, then why bother mentioning them in your blog in the first place? You have failed before you've even begun.

I can't help but thinking that the reason that aspiring comedy writers unite on this forum in their criticism of certain comedy shows, might have something to do with aspiring comedy writers being pretty much the only people who can be bothered to post on a comedy forum. If a thread about one of the same shows was to appear on, say, a plumbers forum or an Aldershot Town FC supporters website, I suspect the critical response would be much the same.

It seems to me that Michael has the problem completely about-face: it is not, as he claims, that posters review as writers, it is that they review as viewers. Which coming from aspiring comedy writers is actually a little disappointing.

Did anyone else spot this little gem in this week's episode?

LIZZIE: You came in your leotard?

BOYCO THE ACROBAT: I was very excited to be here.

Is that what the BBC call 'family entertainment'?

No one can even manage to swear anymore without self-censoring! WHAT HAVE WE BECOME?!

FWIW, I quite enjoy Big Top but can certainly see the aspects of it that others are raising in their dislike of the programme, be they writers, aspiring writers, fans, or joe-public. As for the blog post, I think people are reading MJ too literally on the "aspiring comedy writers" phrase; I can't believe that he really was referring to all of such. Perhaps a significant proportion, but not all. And on the subject of snobbishness, it does go on, but it's by no means the sole reason on which writers criticise a popular programme - and I'd guess MJ's being taken a bit too literally there too.

Pinch of salt anyone ?

Quote: Aaron @ December 11 2009, 8:48 PM GMT

I think people are reading MJ too literally on the "aspiring comedy writers" phrase.

View original

Echo that.

Quote: Ming the Mirthless @ December 11 2009, 8:43 PM GMT

Did anyone else spot this little gem in this week's episode?

LIZZIE: You came in your leotard?

BOYCO THE ACROBAT: I was very excited to be here.

Is that what the BBC call 'family entertainment'?

View original

That's what the BBC and any non-obtus person calls 'good old fashioned British innuendo'. Very little different from what you'd find in a Carry On film broadcasting at 2:30pm on any Bank Holiday Monday. And equally very little different from Are You Being Served?, of which only the pilot episode broadcast after the watershed.

Quote: Timbo @ December 11 2009, 8:38 PM GMT

It seems to me that Michael has the problem completely about-face: it is not, as he claims, that posters review as writers, it is that they review as viewers. Which coming from aspiring comedy writers is actually a little disappointing.

View original

Not sure I completely agree with you, Timbo. Go and look at the threads of many of the new sitcoms over the last couple of years and there will be posts that combine criticism (both positive or negative) from a viewer's perspective with criticism from a writer's perspective.

If you want me (or any other writer) to produce a critical analysis of the first episode of Big Top (and I'm almost certain you don't), then I could give you a line-by-line, scene-by-scene analysis of what's wrong with it from a writer's perspective. But it would be a bit dry and dull for a comedy forum really, wouldn't it?

Besides the 'British Sitcom' threads are not really supposed to be writers' arenas, are they? I post in there primarily as a viewer because that's how one is meant to post.

If, of course, the BBC are that desperate for detailed critiques of their sitcoms, then I'm sure if they came up with a bit of cash...?

Quote: Tim Walker @ December 11 2009, 9:04 PM GMT

Not sure I completely agree with you, Timbo. Go and look at the threads of many of the new sitcoms over the last couple of years and there will be posts that combine criticism (both positive or negative) from a viewer's perspective with criticism from a writer's perspective.

View original

There is, thankfully, some truth to that, but while I have neither watched Big Top or looked in the thread (a sitcom set in a circus starring Amanda Holden et al was never going to have me as its target demographic) the criticism in some threads is less than balanced; and while I watch comedy in the hope of being entertained, if I am not being entertained, my default reaction, if not to turn over, is to think 'why isn't this working?'. The aspiring comedy writer who sits mirthlessly through 30 minutes of sitcom, only to post "it's shit", is not really taking advantage of the learning opportunity.

And where it is the script being criticised (and it is always the script that bears the brunt of the criticism on these forums) aspiring writers might perhaps show more empathy for someone who shares the same hopes and dreams as themselves and who has faced challenges that they themselves have yet to encounter. Which I suspect may have been the underlying sentiment in Michael's blog.

Having said that I am not going to come over all holier than thou (ahem), as I stand by my opinion that Life of Riley really was shit.

Quote: Timbo @ December 11 2009, 9:26 PM GMT

And where it is the script being criticised (and it is always the script that bears the brunt of the criticism on these forums) aspiring writers might perhaps show more empathy for someone who shares the same hopes and dreams as themselves and who has faced challenges that they themselves have yet to encounter. Which I suspect may have been the underlying sentiment in Michael's blog.

View original

I can't recall anyone in the Big Top thread laying the blame solely at the door of the writer. To do so would be grossly unfair. I think most of us are informed enough to know that if a script is deficient then it isn't the writer's sole responsibility. The bigger question is how this made it to screen in such bad shape. In that sense harsh criticisms are not of a personal nature, they are targeting a collective responsibility on the part of the programme makers and broadcaster.

I agree that simply posting "it's shit" is not constructive critcism, but again these are not writers' discussion threads and it should not be expected that they be held to such standards by the casual reader, whomever they might be. They are moderated to prevent outlandish personal criticism and they're not exactly in the same league as the type of feedback one reads on YouTube, for example.

Quote: Tim Walker @ December 11 2009, 9:43 PM GMT

think most of us are informed enough to know that if a script is deficient then it isn't the writer's sole responsibility. The bigger question is how this made it to screen in such bad shape. In that sense harsh criticisms are not of a personal nature, they are targeting a collective responsibility on the part of the programme makers and broadcaster.

View original

I would like to think so, but there is a "I could write better than that" undertone to some of the comments. In fact in some cases, that is the comment.

But you are right, this is not ostensibly a writers site, so anyone is free to post purely as a viewer. And I have certainly slated my share of shows.

I suppose the point about constructive criticism is, that as a writer, it is for your own benefit, rather than the recipients. Which is why I find the dismissive tone of some of the comments from would-be writers a little disappointing. But it is probably a loud minority, rather than the, on the whole, thoughtful, majority.

Quote: Aaron @ December 11 2009, 8:54 PM GMT

That's what the BBC and any non-obtus person calls 'good old fashioned British innuendo'. Very little different from what you'd find in a Carry On film broadcasting at 2:30pm on any Bank Holiday Monday. And equally very little different from Are You Being Served?, of which only the pilot episode broadcast after the watershed.

View original

I bet you love "Carry On Columbus".

Wouldn't it be a dull word if every potential writer said "I want to be just like..." as opposed to "I can do so much better..."

Quote: SlagA @ December 11 2009, 8:16 PM GMT

I guessed that, Frantically.

Just we've had trouble in the past with abuse that was misinterpreted or disguised as satire, t'was all.

View original

I love that satire when you call someone like Micheal a c**t but 2 pints is 'pants' nice that.

Quote: Frantically @ December 11 2009, 7:14 PM GMT

I didn't like 'Big Top' purely because I really hated watching it.

View original

This thread is writers discussion.

Quote: Ming the Mirthless @ December 11 2009, 8:43 PM GMT

Did anyone else spot this little gem in this week's episode?

LIZZIE: You came in your leotard?

BOYCO THE ACROBAT: I was very excited to be here.

Is that what the BBC call 'family entertainment'?

View original

Have you been to a pantomine Ming?

Quote: Tim Walker @ December 11 2009, 9:04 PM GMT

If you want me (or any other writer) to produce a critical analysis of the first episode of Big Top (and I'm almost certain you don't), then I could give you a line-by-line, scene-by-scene analysis of what's wrong with it from a writer's perspective.

View original

You and the typist get together Tim, But no. We're ok thanks.

Quote: Timbo @ December 11 2009, 9:26 PM GMT

There is, thankfully, some truth to that, but while I have neither watched Big Top

View original

Stopped reading there, but you know, thanks for joining in.

Quote: Tim Walker @ December 11 2009, 9:43 PM GMT

I can't recall anyone in the Big Top thread laying the blame solely at the door of the writer. T

View original

I am no jim field Tim but have a read of this and see how in the court of silly comments you might have to defend yourself. FFS laying the blame!!!!