Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 27 2010, 11:06 PM GMTYeah, they're shit at it, not like us.
>_< Move to US then, stop bombarding us with purile crap.
Favourite TV Comedy 2010 Page 6
Quote: Aaron @ December 28 2010, 12:47 AM GMTWell, I'm happy to pay the licence fee. It gives me a few channels free from adverts and - whatever others may say - with generally a higher quality of programming than commercial competitors. Even looking at the bottom end of the market, say Strictly Come Dancing and The X Factor, the BBC's is by far the better of the two turds.
Why pick on Strictly Come Dancing'?, great talented performers, good live band, serious study of performances, award winning dance direction.
OK I like costumes!, far more cheap and nasty uses of Beeb' money?... I adore it.
Quote: dellas @ December 28 2010, 5:58 AM GMT>_< Move to US then, stop bombarding us with purile crap.
Only if you go back to Russia first.
Quote: Millsy @ December 27 2010, 1:24 PM GMTDoing the same schtick each and every week whilst eating in beautiful locations?
I think, unless I have missed something very pertinent, most sitcoms do the same schtick each week. That's why there is 'sit' in sitcom.
Quote: dellas @ December 28 2010, 8:00 AM GMT
Because it's bollocks.
Quote: Cheesehoven @ December 28 2010, 12:36 AM GMTI don't see how comparing basic services to a form of entertainment applies really. We pay for a lot of things via tax such as the police and the army. And libraries. The case for publicly funded libraries would be weak if there was a commercial library next door providing the same service.
The idea that the BBC is still providing a service which cannot be provided by commercial broadcasters has for a long time been a tenuous one, especially since we can see with our own eyes the most innovative and iconic television has come across from America, a system almost entirely commercial (with a tiny psb service).
Some of the best programmes have come via HBO a subscription channel which is why I favour subscription for the BBC. Not only is it more fair (those who do not like the BBC should not be required to fund it) but it also seems to result in better programmes because the makers and producers really have to respond to their audience rather than vanity projects and attempts to second guess its audience with dark and edgy material.
You do realize that everyone who buys anything that is advertised on the commercial channels indirectly pays a "tax" to those channels, whether they watch them or not, or even whether they actually own a TV!
Personally I'd like to get money off from my Tesco/Sainsburys/Co-op shopping rather than fund "X Factor" or "I'm a Celebrity".
Despite the best efforts of all sorts of different people, the BBC is still one of the world's foremost broadcasters (how many ITV programmes are sold worldwide compared to the BBC's output?), throwing it away to save £140 which would then have to be spent on SKY or subscription channels would seem to be a false economy.
Quote: Veronica Vestibule @ December 27 2010, 11:03 PM GMTThe BBC gave us 'Two Pints of Lager' - the broadcast equivalent of pissing upon the broken body of Christ.
Nothing they EVER do will make things better or worse for them.
There's no reason to keep handing over our money.
There are plenty of good reasons to give the BBC money. Namely, money we give to the BBC is money not given to either Simon Cowell, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Desmond or Noel Edmonds. OK, some of the stuff made by the BBC is rubbish, but let them get their hands on it and it is well and truly f**ked.
Quote: Cheesehoven @ December 27 2010, 11:18 PM GMTObviously you've never seen BBC Three, the worst channel ever put out in this country.
Did you not read the bit where I said I liked Mongrels? OK, most of what is on BBC Three is a bit naff, but sometimes there are good things - which should be moved to BBC One or Two.
Quote: Veronica Vestibule @ December 27 2010, 11:30 PM GMTYes, the BBC gave us 'The Thick of It' and Hitler made the trains run on time.
Run on time maybe...but he could have come up with more popular destinations....
Quote: Juan Kerr @ December 28 2010, 2:00 PM GMTRun on time maybe...but he could have come up with more popular destinations....
Quote: Nat Wicks @ December 27 2010, 12:46 PM GMTBUT HOW DO YOU DEFINE WELL WRITTEN?
HOW?!
Fair question, Madam. There will be several answers depending on taste to this but personally I would say if the dialogue engages one, it fits the characters, it is reasonably quotable, it has plenty of cogent references to our world, it employs wit instead of artifice, it sounds original, and probably I'd say most of all, it seems not in any way forced but natural.
This would be my own criteria but of course I do acknowledge there are slightly differing viewpoints on this matter. Mine however is the right one. Good day.
But which is better, well written unfunny comedy or mediocre writing which is hilarious?
Outnumbered was good. Mongrels & IT Crowd were fun. Rev, Whites and Grandma's House were watchable. Still can't get into Peep Show. Offhand can't think of any other sitcom that tickled. Definitely not a vintage year.
Rev was amazing.
One of the very few series I actually want to buy on DVD as soon as possible.
I enjoyed the return of Shooting Stars. I probably laughed out loud more during that than any other show this year. And Charlie Brooker's C4 was very good too.
Quote: Tony Cowards @ December 28 2010, 11:07 AM GMTYou do realize that everyone who buys anything that is advertised on the commercial channels indirectly pays a "tax" to those channels, whether they watch them or not, or even whether they actually own a TV!
Personally I'd like to get money off from my Tesco/Sainsburys/Co-op shopping rather than fund "X Factor" or "I'm a Celebrity".
Despite the best efforts of all sorts of different people, the BBC is still one of the world's foremost broadcasters (how many ITV programmes are sold worldwide compared to the BBC's output?), throwing it away to save £140 which would then have to be spent on SKY or subscription channels would seem to be a false economy.
Personally I would rather buy cheaper non advertised brands. But that's me.
The comparison between the BBC and ITV is a false one since the BBC is massively funded to the tune of £3 billion a year even before all its commercial interests, DVD sales and its hand in channels like Dave and GOLD (adverts and subscription). ITV has to make its money where it can competing with this leviathan, which is like a local green grocer setting up shop next to a massive, state-funded department store. The very presence of such a beast in the marketplace distorts the market.
I remember the days when the BBC was very wary about any sort of commercial interests even to the point of changing the name of Top Cat to avoid promoting the cat food. That seems a long time ago. It was unimaginable that the BBC of that time would ever put out an entire channel devoted to dreck like BBC Three.
As it happens I think a better comparison is between the BBC and Channel 4, a comparison not often made by the brainwashed ranks of Beeboids because it is less than flattering to the BBC. Here we have a channel which has promoted British films, made the best investigative journalism programmes (something that the BBC has abandoned now that it is nothing but Pravda for North West London) and innovated in comedy, something which should not have happened according to Beeb apologists and for which they cannot account.