Not really relevant even if she is, as I do not deny the woman has worked her way up the right way, and deserves some sort of show. My concern is that the show itself is nowhere near as good many make out, did not deserve to beat better sitcoms to the award and owes its popularity to a very deliberate people pleasing formula.
I see it as a little sister to that other formulated to please sitcom, The godawful Vicar of Dibley, starring another people's favourite female funny person.
The Miranda love-in probably has more to do with the fact that it's a throwback to the big colourful sitcoms of a bygone age, and as such is seen as a welcome relief from the welter of non-studio audience cringe-coms of recent years.
Yes, I see a strong element of that in it, without doubt, but this for me just confirms its artifice. It's a complete confection designed to fill a hole created by that clutch of non studio sitcoms, some of which are actually very good indeed, and much better than Miranda. This is my grumble - she's manufactured an award winning show that's actually inferior to its top competitors.
In. Your. Opinion.
In my opinion, and therefore feasibly the judges' opinions, it is a great show. And may have won on its own merits. Surely you acknowledge that possibility?
Why worry about awards ceremonies? Martin Scorcese failed to win Oscars for Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver or King of Comedy, easily some of the best films ever, and certainly better than the now forgotten films that did win in those years. Award ceremonies are meaningless and have always been meaningless.
Quote: zooo @ February 5 2011, 1:02 PM GMTIn. Your. Opinion.
In my opinion, and therefore feasibly the judges' opinions, it is a great show. And may have won on its own merits. Surely you acknowledge that possibility?
No, Zooo, in actual fact, I do not. Taken apart, element by element, this show is very clearly a made to order fabrication. The Judges love the fact that it does its job very well, that it functions as a sitcom very well, and have obviously taken its popularity into account ie. it is a lot of fun at a time when simple fun had taken a back seat to other factors in more complex sitcoms. Thus, the panel of judges were making a point in awarding Miranda the gong.
I am sure that were they asked in private which they think is really the best sitcom, or best made sitcom, they would not have said Miranda, as very clearly, from an analytical point of view, it isn't. Objectivity exists, but is sometimes subverted, circumnavigated and ignored by people with personal agandas and preferences ie. bad judges.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 5 2011, 2:37 PM GMTNo, Zooo, in actual fact, I do not. Taken apart, element by element, this show is very clearly a made to order fabrication.
No, I'm sorry, but I still think that's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact (particularly the part I quoted, but in fact all of your post).
We shall just have to disagree!
Good afternoon.
Quote: chipolata @ February 5 2011, 1:05 PM GMTMartin Scorcese failed to win Oscars for Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver or King of Comedy, easily some of the best films ever, and certainly better than the now forgotten films that did win in those years.
The Sting, Rocky, and Terms of Endearment are hardly 'forgotten' films.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 5 2011, 12:17 PM GMTNot really relevant even if she is
Not that that's stopped you before!
Fact is: it's a hugely popular, very funny, extremely well-made show. It doesn't have any pretences about what it is; it does what it aims to, and does it with perfection. That's a good sitcom by my definition.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 5 2011, 12:17 PM GMTa very deliberate people pleasing formula.
How is a sitcom that wants to please and give pleasure to its audience a bad thing? Isn't that what all sitcoms should do??
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 5 2011, 2:37 PM GMTNo, Zooo, in actual fact, I do not. Taken apart, element by element, this show is very clearly a made to order fabrication. The Judges love the fact that it does its job very well, that it functions as a sitcom very well, and have obviously taken its popularity into account ie. it is a lot of fun at a time when simple fun had taken a back seat to other factors in more complex sitcoms. Thus, the panel of judges were making a point in awarding Miranda the gong.
I am sure that were they asked in private which they think is really the best sitcom, or best made sitcom, they would not have said Miranda, as very clearly, from an analytical point of view, it isn't. Objectivity exists, but is sometimes subverted, circumnavigated and ignored by people with personal agandas and preferences ie. bad judges.
Is it a sociopath who believes that their opinion is the one true incontrovertible fact? Whatever the word is; it's you, Alfred. Such a bizarre stance to take. Ok, you don't like Miranda - or at least, you don't like it as much as other shows. But you've engineered your whole argument against it in just the same way as you claim it was engineered to be successful. Which, by the way, is total tosh: if there was any way to engineer success, why do we get tortured with shite like enter your least favourite sitcom of all time here?
You don't like Miranda, others do. Now stop being silly.
Oh yes, but not by numbers; not by self assembling a flat pack sitcom designed to tick every box with the viewer.
But by fashioning an original work from an inspired idea. It still happens occasionally.
Sorry, that refers to your post, Matthew. Aaron got his flame thrower in first.
I stand by it, sir.
You're doing that thing you do again.
You decide (with no actual proof) that something happened a certain way (Miranda being manufactured by numbers, Amstell being given a sitcom because he's Jewish) and then take it as absolute fact and proceed to get all offended by it.
Yes I'm making large assumptions, as I do, but the proof is there, imo, if that pleases you, in the show. It's there for all to see, not just me.