In terms of surrealism, Vic and Bob, The Mighty Boosh and Green Wing are good choices.
A comedy snob's guide... Page 2
Quote: Lee Henman @ February 21 2011, 6:11 PM GMTCheck out my "Bottom", you'll love it mate.
don't just take his word for it
I score it 4 out of 5
Python, and I'm not even joking.
Daniel Kitson.
Blackadder.
Surely he's talking about Armando? From Armistice to Thick of It - not a dud in there no matter how low the ratings. The man is perhaps the funniest comedy product the country has produced...?
Quote: Griff @ February 21 2011, 9:57 PM GMTArmando is awesome.
Especially now we've airbrushed Lab Rats out of history.
The Jennifer Saunders thing is true - I do love her work as can be seen through other posts, but not just her - most of the Comic Strip generation such as Rik Mayal, Adrian Edmonson, Peter Richardson, Ben Eton, Nigel Planer, Robbie Coltrane, Alexei Sayle, Dawn French, Ruby Wax, Christopher Malcolm, Lenny Henry et cetera.
I do love "Bottom" and "The Young Ones" and the absurdist influences behind the low humour have not escaped me - they are the reason that I like them so when other slapstick leaves me cold.
I like "Monty Python" and "Blackadder" a lot, though sometimes the similies and punning stray from clever into blunt, crass and repetitive.
More recently, I have enjoyed "The Mighty Boosh", "Lead Balloon" and "Getting On".
You bloody beauty; finally looks like I've found meself a kindred comedy snob. I've got ironic sophistication coming out of my arsehole, I kid you not. My favourite show is Australia's Funniest Home Videos, whereas my (imaginary) friends are too thick to appreciate its subtle humour. The last episode I saw had a clip of a baby spilling a glass of milk on a cat. Obviously a surreal allusion to Herodotus's description of Egyptian cats leaping into fiery sepulchres. But my idiot friends prefer popular conformist rubbish, like Peep Show or that bloody QI, which, let's face it, is just a fat Pommy poofter talking crap that some halfwit's written for him, all the while he's fancying the bloke sitting next to him. You won't catch me watching that mainstream pap. Instead, I opt for something a little dark, bitter and clever, like The A-Team. As for the bloke recommending Frasier, I reckon he's pulling your leg, cos Frasier was just one of those dickheads off of Cheers, which was about as sophisticated as a fart in an elevator. Ditto the recommendation for Chris Morris. If his output is highbrow then I'm a Jew.
Quote: chipolata @ February 21 2011, 6:02 PM GMTIn fact you could argue that we've lost the knack of making broad populist sitcoms and spend far too much time making navel-gazing sitcoms that appeal to an increasingly narrow slice of viewers.
Yes, but no comedy writer (I hope) sits down to write thinking "I really must try to write a show which appeals to a very select audience". Commissioners and producers may have such thoughts when considering how to schedule and promote a show, but they still will hope for as broad and big an audience as possible. The point is that there isn't a formula for writing/producing a broad populist sitcom. Sure, you can make a show which is designed for a "mainstream" audience, but there's no guarantee they will engage with it.
Every time a new Head of Comedy or whoever says that they want to make more broad, popular mainstream sitcoms, my heart sinks a little. Not because it's not a noble ambition, simply because they return to the same fixed ideas of what "mainstream" means. A mainstream hit can be shows as diverse as 'Steptoe & Son', 'Fawlty Towers', 'Porridge', 'Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads', 'Father Ted', 'Only Fools and Horses', 'The Good Life', 'To The Manor Born', 'Miranda', 'The Office'... the list goes on. These have all been seriously big hit shows with a broad, mainstream appeal. They have been embraced by the Great British Public, of all classes and backgrounds. But none of them could have neccessarily have been predicted to become the successes they were. Beyond the basic elements of what a sitcom is, none (as far as I know) were conceived by the writer(s) to conform to a particular winning formula. In fact, it's the sitcoms which died a death which were usually the most formulaic.
What we actually need is just more guys in charge who really know their funny, whatever the style/genre/theme of sitcom. We need those who are picking those chosen few shows to, put simply, understand comedy. That, for me, seems to be where the stumbling block is - too many guys in charge think understanding why and when comedy works is easy... when it really isn't. The impression I often get of the British TV comedy industry is that there are lots of producers/execs who want to work in the genre, but precious few who truly understand what funny is and how best to nurture it.
If you want high-brow then watch The Saint. 
Yes, there is always a formula with crap comedy, usually consisting of 'a stupid bimbo', 'the older generation', 'fat people' and 'the kids are so smart', anything that has these elements I avoid, they are so crap and lazy.
Quote: Tim Walker @ February 23 2011, 12:51 AM GMTYes, but no comedy writer (I hope) sits down to write thinking "I really must try to write a show which appeals to a very select audience". Commissioners and producers may have such thoughts when considering how to schedule and promote a show, but they still will hope for as broad and big an audience as possible. The point is that there isn't a formula for writing/producing a broad populist sitcom. Sure, you can make a show which is designed for a "mainstream" audience, but there's no guarantee they will engage with it.
Every time a new Head of Comedy or whoever says that they want to make more broad, popular mainstream sitcoms, my heart sinks a little. Not because it's not a noble ambition, simply because they return to the same fixed ideas of what "mainstream" means. A mainstream hit can be shows as diverse as 'Steptoe & Son', 'Fawlty Towers', 'Porridge', 'Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads', 'Father Ted', 'Only Fools and Horses', 'The Good Life', 'To The Manor Born', 'Miranda', 'The Office'... the list goes on. These have all been seriously big hit shows with a broad, mainstream appeal. They have been embraced by the Great British Public, of all classes and backgrounds. But none of them could have neccessarily have been predicted to become the successes they were. Beyond the basic elements of what a sitcom is, none (as far as I know) were conceived by the writer(s) to conform to a particular winning formula. In fact, it's the sitcoms which died a death which were usually the most formulaic.
What we actually need is just more guys in charge who really know their funny, whatever the style/genre/theme of sitcom. We need those who are picking those chosen few shows to, put simply, understand comedy. That, for me, seems to be where the stumbling block is - too many guys in charge think understanding why and when comedy works is easy... when it really isn't. The impression I often get of the British TV comedy industry is that there are lots of producers/execs who want to work in the genre, but precious few who truly understand what funny is and how best to nurture it.
I wouldn't disagree with you on a lot of these points. And yes, I too shudder when I hear there's a new hunt for a mainstream sitcom because it invariably leads to Big Top or a Fred Barron-produced Friday night monstrosity.
My point is more to do with the fact that the environment seems to have changed and fragmented so much that comedies are all aimed at specific demographics at the costs of others. For example BBC Three has produced acres of shows, from Coming of Age to Him and Her, which are only ever going to appeal to a fairly narrow strata of society. Shows that often seem to delight in alienating everybody else.
Above and beyond that, producers seem to have a real problem identifying material that is genuinely good and might appeal to a wide range of people, hence why they end up falling back on creaky formulas that they think will appeal to the plebs. They've lost confidence in their own abilities.
If you don't laugh at the US show 'Manswers' then you are a comedy snob imo.
Frasier had very clever smartypants jokes which if you didn't understand you could still laugh at Niles and Frasier's pomposity.
One episode featured Marty's police pals coming round to celebrate him cracking a cold case involving a murdred circus performer. They take the mickey out of Frasier for thinking a performing monkey had done the shooting. They make a string of jokes at Fraiser's expense (the Monkey's gonna swing for it etc.) and not to appear pompous in front of the lads he cracks his own joke; 'perhaps Clarence Darrow could defend.' Stoney silence ensues. Funny if you understand the joke and funny if you don't.
The true comedy snob probably likes Miranda and Mrs Brown's Boys because they're so out of kilter with modern comedy trends.
Yes - maybe post-modern takes on older formats will be the next big thing! I certainly hope that the alternative comedy boom from the 1980s is revived. It was a little with "The Mighty Boosh", perhaps, but not since. They were great!