Quote: Aaron @ May 5 2011, 12:37 PM BSTIsn't that pretty much the very definition of not liking a comedy: not getting its particular style or brand of humour?
Except that puts the blame on a sitcom failing on the viewer, and not the actual show.
Absolutely Fabulous - New Series Page 4
Not necessarily. Any one show has inherent strengths and weaknesses that will endear it, to a greater or lesser extent, to its core target audience and then to those with similar sense of humour.
Anyway, what's the definition of 'failure'? Spaced was, for me, so tortuously unfunny and bad that I want to cause Simon Pegg physical harm at times, so it was a failure as far as I'm concerned. Likewise, there are people who can't stand The Inbetweeners, which I love, so that's a show that's a failure for them. As long as something is a comedy, there will be someone, somewhere, who laughs at it. Even According To Bex has surprised me when re-watching recently, as to just how funny some of the gags are. So, yeah, what's the definition of failure? It can never be 100%... As if often mentioned, comedy is one of the most subjective forms of art there is.
Quote: Aaron @ May 5 2011, 2:04 PM BSTAs if often mentioned, comedy is one of the most subjective forms of art there is.
Agreed - all kinds of comedy will please various people - someone obviously thinks it is funny if it gets commissioned - and obviously the writer has that sense of humour - so it's a good bet that someone else will too.
Writing is, of course, a factor in quality - good plots (not necessarily complex ones), well-developed relationships and characters with depth are all hallmarks of good script-writing and constitute better quality than just stuffing a show with gags to keep the laughs coming, whether it makes sense to the plot or the characters motivation or not. Alan Ayckbourn, a respected comedy writer in the theatre, understands this difference, which is why his comedies are entertaining but also satisfying on a deeper level.
Having said all of that - plenty of sitcoms have succeeded in spite of a lack of these qualities. This is because a lot of different things will make people laugh, whether throwing them into your comedy at any given point constitutes good writing is another matter. However, many audiences are simply not that critical and, if they get a laugh, other concerns are overlooked. This is evident in sitcoms where characters stop to make a joke or innuendo in a situation in which no one would ever concievably do such a thing. In some more contemporary shows, particularly of the animated variety, a gag needs to have little or no relationship to the plot and may never even be followed through with - and yet it is trotted out at random for a cheap chuckle.
Personally, for me though, the writing is a factor - and I find it funnier to watch something with depth and intelligence that has a few unexpected and genuine laughs than something that stuffs them in at any cost. 
Quote: ToddB @ May 6 2011, 5:17 AM BSTIn some more contemporary shows, particularly of the animated variety, a gag needs to have little or no relationship to the plot and may never even be followed through with - and yet it is trotted out at random for a cheap chuckle.
You're talking about the Family Guy/American Dad style of cutaway, which has been elevated to a weird artform by both shows, and will often go off on completely unrelated tangents for no reason whatsoever. At their peak, both shows did it extremely well and were very funny. Alas, like Ab Fab, both shows peaked and at some point became pale shadows of their former selves.
"Arrested Development" and "The Young Ones" both had cutaway sequences - but they are cleverly woven into the plot - even if they seem trivial or unrelated. "Arrested Development" manages to take cutaways that are related but rather inconsequential and then later on tie them in as a key clue or reference point to other plot threads. "The Young Ones" seems to do it at random, but as an episode progresses, the cut-aways or surreal segments become part of the fabric of the 'universe' of each episode.
The two animated shows that you refer to never used them in this way - it has always just been a random gag - which I very quickly tired of. As it turns out, they went on doing this ad nauseum and other people tired of it too.
Of course, all shows have their peak - I think Ab Fab has had several - but the character development has always been good as has the acting - so I am happy to continue watching. Series four felt very fresh after the break they had had - I have no doubt the new episodes will feel the same.
Alright, here is my dream scenario for a new series. Edina's had a boom time after the last series due to several projects involving online/social media advertising. Edina even bought controlling shares in a small media company in France or Germany. Patsy has been seeing an American media mogul too, as she is now employed by Edina at her company.
Saffron and her daughter no longer live with them, but Edina vies with Justin for her attention by trying to give her money for her various creative ventures - including an eco-tourism programme.
Edina's company is failing, again, however, as the boom period made Edina lazy and complacent and the company took a hit during the credit crunch. Now a public company, Claudia Bing is interested in buying Edina out and the board threaten to support her bid.
Happily, the share prices of the Eurpoean company are skyrocketing, due to an online show hosted by none other than Bo and Marshall. The big American company that Patsy's boyfriend is CEO of wants a merger and Edina agrees, placing her on the board of a major international media powerhouse.
Bubble inadvertently discovers that Patsy's boyfirend is cheating, leading her to uncover a load of dirty dealings that he has been involved in. He is dumped as CEO and Edina takes his place, securing her own company at the same time, buying out Claudia Bing and placing her in charge of most of the world's major media outlets. Edina even controls Saffron's little eco-tourism show.
I really liked the idea of an 'Edina takes everything' type scenario - much the same as Alan B'Stard took over Britain at thge end of "The New Statesman" or Richie Rich took over television at the end of "Filthy, Rich and Catflap" - an ominous but dramatically complete finale.
Anyway, if Jen doesn't do it I could use it one of mine!
Quote: ToddB @ May 27 2011, 7:03 AM BSTcomplete finale.
We're in agreement then, Todd. These should be the last Ab Fabs ever. 
Quote: ToddB @ May 27 2011, 7:03 AM BSTEdina's had a boom time after the last series due to several projects involving online/social media adverising.
Now that is funny!
There are going to be two at Christmas and one for the Olympics, according to Saunders.
Loved the original series but not sure how I feel about the new series. I guess I'm afraid they will take to an extreme and just make it too unbearable to watch. Hoping that won't happen though.
Quote: zooo @ May 30 2011, 2:01 PM BSTThere are going to be two at Christmas and one for the Olympics, according to Saunders.
Patsy wins Gold for drinking whilst Saffy wins silver for knitting hats.
I hope it's good, I just hope Saffy divorced or split up from that annoying wench that was her husband
Personally I wish they would commission new comedies instead of reviving old ones.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ February 26 2011, 3:17 PM BSTand has been resurrected too often to little effect. IMO.
Resurrected too often? Once? Original run 1992-1996 then 2001-2004. Try doing a bit of research before jumping on a bandwagon that know little about the subject.
Well ... still once too often, David.
Read the article - see how the girls are looking these days.
http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/10/03/absolutley-fabulous-first-look/
I am indescribably excited.