Are you telling me that when The Two Ronnies created the Four Candles/Fork Handles sketch they thought 'Ah! There's a classic' Infact I think I saw an interview with Barker that it only just made the show. Either way you just right funny [hopefully] and let other people decide if it's a classic otherwise you're gonna find life is just going to be one long disappointment. Unless you write a classsic of course.
There's a distinction there between trying to write a classic and recognising that what you write is a classic. Surely everyone's ultimate goal is to write a classic? Presumably when writing it the Ronnies tried as hard to make as good as they could? Surely you're trying to write as best you can, with the hope that something you write will be of the gold standard? I would've thought that for the finished piece to actually be a classic, a prerequisite would be that you 'write from the heart', etc., but this should not preclude ambition!
Quote: zooo @ January 2, 2008, 12:42 AMAre you sure you're allowed to talk to us irresistible ladies on t'internet?
I think that a lot of people here are mistaking the sort of humour that Skib wants to make with puerile tripe.
Something that is edgy does not have to contain a ‘sick, twisted’ scenario such as paedophiles or feature as many swear words as possible. That is just cheap comedy looking for easy targets.
Look at Brass Eye, for example, it’s not jam packed full of swearing and sick references (Apart from perhaps the Paedophile episode). Even when it does incorporate these elements it uses them in an inventive way and not a Bo Selecta way!
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ January 2, 2008, 1:26 AMSee, this has to change.
But will it? I can't envisage there being the wide, mainstream acceptance for something really 'different', unless society as a whole undergoes a drastic rewrite. And until or unless that happens, the 'main' channels are looking to maximise their investment, by having a hit show with astronomical DVD and overseas sales. Yes, you went on to suggest that a new TV channel could be set up, but the costs are just too great, and the way to the viewer's heart is too tricky to follow. I think it went under the radar for most people, but a couple of years ago, a group of what would be considered "old school" comedians got together, which some financial backing and other parties of course, and launched their own Sky channel. That had acts and people that are hugely popular and well established, but it still went under within a year. The most popular channel on Sky by quite a way is UKTV Gold, which shows that there is a market for comedy, but it is and always has been all very well established stuff, and being 50% owned by BBC Worldwide and 50% by Thames Television can't exactly have done the channel much harm in getting its feet off the ground. Such a channel today would need continued, unnerving investment of the type we're unlikely to see. A new channel showing new, non-mainstream programming doesn't stand a chance. Yes, there may be rock stars and the odd other rich individual who wants to see different programming, but would they have the guts to put their bank account behind it? Probably not. Even two smash hit shows would only bring in a tiny percentage of the operating costs. You'd need all involved to be working for free to get any real chance at success, from the writers to the cast and crew, right up to the company's directors.
The only real option is for writers - on an individual basis - to pre-establish themselves with an audience through more 'conventional' means (eg standup, see The Mighty Boosh), or through this 'ere big bad InterWeb; and even then neither are particularly easy.
So to the few writers who do have talent, and the will to stick it out, good luck - you're really going to need it.
Quote: Aaron @ January 2, 2008, 8:57 AMBut will it? I can't envisage there being the wide, mainstream acceptance for something really 'different', unless society as a whole undergoes a drastic rewrite. And until or unless that happens, the 'main' channels are looking to maximise their investment, by having a hit show with astronomical DVD and overseas sales. Yes, you went on to suggest that a new TV channel could be set up, but the costs are just too great, and the way to the viewer's heart is too tricky to follow. I think it went under the radar for most people, but a couple of years ago, a group of what would be considered "old school" comedians got together, which some financial backing and other parties of course, and launched their own Sky channel. That had acts and people that are hugely popular and well established, but it still went under within a year. The most popular channel on Sky by quite a way is UKTV Gold, which shows that there is a market for comedy, but it is and always has been all very well established stuff, and being 50% owned by BBC Worldwide and 50% by Thames Television can't exactly have done the channel much harm in getting its feet off the ground. Such a channel today would need continued, unnerving investment of the type we're unlikely to see. A new channel showing new, non-mainstream programming doesn't stand a chance. Yes, there may be rock stars and the odd other rich individual who wants to see different programming, but would they have the guts to put their bank account behind it? Probably not. Even two smash hit shows would only bring in a tiny percentage of the operating costs. You'd need all involved to be working for free to get any real chance at success, from the writers to the cast and crew, right up to the company's directors.
The only real option is for writers - on an individual basis - to pre-establish themselves with an audience through more 'conventional' means (eg standup, see The Mighty Boosh), or through this 'ere big bad InterWeb; and even then neither are particularly easy.
So to the few writers who do have talent, and the will to stick it out, good luck - you're really going to need it.
Yes, Aaron, your points are rational and down-to-earth.
A "big change" that caused a wider acceptance of counter-cultural or un-mainstream materials/shows certainly happened in the 1960s (hippies/flower power) and in the late 70s & early 80s (punk/New Wave).
We are certainly due for another round of coming unglued from traditions and mainstream limitations.
I mentioned Cheech & Chong at the start of all this because they heralded the "big change" in the 60s & 70s and carried it until the Reagan/Thatcher administration. They just stuck to their guns and did what they enjoyed and didn't worry about where or how they would fit in.
Usually in this life, this political human life, change must come from the top (the ol' saw by Rush "And the men who hold high places, must be the one's to start") but in the case of entertainment the change starts at the local level and radiates outwards & upwards from comedy clubs and (these days) the WWW (podcasts).
It may be pollyannish to hope for a new channel or network anytime soon from the likes of Richard Branson's secret evil twin brother (he with the coke spoon 'round his neck and the black eye patch over his left eye), but we must push full steam ahead. We must carry on as if it's going to happen and enjoy the f**k out of ourselves while doing so.
Forgive my esoteric piddling.
Thank you for the info re: that Sky channel. It had to have failed due to greed. Too much money spent too fast. Too much money wasted. Poor financial planning. Unrealistically high expectations for fast inward cash flow. All such endeavours should be mapped out carefully & frugally like an expedition to the North Pole.
Comedy Central in the USA started small in the 1990s. For like the first couple of years all they showed were video taped stand-up performances. Hardly cost the network anything. Then they took a risk with a little cardboard animated series called South Park and the rest is history (bought out by Viacom or MTV's parent company for 100s of millions of dollars).
So, first things first. Someone needs to start a podcast website that specializes in promoting & providing counter-cultural podcasts/shows. Maybe one already exists? I don't know. I just got my first ipod and do not know if networks and channels have already sprung up. Is there an alternative to iTunes? A darker hub specializing in non-AOL-approved podcasts?
In the meantime, me and my posse will create what we want. We shall make the leap and trust that a net will appear below us.
You can find podcasts littered around everywhere, and there are plenty of indexing sites which have nothing to do with the soul-less corporate machine of Apple. 
Of course, that Comedybox site is, I guess, trying to do a similar kind of thing, re finding and making new material available. Will online video of that kind work in the long run though? My opinion is no, but it's certainly a way to get noticed.
I agree with Aaron,(I think) We all like the things that reflect our own psychological profile. Perverts watch child porn. Fortunately most of us are 'middle of the road' Attitudes can change but take many years, for instance, years ago comics could take pot shots at peoples origins,The Paddies,The Sweatysocks,The Sheepshaggers and The English(God save the Queen),ribbed each other in a jolly way for many years. That stuff is now against the law. Replaced with jokes about old folks pissing themselves and fogetting who they are.
As for the counter-culture thing, you've got to decide what you want from your writing. Take The Young Ones for example. It was a huge, 'counter-culture' hit when it was broadcast, but it just doesn't 'work' now. Sure, it's had great DVD sales, but only really to comedy geeks such as myself, and those who watched it originally. On the other hand, there's the more mainstream shows, which have and will enjoy continued success. So let's consider programmes like Blackadder, Are You Being Served?, Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses, George & Mildred, and Porridge. They may go in and out of fashion from time to time, but they're always there within the comedy universe somewhere on the edge of public consciousness, ready to pop back up and entertain people again when the time is right. They'll always get good DVD sales, and always be popular and gaining new audiences, but will something like Spaced have the same grasp in 30 years time as Fawlty Towers does now? Extremely doubtful, IMO. Will The Mighty Boosh or The Office stand the test of time? Again, I don't think so. Certainly the latter of the two will have the greatest longevity, but it still won't have the same popularity down the line as something that'd be classed right now as mainstream, unoriginal and dull.
So I guess I'm trying to say that, as writers, you need to sit down and make a choice between short-term impact and that cult-like status, or long-term success, influence and entertainment. Very very few will ever encompass the two, and that'll always be by luck rather than design. Far too many writers (certainly those who are members here) seem to be aiming for the former, with no real foresight or career plan. I know that when I was dabbling with writing, I was aiming squarely for the latter; partly because that's just the kind of comedy that entertains me personally, and partly because I'd rather see something I create enjoyed by the masses for as long as possible than loved by a certain clique for a few years. If it turns out to be a bit 'different', clever and creative then fair enough, but it's certainly not what I'd want or be aiming for. And I'd have a damn sight more chance of success, 'cos that's what the companies want to produce right now.
Quote: Jerf Roberwitz @ January 2, 2008, 12:02 PMI agree with Aaron,(I think) We all like the things that reflect our own psychological profile. Perverts watch child porn. Fortunately most of us are 'middle of the road' Attitudes can change but take many years, for instance, years ago comics could take pot shots at peoples origins,The Paddies,The Sweatysocks,The Sheepshaggers and The English(God save the Queen),ribbed each other in a jolly way for many years. That stuff is now against the law. Replaced with jokes about old folks pissing themselves and fogetting who they are.
This is also raising quite an interesting point. The comics now will sooner be ageist than sexist or racist, but which jokes are the ones which continue to be remembered and repeated in the office, down the pub, waiting for the bus, or around the dinner table? In my experience, it's not the stuff being written at the moment.
I think that what I'm basically trying to say is something like "are you writing for other writers, and to amuse a percentage of the right-here-right-now crowd, or are you writing to entertain the public, and give real long-term enjoyment?"
Something which I don't think many people here have really properly asked themselves.
Quote: Aaron @ January 2, 2008, 12:15 PMI think that what I'm basically trying to say is something like "are you writing for other writers, and to amuse a percentage of the right-here-right-now crowd, or are you writing to entertain the public, and give real long-term enjoyment?"
Something which I don't think many people here have really properly asked themselves.
Or are they writing for themselves? It's often forgotten that some writers just write what they want to write for themselves without concern for an audience.
So, are people trying to say that their is no point in writing anything that isn't 'middle of the road' and appealing to the masses?
That's a ridiculous idea.
Take music for example. Take Nick Drake, for example, he wrote beautiful music which is still listened to over 30 years later. The average man in the street doesn't know who the hell Nick Drake is. Does that make his recordings a waste of time?
Basically, if something is genuinely funny then an audience will be formed. It may stay cult or it may crossover and become popular. If I had the choice of writing something cult which sustains interest for years to come or just jumping on the current bandwagon, then I would take cult everytime.
Nick Drake wrote music, beautiful to you and many others but, not everybody. Middle of the road subjects are popular because most people are middle of the road.These people are generally older. Young people accept new ways better.
In 1956 I put a coin in a Juke Box, and pressed E13,From that machine came the most electifying music ever heard before. The card read
Good Golly Miss Molly by Little Richard. Beautiful to me, My Mum and Dad prefered Al Bowley. Each to his own.
I was trying to ask 'Is anything that is not mainstream a waste of time'?
What about progression? If there was no progression in comedy then we would still be hearing mother in law jokes in the mainstream.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ January 2, 2008, 12:59 PMOr are they writing for themselves? It's often forgotten that some writers just write what they want to write for themselves without concern for an audience.
But that goes without saying, surely?
Quote: Winterlight @ January 2, 2008, 1:06 PMSo, are people trying to say that their is no point in writing anything that isn't 'middle of the road' and appealing to the masses?
I'm sure that some are. It's not what I was trying to say though. Not at all. My point was that the "middle of the road" stuff is more popular and more successful in the long run. If you don't want to write that kind of thing, then that's cool. Totally up to you what you write at the end of the day. Just be aware that that's not what broadcasters want to make, partially for the aforementioned reasons.
Quote: Winterlight @ January 2, 2008, 1:39 PMIf there was no progression in comedy then we would still be hearing mother in law jokes in the mainstream.
Define mainstream? They may not be presented in quite the same way, but there are plenty of standups with mother-in-law routines.
(And don't ask me to name them, 'cos I don't retain standup names like I do with sitcoms. 
)
Quote: Jerf Roberwitz @ January 2, 2008, 1:31 PMNick Drake wrote music, beautiful to you and many others but, not everybody. Middle of the road subjects are popular because most people are middle of the road.These people are generally older. Young people accept new ways better.
In 1956 I put a coin in a Juke Box, and pressed E13,From that machine came the most electifying music ever heard before. The card read
Good Golly Miss Molly by Little Richard. Beautiful to me, My Mum and Dad prefered Al Bowley. Each to his own.
So what do you make of Al Bowlly now?
For me I would say that both Little Richard and Al Bowlly are brilliant and exciting singers - I thought that when I was 17 and I still think that now! 
E.g. by Al, "The very thought of you" and LR, "Lucille" and many more by both guys!