Opposites Creating Explosions Page 5

'What is pushing boundaries' is a good question.

I suppose it means how you make certain subjects more acceptable.

I mean, it was once pushing boundaries for a woman to be on film with both her feet in the bed.

Personally, I'm not pushing boundaries with any of my comedy writing. I just want to write well written material. I write the occasional piece which could be described as sick and dark, but that doesn't make it edgy. Look at 'The League of Gentlemen' - that was a dark show, but I wouldn't say it broke any new ground or revised the way we think about comedy.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 2, 2008, 4:54 PM

Hmm, I seem to be picking up a negative point of view from this thread that seems to be "if you want success write middle-of-the-road, mainstream tripe"..although you claim that isn't what you are saying, that's what it comes across as.

View original

Assuming you're talking in regards to my posts, yes. That is pretty much what I'm saying. Apart from the tripe bit. Which is more suited to most of the "edgey" stuff.

Not really sure how that's a negative POV though, but nevermind.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 2, 2008, 4:54 PM

When it comes to cutting edge, counter-culture stuff I think that can have just the same long-lasting effect as this so called 'mainstream' stuff that people are talking about.

View original

Of course it can. Glamour models can also be qualified lawyers. Doesn't make it common though.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 2, 2008, 4:54 PM

Then you have more satirical, clever shows like The Day Today and Brass Eye which again go down as some of the greatest, smartest comedy of all time, and they will live on forever.

View original

I disagree entirely. Even now they're only remembered by geeks and people who saw them broadcast. I don't think I've ever seen either show scheduled for a repeat. They rely too much on the knowledge of a style of broadcasting which even now is changing.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 2, 2008, 4:54 PM

Broadcasters should be begging out for new, edgy, smart, satirical comedy and I think that they are...

View original

They're not. Really, I'm being as subtle as a brick now. They're not. They're really, really not. If they happen to come across something good enough, then yeah, they'll give it a go. But what they're actively looking for, what they want, what they're willing to put real money into, IS mainstream "tripe", as you put it, and not the cleverer, "different" stuff which seems to be loved by all writers here. And if you don't accept that, then fair enough. But as someone who's heard and read things "from the inside", I can promise you that they want the big mainstream shows.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 2, 2008, 4:54 PM

So if you want to play safe and do mainstream tripe then that's up to you but it doesn't mean your show will last forever.

View original

Very true. It's just got more of a chance of lasting longer, than if it's quirky and clever and niche-tastic.

Phew.

Quote: ajp29 @ January 2, 2008, 5:00 PM

You (a general you not Aaron) have to seek out this sort of thing. Go to a comedy club.

View original

Then you mean "One has to seek out...", don't you?

The problem here, is that a lot of the writers in the forum just aren’t blessed with the talent. It’s the whole “my friends think I’m funny” syndrome that encourages people to decide to take up comedy writing. They’ve watched a few mainstream sitcoms on TV, laughed out loud, and thought to themselves:

“Oh, I must have a good sense of humour because I laughed at this, and my friends think that the funny emails I forward to them are hilarious. So I know, I’ll become a comedy writer!”

Here is some good advice on sitcom writing, from someone in comedy:

"Purposely plan on taking at least ten years to make it. Secondly write about what you know. What can you give the world that's peculiar to you?. There's no point in doing stuff that anyone can do. Be original. Thirdly, don't do anything just for the money or the exposure. Do things that you'll be proud of. It's worth more than success and it lasts longer."

Quote: Aaron @ January 2, 2008, 5:17 PM

I disagree entirely. Even now they're only remembered by geeks and people who saw them broadcast. I don't think I've ever seen either show scheduled for a repeat. They rely too much on the knowledge of a style of broadcasting which even now is changing.

View original

I disagree entirely. Brass Eye and The Day Today are always classed as classic, brilliant comedy shows, they are prominent in most list shows that are made, they frequently appear in comedy fans top ten shows and the content of the shows is still as relevant today as it was back when they were first broadcast and to say that they aren't shows little knowledge of how the news media works (take all the stuff from last year with the Big Brother racism stuff, all of that looked like something straight out of The Day Today).

Quote: Aaron @ January 2, 2008, 5:17 PM

They're not. Really, I'm being as subtle as a brick now. They're not. They're really, really not. If they happen to come across something good enough, then yeah, they'll give it a go. But what they're actively looking for, what they want, what they're willing to put real money into, IS mainstream "tripe", as you put it, and not the cleverer, "different" stuff which seems to be loved by all writers here. And if you don't accept that, then fair enough. But as someone who's heard and read things "from the inside", I can promise you that they want the big mainstream shows.

View original

Yes but mainstream doesn't have to mean shit. You can still have cutting edge, smart mainstream stuff. I've already mentioned Monty Python that has had worldwide success and that was unlike anything else on TV at the time. And if they really are like you say then that should be changed, just because something is like it is doesn't mean you should just give in and accept that. People have been lead to believe that mediocrity is excellence these past few years in comedy but it doesn't have to be that way, start demanding a change and quality British comedy will return. I bet there are plenty of producers at the BBC and Channel 4 who think the same but are too afraid to take the risk or to speak up to those higher up than them.

Quote: Aaron @ January 2, 2008, 5:17 PM

Very true. It's just got more of a chance of lasting longer, than if it's quirky and clever and niche-tastic.

View original

Still don't agree. Fawlty Towers has lasted decades and that is quirky and clever. Python has lasted even longer and that is totally unique. Then more recent stuff like Father Ted which again is off-the-wall but still funny has become a modern classic.

Quote: Eat_My_Shirts @ January 2, 2008, 5:48 PM

The problem here, is that a lot of the writers in the forum just aren’t blessed with the talent.

View original

Thats an opinion not a fact

Quote: Eat_My_Shirts @ January 2, 2008, 5:48 PM

The problem here, is that a lot of the writers in the forum just aren’t blessed with the talent.

View original

What is that theory based on? I hope not just on the quality of the critique forum as a lot of people don't post their stuff on it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with making your friends laugh and thinking you can write because of that. There is a good chance that what your friends like is what other people may. But there is a craft that you have to learn and develop no matter how much talent you have. Especially for sitcoms, you must know the mechanics.

I'm always amazed when people say Mighty Boosh is a totally modern and unique comedy. The humour might be but the mechanics are textbook. Which is a good thing and a lesson that you don't have to lose your freedom by sticking to the rules of sitcom.

Quote: ContainsNuts @ January 2, 2008, 6:32 PM

I'm always amazed when people say Mighty Boosh is a totally modern and unique comedy. The humour might be but the mechanics are textbook. Which is a good thing and a lesson that you don't have to lose your freedom by sticking to the rules of sitcom.

View original

I'm glad you've said that Nuts as I think the Boosh are just carrying on in the great tradition of British Comedy - they are a classic double act IMO and lose nothing of their so-called modernity because of that.

I almost want to sleep with you.

I think Aaron is correct. The BBC and others broadcast mainstream stuff because its what most viewers want to see. More viewers mean happier sponsers. So if, as a writer, you want success, you will probably have to compromise.

Is Brass eye a classic? Probably only to a certain demographic. The majority won't even know what it is. The fact is that Last Of The Summer Wine has been on longer and pulls in more viewers.

But is it what more people want? Or is it what they are told they want? If there's no alternative then they don't have much choice do they? Give them something new and they will watch it and make up their minds whether it's good or not.

Eat my shirts,
I have special software on my thingy, it allows me to see through cyber space, into your den, I can see you now, What's that you're sitting on? Oh, it's mummies knee. What's that you're sucking? Oh it's your thumb, it's nap time is it? I'll leave you in peace.
Nice jimjams.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 2, 2008, 8:02 PM

But is it what more people want? Or is it what they are told they want? If there's no alternative then they don't have much choice do they? Give them something new and they will watch it and make up their minds whether it's good or not.

View original

I am not entirely convinced by that. I would rather watch say CYE (Curb) than After You've Gone, but my parents, grandparents, neighbours and most of my colleagues wouldn't.

They have seen me laughing at DVDs of The Office and Peep Show and just look at me like I am a loon. But show Compo going down a hill in a bath tub and they're in stitches.

Strange but true.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 2, 2008, 5:50 PM

I disagree entirely. Brass Eye and The Day Today are ... prominent in most list shows that are made, they frequently appear in comedy fans top ten shows ...

View original

Like I said, only remembered by comedy geeks!

Quote: Aaron @ January 2, 2008, 8:54 PM

Like I said, only remembered by comedy geeks!

View original

Or comedy fans. Does that make them any less influential and prominent in comedy history? No.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ January 2, 2008, 5:50 PM

Yes but mainstream doesn't have to mean shit. You can still have cutting edge, smart mainstream stuff. ... And if they really are like you say then that should be changed, just because something is like it is doesn't mean you should just give in and accept that. People have been lead to believe that mediocrity is excellence these past few years in comedy but it doesn't have to be that way, start demanding a change and quality British comedy will return.

View original

See, what you've written here is symptomatic of the whole problem! Brandishing words like "mediocrity" and "shit" around in regards to hugely successful programmes shows a shocking misunderstanding of audiences, and the problem inherent with so many of today's writers. If you rubbish everything that's successful as "mediocre", and maintain that people will like something that's clever if they get to see it, then you're not going to get very far in the real world.

You are of course right that just because x is like y, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. But in this case, x is like y for a reason - that reason is that the content providers (ie BBC, Channel 4, Five, et al) are producing what people want to see. You can quote the names of the clever, boundary-pushing shows until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that by far the most popular programmes are those which you're so keen to label as mainstream mediocrity. When focus groups are held, the attendees overwhelmingly show love for those shows over the ones you're citing as brilliant, and they're also the ones which prove to have the greatest longevity, and the greatest DVD sales.

The insistence that "quality British comedy will return" if we "demand" the change though, ugh, it just shows total and utter contempt and disregard for viewers. You need to accept that the BBC aren't spending something ridiculous like £100,000 for an hour of My Family or an hour of The Green Green Grass just for shits and giggles. They're spending that kind of money because people like it. They know that it'll get huge viewing figures, the inevitably enormous DVD sales, the repeat fees, the overseas sales, and perhaps format rights. To say it's just because the audience haven't been offered anything else is ridiculou. There have been dozens of programmes of all types (mediocre, mainstream, challenging, clever) in the past few years. But it's always the ones you're labeling as being mediocre that have the real success.

I think that there were other points I was going to make, but I'm really just too frustrated by this kind of attitude to think much further right now. I'm a viewer, not a writer, and you cannot possibly comprehend how utterly disheartening such an attitude from an aspiring writer is for me.

I just really hope that what you mean isn't coming across well on the InterWeb, and I'm misunderstanding you completely. I really hope that's the case anyway.