TV is a business at the end of the day.
Opposites Creating Explosions Page 6
I agree with you Aaron. We (aspiring writers) are guilty of acting like fashion police in a way, laughing at people who don't like the 'cool' stuff with contempt. I don't laugh with My Family I laugh at it and alot of others do to but the fact of the matter is that 9 000 000 people regularly do laugh with it.
In other words, my attitude stinks!
Quote: Aaron @ January 2, 2008, 10:21 PMSee, 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.
I agree and the writers I have met who HAVE made it all share a strong liking for what is out there. Exactly what I was saying in the Extras thread. If you think all the successful stuff is rubbish or 'badly written' then you don't understand the majority of your audience and its standards. If you want to write for yourself then write what you like, if you what to write for TV (ie the public) then understanding the top comedies is a must.
Well said, very well said indeed.
Something which always springs to mind for me is one of those semi-documentary semi-vox-pops kinds of things I watched a few years ago, and Two Pints was being discussed. I don't remember anyone - this included modern writers, standups and alike - who didn't seem to like the show. Or at very least they all managed to find something good to say about it. The hatred towards Two Pints is a great indicator, I think. Whether you like it or not, it's a massively successful show, and has captured the imagination of its target audience in a way that most programmes can only dream of.
I think this sort of debate about good .v. popular is going to crop up time and time again (it isn't the first, I'm sure it won't be the last).
The reason it's never going to be solved is that we all have different tastes... and thus nothing can be labeled 'good' or 'bad' (yes I spot the flaw - this website has reviews!)
It seems, in the main, that those who have a real passion for comedy (i.e. the small number of the population who love it enough to post on internet message boards) have very different tastes to the rest. Thus something like My Hero can be watched and loved by millions but hated by most people on the internet.
I'm in the fortunate position that no one in my local pub knows I run this site and thus I get to eavesdrop in on conversations. It's quite an interesting way of getting a different viewpoint - I discovered for example that Lead Balloon, one of my current favourites, is known as "that documentary with Jack Dee and his family in it" and Two Pints (a sitcom I personally despise) is very funny!
Anyway, now I've so masterfully (cough) established that arguing is futile perhaps this topic should go back to finding Skibbington von Skubber a mate (or was it a collaborator, I can't remember now!)
EDIT: I wrote this before seeing Aaron's mention of Two Pints above. I still hate that show but to clarify my point in case it wasn't clear: I can see exactly why others like it so much.
Quote: Aaron @ January 2, 2008, 4:55 PMPushing boundaries would be breaking from the norm. Like when some pillock dropped his bag of nuts into the Dairy Milk vat at the Cadbury's factory. Or The Young Ones, breaking through after decades of Terry and Junes, Are You Being Served?s, and the like.
Are you suggesting there is something serendipitous about being cutting edge? I don't think this is the case.
We're ignoring a few basic things here. The situation as I see it is that we have some viewers who are more discerning than others - with most people apparently falling into the 'not terribly discerning' category.
There isn't any dispute that a champagne dinner at Claridge's will be more special, and indeed more work will have gone into it (by expert craftsmen) than a bag of greasy chips from the local chippy.
But - ignoring the price factor - many more people will be buying chips tonight than gourmet meals. Why? The reasons are legion. People are used to it. It's easy. They prefer chips because their palates aren't refined. Is there anything wrong with this? No - it's just the way things are.
Really shit restaurants close down. Similarly, you get some pretentious restaurants that provide food that's far, far too fiddly and they close down too. Maybe the analogy is far too drawn out, but I feel there's some 'food for thought' here, ho ho ho.
One difference though with writing is its ability to work on a number of levels. You can attract a number of different audiences, and you can create a comedy classic with resonance across the board that is both terribly clever and mainstream - just look at The Simpsons.
Two pints ok, but I draw the line at grown ups aaron!
Quote: Aaron @ January 2, 2008, 11:19 PMTwo Pints ... has captured the imagination of its target audience
I don't think this is true. It's comfort watching the same way as eating a bag of chips is comfort eating. No imagination involved.
Quote: James Williams @ January 2, 2008, 11:27 PMI don't think this is true. It's comfort watching the same way as eating a bag of chips is comfort eating. No imagination involved.
I agree in a way james but what is wrong with that? Thats what tv is for isn't it? especially sitcoms, they are meant to be light entertainment at the end of the day.
Quote: jacparov @ January 2, 2008, 11:35 PMI agree in a way james but what is wrong with that? Thats what tv is for isn't it? especially sitcoms, they are meant to be light entertainment at the end of the day.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. (I think I said this in the post just before that one too.)
I watch it myself sometimes when it's late at night and I'm doing something else.
fair enough.
“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!”
Spooky..its like you can see into my mind...
Fascinating thread but I'm still unclear what these elusive boundaries are.Has anyone got an example-or one thats recently been broken?
And surely the point of 'edgy' is to put people on edge so they're not sure about it at first. Which doesnt instantly endear you to an audience-unlike something more familiarly comfortable to them can.Hence the moneymen sticking with the known.
Cult status is also easier to achieve (it's called 'cult' for a reason)so theres plenty of rubbish to mediocre writers alongside the undiscovered genius's,all feeling like God and sniggering at the mainstream writers who are making far more people laugh.Which is surely the point of comedy-to make people laugh.
Counter-culture stuff will always date because the culture moves on. The stuff that stays current appeals to some universal truth.That doesnt mean it can't be clever/brilliant/presented in a unique way,but if it doesnt connect with people what's the point? Isnt being a misunderstood genius kind of old?
Basically if you're writing comedy that makes you fall about laughing then stick with it.Because even if you dont make it big you're having a ball.And if you're writing it because you've got something to say stick with it.But if you're writing purely with your ego thats no better than the teen chavs who 'just wanna be famous,innit'
No idea who I'm agreeing or arguing with-or what my point is really...must be bedtime
Quote: jacparov @ January 2, 2008, 11:47 PMfair enough.
Quote: niteowl @ January 2, 2008, 11:51 PMFascinating thread but I'm still unclear what these elusive boundaries are.Has anyone got an example-or one thats recently been broken?
And surely the point of 'edgy' is to put people on edge so they're not sure about it at first. Which doesnt instantly endear you to an audience-unlike something more familiarly comfortable to them can.Hence the moneymen sticking with the known.
Cult status is also easier to achieve (it's called 'cult' for a reason)so theres plenty of rubbish to mediocre writers alongside the undiscovered genius's,all feeling like God and sniggering at the mainstream writers who are making far more people laugh.Which is surely the point of comedy-to make people laugh.
Counter-culture stuff will always date because the culture moves on. The stuff that stays current appeals to some universal truth.That doesnt mean it can't be clever/brilliant/presented in a unique way,but if it doesnt connect with people what's the point? Isnt being a misunderstood genius kind of old?
Basically if you're writing comedy that makes you fall about laughing then stick with it.Because even if you dont make it big you're having a ball.And if you're writing it because you've got something to say stick with it.But if you're writing purely with your ego thats no better than the teen chavs who 'just wanna be famous,innit'
No idea who I'm agreeing or arguing with-or what my point is really...must be bedtime
I agree with much of what you say.
Perhaps one key distinction that we've failed to pin down is in the difference between writing for oneself, and writing for an audience: I would like to suggest that this difference equates to making art and making craft. Where the two meet is where (popularist) comedy genius lies.