Quote: chipolata @ September 2 2011, 10:29 AM BSTAnd very likely nowhere near as good. Just because a couple of actors starred in one of the best British sitcoms of recent years, doesn't neccessarily translate to them being able to write a show as good. We can hope, though.
True, though they have had some success on stage in sketch things they've written together. I saw Jonny Sweet do his thing at Edinburgh last year and it was brilliant.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ September 2 2011, 10:32 AM BSTTrue
That's all you need to say, Stott. 
Well, for one it is of questionable taste to say the least. Yes nearly 100 years has passed, but that war still touches a raw nerve. It isn't a very respectful slant on it, hmm?
I think there could be comedy in the scenario, yes, but I just think it's tasteless to exploit that war for laughs alone. The 2nd WW I wouldn't have a problem with. Nor would I if it was a Blackadder approach. This clearly isn't, from the outline premise.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ September 2 2011, 10:20 AM BSTWhy dodgy? It sounds like a good set-up to me.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 2 2011, 10:49 AM BSTWell, for one it is of questionable taste to say the least. Yes nearly 100 years has passed, but that war still touches a raw nerve. It isn't a very respectful slant on it, hmm?
I think there could be comedy in the scenario, yes, but I just think it's tasteless to exploit that for laughs. The 2nd WW I wouldn't have a problem with.
Still sounds like a good set-up to me. I don't see what is disrespectful about it, and we can't know really until we've seen it. Also, whose raw nerves are being touched?
The relatives of about a million young men in their prime sent off as fodder to die in a war all about the egos of heads of empires.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 2 2011, 10:59 AM BSTThe relatives of about a million young men in their prime sent off as fodder to die in a war all about the egos of heads of empires.
I'm sure most are dead by now.
Plus, again, we don't know what the treatment is. Other than it's about three men who, for different reasons, didn't go to war; I very much doubt it's a spiteful piece mocking those who died now is it.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ September 2 2011, 11:03 AM BSTI'm sure most are dead by now.
I said relatives, Matthew, not veterans of the war itself.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 2 2011, 11:06 AM BSTI said relatives, Matthew, not veterans of the war itself.
I know, but most people around at that time will now be dead, whether they fought or not.
Well I, for one, hope they totally rip into the war dead. I reckon that'll be the main thrust of this show. With any luck. 
Quote: Matthew Stott @ September 2 2011, 11:03 AM BSTPlus, again, we don't know what the treatment is. Other than it's about three men who, for different reasons, didn't go to war; I very much doubt it's a spiteful piece mocking those who died now is it.
Tis true, we don't yet know what it'll be like. And I doubt it will openly mock them, but can't you see that just creating a scenario like this for the purpose of comedy, is going to upset a lot people who had relatives butchered in their prime to simply satisfy the stuffed shirts of the day?
Or, more to the point here, those who had relatives shot or at best imprisoned for being in the same position as the characters. Like I said before, as far as I know, that situation never happened in real life. So why should it happen in a sitcom supposedly mimicking real life (of that time)? It's this total implausibility or mockery of real events that COULD upset some, the most.
Seriously?
You think it might possibly insult someone, when you haven't seen the show or know anyone who is likely to be insulted by this?
And why do you call it total implausibility? Do you really think that all conscientious objectors were imprisoned or shot? Never heard of Quakers - who, as we learned in History lessons, made up the bulk of conscientious objectors?
Do you think that comedy should be absolutely 100% utterly realistic at all times? Doesn't sound very funny to me.
And why would it be OK to set this in WW2 but not the Great War? And why was Blackadder Goes Forth ok?
Do you object to Dad's Army because it portrays the Home Guard as doddering old buffers when a lot of them were decorated, highly experienced, dangerous war veterans who did a difficult job on top of their day jobs? Should Dad's Army have been banned because it might annoy an ex-Home Guard?
I honestly don't understand what your objection to this is.
Quote: Afinkawan @ September 2 2011, 12:22 PM BSTSeriously?
Seriously, though it's not a huge issue to me, it won't keep me awake at night.
Quote: Afinkawan @ September 2 2011, 12:22 PM BSTYou think it might possibly insult someone, when you haven't seen the show or know anyone who is likely to be insulted by this?
I think it has the POTENTIAL to, yes.
I DO know people who are likely to be.
I've just "got" why this is called Chickens. I thought it was just a random name. >_<
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 2 2011, 12:30 PM BSTI think it has the POTENTIAL to, yes.
I DO know people who are likely to be.
Well anything has the potential to be.
And who are these people anyway? They'd get upset just because a comedy is set during the war? Very odd. The people depicted aren't even properly involved in the war, which is sort of the whole point of the show.
Was Blackadder not okay? MASH?? Those actually focussed on those involved with action.
Anyway, enough, no ones even seen it yet.
Quote: Afinkawan @ September 2 2011, 12:22 PM BSTAnd why do you call it total implausibility? Do you really think that all conscientious objectors were imprisoned or shot? Never heard of Quakers - who, as we learned in History lessons, made up the bulk of conscientious objectors?
It's generally implausible, not totally, perhaps. I'm not a historian. There's a fair bit on WW1 though and it's evident what the state sought to do with them.
Yes, and many Quakers died in France and Belgium as brave non combatants.
Quote: Afinkawan @ September 2 2011, 12:22 PM BSTAnd why would it be OK to set this in WW2 but not the Great War? And why was Blackadder Goes Forth ok?
Because WW2 is widely considered a just war. And our homeland was being directly threatened.
BGF was okay because like most WW1 films and satires, its main comedy targets were those who controlled it and sent the orders from comfortable offices, and the stupidity of the war itself.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ September 2 2011, 12:33 PM BSTAnd who are these people anyway? They'd get upset just because a comedy is set during the war? Very odd.
People like relatives who are STILL campaigning for the recognition of many many cases of shell shock, now a medical condition, which was conveniently mistaken for 'cowardice' and gross dereliction of duty, so the generals could have them shot in cold blood in order to remotivate their despairing, traumatised troops.
