Quote: Aaron @ January 25 2012, 10:12 PM GMTI'm not talking about any judgement of its quality, but that it failed to gain any kind of audience due to its miniscule, largely unfamiliar world.
Oh I'm sure that did put off some people from watching as it was broadcast, as evidenced by its low opening numbers; if they'd watched though, I think they would have realised all they needed to know was that it featured dicks being dicks; and that's all they had to be familiar with.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 25 2012, 10:14 PM GMTThe elephant in the room is that bits of Tramadol Nights - admittedly the Frankie Boyle stand up bits and not the overly indulgent sketches - and huge swathes of Life's Too Short actually made me laugh. Not just laugh, but laugh out loud. Which is more then can be said for many a 'comedy' show broadcast in the last 12 months.
Neither show was particularly ground breaking, but neither were they bland, cosseted, beige coloured, watery pulp shoved down my throat by 'my betters'.
Given the previous work of the writers and stars, "bland, cosseted, beige coloured, watery pulp" is exactly what Life's Too Short was.
Quote: Aaron @ January 25 2012, 10:16 PM GMTGiven the previous work of the writers and stars, "bland, cosseted, beige coloured, watery pulp" is exactly what Life's Too Short was.
So, this debate has turned into a childish - yes it is, no it isn't back and forth - rather then a genuine examination of the declining state of current British comedy?
Great. 
No it hasn't.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 25 2012, 10:20 PM GMTNo it hasn't.
This post is off topic.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 25 2012, 10:20 PM GMTSo, this debate has turned into a childish - yes it is, no it isn't back and forth - rather then a genuine examination of the declining state of current British comedy?
Great.
Oh yes, and I wonder who could have started that, with the following quote specifically name-checking some of the most popular comedies of the past 3 or 4 years?
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 25 2012, 11:40 AM GMTSure, there are lots of comedy programmes on, but none of them actually make you laugh out loud. Michael McIntyre's Comedy Roadshow, Outnumbered, Russell Howard's Good News, Rev - all fine programmes, lovingly crafted and brought to you by credible production companies - they make you smile, but they don't actually make you laugh.
The fact is that a good half of this thread comes down to personal taste in comedy; specifically the OP (yours) not matching the majority of what's currently on.
Quote: Aaron @ January 25 2012, 10:26 PM GMTOh yes, and I wonder who could have started that, with the following quote specifically name-checking some of the most popular comedies of the past 3 or 4 years?
The fact is that a good half of this thread comes down to personal taste in comedy; specifically the OP (yours) not matching the majority of what's currently on.
Do you know why I come to a comedy forum to discuss comedy? Because I'm under the impression that true fans of the genre have discernment over what's broadcast and don't fall in line with the dumb downed, less demanding, majority of UK television viewers.
Thank the Lord / Vectron that I have developed a comedy taste that goes beyond Rhod Gilbert shouting about how many togs are in a duvet.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 25 2012, 10:31 PM GMTDo you know why I come to a comedy forum to discuss comedy? Because I'm under the impression that true fans of the genre have discernment over what's broadcast and don't fall in line with the dumb downed, less demanding, majority of UK television viewers.
Thank the Lord / Vectron that I have developed a comedy taste that goes beyond Rhod Gilbert shouting about how many togs are in a duvet.
Perhaps it's incredibly pompous attitudes such as yours that are the ruin of British comedy, posing as they do some kind of divine prescription for making only programmes of an acceptable quality?
Look, there is plenty of room for both ends of the spectrum of comedy. Unfortunately we're only getting a smattering that is pleasing either extreme of taste, and a hell of a lot of pap in the middle that tries to satisfy both and fails. There are many problems in the industry right now, but singling out some of the most highly praised and well loved shows, by fans, critics and the general public alike, hardly helps.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 25 2012, 10:20 PM GMTSo, this debate has turned into a childish - yes it is, no it isn't back and forth - rather then a genuine examination of the declining state of current British comedy?
Great.
That's probably because some people disagree with that bit about '...the declining state of current British comedy.' I like a lot of British comedy of the past few years, which I suppose puts me into the "no it isn't" group.
Come on - you must have foreseen such a possibility coming? 
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 25 2012, 10:15 PM GMTOh I'm sure that did put off some people from watching as it was broadcast, as evidenced by its low opening numbers; if they'd watched though, I think they would have realised all they needed to know was that it featured dicks being dicks; and that's all they had to be familiar with.
But "dicks being dicks" being satirised is funny for a while, possibly the duration of a Fast Show sketch. Past that, you either have to identify with the characters, or see something about the situation that is funny. It's not necessarily about recognition --- even when Dad's Army was first run, few of its audience had first-hand knowledge of the Home Guard, and the world of fashion publishing isn't something everyone has first-hand knowledge of either --- but the characters were sympathetic and the situations were somewhat universal. In Nathan Barley, neither was true, and therefore if you didn't move in the world it portrayed --- and of course, ironically, those that did move in such circles complained its targets were out of date --- it may as well have been set in ancient Assyria for all the resonance it had.
But this is moving from the point: one blemish in the otherwise perfect record of Chris Morris isn't the point being discussed. I think that "oh, I'd be funny if it weren't for compliance" is a lazy excuse: there would be no compliance issues today if in some alternative reality Bilko hadn't been made until 2012, and even if the writers of Episodes managed to convince us that their vision was compromised by committees and compliance, you wouldn't believe them when they claimed that their original vision was funny. Episodes (to choose another car-crash) failed at a basic craftmanship level: it was slackly written, incoherently plotted, over-lit and cut as though the edit suite had been filled to head height with congealing custard. Like Life's Too Short, it relied on the name recognition of the principals, and wouldn't have been made had it been pitched and produced by unknowns. That's happening too much: panel shows filled with the commissioning editors' university mates, and sitcoms founded around the names and the buzz, rather than the craft.
I watched an old episode of The Good Life recently. It's amiable enough, and it's not filled with either edge or endless laughs. But it's competent, in a Tab A into Slot B kind of way. By contrast, not only was Episodes not funny, it wasn't even competent. You can be incompetent if you're funny (although being competent and funny probably even better), but if you're both incompetent and unfunny, it's all a bit depressing. Point to one show of the past few years that is likely to be being watched, and discussed, in ten years' time, never mind the fifty-odd years that Bilko has managed. Hard, isn't it?
Quote: Aaron @ January 25 2012, 10:55 PM GMTLook, there is plenty of room for both ends of the spectrum of comedy. Unfortunately we're only getting a smattering that is pleasing either extreme of taste, and a hell of a lot of pap in the middle that tries to satisfy both and fails. There are many problems in the industry right now, but singling out some of the most highly praised and well loved shows, by fans, critics and the general public alike, hardly helps.
Normally, I would agree with you and in the past, there have been enough gems to eclipse the cack, so it wasn't worth debating. That has not been the case of late.
I think a line has to be drawn in the sand and if nothing is said, then it sends out a message that low brow, unimaginative and dull television comedy fare is the accepted consensual norm and that the fans want more of the same.
Decline of British comedy? Possibly
Take a look at the BBC Comedy commissioning website for what the Beeb channels are looking for when it comes to comedy submissions. It's just box ticking shit. That might be part of the problem.
Quote: Tokyo Nambu @ January 25 2012, 11:04 PM GMTBut "dicks being dicks" being satirised is funny for a while, possibly the duration of a Fast Show sketch. Past that, you either have to identify with the characters, or see something about the situation that is funny.
I absolutely identified and sympathised with Julian Barratt's character.
Quote: the sea squirrel @ January 25 2012, 11:15 PM GMTDecline of British comedy? Possibly
Take a look at the BBC Comedy commissioning website for what the Beeb channels are looking for when it comes to comedy submissions. It's just box ticking shit. That might be part of the problem.
Of course, in 8 months time when nothing remotely adhering to those boxes has even been announced, let alone seen on screen, there'll be people (Alfred J Kipper) moaning about how they tell you what they want then commission something else entirely, and others who (correctly, IMO) see that they're offering some kind of aim as things they think they are missing at present, but ultimately just want funny.
IMO most of the problem is a "too many cooks" scenario. In the 'good old days', Bill Cotton said he wanted something, so put a talented writer and a talented producer together to make it. Now there's umpteen unnamed executives of development and commissioning, writers, producers, executive producers, associate producers, production executives, script executives, commissioning executives at indies, and God knows who else. Far, far too many fingers in the pie.
I picked this programme and this episode completely at random. As far as cast goes it may be a little slimmer than most shows, but look at the list of (key) crew members compared to the creatives: https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/roger_val_have_just_got_in/episodes/1/3/
Compare: https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/fawlty_towers/episodes/2/5/
Quote: Aaron @ January 25 2012, 11:28 PM GMTIMO most of the problem is a "too many cooks" scenario. In the 'good old days', Bill Cotton said he wanted something, so put a talented writer and a talented producer together to make it. Now there's umpteen unnamed executives of development and commissioning, writers, producers, executive producers, associate producers, production executives, script executives, commissioning executives at indies, and God knows who else. Far, far too many fingers in the pie.
Weirdly, I agree with you.