Quote: sootyj @ December 30 2012, 6:12 PM GMTIt's interesting how the really progressive gay sitcoms only happened in the 90s.
1979's Agony was the first TV comedy to portray gay people as people.
Out of interest, does anybody have any idea just how many people who win BBC competitions go on to do anything with it?
I was looking at a few BBC stand-up winners from years past and the feeling I got was that winning a comp changes the odds of 'making it' from 0.001% to 5%
Am I right?
It's not guaranteed, but it puts you in the zone.
That sounded a bit Tom Cruise.
Just checked wiki you were right. How odd, I always thought it was Will and Grace.
So were they central characters or ancilliary?
Quote: Jinky @ December 30 2012, 8:21 PM GMT1979's Agony was the first TV comedy to portray gay people as people.
Out of interest, does anybody have any idea just how many people who win BBC competitions go on to do anything with it?
I was looking at a few BBC stand-up winners from years past and the feeling I got was that winning a comp changes the odds of 'making it' from 0.001% to 5%
Am I right?
Soap began in 1977. And your figures suggest you improve your chances (of whatever) by a factor of 5000.
Well Soap was always controversial and taboo reversing.
And were these central characters to the narrative.
Will was the first actual lead.
It's easy to forget how late in the day gay acceptance came.
Have you forgotten? Clause 4 and Philadelphia?
Quote: Lazzard @ December 30 2012, 10:45 AM GMTTo you, possibly.
The other 95% of the audience would wonder why there was a bloke dressed as a woman with no one making any gags about it.
It's too major an element for it not to be the sole focus of attention.
Yeah. That's what I meant. It would feel wierd for it to have no bearing.
Sorry ponderer you're cricket question had me stumped, it was quite a sticky wicket, I was left Gowering at the computer, as I Kahn think of any cricket puns, I wanted to write some bollocks but it was all boxed in, I wanted to get you to crease up, it would have been wicket if I'df thought of one, but I was bowled over and out by the challenge.
Although I'm not sure that names isn't cheating.
In think I'm leaving this thread as several things you said in your recent posts made perfect sense to me. In particular amen to the sub-associoation/union thing - plays right into the divide and conquer approach of this present government.
That's it, I'm off to tweak the crimson rambler.
So agreeing with the sootyj is scary enough to make you run off?
I am not sure about the other issues but puns are quite fun aren't they???
Yeh don't mess with the puns.
Pretty much! I start to worry when I think I understand what you're saying and give up altogether when it seems coherent and insightful. 
Ooops. I was replying to a couple of posts up.
Ouch my emotions!
Quote: Jella @ December 30 2012, 5:39 PM GMTLook at comedy of the 60s and 70s and it's easy to see why this competition is needed.
Just look at this thread and it's easy to see why this competition is needed!
Anyway, Michelle wins the thread for being a Louis CK fan. 
I'm a little bit puzzled by all the anger on this thread! Isn't this an opportunity for writers? It's only condition seems to be it portray transgender people in a positive way. It's odd to suggest it only for or only aimed at transgender people, that's just silly. I don't think Father Ted is just aimed at catholic priests or Fawlty Towers aimed at hotel owners.
If you don't like the conditions of the competition don't enter it. I don't see how anyone can suggest this favours transgender people, it favours ( as all writing competitions do ) good writers. Some people won't enter this because they have no experience or knowledge of transgender issues... Some will enter for the same reason. I don't think it's unheard of for writers to write about things, of which, they have no direct experience... Some going as far as using their imaginations I believe.
I'd agree there is something quite disturbing and wrong about positive or affirmative action ( or whatever it's called nowadays ) wrong: not because it still exists but that it still NEEDS to exist.
Good luck to everyone who makes the effort to write something for this.
Quote: Sinon @ December 31 2012, 12:33 AM GMTI'm a little bit puzzled by all the anger on this thread! Isn't this an opportunity for writers? It's only condition seems to be it portray transgender people in a positive way. It's odd to suggest it only for or only aimed at transgender people, that's just silly. I don't think Father Ted is just aimed at catholic priests or Fawlty Towers aimed at hotel owners.
If you don't like the conditions of the competition don't enter it. I don't see how anyone can suggest this favours transgender people, it favours ( as all writing competitions do ) good writers. Some people won't enter this because they have no experience or knowledge of transgender issues... Some will enter for the same reason. I don't think it's unheard of for writers to write about things, of which, they have no direct experience... Some going as far as using their imaginations I believe.
I'd agree there is something quite disturbing and wrong about positive or affirmative action ( or whatever it's called nowadays ) wrong: not because it still exists but that it still NEEDS to exist.
Good luck to everyone who makes the effort to write something for this.
This, I agree with.
Apart from the bit about this being positive discrimination?
Its not there aren't literally hundreds of comedy awards out there. I know I keep repeating myself...but in the grand scheme of things this comp is not a sign that the white male conedy writer is in trouble.