Quote: Tim Walker @ August 19 2009, 1:51 PM BSTWhy do I suspect this thread will not be quoted on next week's BCG newsletter? Anyone would think we're a bunch of failing octagenarians who can only remember the names of 3 old sitcoms in the first place (and only Chappers is anything like that).
Erm, Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses and...oh, what's that other one...
<throws cat in amongst pigeons> http://www.chortle.co.uk/correspondents/2009/09/08/9570/worst_flaw_yet
Dan
Well he's obviously wrong, but, honestly, who gives a f**k what he thinks? (Who gives a f**k what I think, whilst we're at it?) Tells you all you need to know about Chortle though. 
Quote: Jack Massey @ August 18 2009, 9:20 PM BSTI think it isn't showing its age.
I agree.
I agree too. I too agree. As well.
Opinions are like arseholes – everyone has one!
I watched the Basil The Rat episode recently, for the first time in many years, and I was laughing in a way that few modern comedies can make me. There was nothing dated in it, apart from the portrayal of the young toff, and that was no less funny as a result.
Anyone who claims something is "just not funny" is clearly wrong, since we all know humour is not objective.
Quote: Timbo @ August 18 2009, 11:42 PM BSTThe realisation of the character of Basil was the engine of the show - the plots were just there to give him something to respond to.
Isn't that true of any character driven show though?
Quote: Aaron @ September 9 2009, 2:30 PM BSTIsn't that true of any character driven show though?
It is true of any character driven show. You're quite right to say that.
Quote: john lucas 101 @ August 19 2009, 8:35 AM BSTFawlty Towers has held up very well. What hasn't held up at all well, are the Python TV shows. Some of them are almost painful to watch.
Can't argue with that.
Quote: Leevil @ August 19 2009, 10:03 AM BSTWhat's everyone's definition of "not dated" here?
It looks quite cheap and 70s.
Any sitcom of any period is reflective of the time it is made/set. So that's a negligible point. And a lot of the cheapness is to do with the tacky-hotel setting. Which, as you say, is still relevant:
Quote: Leevil @ August 19 2009, 10:03 AM BSTOne of the main jokes is that it's a crappy hotel in Tourquet. Which is still relevant today.
(Torquay*)
For me, something is "dated" when its themes are no longer relevant. Fawlty Towers will have dated when the majority of people in the UK are very sexually liberal and open, and/or when every hotel is swanky 5-star style slickly decorated, corporate style.
Quote: Nogget @ August 19 2009, 11:05 AM BSTDo we know in what way John Cleese contributed to the writing?
If any body gives a f**k what I think 
, I find it entertaining. The fact that I don't have a DVD of it, and I have *lots* of comedy DVDs, suggests that I find it a bit... meh... but not the classic everyone else seems to think it is.
Dan
Quote: youngian @ August 19 2009, 11:22 AM BSTThe amount of great gags, plot and pratfalls crammed into 25 minute episode is amazing and rarely bettered.
Most episodes were actually longer than the alotted 30 minutes.
Quote: Nogget @ August 19 2009, 12:43 PM BSTThose in charge were more assertive, and demanded respect, which showed up as the police being a lot more brutal, and everyone standing up to the national anthem at the end of a film.
That's how it should be!
Quote: chipolata @ August 19 2009, 12:44 PM BSTNicer in that there wasn't an entire underclass weened on benefits with no respect for themselves or anybody else, ready to kick off at the slightest provocation.
You've not heard of the trade unions then?
Quote: Tim Walker @ August 19 2009, 12:51 PM BSTLove to hear how that part should of been played?
should have been* >_<
Quote: Nogget @ August 19 2009, 12:52 PM BSTAnd proper terrorism, not just talk of terrorism which is what we get now. There were bombs all over the place, for a period they were in London every week.
That's why London kept on going through the 7th July 2005 bombings, whilst the Yanks - who funded the IRA - collapsed in a fit of hysteria on 11th September 2001.
Quote: swerytd @ September 9 2009, 2:14 PM BSThttp://www.chortle.co.uk/correspondents/2009/09/08/9570/worst_flaw_yet
Dan
The fool! A bounder; a bounder and a cad!
That article merely highlights his total failure to understand the show. (And his lack of knowledge; neither Cleese nor Booth came up with the 'Fawlty Towers' anagrams. One of the production assistants was charged with that duty.)
His not finding the show funny is fine. (Well, it's subjective, so y'know...) But some of his observations and assertions in the article are just plain codswallop.
Quote: Aaron @ September 9 2009, 3:06 PM BSTshould have been* >_<
Thanks for the correction, though "should of" is acceptable English parlance, even if it is somewhat less aesthetically and linguistically pleasing than "should have".
Accepted only by the ignorant. It's totally incorrect!
Quote: Aaron @ September 9 2009, 4:31 PM BSTAccepted only by the ignorant. It's totally incorrect!
In the 1000-year 4th Reich that is your mind, Aaron, it is indeed. I'm surprised (and disappointed) that it slipped under my personal radar to be honest, as when I hear "should of" used in conversation it makes me wince/whine too.
