Quote: Ming the Mirthless @ December 11 2009, 10:21 PM GMTI bet you love "Carry On Columbus".
I prefer Carry On Up The Khyber.
Big Top critical and forum reaction Page 7
Quote: Marc P @ December 11 2009, 10:52 PM GMTStopped reading there, but you know, thanks for joining in.
Why? The thread is not about Big Top it is about Michael's blog which was not specific to Big Top.
Your white charger seems higher than usual tonight, you might want to climb down.
Quote: Marc P @ December 11 2009, 10:52 PM GMTI am no jim field Tim but have a read of this and see how in the court of silly comments you might have to defend yourself. FFS laying the blame!!!!
When you have a cast like John Thomson, Amanda Holden, Tony Robinson, etc. and the show is still very poor, who is to blame? The producer, the director, the set designer?
This is a chicken and egg situation - the BBC are using the excuse that because it's an early evening show designed for a family audience that by default, it must be poorly written, the jokes sign posted and the humour as bland as possible.
As others have pointed out, if anyone of us 'wannbes' had submitted an identical script to Writers Room, it would have been sent back almost immediately.
For MJ to suggest that 'aspiring comedy writers' slated Big Top out of motivations of jealousy or cynacism is total bull. The overwhelming purpose of the BCG is to celebrate the best in British comedy - and by gum, we do, in spades.
I pay £120 a year for my License Fee and if I don't pay it, I go to jail, so with a vested financial interest in the corporation, I am well within my rights to call foul if a programme doesn't reach a certain level of expectation.
Churning out crap which wouldn't have been funny 30 years ago is beyond reprehensible. The Beeb knew they were sitting on a turd and in these cash strapped times, they had to put it out.
They attempted to bury it on a Wednesday night with a minimum of fanfare, but being British comedy fans, we sought it out and watched it from beginning to end. We felt that as both writers and viewers that we had been terribly let down and vented our ire thusly.
If MJ doesn't want to hear this kind of criticism, then he can simply put out a better product. That's what other corporations do.
Well said RC.
*When Renegade starts to become the voice of reason we know that anything is possible.
Quote: Marc P @ December 11 2009, 10:52 PM GMTYou and the typist get together Tim, But no. We're ok thanks.
OK... 
I was (admittedly not very well) being ironic, Marc. No-one from the BBC would either want or value a script critique from myself - and quite rightly too. Also, the point was that this is the alternative to snobbish writers just slating a show without constructive criticism. 
Quote: Marc P @ December 11 2009, 10:52 PM GMTI am no jim field Tim but have a read of this and see how in the court of silly comments you might have to defend yourself. FFS laying the blame!!!!
Er... right. I was merely trying to point out that the script that gets to screen isn't necessarily a script that the writer is perfectly happy with.
Quote: Griff @ December 11 2009, 11:09 PM GMTCrikey Marc have you been out for a nip of that new Norfolk whisky? You're feistier than a female lead in a sitcom pitch this evening
Marc Peirson's Speech To The Writers' Guild 2009
"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more!"
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2009, 8:33 PM GMTWhat do MJ and 2Christian Typists do when we mere forum comedy 'snobs' fall all over ourselves to praise a BBC sitcom?
Do they sit back in their leather recliners wiping away the accumulated sperm, foundation and coke dust from their faces
Not cool.
Quote: Aaron @ December 12 2009, 12:02 AM GMTNot cool.
Yeah, but kind of funny, unlike a certain BBC show. Hey, at least I didn't use the C-word, so there goes my career at writing Channel 4 sitcoms.
Oh and I'd like to apologise for tarring television writers and executives with the same stereotypical brush.
Who knows? In future they might return the favour. But I doubt it.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 12 2009, 12:05 AM GMTYeah, but kind of funny
Or, in fact, bitter and resentful.
I suppose one of the other outstanding questions from MJ's blog and all this reaction is "Why can't BBC One make great pre-watershed comedy anymore?". It used to be able to. They're able to in the US. The BBC has no major problems creating really good shows post-watershed, especially on other channels.
Other than long-running staple My Family, what are the reasons the Beeb can't get it right anymore? This is one area where I would suggest it's least likely to be the fault of writers. One of the major issues might be the rise of the cult of the demographic. Demographic should be a dirty word in comedy, but down BBC One Street it seems to have too much influence.
I'd like to read more from Frantically - great post, apart from the misplayed gag at the end. I hope that doesn't detract from the rest of it, which I thought was spot on.
Quote: Badge @ December 12 2009, 1:05 AM GMTI'd like to read more from Frantically - great post, apart from the misplayed gag at the end. I hope that doesn't detract from the rest of it, which I thought was spot on.
Agreed. 
Danny Peak is a very good writer and I did laugh out loud once in the first episode (When the Patrick Baladi character said he couldn't sleep because of a clown dropping his trousers in his face. Female clown: "It's not really something you want to see on a first date, is it? Though I saw it on our first date...") but the setting fights against the show. A sitcom set in a circus is just a bit naff. Circuses are magical, transforming, inspiring and sexy environments - in literature and in our minds. But not in the UK in 2009. The only way this show could work is if it was set in the past.
I'd mostly agree with that. Another major problem was that there was absolutely no proper interaction or sense of relationship between the characters. They were just actors in costumes saying lines.
Perhaps the solution to all of this is to only post about the sitcoms/comedies one enjoys? Wouldn't make for any kind of representative threads, of course, but if people's feelings are that easily bruised by some negative criticism from strangers on the internet then...? (And remember, as RC said, these are people who are interested enough in comedy to bother to watch all these shows in the first place.)
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 12 2009, 1:50 AM GMTI'd mostly agree with that. Another major problem was that there was absolutely no proper interaction or sense of relationship between the characters. They were just actors in costumes saying lines.
Perhaps the solution to all of this is to only post about the sitcoms/comedies one enjoys? Wouldn't make for any kind of representative threads, of course, but if people's feelings are that easily bruised by some negative criticism from strangers on the internet then...? (And remember, as RC said, these are people who are interested enough in comedy to bother to watch all these shows in the first place.)
Alternatively, Michael could just not read the reviews on the BCG. Don't really know what he was hoping would happen by moaning about 'snobbish aspiring comedy writers' anyway. They're not the ones who decide whether things are popular or not and surely that is ultimately what should matter to him the most. *shrugs shoulders*
Quote: Aaron @ December 12 2009, 12:17 AM GMTOr, in fact, bitter and resentful.
Which is often very funny.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 12 2009, 1:32 AM GMTDanny Peak is a very good writer and I did laugh out loud once in the first episode (When the Patrick Baladi character said he couldn't sleep because of a clown dropping his trousers in his face. Female clown: "It's not really something you want to see on a first date, is it? Though I saw it on our first date...") but the setting fights against the show. A sitcom set in a circus is just a bit naff. Circuses are magical, transforming, inspiring and sexy environments - in literature and in our minds. But not in the UK in 2009. The only way this show could work is if it was set in the past.
Godot are you 7 or something? Circuses are full of morose alcoholic clowns on the sex offenders list, abused animals wishing for death and illegal immigrants falling off of things.
Actually in that respect circuses are just like Luton.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 11 2009, 11:22 PM GMTWhen you have a cast like John Thomson, Amanda Holden, Tony Robinson, etc. and the show is still very poor, who is to blame? The producer, the director, the set designer?
This is a chicken and egg situation - the BBC are using the excuse that because it's an early evening show designed for a family audience that by default, it must be poorly written, the jokes sign posted and the humour as bland as possible.
As others have pointed out, if anyone of us 'wannbes' had submitted an identical script to Writers Room, it would have been sent back almost immediately.
For MJ to suggest that 'aspiring comedy writers' slated Big Top out of motivations of jealousy or cynacism is total bull. The overwhelming purpose of the BCG is to celebrate the best in British comedy - and by gum, we do, in spades.
I pay £120 a year for my License Fee and if I don't pay it, I go to jail, so with a vested financial interest in the corporation, I am well within my rights to call foul if a programme doesn't reach a certain level of expectation.
Churning out crap which wouldn't have been funny 30 years ago is beyond reprehensible. The Beeb knew they were sitting on a turd and in these cash strapped times, they had to put it out.
They attempted to bury it on a Wednesday night with a minimum of fanfare, but being British comedy fans, we sought it out and watched it from beginning to end. We felt that as both writers and viewers that we had been terribly let down and vented our ire thusly.
If MJ doesn't want to hear this kind of criticism, then he can simply put out a better product. That's what other corporations do.
I couldn't agree more with you on this if you were Alan Moore. The BBC produces a lot of populist nonsesnse that ITV and other private companies do perfectly well without a massive and rather iniquitous tax.
People will always want to watch something easy after a long day and not everyone wants to be challenged by their TV. To use this as an excuse not to bother, is lazy and disningenuos. Fawlty Towers and Monty Python also got big viewing figures.
Populist doesn't have to mean poor.