Quote: Nat Wicks @ December 15 2010, 11:57 AM GMTI think there's a bit of a difference there.
I'd hoped you wouldn't notice. 
Frankie Boyle's Tramadol Nights Page 20
I'm super sharp, y'see. Nothing gets past me.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ December 13 2010, 1:06 PM GMTYeah, like there are loads of strategic and important points that you've made over the years that I've misunderstood...
Oh, right... well, f**k you too then... 
Quote: Will Cam @ December 14 2010, 11:01 PM GMTThat's only the second post you have made in the last 2 years so you obviously feel pretty strong about this huh?
I wonder who your death wish will be on when you return in 2013
Hmmm...I'm not sure really. I don't usually wish ill health or death on people I dislike, but I think it would be quite fitting for something bad to happen to Mr. Boyle.
For the reasons described very eloquently by Tim Walker on Page 2 of this thread, my opinion of Frankie Boyle is that he's a very nasty piece of work.
I don't like Jordan
A few weeks back, I was driving behind Katie Price on the A23, she was towing a PINK horse box.
Lot of fuss, innit? Why not just sit Harvey in the passenger seat?
I'm one of the few people on here who don't hate the show. He does seem to be trying too hard to shock at times and the sketches are overlong, but some parts make me laugh very hard e.g. the sex obsessed son.
Some day I will walk up to Frankie, call him a fat wobbling freckle and steal his wallet. It's the Glasgae way. >_<
Unless I missed it (and no doubt if I have I'll soon be corrected), I haven't noticed many comedians lining up to defend Frankie Boyle's choice of targets and material during the current "uproar". Normally comedians are falling over each other to be the first to defend the right of their fellow performers to tell jokes which may offend some people, whilst decrying the rabid excesses of the right-wing tabloids.
But it's all strangely silent on that front with Mr FB's Tramadol Nights.
So what can we conclude about FB's peers? Are they...
a) keeping their mouths shut due to their (or their management's) fears of appearing guilty by association?
b) ...in which case they're also spineless and possibly hypocritical?
c) secretly jealous of FB's material and, whilst envious of the publicity he's garnering, also quite pleased at the spotlight being focused elsewhere?
d) quietly cursing FB and the fact that this will just mean further media pressure on all the TV networks to censor and moderate their comedy output - (which means their upcoming shows may suffer directly because of an increasing fear culture inside TV comedy)?
e) saying nothing because at heart they also think that FB is a bit of nasty c**t who's over-stepped the mark? They may also be quietly analysing where they happen to draw the line in terms of their own material?
(or f) various combinations of the above)
A good little blog from Mark Watson...
http://www.markwatsonthecomedian.com/web/2010/04/11/a-light-hearted-look-at-downs-syndrome/
(Note: the above piece was written back in April, around the time of the incident involving the parent of a Down's Syndrome at one of Frankie Boyle's live shows.)
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 16 2010, 1:31 AM GMTNormally comedians are falling over each other to be the first to defend the right of their fellow performers to tell jokes which may offend some people, whilst decrying the rabid excesses of the right-wing tabloids.
But it's all strangely silent on that front with Mr FB's Tramadol Nights.
So what can we conclude about FB's peers? Are they...
Quite a bit of (e) although not offended enough to jump on a f**k wit media bandwagon that is off on one every other week about what some comedian said.
We all draw our own taste lines but Chris Morris's paedophile Brass Eye special or Jimmy Carr's disabled Afghan veterans paraplegic Olympic team joke were great bad taste jokes with bite that upset all the right targets.
Being a pointless annoying C-list celebrity like Heather Mills or Katie Price doesn't seem to me a good enough reason to make puerile nasty remarks about people's disabilities (especially about their off-spring).
In a similar vein most of the Mock the Week crowd are completely out of their depth with political satire so lets do jokes about David Blunkett as he's a politician and is bad so it's then OK to take the piss out of blind people.
The golden rule (for me) is that comedy should not hurt innocent people. Note I say 'should not' and not 'must not'.
If the funniness of a joke outweighs its offensiveness, it's a goer: if it doesn't, it's not.
To my mind, Heather Mills is a worthy target for NUCLEAR attack by comedians and Katie Price deserves any sub-nuclear assault that comes her way - and that includes jokes that Harvey will never know about.
Down's Syndrome sufferers and their families are a very different matter. I've never written or performed material on that topic and I believe I never will. Some people have enough on their plates, thank you very much.
Are such jokes ever acceptable? Certainly not on TV or radio (imo) but performed by a comedian renowned for offensive material before a private audience well-aware of his reputation for shock tactics? I'd sigh and give it a somewhat reluctant 'okay'.
We have, I believe, also to ask ourselves what we might reasonably EXPECT Frankie to do when, having done a Down's joke, he's confronted by a Down's child's mother sitting in the front row.
Does he apologise? Possibly, but we can't reasonably expect that. Or does he brazen it out and perhaps even turn up the heat? I think that's what I'd expect and that's what people who pay to see him be shocking expect too. Under the circumstances, I don't think we can blame him for doing just that.
Frankie Boyle's jokes have seen him more than once teetering on the edge of disaster but, for me, (Down's Syndrome jokes excluded) he's funnier than he is offensive.
Quote: Veronica Vestibule @ December 16 2010, 11:37 AM GMTIf the funniness of a joke outweighs its offensiveness, it's a goer: if it doesn't, it's not.
Agree with that 100%. But I also have to consider intention as well. For me, I can hear the exact same joke told by two people and be offended by one and not the other, based on my perception of their intent.
Ah yes Sootyj's olden golden rule.
Intent beats content
I think also personalisation makes the whole thing so much harder. I mean what ever you think about Jordan, Harvey hasn't hurt anyone or done anything.
And has our persistent hammering of politicians made being a politician a disreputable job? Has our mockery lead to our current crop of soulless political jobsworths on both sides of the house?
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 16 2010, 1:31 AM GMTUnless I missed it (and no doubt if I have I'll soon be corrected), I haven't noticed many comedians lining up to defend Frankie Boyle's choice of targets and material during the current "uproar". Normally comedians are falling over each other to be the first to defend the right of their fellow performers to tell jokes which may offend some people, whilst decrying the rabid excesses of the right-wing tabloids.
But it's all strangely silent on that front with Mr FB's Tramadol Nights.
So what can we conclude about FB's peers? Are they...
a) keeping their mouths shut due to their (or their management's) fears of appearing guilty by association?
b) ...in which case they're also spineless and possibly hypocritical?
c) secretly jealous of FB's material and, whilst envious of the publicity he's garnering, also quite pleased at the spotlight being focused elsewhere?
d) quietly cursing FB and the fact that this will just mean further media pressure on all the TV networks to censor and moderate their comedy output - (which means their upcoming shows may suffer directly because of an increasing fear culture inside TV comedy)?
e) saying nothing because at heart they also think that FB is a bit of nasty c**t who's over-stepped the mark? They may also be quietly analysing where they happen to draw the line in terms of their own material?
(or f) various combinations of the above)
Very much.
From the few industry comments I have seen, this is the situation where the right and left meet. The tabloids in their outrage that this can be available uncensored, and the wet liberals in their outrage that people are allowed to say things that they find offensive.
I also read an interesting opinion piece yesterday that made some great points, but also criticised apparently 'right-wing' (or rather, just not-easily-offended) people for liking Tramadol Nights and for trying to get others to like it, whilst in almost the same breath criticising the likes of Manning and Davidson and their fans. Perhaps the piece had been edited down to such, but still a perplexing "I can't take it but I'll happily give it" stance.
Quote: sootyj @ December 16 2010, 12:08 PM GMTHarvey hasn't hurt anyone.
And no joke has ever hurt HIM.
That's what makes the jokes acceptable to me.
If he were a child of 'normal mind' who had to endure his schoolmates' taunts following the infamous jokes, I'd happily put a gun to Frankie's head mySELF.
Quote: Veronica Vestibule @ December 16 2010, 1:58 PM GMTIf he were a child of 'normal mind' who had to endure his schoolmates' taunts following the infamous jokes, I'd happily put a gun to Frankie's head mySELF.
Not that anyone of his age should be watching such a programme of course, 'normal mind' or not.