But if that is the case, then the badness of the three he watched turned him off and who could blame him for thinking this was typical?
Deterioration of comedy over the years Page 3
Me.
Trying three things is not enough to label everything rubbish. Not when you know perfectly well there are hundreds of things still out there to try!
How many channels are there today? (I don't know, I've never had satellite or cable TV).
But say there are 100 channels: is there anywhere near 100 decent contemporary (not repeats) comedy shows amongst that lot? I seriously doubt it: compare this with the old 3-channel days; there was at least a handful of shows worth watching each week on each of the channels.
Yes, there was definitely dross in the old days. But how much dross is there among the multi-channels today? Is quantity really better than quality, regarding comedy output? Not to me.
If there are 200 channels today, there is even less chance of there being 200 decent comedy shows!
True comedy talent is pretty rare: enough to cover a handful of channels maybe, but even the good stuff and 'quality' channels are being polluted by a never-ending influx of low-grade material, which is lowering overall standards, seemingly on a permanent basis.
Yes, there are loads of average or talentless writers and performers, and their work is being widely screened today! Good luck to these bozos and charlatans...the channels are free to screen this material if they wish, but I ain't watching it! This pinpoints exactly why ratings have plummeted since the advent of multichannel TV. But is this approach improving overall standards of comedy? I rest my case!
Young people watching today's material probably won't mind (in the main) if they have never known anything else...but comedy today is not as impressive or well-written and performed as it could be, which is a direct result of the multichannel phenomenon.
The main difference today is that substandard material has become the 'new mainstream', where at one time it would have been silently dropped by embarrassed schedulers, unlike today, where mediocrity is hailed as 'genius' by more easily-impressed audiences.
There is no going back to the old days: substandard dross is here to stay - and will remain a central staple permanently - let's face it. As TV technology has evolved, comedy standards and quality have DEVOLVED in relation: it's quite natural, and shouldn't be surprising.
There is no way that a so-so show like Come Fly With Me would have been regarded as a flagship comedy show by ITV back in the 60s or 70s, much less by the BBC. This lacklustre and routine format and concept would have been summarily dismissed as below-par and unimpressive.
Within the confines of today's lower standards, this show works well. But that's about the size of it.
Quote: lummycorks @ February 3 2011, 6:27 PM GMTThankyou Charlie Boy! Somebody thinks the same as me!
Finally, someone who agrees with me!
Quote: His Own Devices @ February 4 2011, 12:07 AM GMTI agree 100% that most, if not all comedy shows now are rubbish.
I think what you mean to say is 'I don't like comedy'; because the idea that all shows now are rubbish is just silly and untrue.
I feel a bit sorry for people who are so blinkered that they refuse point blank to accept there is good comedy about nowadays. I love a lot of old comedies but I also love the thrill of seeing something fresh and new. And frankly, if you can't appreciate current shows like Peep Show, The Thick Of It, Modern Family or 30 Rock then you know bugger all about comedy. 
Quote: Griff @ February 4 2011, 9:40 AM GMTI'm not sure why somebody who says "all comedy is rubbish" would bother posting on a comedy forum, except for mischief.
Sometimes, Griff, I get the impression you don't give the BCG and its members the respect they deserve.
Quote: Griff @ February 4 2011, 9:43 AM GMTAs my Dad always used to say "people have to EARN respect". He didn't last long at the Samaritans.
OK, as my last post seems to have caused controversy, I will rephrase myself. I said that MOST if not all comedies are bad. Keyword, MOST. I think panel shows and stand up is OK, but there are more bad sitcoms and sketch shows now than there are good. Also, on a slightly personal note, you all seemed to only focus on the first sentence, so I can't help but wonder if any of you had read the whole thing.
We have to respond to every word of a post now?
That's gonna take a long time.
Quote: His Own Devices @ February 4 2011, 12:47 PM GMTAlso, on a slightly personal note, you all seemed to only focus on the first sentence, so I can't help but wonder if any of you had read the whole thing.
I read the rest of the post, you listed some old shows you regard as good, and then said you don't rate the writing of modern shows. I could do a similar list of great shows that have been made in the last twelve months, all of which showcase some great writing.
There is perhaps one area of comedy overall, which may not be worse (although what's worse or better is entirely down to personal taste) but it's certainly lazier.
"And where's that then Blenky?" I hear you ask. Well it's none other than the mainstream sketch show of today.
In the old days you had shows like Not The Nine O'Clock News, for example, that had perhaps twelve sketches throughout the half hour, all of them different in character, subject matter and crucially punchline. And then, and I know this is hard to believe, the writers went and wrote another twelve totally different sketches for each of the subsequent, in some cases, ten or twelve weeks. Just imagine that, mental weren't they?
If only they'd have been aware of the modern take on the same subject these days which seems to be something along the following lines.
"What, write 120 different sketches for a series? Eff that for a game of soldiers"
So what we get is a run of six weeks padded out, by and large, with the same six effing jokes week after effing week. They don't even bother their arses writing 12 because they can double the six they have written in each episode.
Writers today? 'appen they don't know they're born some of them.
Quote: His Own Devices @ February 4 2011, 12:47 PM GMTOK, as my last post seems to have caused controversy, I will rephrase myself. I said that MOST if not all comedies are bad. Keyword, MOST.
But MOST of everything is bad - be it music, movies, books or anything else. It's always been that way, comedy included.
That aside, the breakdown in your argument comes from the simple fact that you fail to recognise a simple thing called "taste". You bang on that contemporary shows are bad as though your voice is the only one that matters. As though your opinion is the yardstick by which all others must be measured. You gnash and wail like a man with an iron-clad conviction that you don't have an accent, it's everybody else that does.
The fact is that you don't much like some recent comedy you've seen (which sounds like a pretty shitty sample going by the examples you've listed). For those prepared to dig a little deeper, there's some great stuff out there. At least many think so and so do I. Like I say, it's all about interpretation. To say "new comedy is bad" is like saying "old comedy is bad" - it's confusing opinion for truth.
Stop pretending to be wise, Bussell you ballbag.
Quote: Nat Wicks @ February 4 2011, 2:21 PM GMTStop pretending to be wise, Bussell you ballbag.
I swear to Christ I will scoop out your womb and make an ashtray out of it.