British comedy is no longer funny Page 17

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ February 3 2012, 5:22 PM GMT

It's not so much they didn't, it's that they couldn't. No mere mortal just gets to wander into the hallowed halls of the decision makers.

View original

In the case of Noel Fielding, he's been a working comedian for about twenty years, has had hit shows, and has a large fan base in the age group E4 aims at; it would be odder if they DIDN'T want to make something with him. And he got in that position by, like I say, working for twenty years, being a succesful stand up, then double act and making a very popular TV show. If you did all that, channels would be open to making something of yours, too.

And peoples' argument that if a nobody handed something in like that it wouldn't get made, as if that's a sign of a lack of quality, doesn't hold water. Of course if something as odd like that was handed in it probably wouldn't get made, but Fielding has shown it working, shown his schtick works and gets audiences, over and over; this of course leads to trust and a desire to work with him. It reads bonkers, but they've seen and heard it working. It's the same with Reeves And Mortimer; if I wrote a batch of sketches like theirs and handed them in, there's a good chance I'd get nowhere; but they went on stage and SHOWED that it worked, showed that it reached an audience, and so they are given a chance.

Quote: chipolata @ February 3 2012, 5:57 PM GMT

I don't think anyone actually disagrees with you, Renegade, British comedy isn't working at the moment. It is a bit wank.

View original

Apologies Chip, you make a valid point and I was off on my 'one man crusade'. Glad to know I'm not the only one who isn't happy about the current state of British television comedy.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ February 3 2012, 7:10 PM GMT

In the case of Noel Fielding, he's been a working comedian for about twenty years, has had hit shows, and has a large fan base in the age group E4 aims at; it would be odder if they DIDN'T want to make something with him.

And peoples argument that if a nobody handed something in like that it wouldn't get made, as if that's a sign of a lack of quality, doesn't hold water.

View original

Both true and false. The argument is that the same people are doing the same comedy because they are 'stars' and nobody is taking any risks. Luxury Comedy (in my personal view) isn't very good, if the converse had been true, then your point would have been set in stone.

Whether it's Noel Fielding doing what he did 20 years ago or a panel show full of the same faces, it equates to a poor viewing experience for the audience. In this case, familiarity has bred contempt.

By the way, I agree there's not been enough good British made comedy, at least to my tastes, recently.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ February 3 2012, 7:17 PM GMT

By the way, I agree there's not been enough good British made comedy, at least to my tastes, recently.

View original

You are one of the most supportive people when it comes to new shows, so if you're not happy, then something must be wrong.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ February 3 2012, 7:16 PM GMT

In this case, familiarity has bred contempt.

View original

For those of you who don't like it, sure.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ February 3 2012, 7:10 PM GMT

In the case of Noel Fielding, he's been a working comedian for about twenty years, has had hit shows, and has a large fan base in the age group E4 aims at; it would be odder if they DIDN'T want to make something with him. And he got in that position by, like I say, working for twenty years, being a succesful stand up, then double act and making a very popular TV show. If you did all that, channel's would be open to making something of yours, too.

And peoples argument that if a nobody handed something in like that it wouldn't get made, as if that's a sign of a lack of quality, doesn't hold water. Of course if something as odd like that was handed in it probably wouldn't get made, but Fielding has shown it working, shown his schtick works and gets audiences, over and over; this of course leads to trust and a desire to work with him. It reads bonkers, but they're seen and heard it working. It's the same with Reeves And Mortimer; if I wrote a batch of sketches like theirs and handed them in, there's a good chance I'd get nowhere; but they went on stage and SHOWED that it worked, showed that it reached an audience, and so they are given a chance.

View original

This is what I wanted to say, but it came out as 'but ya didn't, didya?'. 'Tagging along on Matthew Stott's post' to the tune of 'Riding along in my automobile'

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ February 3 2012, 7:23 PM GMT

You are one of the most supportive people when it comes to new shows, so if you're not happy, then something must be wrong.

View original

Well, I suppose liking and loving are two separate things; there have been plenty of shows I sort of liked and could watch; but few that I would really love. These days, about 90% of the stuff I love is American.

So what are the possible solutions?

Here's a few ideas.

-Make Newsjack more like Weekending. More episodes a year, more chances for writers to get to know BBC staff, etc.

(I'm not a great fan of either Newsjack or Weekending, to be honest, but at least quite a few decent writers got their break on the latter)

-If you are going to ask the general public to submit sitcom scripts then just say you are currently taking submissions. Tacking a 'star name' like Dawn French on the end makes it look like it's all a bit of a giggle.

(Although if it had been Armando Iannucci as the star judge then I'd have typed my arms into stumps to submit a script)

-If you work in the production side of comedy but have to see a script being performed before making a judgement, then you are part of the problem.

-Move everybody in comedy up to Glasgow.

(Stops typing, folds arms and nods head like Mussolini)

Here is a possible solution -

Choose a head of comedy and all the little commissioning wizards based on their love of comedy.

Not Katie Butler-Volvo who shuffled papers for two years at Avalon before making tea at Hat Trick for six months and then spending nine years as an assistant production manager on Eastenders.

Most of the people in these positions would be better off working for a large bank, not an organisation responsible for entertaining a nation.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ February 3 2012, 5:57 PM GMT

This isn't a thread about art so I won't go too deeply into this, but one of the biggest problems is that the 'man in the street' doesn't understand either good or bad modern art. People who claim that their 3 year old could have done a Hirst spin painting will often happily say the same about a painting by Max Beckmann or even Picasso.

This essentially entirely devalues lay criticism of art.

View original

Isn't it more of a problem that the cognoscenti apparently cannot tell the difference either?

As has been said, modern art seems to come down to front and contacts; that and the perpetual fear of the cognoscenti of being outside of the cognoscenti which gives then a unique faculty for appreciating the Emperor's wardrobe. The latter point at least also seems to apply to Mr. Fielding.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ February 3 2012, 7:51 PM GMT

Choose a head of comedy and all the little commissioning wizards based on their love of comedy.

Not Katie Butler-Volvo who shuffled papers for two years at Avalon before making tea at Hat Trick for six months and then spending nine years as an assistant production manager on Eastenders.

View original

Absolutely spot-on, RC. Bunch of time-serving, know-nothing c**ts they appoint nowadays!

(Er... you wouldn't happen to have Ms Butler-Volvo's email address, would you? Only I've got this new script I'm trying to get read...)

Quote: Timbo @ February 3 2012, 7:55 PM GMT

Isn't it more of a problem that the cognoscenti apparently cannot tell the difference either?

As has been said, modern art seems to come down to front and contacts; that and the perpetual fear of the cognoscenti of being outside of the cognoscenti which gives then a unique faculty for appreciating the Emperor's wardrobe. The latter point at least also seems to apply to Mr. Fielding.

View original

Is it really necessary to insult individuals who happen to like something you don't?

Quote: Tim Walker @ February 3 2012, 8:17 PM GMT

Absolutely spot-on, RC. Bunch of time-serving, know-nothing c**ts they appoint nowadays!

(Er... you wouldn't happen to have Ms Butler-Volvo's email address, would you? Only I've got this new script I'm trying to get read...)

View original

Would be quite the lark if we could organise a sitcom writing competition involving all the comedy commissioners.

Quote: Timbo @ February 3 2012, 7:55 PM GMT

As has been said, modern art seems to come down to front and contacts; that and the perpetual fear of the cognoscenti of being outside of the cognoscenti which gives then a unique faculty for appreciating the Emperor's wardrobe. The latter point at least also seems to apply to Mr. Fielding.

View original

Most retrospectives of modern artists concentrate on the artist and not the artwork. Every art review has pages of bio about the idiosyncratic 'star' but very little about the work.

'My what an interesting sculpture...anyways, tell me about dressing up as a tart you tranny freak...'

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ February 3 2012, 8:49 PM GMT

'My what an interesting sculpture...anyways, tell me about dressing up as a tart you tranny freak...'

View original

Calling a transvestite a freak doesn't help an argument about the merits of modern art

Thinking Grayson Perry is a sculptor when.....he.....is a potter is an even bigger insult.