Quote: Lee Henman @ March 3 2009, 2:03 PM GMTYes. Absolutely spot-on.
I'd like to take issue with that Lee if I may for just one moment...
Not Going Out - Series 3 Page 43
Quote: Lee Henman @ March 3 2009, 2:08 PM GMTYes. Absolutely spot-on.
Talk about putting the "anal" into "analysing". Sorry Mav42, you're obviously very into your comedy but that post REEKS of comedy snobbery.
The word you are looking for is comnobbery.
Quote: Huge Bear @ March 3 2009, 2:09 PM GMTI'd like to take issue with that Lee if I may for just one moment...
And if I may offer a small rebuttal...
Quote: Marc P @ March 3 2009, 2:11 PM GMTThe word you are looking for is comnobbery.
I thought that was the act of masturbating over dirty pics on your computer?
Quote: Martin Holmes @ March 3 2009, 11:59 AM GMTEverybody Loves Raymond is shite. I can assure you Not Going Out is a lot better.
How very dare you!? 
Everybody Loves Raymond is my favourite American sitcom. Not Going Out is 'currently' my favourite British sitcom, but it's not as good as Raymond. It can't be - it doesn't have Frank. 
Quote: Lee Henman @ March 3 2009, 2:08 PM GMTYes. Talk about putting the "anal" into "analysing". Sorry Mav42, you're obviously very into your comedy but that post REEKS of comedy snobbery.
All I've been is frank and honest. I have a huge amount of respect for the way Andrew Collins and Dave Cohen have responded to my criticisms and encouraged the validity of my opinion - so much so that I have taken the time to express myself in a thoughtful and analytical manner.
If I have ever come across as "snobbish" or insulting, that was not my intention - which is more than can be said for some of the replies I have received from members, seemingly incredulous that I dare post such a deconstruction as confidently as one would an appraisal.
I am hardly alone, either. At least two members have agreed wholeheartedly with some of the points I've made, and even fans of the show must see some credit in looking at it from a different, more critical perspective.
Quote: Mav42 @ March 3 2009, 6:22 PM GMTfans of the show must see some credit in looking at it from a different, more critical perspective.
I wouldn't call myself a 'fan', I only watch the show from time to time, but I wouldn't, as a general viewer, feel the need or desire to observe a show from a more critical perspective. Most people who watch just want to be entertained, not to write a thesis on it! 
Quote: Mav42 @ March 3 2009, 6:22 PM GMTAll I've been is frank and honest. I have a huge amount of respect for the way Andrew Collins and Dave Cohen have responded to my criticisms and encouraged the validity of my opinion - so much so that I have taken the time to express myself in a thoughtful and analytical manner.
If I have ever come across as "snobbish" or insulting, that was not my intention - which is more than can be said for some of the replies I have received from members, seemingly incredulous that I dare post such a deconstruction as confidently as one would an appraisal.
I am hardly alone, either. At least two members have agreed wholeheartedly with some of the points I've made, and even fans of the show must see some credit in looking at it from a different, more critical perspective.
I think it is just the use of words like 'deconstruction' that let you down. And when you say people should look at it from 'a different more critical perspective' you mean your own. It's just that really.
But hey I don't like marmite.
I don't agree with a lot of what Mav is saying, but I appreciate his responses, they are nicely written and thought out. I'd much rather read someone analysing comedy in that way, than someone saying for example..."Everybody Loves Raymond is shite"...I mean what is that adding to the discussion?
But seriously, good posts Maz. People who say "comedy shouldn't be analysed" can hop it, that is disrespectul to the art of comedy. People anaylse drama and comedy, I think is much harder to write and get right than drama.
Quote: Martin Holmes @ March 3 2009, 9:01 PM GMTPeople who say "comedy shouldn't be analysed" can hop it, that is disrespectul to the art of comedy.
Well us comedy geeks/writers can analyse if we like, I mean the general viewing public or show fans shouldn't be expected to bring anything else to the table other than their laughter. And not everyone on here is a writer/totally anal, some do just want to watch something that makes them laugh.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ March 3 2009, 9:22 PM GMTWell us comedy geeks/writers can analyse if we like, I mean the general viewing public or show fans shouldn't be expected to bring anything else to the table other than their laughter. And not everyone on here is a writer/totally anal, some do just want to watch something that makes them laugh.
Aw, I do so agree.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ March 3 2009, 9:22 PM GMTWell us comedy geeks/writers can analyse if we like, I mean the general viewing public or show fans shouldn't be expected to bring anything else to the table other than their laughter. And not everyone on here is a writer/totally anal, some do just want to watch something that makes them laugh.
Oh definitely I agree on that point. But this is a comedy forum, so good comedy discussion should be encouraged. Otherwise it would just be boring if it was post after post of "I liked that"..."I didn't like that" and so on.
I've found this thread one of the most interesting I've read on here for some time.
Maz, you've put your thoughts across well - even if I don't agree with some of them. Fair play to you.
I laugh when I find something funny.
It's easy to criticise any show though isn't it ?
Only Fools & Horses had a lot of old jokes shoe horned in, but you'd forgive it because you liked it.
I just like NGO because it's refreshing & really goes for the funny bone.
I wouldn't like every sitcom to have the same style and I like watching a variety.
There's room for all different types of show, even that unfunny one with Horgan & Mangan.
When Lee H mentions putting the "anal" into "analysing" and that Mav's posts 'REEKS of comedy snobbery' it's no use Mav then wailing for sympathy with "but all - (ALL) - I've been is frank and honest", when in fact he starts off his original post with a pompous and snobby: "This has got to be the most overrated programme on here", followed by an equally even and fair-handed: "The characters are absolutely abysmal", and doesn't let up from there on in, as if he is the sole arbitrator of objectivity. Why, what fools we've all been not to see that - those of us who thus far who have laughed like a drain at NGO.
And how facetious of Mav to then suggest that in posting our enjoyment of NGO we've failed to recognise its shortcomings and have wait for it, 'overrated' it.
But hang on, all is not lost, because as that sole possessor of objectivity Mav will now fill you in with a deconstruction as to why, chapter and verse, you shouldn't laugh SO MUCH at such a sitcom.
And so he wonders why some posters then compare his analysis to that of anal retentiveness when, as he claims, 'I was only being frank and honest'.
Yeah right. As in: I can be frank and honest but don't any of you positive NGO posters dare try it, all you're good for is overrating things, and aren't the writers of the show such good fellows to accept my hints and tips. They hadn't a clue where they were going wrong, you know, until I pointed it out to them; that's why: "I have a huge amount of respect for the way Andrew Collins and Dave Cohen have responded to my criticisms and encouraged the validity of my opinion".
- Never let it be said that Mav overrates his OWN opinions.