Close
Vivienne Vyle Show
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mike88 said:
Anyone know what has happened to this as I keep reading about this and have seen air dates but nothing has come about yet.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I believe it's supposed to be shown this summer along with Hyperdrive. It was in the daily mirror's summer previews alongside BBC's Jekyll drama and a couple of other shows.
Here's a pic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/entertainment_enl_1166008172/img/1.jpg
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mike88 said:
Cheers just I'd heard winter 06 and spring 07.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I was thinking of Ade Edmondson when I first saw this thread. I'm not to keen on him, although I like Eddie & Vivienne, but compared to the mighty Rik Mayall.
Anyway back on topic.
"I know nothing.... I am from Barcelona."
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I think I saw tickets to it fairly recently. Don't quote me on that though. (Someone will now.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Tempted.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I thought you would be the primary contender.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mike88 said:
When Jennifer Saunders was on This Morning in Feb (I Think) she and Fern were talking about it cos Fern is in the pilot and I could have sworn Jen said April or May start. Maybe I heard wrong either that was was put back to summer.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mike88 said:
What's happened to it now?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mike88 said:
God wish this would hurry up and air.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
It wasn't mentioned in the BBC autumn press pack which makes me think it's been postponed... a sign that its not very good?!? Either that or they're holding it for the peak Christmas schedule?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mike88 said:
I emailed the BBC and got the following response
"There is not currently a broadcast date for the 'Life and Times of Viviienne
Vyle'."
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
So it is really, really bad then.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Or they want to hold it over until Christmas, but who knows?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David H said:
I thought this was absolutely dreadful. God it was bad! Can anyone point out which bits were the comedy 'cause I think I missed them. You had Miranda Richardson playing Joanna Lumley's character in Ab Fab, Saunders doing her usual demanding role, the girl from Lead Balloon playing the same role she played in that. It's such a hard thing to describe because there was nothing to it. She really does produce irritating pieces of work.
Where are the jokes?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
I'll start with the positive - the ending with the frozen sperm wasn't bad. It even raised a smile. And there's another thing, a strange paradox: anyone else find Jennifer Saunders less annoying in the role of someone who is supposed to be annoying than she is in her other roles?
The rest of it seemed to be a heavy-handed satire of something that even the lamest school revue could satire just as (or more) effectively. What astounding insight! With no funny bits as well. And scandalously unrealistic audience reactions in the studio to the antics on the TV show.
By the way, what happened to Miranda Richardson's talent? Was it on a long holiday during the shoot, or has it gone for good?
And per-lease! She's called Vyle. Geddit? Oh God. Pass the sick bag. No, it's full already.
I didn't like it, in case you were wondering.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Bad dog said:
This is so bad they should keep the other episodes on the shelf and not show them. This is entertainment made by a society that's dying.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Maybe this should be nominated for the 'sitcoms that need a dvd release' so it can go straight to dvd and off tv.
Actually, I found some parts quite funny. Miranda talking to her own child in Spanish because she's always with an au pair was quite original. I'll give it another watch as the first episode is always trying to set the scene.
Believe it or not i was expecting it to be worse but I thought Saunders played the role well.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, johnny roulette said:
i only caught the last ten minutes but it didn't seem like a comedy. it was just jennifer saunders being rude to people randomly. i couldn't really work out what was going on.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
I'm going to agree with everyone else on this, it's pretty bad. A limp script and performances that were phoned in. I neither liked nor cared for the characters, and found my attention wandering after ten minutes. Worse, I kept thinking how well Armando Iaanucci or Chris Morris could have dealt with the same subject (in fact, wasn't there a sketch in Brass Eye where Chris Morris played a confessional talkshow host?).
The other problem I had with it that Jeremy Kyle is practically a parody as it is, and far funnier to watch. My prediction is dwindling viewing figures and no second series.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Have to say I didnt really mind this, I quite enjoyed it in fact. Quite low key, but amusing; and I really like the bit where she says something like she doesnt have that sort of huge ego, as she walks past a wall and stairs covered with a giant picture of her face. I think this could be the kind of thing that isnt throwing gags in your face, so you find yourself getting more and more into as the series progresses. So a half decent first episode, Ill wait to see how it develops before damning it. Saunders isnt one of my comedy heroes or anything, but I definitely get the sense, after using this site for a while, that a good portion of the people on here just hate her!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Wildjesusfishkid said:
Quote: Matthew Stott @ October 5, 2007, 11:21 AMHave to say I didnt really mind this, I quite enjoyed it in fact. Quite low key, but amusing; and I really like the bit where she says something like she doesnt have that sort of huge ego, as she walks past a wall and stairs covered with a giant picture of her face. I think this could be the kind of thing that isnt throwing gags in your face, so you find yourself getting more and more into as the series progresses. So a half decent first episode, Ill wait to see how it develops before damning it. Saunders isnt one of my comedy heroes or anything, but I definitely get the sense, after using this site for a while, that a good portion of the people on here just hate her!
View original
I agree with Matt. Suck it and see.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I liked it. It was a slow, low key drama comedy more than the sitcom I was expecting. It reminded me a lot of Sensitive Skin.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Yeah, I thought it was better than Jam & J. But that's not really a compliment. I think it shows the diversity of sitcom's these days. You got your gag-a-minute Not Going Out at one end and this at the other. As someone who likes story I found it watchable. Again, its not been made to be a gag-a-minute sitcom, but there are laughs there.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ October 5, 2007, 12:58 PMYeah, I thought it was better than Jam & J. But that's not really a compliment.
View original
Or an achievement.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Lazzard said:
V.poor. Says it al, really
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, dannyjb1 said:
Well I didn't watch but two of my friends emailed me and MSN'ed me saying 'did I just see you on telly'.
Apparently there was someone in the audience who was the splitting image of me.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, JohnnyD said:
Quote: chipolata @ October 5, 2007, 9:52 AM
The other problem I had with it that Jeremy Kyle is practically a parody as it is
View original
Exactly. Programmes like Kyle and X-Factor are pretty much self-parody with no respect for their audience.
Better to parody Kyle by the production company genuinely caring about the mental health of the participants, etc.
However, I liked the business with the mobile phone and the child only speaking Spanish.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Anyone else notice an extraordinary amount of swearing, for no apparent reason? Swearing has its place in comedy but I haven't heard so many fucks since my neighbours moved out - it was well into double figures. And to think Porridge made do with made-up swear words.
Swearing. The last desperate attempt of a comdian to be cutting edge. Discuss.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I didn't bother watching it but really - what is the point?
I don't hate her - she just doesn't make me laugh. And going back to other threads - there are some sitcoms that are so funny how come stuff like this gets commissioned?
(I think maybe I know the answer)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I never notice swearing.
I think it and Sensitive Skin are part of a new wave (consisting of two whole sitcoms) directed at the over 50s. Who swear.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: zooo @ October 5, 2007, 8:37 PMI never notice swearing.
I think it and Sensitive Skin are part of a new wave (consisting of two whole sitcoms) directed at the over 50s. Who swear.
View original
I don't think of Perfect Skin as a sitcom.
It's a gently amusing drama.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Well exactly, same as Vyle.
Only with more swearing, and people don't seem to think it's any good.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I didn't like the ingredients so I didn't want a bite.
(How pretentious does that sound)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: David Chapman @ October 5, 2007, 8:30 PM(I think maybe I know the answer)
View original
Only Smarties have the answer.
Quote: zooo @ October 5, 2007, 8:37 PMI never notice swearing.
View original
Ditto that.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Ooh and it had that ace girl from Lead Balloon.
There's something about her that I find immensely watchable. I hope she gets her own show someday.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, LINA said:
Hi there
I'm Lina (as in Carolina without the caro). This is the first recent Jennifer Saunders I've actually liked, pacy comic dialogue, nifty ideas. She's nasty but not shouty in this. And not too many scenes that are being milked till they become irritating. What a relief!
I didn't notice the swearing either, was it worse than Jonathan Ross?!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Lina, eh?
POOP POOP!
...Like a ship. An ocean liner. Geddit?
Oh, aren't I ever-so witty! 
(But seriously, welcome. 
)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Or Bin Lina?
Sorry, welcome!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, LINA said:
Well thanks, you make me feel so young!
Like back in school...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
We're all in school here.
Mentally, anyway.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
hello Lina
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, LINA said:
Hi
About being in school, doesn't that normally have bad memories for comedy geeks and writers - being the nerdish outsider? Not giving anything away here of course... but looking back, does it come close to the best years of your life for anyone?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I never really let people bother me like that. And I'm really nice anyway, so was friends with everyone. Well, almost everyone.
I was always pretty geeky in some ways. I really didn't particularly get into comedy until quite late though, certainly not until about the turn of the millennium at the earliest.
Dunno about the best years of my life though...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
OK then. I thought to be fair I'd watch it.
The start of it was really just a documentary of how we perceive that kind of programme.
Then when that bloke attacked JS and the bouncer fell on her I just pissed myself laughing.
So I do agree with - I think - zooo who compared it to Perfect Skin.
One thing I will say is that if you're unknown you are expected to get a laugh in quickly but if you're established you can write your own rule book.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, LINA said:
Yeah this was getting in the early punch to the audience, quite literally, but after that the tempo dropped right down. It would be disappointing for someone expecting that sort of action to carry through.
I am so glad to see a clinical psychologist getting the mickey taken, they deserve it!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: LINA @ October 6, 2007, 9:58 PM
I am so glad to see a clinical psychologist getting the mickey taken, they deserve it!
View original
Good point. It's people like them who are a cause of a lot of today's problems.
Just lock the scum up.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Lousy parents are to blame for most of todays problems. The sooner we sterilise the working classes the better, because those feckless wasters make the worst parents of all.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
To add a few postives, at least Jennifer Saunders was striking out by choosing a target rather than an average situation. The problem is that it could have been done so much better. The characters were interesting and the anger was good, but the jokes were limp - and few - and the show never quite dug into the stupid snobbery that surrounds crap like Kyle's moronic festival of jeering.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
I've heard this week's episode is better, it gets more into its stride apparently. Even if it's not great Christopher Ryan* looks like he has a fun part to play...
Also I notice Gemma Arrowsmith, one of our website members, is on this week's cast list.
* Ticket inspector in Saxondale, Tony Driscoll in Green Green Grass and OFAH, Marshall in Ab Fab, Dave Hedgehog in Bottom etc etc
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
Quote: Mark @ October 10, 2007, 11:31 PM
* Ticket inspector in Saxondale, Tony Driscoll in Green Green Grass and OFAH, Marshall in Ab Fab, Dave Hedgehog in Bottom etc etc
View original
How can you not list Mike in the Young Ones?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
Quote: LINA @ October 6, 2007, 9:00 PMHi
About being in school, doesn't that normally have bad memories for comedy geeks and writers - being the nerdish outsider? Not giving anything away here of course... but looking back, does it come close to the best years of your life for anyone?
View original
hi lina,
no, i hated school, so much so that i got myself expelled. kind of regretting that now.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: ajp29 @ October 10, 2007, 11:47 PMHow can you not list Mike in the Young Ones?
View original
Just what I was thinking!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
I was mainly silent, save to groan, "Oh my God, it's Mike."
Miranda Richardson, stripped of the irritating Queenie voice, was brilliant though. Half the time the lines she was saying weren't in themselves funny at all, and yet still they were hilarious. Incredible comic acting.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: chipolata @ October 8, 2007, 10:38 AMLousy parents are to blame for most of todays problems. The sooner we sterilise the working classes the better, because those feckless wasters make the worst parents of all.
View original
Stopping child benefit would help. It's a fairly recent benefit which is totally unnecessary and leads to much abuse of the benefits system. Some single mothers may need help but not a child benefit which is just given out willy nilly to anybody with kids, whether they need it or not.
Some of the working classes are not as feckless as you propose, we are not all chavs! By working class, I mean those with jobs, by the way.. You may mean the 'dole/benefits class', many of whom surely are 'feckless wasters'.. more power to your elbow if you can get them sterilised..
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
I grew up on a council estate and went to a pretty lousy comprehensive school, so by definition I'm working class. Although thankfully I managed to pull myself up out of the slime, I'm afraid most don't. The sad truth is in the last fifty years the traditional working class have gone from being salt of the earth to scum of the earth.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, johnny roulette said:
anyone watch this last night.
i tried. it seems to be a drama series. not even any attempt at comedy as far as i can see.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
I would include politicians in that list of 'scum of the earth', irrespective of whether they are working class or not.
The working class who have jobs and are paying taxes are at least one up on the dole/sick benefits lot.
I have no problem with genuine claimers btw.. but not people of any 'class' who won't work and who languish on the dole/sick doing whatever they do all day..
Quote: johnny roulette @ October 12, 2007, 10:06 AManyone watch this last night.
i tried. it seems to be a drama series. not even any attempt at comedy as far as i can see.
View original
I saw 20 mins and it did seem that way, except for the nob gag by the transexual guy.. which was not very good really.. but if you're into nob gags.. My landlord was loving it but I went off to work on the backing track for a comedy song.. (you really needed to know that!)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Just to reply to your politician point, I don't see them as scum of the earth. They may be ineffective and overly obsessed with style over substance, but they've been made that way by an increasingly dumbed down media. And also, if I had to live next door to a politician, or a working class family, I'd choose the politician any day of the week. With the working class family next door you know you're going to get badly behaved children and a broken bottle in your face if you complain.
Sorry to sound like a bigot on this, but I've actually witnessed some pretty unpleasant behaviour from chavs and the like over the years, and I've completely run out of patience with them.
By the way, Vivian Vyle is still shite. Where did it all go wrong for the once mighty Jennifer Saunders?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: chipolata @ October 12, 2007, 10:53 AMJust to reply to your politician point, I don't see them as scum of the earth. They may be ineffective and overly obsessed with style over substance, but they've been made that way by an increasingly dumbed down media. And also, if I had to live next door to a politician, or a working class family, I'd choose the politician any day of the week. With the working class family next door you know you're going to get badly behaved children and a broken bottle in your face if you complain.
Sorry to sound like a bigot on this, but I've actually witnessed some pretty unpleasant behaviour from chavs and the like over the years, and I've completely run out of patience with them.
View original
Point taken but politicians do far worse that any chav family next door.. they are wasting billions of our hard earned money and killing folks too, some you know about and some you probably don't..!
One thing the politicians aren't dealing with effectively is those unruly families of whom you post. Politicians have tied police hands with unrealistic targets and reporting demands which don't include 'domestics'.. you can sort that out yourselves.. but wait, no you can't as you're the one they'll put in jail if you retalliate (you're the soft target), but the jails are full aren't they.. so.. they'll free up a cell for you by letting a few murderers and rapists out early..
You're quite right to prefer to live next door to a politician though, as you can rest assured that a politician won't have any unruly chav families nearby..
The problems we face today in society are because of politicians total mismanagement of this country over the last 50 years, which is why I consider them worthy of the title, 'Scum of the Earth'.
Sorry for the rant... but IMHO we are all being fooled big-time by our politicians. The media don't care, it's just a money-making battle for profits for them.. they'll print 'owt they can get away with to make a buck and the politicians'll say owt to get re-elected (to the gravy-train..) They deserve each other!
We deserve better but vote Labour or Tory and nothing will change and there is nobody else you can realistically vote for so they have us by the sphericals!!! The yellows would be even worse than the reds and blues, I reckon!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, LINA said:
The second episode... has good ideas, great comments, but is also one long pitch black screed with nothing lighter to break it up. And shouty, had to turn down the volume to avoid turning it off altogether. I do like the character portrayals, except for Miranda's irritating producer, but then she's just so irritating.
I see that the co-writer Tanya Byron is actually a clinical psychologist, it takes one to mock one!
Lina
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: chipolata @ October 12, 2007, 10:04 AMThe sad truth is in the last fifty years the traditional working class have gone from being salt of the earth to scum of the earth.
View original
Yes, an interesting phenomenon that. I think it's mostly down to portrayal in the media - and indeed the changing way in which the media influences and affects our lives - being of a largely negative nature. Of course, most stuff within the media is negative; "50 shot dead in Sainsbury's massacre" reads far better and more interestingly than "Robin Harringsworth was promoted today". However, the following types don't help their class(es) any...
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 12, 2007, 10:14 AMThe working class who have jobs and are paying taxes are at least one up on the dole/sick benefits lot.
I have no problem with genuine claimers btw.. but not people of any 'class' who won't work and who languish on the dole/sick doing whatever they do all day.
View original
Hear here! It's an interesting socio-web being woven at the moment, IMO. One one hand we've got the spread of the middle-classes at the expense of the working/lower classes, but conversely more people than ever are suffering 'poverty' and the rest. There's also the many different levels on which lower classes are criticised. Crime, dole, lifestyle and such being the main, I suspect.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 12, 2007, 10:14 AMI would include Labour politicians in that list of 'scum of the earth', irrespective of whether they are working class or not.
View original
Quote: chipolata @ October 12, 2007, 10:53 AMJust to reply to your politician point, I don't see them as scum of the earth. They may be ineffective and overly obsessed with style over substance, but they've been made that way by an increasingly dumbed down media. And also, if I had to live next door to a politician, or a working class family, I'd choose the politician any day of the week. With the working class family next door you know you're going to get badly behaved children and a broken bottle in your face if you complain.
Sorry to sound like a bigot on this, but I've actually witnessed some pretty unpleasant behaviour from chavs and the like over the years, and I've completely run out of patience with them.
View original
Couldn't agree with you more on this one.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Quote: chipolata @ October 12, 2007, 10:53 AM
Sorry to sound like a bigot on this, but I've actually witnessed some pretty unpleasant behaviour from chavs and the like over the years, and I've completely run out of patience with them.
View original
At least you're honest in admitting that hating 'chavs' is classism. Let's have no talk on 'sterilising' the working class though. It's an idea that was very popular in the 1910's but one that I thought had been nicely fazed out/
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
If C.H.A.V. stands for 'Council House And Violent' then I think it's time Politicians freed up Police to deal effectively with this violence.
If Chav means something else that is NOT violent and anti-social then let's have a better definition of what a chav is.
I'm not talking about a class issue here, I'm talking about unacceptable anti-social behaviour which the police should be dealing with, and they ain't/won't/can't.. and that's 100% down to a political structure that is responsible but isn't personally affected and therefore doesn't care and won't react effectively..
Quote: Aaron @ October 12, 2007, 10:14 AM
I would include Labour politicians in that list of 'scum of the earth', irrespective of whether they are working class or not.
View original
You're not being party political again are you Aaron, diverting the issues like a true politician!
Tut! Tut!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 12, 2007, 11:13 AMPoint taken but politicians do far worse that any chav family next door.. they are wasting billions of our hard earned money
View original
Yes, very true. But then that's politicians - well, more to the point, the Government - as a whole, or at least collective, rather than individually. Definitely wouldn't live next to Ruth Kelly though. Her voice makes me want to die.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 12, 2007, 11:13 AMThe yellows would be even worse than the reds and blues, I reckon!
View original
I know that they would!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 12, 2007, 3:53 PMAt least you're honest in admitting that hating 'chavs' is classism.
View original
How so? Only if one accuses ALL working class persons of also being chavs, or indeed defines chavs as being working class. As I see it, a 'chav' is defined by attitude, style of dress, morals, and to some extent, interests and tastes in music. That the vast majority of chav-types are indeed working class may be true, but is largely inconsequential in the definition of each. To link one so inextricably to the other as you seem to is the real classism, IMO!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Ooh, well said.
I wanted to say all that but I just couldn't be bothered to form sentences.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
We deplore unacceptable violence and anti-social behaviour and want it to be 'dealt with', but we won't put enough police on the streets with the appropriate resources and powers to do an effective job.
I think that makes us hypocrites.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
A nice point; we often complain about public services but also about how high the tax rates are.
Has anyone seen The Simpsons episode where the citizens enforce a 'bear patrol' - "I'm sick and tired of these incessant bear attacks!" - but then protest about the taxes?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
You can make all sorts of statements through the art of comedy, if you consider 'The Simpsons' art; I certainly think it is.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
My friend was actually shown that episode in an economics class.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
That's brilliant!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
We need less stupid regulations in this country. Let teachers teach. Let nurses and doctors heal the sick. Let the police save people from drowning and catch bad guys without having to spend a year filling in shitty forms. This country is a mess. Complete and utter mess, and seems to get worse every year. Deregulation is the answer!
Oh, and cutting out all of that wank will also free up cash for other things. Next we cut 'loans' and honest handouts to the third world.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
The firemen need to be able to stand and watch gay orgies too without being fined.. ..and if a public decency crime has been committed, the police need to be able to make arrests without being labelled homophobic!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
If only it were a joke.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 12, 2007, 5:44 PMThe firemen need to be able to stand and watch gay orgies too without being fined..
View original
Why on earth is cottaging illegal? It's not a public indecency, as it's not public. You're allowed to defecate in the toilets for goodness sake.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I'd never thought of it quite like that before.
You are some kind of genius.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Or a passionate gay rights campaigner.....actually, no, the answer is simply that I have too much time on my hands.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David H said:
Down 500,000 on the ratings to 1.3M. Peter S only got 1 million.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 12, 2007, 11:25 PMWhy on earth is cottaging illegal? It's not a public indecency, as it's not public. You're allowed to defecate in the toilets for goodness sake.
View original
Are you sure you've thought that through?
Anyway, the episode I'm referring to was an orgy (multiple people having sexual intercourse in the same place) and in a public place outside. And before I hear the cry of "homophobia!" it's not a question of whether they were homosexuals, lesbians or heterosexuals. It's against the law to have sex in a public space. This was not in a public toilet and by the way, I think it is or ought to be illegal to have sex in a public toilet, as it's certainly not designed for that. What kind of human being wants to have sex in a public toilet anyway? How awful! And what if a family with children wants to use the toilet? Maybe that's why it's against the law? Doh... think about it! If you want to change the law to make sex in public legal, go and see your MP and ask him to propose a change in the law in the House of Commons.
The rules are, if people want to have sex it should be in private, in the home or in a hotel or some private place, not in a public place and that applies to all genders and sexes. It's against the law for a reason. We are supposed to be civilised, not animals just 'having it off' in the street, park bushes, public toilets, etc.
The real shame of this is that the people involved got off and the firemen got fined and disciplined just for looking and because a complaint was made against them by those engaged in the orgy. Out-bloody-rageous!!! And another thing, IMO it looks like a case of positive discrimination as I believe if they had been heterosexuals they would have been arrested by police and charged with public indecency when they made their complaint about the firemen.
I am sick and tired of so-called minority groups being given preferential treatment in this way. They should be treated the same as everybody else, I thought that's what they wanted? Positive Discrimination is just as wrong as Discrimination IMO.
And anybody who does call me homophobic will get the full throttle of my wrath as some of my best mates are White English Gay Metropolitan Police Officers!!!
Sorry for the rant Cinnamon but IMO your view is just plain wrong...
Quote: zooo @ October 12, 2007, 11:27 PMI'd never thought of it quite like that before.
You are some kind of 'genius'.
View original
You've spelt 'woolly thinker' wrong again...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Don't unload this rant upon me. I fully agree that sex in public is wrong, whatever the gender or orientation, I just vaguely assumed that you were referring to cottaging as I hadn't heard of this one incident. When it comes to your comment that you don't know why they'd want to do that, I don't really either, and I'm sure that they're not overjoyed by the prospect. The thing is that because homosexuals are still viewed with some disdain or disgust over the country, they often would find it far safer to meet in a toilet than in a home. We don't need to 'crack down' on things like this, we need to continue encouraging understanding so that they don't have to 'operate underground', to coin a cliche.
Obviously your stated incident is an absurd one, and I have full sympathy with the authorities involved. It was wrong and taking the firemen to the courts was frankly outrageous. Something better to be angered by, however, is the fact that one third of all teen suicides are bullied or worried homosexuals, which, in my opinion, suggests that we're not quite the nation of tolerance that we perceive ourselves to be.
I'll overlook the 'wooly thinking' label. Considering the abuse that's confronted you when you've aired your own views I'd have thought that you'd have a modicum of restraint.
God I sound up my own arse (not in public, thankfully). You can feel free to disregard the above but it may have touched a nerve.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
More to the point I apologise if I have touched your nerve. A lot of my rant wasn't directed towards you at all. I retract the 'woolly thinking' label, it was just a retort, and not meant seriously...
But I am talking about sex in public. The fact that homesexuals may have difficulties in this society and that some teenage homosexuals commit suicide is really not relevant IMO. We can't condone sex in public toilets for that reason. It's the wrong answer to their problems.
When it comes to sex, it's not compulsory like eating food or breathing. If they can't find a more appropriate place then the order of the day should be restraint. In the past my girlfriends and I had nowhere to go when we were living at home and didn't have our own places, and our families weren't tolerant to teenagers having sex at home and so there wasn't any sex, just kissing and discreet fumblings and not too much of that in public.
It NEVER occurred to us to go and 'do it' in a public toilet. Get real, mate! It's plain wrong, there's no excuse.
Homosexual teenagers committing suicide is a completely different issue. I am tolerant to homosexuals (as long as they are law abiding citizens) but cannot condone sexual activities in public for whatever reason.
If other people are intolerant towards homosexuals BECAUSE they are homosexuals, then that is just plain wrong too but a completely different topic.
If you see it differently then we can agree... to disagree!
Here's an example of my thinking:
If I saw a heterosexual couple having sex in the park, I wouldn't necessarily report them if they were being discreet. Nor would I report an homosexual or lesbian couple. BUT if they were being indiscreet and there were children playing nearby, then I would report any of them, irrespective of gender/sexuality.
I think that's sensible, but maybe I am the one that would end up in court if they were Gay and I'd be villified as a homophobic stalker?
I'd like to think not, but...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
It's a paradox that in the desire to be treated more like a human, we can actually act more like animals, by having sex in a public place and thinking it reasonable or a violation of 'rights.'
The idea that cottaging and dogging is permissible in a public toilet? Can't imagine too many parents endorsing that. When I want to express my human rights, grabbing the car and driving to the local lav isn't my first instinct.
Rights are two-edged, they give but they also demand. They are a responsibility rather than a political / social battering ram to enforce a behaviour / attitude on society.
I agree with Frankie and Aaron in that it seems minorities no longer seem satisfied with EQUALITY, they want preferential treatment to make amends for past and present injustice. Which is a frankly ludicrous argument because equality is not restored when the balance 'swings the opposite way' - to use a very inappropriate phrase. Inequality still exists.
Personally, I think the gradual but relentless overriding of a majority, the undermining of social responsibilities, the flaunting of the law, the insiduous spread of the relativist 'What is truth?' idea, are designed either to grind the majority into a pathetic appeasing mass of sheep or to create a socially-engineered dislocation and bloody and irretrievable polarisation of society into radical and irreconcilable sectors. If anyone learned from 1984, it was Big Brother because they now use different tactics.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I really hate the word 'tolerant'.
It suggests a just contained resentment of something that you feel you have to 'put up with'.
Yuck.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: zooo @ October 13, 2007, 2:08 PMI really hate the word 'tolerant'.
It suggests a just contained resentment of something that you feel you have to 'put up with'.
Yuck.
View original
I have sympathy with that view but what word would you use?
When I say 'I am tolerant' I mean definition No 2a. below:
Main Entry: tol·er·ance
Pronunciation:
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b: the act of allowing something : toleration
3: the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4 a (1): the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure <developed a tolerance to painkillers>; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2): relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor b: the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
we get the society we deserve people, i don't like this country much myself these days but what can you do? I'm leaving for a non capatilist(sp) country next summer hopefully, it's either that or become a politician (which, lets face it, would achieve nothing.)
as for the the gay rights/ public indecency debate? i don't know what cottaging is so cannot comment on that. People should act with dignity in public(and in private as well).
The problems will persist until we stop putting up with them.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 11:33 AMPositive Discrimination is just as wrong as Discrimination IMO.
View original
Couldn't disagree more; discrimination is increasingly rarely intentional. Positive discrimination, however, is planned, calculated, and those administering it serioualy believe that it's a good thing. Therefore, positive discrimination is significantly worse than just plain-old discrimination.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 1:04 PMI am tolerant to homosexuals (as long as they are law abiding citizens) but cannot condone sexual activities in public for whatever reason.
If other people are intolerant towards homosexuals BECAUSE they are homosexuals, then that is just plain wrong too but a completely different topic.
View original
Unfortunately, minorities of all types now seem to be actively seeking to see themselves as being victimised, persecuted and so on. It's an effect of the compensation society as much as anything else. Big sigh.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
And on the subject of this whole firemen incident, I honestly don't know where to start with how stupid it is.
In any case, I am increasingly of the opinion that it should not be possible to gain financial compensation (in many but not all cases), and not at all fine, the authorities. The only effect is on us, the innocent taxpayer, who have to have our hard-earned taxes diverted away from the services we pay for, and/or see said services decline. Fining the Met over the De Menezes shooting incident, for example, I would make impossible. To take even more money from an already overstretched public service just has no basis in reality. Yes there needs to be some way in which bodies can be penalised, but financially is not only not the answer, but utterly fucking backwards. Less money means more corners cut.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Quote: Aaron @ October 13, 2007, 3:30 PM
Unfortunately, minorities of all types now seem to be actively seeking to see themselves as being victimised, persecuted and so on. It's an effect of the compensation society as much as anything else. Big sigh.
View original
In my (humble) opinion this is a load of bollus. Positive discrimination is the result of a government that has no idea how to face social problems, not of antagonistic minorities. It is wrong, but it is also wrong because it deflects attention from the underlying issues. Discrimination is still rife and public and we don't know how to face it.
Sorry for getting tetchy before though. I'm easily tetched.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Aaron @ October 13, 2007, 3:30 PM
Unfortunately, minorities of all types now seem to be actively seeking to see themselves as being victimised, persecuted and so on.
View original
As do majority types. I never hear anyone moaning these days more than white middle aged males.
Why doesn't our opinion matter, what about our rights. etc, etc.
Bless their oblivious cotton socks.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Very good
I wasn't aware that men counted as a majority though. Any gender statistics?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I meant the white bit, really.
I think this country is 52% female, 48% male.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Aaron/Cinammon:
I suspect you get Positive Discrimination issues from both sources, Government and the minority groups themselves. Also, I think both Government and the minority groups can sometimes see discrimination where it doesn't exist.
That isn't to say that there isn't plenty of discrimination because I am sure there is. But I propose that there is also manipulation for selfish ends by both Government and organised minority groups.
There are selfish humans everywhere and they come in all shapes, sizes, colours, creeds, nationalities, sex, and sexual preferences, etc.
Quote: zooo @ October 13, 2007, 4:16 PMI meant the white bit, really.
I think this country is 52% female, 48% male.
View original
And about 10 to 15% Gay?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
More women and yet more men in exalted positions? Isn't this positive discrimination
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: zooo @ October 13, 2007, 4:12 PMAs do majority types. I never hear anyone moaning these days more than white middle aged males.
Why doesn't our opinion matter, what about our rights. etc, etc.
Bless their oblivious cotton socks.
View original
Not sure about the cotton socks, but there is something in what you say.
The so called 'majority' do seem to be feeling victimised these days.
Why would that be then?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 4:20 PMAaron/Cinammon:
I suspect you get Positive Discrimination issues from both sources, Government and the minority groups themselves. Also, I think both Government and the minority groups can sometimes see discrimination where it doesn't exist.
View original
I still maintain that minority groups do not search for discrimination, but they must be wary of it having been persecuted, so mistakes are unavoidable.
[/quote]
There are selfish people everywhere.
[/quote]
Toooooo truuuuuuue
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 4:23 PM
Why would that be then?
View original
Because people like to blame others? So far I've seen no statistics to show that white, middle class males are persecuted against, only a few isolated incidents.
If only Jennifer Saunders knew what a fevered debate her show had somehow provoked.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 4:23 PMNot sure about the cotton socks, but there is something in what you say.
The so called 'majority' do seem to be feeling victimised these days.
Why would that be then?
View original
'cause they want in on the action?
Because they feel guilty and want a way out?
I like to play my 'I have a foreign surname' card whenever I feel the liberal white guilt piling up.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 4:21 PMMore women and yet more men in exalted positions? Isn't this positive discrimination
View original
Point taken. You have to remember that women didn't even get to vote until the 20th Century. Outrageous!!! Also, unequal pay for equal work. Also outrageous!!!
Hope we never get a woman Prime Minister though...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
I'll assume that this is a Thatcher joke. I certainly won't complain about ANY abuse directed at Thatcher.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I know she was an evil old hagbitch, but it was nice having a woman in charge when I was growing up.
And she is at least more memorable than... erm, what was his name? John Major. Even if the only thing I can remember was that time she passed out while giving a speech.
Good times.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Hitler was a fairly memorable German Chancellor, but that doesn't excuse his absolute evil. To be fair to Thatcher it was the entire government, not just her. Norman Tebbit seems to have been about as incompetent as it's possible for a - apparent - human to be.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
True. But I don't think Thatcher killed 6 million people.
Just gave them nightmares.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Exaggeration for the nation.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: zooo @ October 13, 2007, 4:27 PM'cause they want in on the action?
Because they feel guilty and want a way out?
I like to play my 'I have a foreign surname' card whenever I feel the liberal white guilt piling up.
View original
I don't think that 'the majority' want 'in on the action' that doesn't ring true. As for feeling guilty and wanting a way out? A way out of what?
I don't feel guilty when a white man gets beaten up by a gang of black men. I didn't do it and don't condone it. So why should I feel guilty when it's a black man being beaten up by white men? Or a Gay man being beaten up? I expect the police to deal with it. And I expect them to be impartial with respect to race, sexuality, religion, etc. If some police aren't then they need to be rooted out and booted out. I expect politicians to deal with that. If The Met Police Force is '..inherently racist and homophobic..' as I have often read in the press, then I also expect politicians to deal with that.
Of course, our politicians Left, Cenre and Right are too busy fighting for (and fighting to retain) power, that in reality, they don't give a damn about real issues such as these. They pay lip service and no more.
Which is why I stand by my statement that Politicians are 'The scum of the Earth'...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
In an ideal world race and sexuality would not be an issue at all, but when a black man is beaten up BECAUSE he is black, or a landlord is killed BECAUSE he is gay then it does have to be faced. I heartily agree, however, that the government is dealing with these issues in a quite awful way. Platitudes are not what is needed.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 4:29 PMI'll assume that this is a Thatcher joke. I certainly won't complain about ANY abuse directed at Thatcher.
View original
That's Aarons Grandma you're talking about!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
I wait for Tebbit to come and beat me to death with a particularly heavy dossier. Goodness, the wink looks a bit pissed off.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 4:54 PMIn an ideal world race and sexuality would not be an issue at all, but when a black man is beaten up BECAUSE he is black, or a landlord is killed BECAUSE he is gay then it does have to be faced. I heartily agree, however, that the government is dealing with these issues in a quite awful way. Platitudes are not what is needed.
View original
I think we are in agreement. We want these issues faced and problems resolved but our Politicians and Police Force aren't dealing with it.
As the Police Force is part of Government, then you have to lay the blame with Governments for not taking appropriate action.
The people who beat other people up (for whatever reason) need to be punished with the full force of the law, well, that would work if the law had any force... and we're back to the Government and politicians again...
It's all very well being liberal but if the Police and Courts don't have the power or will to arrest and punish effectively, the 'beating to deaths' will continue. These people who do this need long prison sentences (10 years minimum); or the punishment is not effective. And if they come out and do it again, life imprisonment (until they die in jail).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
It's like survivor guilt.
It's senseless, but natural to feel a bit guilty for being lucky enough that race and sexuality don't need to be issues for me every day like thay are for other people.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
I agree; they're so worried about pleasing everybody that they give us all pathetic compromises instead of working with their own common sense and ethics (yes, they probably do have ethics).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 5:04 PMI agree; they're so worried about pleasing everybody that they give us all pathetic compromises instead of working with their own common sense and ethics (yes, they probably do have ethics).
View original
I know some of them do individually, but when they form a Government they seem to lose all sense of what really matters, i.e. the people they represent. And that's all of the people, not excluding any majorities or minorities!
In then end the individual politicians have to carry the can. If their individual common sense and ethics are over-ridden by the whole that they belong to, then they ought to resign - but they rarely do.
I still say scum, suited and booted with nice ties, silver tongued and smiling, but still scum.
Once very late at night I was asked by a group of black guys that I didn't know if I was scared (of them). I told them that the guys to be really scared of are the white guys in suits with big smiles offering help. They laughed and slapped me on the back!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
This thread's gone totally off piste.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
It's been far more interesting than the Vivienne Vyle Show.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
I saw 20 mins of the VV show it but didn't rate it...
Love Jennifer Saunders stuff though, usually.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 3:56 PMIn my (humble) opinion this is a load of bollus. Positive discrimination is the result of a government that has no idea how to face social problems, not of antagonistic minorities.
View original
You misunderstand. I wasn't linking that to positive discrimination (although it's all part of the same big interwoven multicultural, minority web if we're looking at the 'bigger picture'). Just making a general observation.
Quote: zooo @ October 13, 2007, 4:12 PMAs do majority types. I never hear anyone moaning these days more than white middle aged males.
Why doesn't our opinion matter, what about our rights. etc, etc.
Bless their oblivious cotton socks.
View original
It depends as to the context of the complaint. Yes, some people are just plain ridiculous, but others make good points about the hypocrisy of society. And so on.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 4:20 PMI suspect you get Positive Discrimination issues from both sources, Government and the minority groups themselves. Also, I think both Government and the minority groups can sometimes see discrimination where it doesn't exist.
That isn't to say that there isn't plenty of discrimination because I am sure there is. But I propose that there is also manipulation for selfish ends by both Government and organised minority groups.
View original
Definitely. Don't think anyone argued otherwise, did they? *scratches head*
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 4:23 PMThe so called 'majority' do seem to be feeling victimised these days.
Why would that be then?
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Society's views on subjects will always be hypocritical. Cottaging is abhorrent but the mile high club is harmless fun, prostitution is disgusting but the escort services are glamorous, racial stereotyping is wrong unless you're in Little Britain...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: zooo @ October 13, 2007, 4:27 PMI like to play my 'I have a foreign surname' card whenever I feel the liberal white guilt piling up.
View original
Bah! What have you to feel guilty about?!
Quote: zooo @ October 13, 2007, 4:40 PMTrue. But I don't think Thatcher killed 6 million people.
Just gave them nightmares.
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
The world collapsing while I sit in my little cocoon of a comedy site....oh, and I was undercharged in a supermarket today.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 4:56 PM
View original
Quote: zooo @ October 13, 2007, 5:02 PMIt's like survivor guilt.
It's senseless, but natural to feel a bit guilty for being lucky enough that race and sexuality don't need to be issues for me every day like thay are for other people.
View original
You should only feel guilty if you're playing an active part in the persecution and prejudice which they face!
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 5:11 PMI know some of them do individually, but when they form a Government they seem to lose all sense of what really matters, i.e. the people they represent. And that's all of the people, not excluding any majorities or minorities!
View original
It's the civil service that's to blame - you never watched Yes Minister?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
I wonder who appoints and manages the Civil Service?
I reckon the 'geezer' that does needs to be fired!
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 7:16 PMSociety's views on subjects will always be hypocritical. Cottaging is abhorrent but the mile high club is harmless fun, prostitution is disgusting but the escort services are glamorous, racial stereotyping is wrong unless you're in Little Britain...
View original
All of the things you mention above are abhorrent IMHO, but racial stereotyping in Little Britain? Little Britain is just a comedy program. Racial stereotyping in comedy isn't abhorrent unless it's designed to whip up racial hatred, for which you can now be sent to jail. I don't think racial hatred is on the agenda in Little Britain, is it? If it is, let's make a complaint and get them sent to jail by all means.
Real racial prejudice and race hate crime is abhorrent though, every time. The exponents of this need to go to jail and not pass go.
Aaron - the Tories are proposing 1,000 new prison places I believe. This is too few in my opinion, too few by a long way. Can you tip them the wink?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Vicky Pollard set back class tolerance a few steps and a character called Ting Tong hardly promotes cultural understanding. The fact that it's Richard Littlejohn's favourite programme is also an indication. I don't think that they're necessarily racist but these cultural points have widespread influence.
To be fair it may just be that I fookin well hate Little Britain, the cretinous catchphrase Kant's
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 7:45 PMAaron - the Tories are proposing 1,000 new prison places I believe. This is too few in my opinion, too few by a long way. Can you tip them the wink?
View original
If I had any influence, believe me I would. Need at least ten times that number.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 7:51 PMVicky Pollard set back class tolerance a few steps and a character called Ting Tong hardly promotes cultural understanding. The fact that it's Richard Littlejohn's favourite programme is also an indication. I don't think that they're necessarily racist but these cultural points have widespread influence.
To be fair it may just be that I fookin well hate Little Britain, the cretinous catchphrase Kant's
View original
I am no fan of Little Britain. Without gay, transvestite and disabled gags, Little Britain has no act. What tripe! But I defend their right to do what they do.
Some of Little Britain was very well done in the early days, but it's still crass rubbish and will be viewed so in hindsight I expect. Little Britain are good performers though.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Why then, you'll support a tax raise?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 7:51 PMVicky Pollard set back class tolerance a few steps
View original
Not at all. Shows in the vein of VV (wheey, we've come full circle!), Big Brother and the like did that far before Little Britain was even dreamt of.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Quote: Frankie Rage @ October 13, 2007, 7:59 PMI am no fan of Catherine Tate or Little Britain. IMHO Catherine Tate over-acts like a third-rate and just isn't funny; and without gay, transvestite and disabled gags, Little Britain has no act. What tripe!
Some of Little Britain was very well done in the early days, but it's still crass rubbish and will be viewed so in hindsight I expect. I think the difference is though that Little Britain are good performers whereas Catherine Tate must have done a pact with the devil to get on telly. She is so third rate she is fourth rate.
Only my opinion of course and this is not hatred I'm whipping up here, just artistic criticism.
View original
A fair point, I've enjoyed Lucas and Walliams outside of their own writing. I suppose that I liked the first Little Britain but I was only young. It must be strange to know that your target audience shouldn't legally be watching your show.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 7:59 PMWhy then, you'll support a tax raise?
View original
We don't need to raise the levels of taxation again. We need to realign where the money goes, and what it's spent on when it's there.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Sorry, I was just being antagonistic.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 7:59 PMWhy then, you'll support a tax raise?
View original
As long as they spend it on prisons and put real criminals in there and in a proper way, i.e. locked up for a long time and not watching telly all day...
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 8:03 PMSorry, I was just being antagonistic.
View original
Not like you...
...or me...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
I don't mind televisions in prisons (SWEET JESUS, IT RHYMES!) but I was amazed that a convicted and violent neo nazi had been allowed to watch Romper Stomper.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: Aaron @ October 13, 2007, 8:02 PMWe don't need to raise the levels of taxation again. We need to realign where the money goes, and what it's spent on when it's there.
View original
Well said!
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 8:07 PMI don't mind televisions in prisons (SWEET JESUS, IT RHYMES!) but I was amazed that a convicted and violent neo nazi had been allowed to watch Romper Stomper.
View original
I think watching TV is a priveledge and I would not let prisoners have that priveledge except that I would let them see BBC and ITV news, but no more, so they can keep abreast with what is happening in the World. Similarly access to some newspapers (not the Daily Sport, though...) and access to a (restricted) library.
Also, I would not let them fraternise with each other like they do now because the reality of this is that it just creates a breeding ground or 'university' of crime. It's too soft. It's morally wrong.
Prisoners need to work for their keep at least a normal working week and need to be closely supervised. The prison service is starved of funds with too few and the wrong sort of staff running the prisons (commercial contracors).
Bloody politicians again... getting it wrong seems to be their forte...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Hmmm...I know little of this situation, but I'd hope that they would be well treated or I somehow feel that it would drag us to their level. Besides, it would hardly help to rehabilitate them. I tend to agree when it comes to restriction, however, as if we're locking them away then we agree that they shouldn't influence society and society shouldn't influence them.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 8:07 PMI don't mind televisions in prisons (SWEET JESUS, IT RHYMES!) but I was amazed that a convicted and violent neo nazi had been allowed to watch Romper Stomper.
View original
Hadn't heard about that one, but quite. It's a good example of just where the prison service has gone wrong over the past few decades. When we get to a state where being in prison is more comfortable, more luxurious, and generally nicer than being outside, then there is something wrong (at both ends of the scale, before anyone says anything). We can't literally just lock 'em up, throw away the key and leave them to rot, but IMO prisoners are afforded far too many rights, priveleges and facilities.
And don't even get me started on a school dinner costing less than a prison one.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: Cinnamon @ October 13, 2007, 8:27 PMHmmm...I know little of this situation, but I'd hope that they would be well treated or I somehow feel that it would drag us to their level. Besides, it would hardly help to rehabilitate them. I tend to agree when it comes to restriction, however, as if we're locking them away then we agree that they shouldn't influence society and society shouldn't influence them.
View original
Firm but fair would be my view. Certainly not mistreated. But if I don't work, I can't eat or support my family and it should not be easier for a prisoner than it is for a non-prisoner, surely?
Rehabilitation would come through hard work and study, not TV and Nintendos...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Charley said:
I liiked it. I didnt squeal with laughter, but it was a warming comedic show. Made me smile. J Saunders is a very talented lady.
I lift my skirt to her.
Well done Mam!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
"She's presenting!"
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Well I fell asleep watching it this afternoon. I'm afraid that's what old people do on weekend afternoons.
It really isn't that funny though - not for the talent present. It's just like the real thing only - well nothing!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Best thing about that episode was the derision of Slough. Beautiful!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
I do actually quite like the little bit she does during the credits, trailing upcoming shows. That's quite funny. It's just a pity about the twenty-nine and a half minutes that proceed it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, buzzy said:
I won't be watching this anymore -I am falling asleep-it just not funny-Thursdays are not that funny on BBC2,newsnight is funnier
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Newsnight is an if-I-don't-laugh-I'll-cry show. These fucktards actually RUN OUR COUNTRY. It's thoroughly depressing. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Tonight's episode: entertaining, yes. Funny, no.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Charley @ October 14, 2007, 12:47 AMI liiked it. I didnt squeal with laughter, but it was a warming comedic show. Made me smile. J Saunders is a very talented lady.
I lift my skirt to her.
Well done Mam!
View original
Yes but you'd lift your skirt for anyone.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: Aaron @ October 18, 2007, 9:40 PMNewsnight is an if-I-don't-laugh-I'll-cry show. These fucktards actually RUN OUR COUNTRY. It's thoroughly depressing.
View original
Don't get me started...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
As long as the socialist Jocks run the country, I'm the one you don't want to start.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I won't be watching it any more either. Its just not funny enough, its supposed to be a sitcom. That five minute monologue by the psychologist just went on and there was no pay-off. They've purposely made the show like this yet still labelled it a sitcom and promoted it as part of 'Thursday's are Funny'.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ October 19, 2007, 9:29 AMThat five minute monologue by the psychologist just went on and there was no pay-off.
View original
That was absolutely bizarre. It was well written and well acted but I have no idea why they included it in a sitcom. Now if the show was a one hour comedy drama then that sort of thing could make a lot more sense and the show might not be so bad.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Nick @ October 19, 2007, 9:37 AMThat was absolutely bizarre. It was well written and well acted but I have no idea why they included it in a sitcom. Now if the show was a one hour comedy drama then that sort of thing could make a lot more sense and the show might not be so bad.
View original
Exactly, it just had no place here.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
I'm not sure why this is even a sitcom. By which I mean the whole thing could have been done and dusted in a ninety minute comerdy-drama. Having it on every week is just pointless (and cruel).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ October 19, 2007, 9:29 AMThat five minute monologue by the psychologist just went on and there was no pay-off.
View original
I've not seen this episode yet but it sounds very much like Jennifer Saunders has allowed her co-writer (Dr Tanya Byron, a real life psychologist) to get whatever was bothering her off her chest. Not really the time or place in a comedy is it.
Vivienne Vyle is so mixed - I think the problem is it doesn't know what kind of show it wants to be: sketch show, parody, serious comment on daytime tv, sitcom, satire, comedy drama... it needs to make its mind up.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Mark @ October 19, 2007, 10:57 AM
Vivienne Vyle is so mixed - I think the problem is it doesn't know what kind of show it wants to be: sketch show, parody, serious comment on daytime tv, sitcom, satire, comedy drama... it needs to make its mind up.
View original
It's shit.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Mark @ October 19, 2007, 10:57 AM... co-writer (Dr Tanya Byron, a real life psychologist) ...
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
If you're talking about the sewing up incident - no - it was just an explanation of something that must be extremely rare so what was the point.
A friend of mine had bowel cancer so had to have it done. Funny eh?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Perhaps the confused style of this programme is down to rewrites and re-shoots after it didn't work properly as a sitcom when they showed it to test audiences? As indicated by the start of this thread, the programme has been promised (threatened?) for ages and I think it even changed name before broadcast ("The Life and Times of..." being added). There must be some reason for the delay, and it's possible the dramatic bits were added to give it a bit more depth.
I have zero evidence on which to base this, but that never stops people on this forum.
Perhaps the confused style of this programme is down to rewrites and re-shoots after it didn't work properly as a sitcom when they showed it to test audiences? As indicated by the start of this thread, the programme has been promised (threatened?) for ages and I think it even changed name before broadcast ("The Life and Times of..." being added). There must be some reason for the delay, and it's possible the dramatic bits were added to give it a bit more depth.
By the way, I have zero evidence on which to base this, but that never stops people on this forum.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
(My guess is that they just wanted to keep it for broadcast alongside some other 'funny' programmes. But a good and very interesting theory nonetheless!)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I liked it when he started to do his little soliloquy. But it did go on much too long.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
I don't know whether anyone has pointed this out, but one good thing about the show is that Jonathon is played by a really good actor, Jason Watkins.
For the those of us old enough to remember, or for those who want to see more of him, Jason played Wayne in the very funny 1980's film, 'High Hopes'.
Having only seen him once or twice on stage since that film it's nice to see him at least get a comedy role.
Those of you who think Mike Leigh a bit trite and socially judgemental should really check out 'High Hopes' (obviously you comedy fans will have seen his 'Nuts In May') as a really funny social comedy film.
Anyway, despite being in 'Vyle', which doesn't really seem to know what it is (comedy/drama usually fails by being neither good enough comedy or drama), it warmed my heart to see Jason Watkins back on the screen.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, LINA said:
Ah - the thread seems to have ended. Is this the death knell for the series?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
I watched another 15 minutes of the last episode... sorry, but as much as I like some of the members of the cast, it's not very good!
Good job this isn't their first time out as newbies, 'cos I doubt if the pilot would have got as far as being read through!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
This show has really grown on me and I really like it now. More please, Beeb!
Oh, fair enough. I'm joking. I only saw one and a bit episodes and it was crap. But interesting crap, cos what I saw seemed to be trying too hard to be funny at times but at others seemed written like outright drama. Not great drama, but drama all the same.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Point is then, don't sell it as 'comedy' as opposed to 'comedy-drama'. There is huge difference.
If you write a comedy with scope for drama, it must establish itself first as a comedy. Audiences forgave (and were sentimental for) the down-beat scenes in, oh, I don't know, 'Only Fools And Horses', once they knew that they were primarily watching an out-and-out comedy. Similarily were the emotional scenes in 'The Office'. Dramas are allowed comic elements, comedies have to be comedies before they can be anything else.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
Jennifer Saunders has been drifting into naturalism since Jam and Jerusalem but seems to have little idea of it's techniques. It's so realist that it feels more like a genuine fly on the wall than a mockumentary.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
The thing is though I bet everyone expected a sitcom as JS was involved. I'm not sure why though on recent performances.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
I wonder whether anybody had high hopes...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: Tim Walker @ November 6, 2007, 7:47 PMPoint is then, don't sell it as 'comedy' as opposed to 'comedy-drama'. There is huge difference.
If you write a comedy with scope for drama, it must establish itself first as a comedy. Audiences forgave (and were sentimental for) the down-beat scenes in, oh, I don't know, 'Only Fools And Horses', once they knew that they were primarily watching an out-and-out comedy. Similarily were the emotional scenes in 'The Office'. Dramas are allowed comic elements, comedies have to be comedies before they can be anything else.
View original
Yes, I agree entirely. What I saw was hopelessly muddled and wasn't "sitcom", which is why I'm sticking by the scientific fact that it bombed in preview and was rewritten with more dramatic elements. (I'm using Dr Fox's version of scientific fact here.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
It was really good tonight!
I wish I'd watched it a bit more regularly now.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Only watched the last few minutes, but yes, not bad.
"Fuck me."
"Absolutely!"
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Has the world gone mad?
Where is the comedy? Thursdays are bleedin' miserable.
By the way, I've wondering what to call this hybrid of comedy and drama - dramady is the usual word I think, but this was more like bad karma.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
This may be a show I'll have to download and watch in one sitting because the first couple of episodes didn't impress me, but quite a few people who usually like the same comedy as me like this show, apparently it is a lot more subtle than I gave it credit for.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
I think it's as subtle as a brick
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I'm with Badge on this one. "Subtle" is the argument of someone who is desperate to find something funny in a terminally unfunny programme.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
It's a drama with moments of dry comedy.
It should NEVER have been advertised as a sitcom.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
But is it? It doesn't even feel like a drama to me. The whole show really does 'feel' like it's trying to be a sitcom. It's just forgotten the 'com'.
Like so many other of Jennifer Saunders' recent programmes.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
What others are there?
Oh, Jam and Jerusalem you mean?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Charley said:
I like this! Jen Saunders yet again proves her great talent.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: zooo @ November 9, 2007, 11:42 AMWhat others are there?
Oh, Jam and Jerusalem you mean?
View original
And that Bucket show a month or so back. Utterly tragic.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
It just goes to show that once you're established you don't have to bother.
You can literally get away with murder and stuff all the upcoming new talent.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Cinnamon said:
On that note have you heard about Jennifer Saunders' Executions next friday?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
The most worrying thing is, I had to check in my TV guide to see if that was actually a real programme.
Yes, that is the level TV has descended to, my friends.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Quote: David Chapman @ November 9, 2007, 8:08 PMIt just goes to show that once you're established you don't have to bother.
You can literally get away with murder and stuff all the upcoming new talent.
View original
Dave - I think you and me were gonna finish our comedy careers on 'Last of the Summer wine' weren't we? Looks like we may have to start them on there at this rate!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Charley said:
Come on guys!!!! Lets be nice. Jen Saunders is without doubt, an incredibly talented lady.
Forget about your opinions on VV. Which I might add, I liked.
You can throw Victoria wood at me & I swear I would watch her fly past. However when it comes to French & Saunders I remain as always in awe at their talent.
You Go Gals..............
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Yeah, her last few projects haven't exactly made me laugh my arse off, but overall her career has been amazing. The first few series of Absolutely Fabulous, and most of French & Saunders is fucking hilarious.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Frankie Rage said:
Yep of course! Ab Fab very funny indeed!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Charley @ November 10, 2007, 1:50 AMJen Saunders is without doubt, an incredibly talented lady.
...
However when it comes to French & Saunders I remain as always in awe at their talent.
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Skibbington von Skubber said:
I did not want to like the VV show, but it is very good.
It is sophisticated compared to AbFab.
Jennifer is a woman with a dark & very naughty sense of humour. Her talent is delicious. I want to see her tits.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Do you reckon they're firm and pliant?
(I can't believe that I just said that.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
If I was a dude, I'd definitely want to see 'em too. She's hot.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, amanda said:
i loved it, it was both and funny and moving. thats what i love in a show. the cast is great. jennifer saunders playing a cold character is diferent and i like the change. miranda richardson is too great as helena.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
For what it's worth, I really liked it too. Thought it was excellent and I'm no Jennifer Saunders fan (really didn't like Ab Fab, don't think French & Saunders is all that funny.)
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Jeanie said:
Too often people expect Jennifer Saunders work to be the same as Absolutely Fabulous because that's familiar and what they recognize. When she turns out anything brilliant that isn't spun straight off the vein of French & Saunders it defies the expectations set out and people don't get it or think it's dull.
The press takes a lot of blame in building those expectations for the audience by trying to relate Saunders' work back to Ab Fab, picking out strains of similarity, i.e. "it's about women", not recognizing the complete separation from the outrageousness of Ab Fab.
This newer work is much more subtle in its comedy, so much so that it's in bad form to even call them sitcoms. It's not a series of sketches with quick jokes. The humour grows out the story and character development.
For the record, I think Vivienne Vyle has some bloody brilliant writing in it, but I also don't think it really caught until the third episode, and by that point the season was half over. Anyone who didn't already think it was wonderful had gone off and left it alone. From what I can tell the next season is in production, and it fully deserves its second chance.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
This does seem strange. These Jennifer Saunders fans all seem to appear from America.
Traditionally of course they don't understand our humour. Maybe they like her latest stuff because it isn't that funny but then most popular American stuff is just gag gag gag with no sense of realism.
What I want to know is are these shown in America and if so don't you watch any other British stuff?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Dave, just to partially answer, from American friends I gather that Saunders is really rather huge over there, certainly in the comedy world; moreso than here. Absolutely Fabulous is particularly loved, I believe. No idea about Vivienne Vyle, but Jam & Jerusalem is broadcast as 'Clatterford'.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Billy Pappas said:
Why did Jennifer Saunders make this dreadful show !!!
Saunders should have made more episodes of Absolutely Fabulous not this garbage !!!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Because the BBC indulged her with a high fee, I would guess.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, aliciaxb said:
I am a huge Jennifer Saunders fan and I support everything she does.
I think Vivienne Vyle was funny and people should give it a chance!
Yes I think Ab Fab is better but I still think it is good and hope she continues to make it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Is this another JS fan who randomly pops on here from time to time just making one post in support of her?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Alan C said:
Strange isn't it - I had one real life encounter with her and couldn't believe how bloody miserable she was. Perhaps it was just that she was exchanging a video because "she didn't like it" and not because it was faulty or purchased in error.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
what video was it?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Sami said:
I wondered if anyone has considered that this tv show was not written specifically for them? Sure you can say if you don't like it, but why do people have to go on and on? Maybe you could think of it this way, Jennifer Saunders is an actual person who wrote this show and deserves a little respect for her work. She doesnt spit on your work does she?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Hey! *Everyone* spits on my work! Why is she so special?
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Writer2K said:
Quote: Sami @ July 15 2008, 9:32 AM BSTShe doesnt spit on your work does she?
View original
She hasn't got time to spit! She's too busy counting the licence fee we give her to make ‘Jam and Jerusalem' and ‘Vivienne Vyle'.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Sami said:
Quote: swerytd @ July 15 2008, 9:42 AM BSTHey! *Everyone* spits on my work! Why is she so special?
Dan
View original
I'm not saying she is so special, I'm simply suprised by how vicious some people can be towards someone they have never met, or do not know personally.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Sami @ July 15 2008, 9:32 AM BSTI wondered if anyone has considered that this tv show was not written specifically for them? Sure you can say if you don't like it, but why do people have to go on and on? Maybe you could think of it this way, Jennifer Saunders is an actual person who wrote this show and deserves a little respect for her work. She doesnt spit on your work does she?
View original
Quote: Sami @ July 15 2008, 10:47 AM BSTI'm not saying she is so special, I'm simply suprised by how vicious some people can be towards someone they have never met, or do not know personally.
View original
We've shown respect by not getting personal revenge, and equally by not kissing her arse and proclaiming it genius when we didn't really consider it so. Ultimately, she's made something for public consumption, so should expect the public to comment on it. What people think of the programme, and how they express those views (within reason), is down the the individual audience member.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Hmm, didn't think <humour> tags were necessary...
Too dry for this place, Dan.
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Sami said:
Quote: Aaron @ July 15 2008, 11:10 AM BSTWe've shown respect by not getting personal revenge, and equally by not kissing her arse and proclaiming it genius when we didn't really consider it so. Ultimately, she's made something for public consumption, so should expect the public to comment on it. What people think of the programme, and how they express those views (within reason), is down the the individual audience member.
View original
I hope you are not insinuating i am one of those ass kissers. i would just like to see some of these comments written in here said to her face. and yes i do think she would find some of them offensive.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Not at all. You obviously do like the show. I think she's been around long enough to understand and not be so offended as you're implying.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Sami said:
Well yes i do like the show i think it is what it is exactly as she has written it. i may be a tad naive when hoping that people could be a bit nicer to each other is all......
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Marc P said:
I liked it, if it is of any help.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Quote: Marc P @ July 15 2008, 12:05 PM BSTI liked it, if it is of any help.
View original
No. Also, has it got a second series? I know it got bad reviews and mediocre ratings but that hasn't stopped the beeb recommissioning shows before?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Marc P said:
Don't know. I tought it was clever, and J&J too.
That probably doesn't help either
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Quote: Marc P @ July 15 2008, 12:33 PM BST
That probably doesn't help either
View original
No. And I still haven't forgiven you for mortally wounding my "Comedians who died prematurely" thread with a four thousand word post.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Marc P said:
Yeah it was long, funny though!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Look - as I've said before - I don't like it and I don't find it funny.
Why are there always new people coming on trying to defend her?
OK - she might be a nice person and all these people who come on here might be her friends but nobody else seems to take things so personally.
Come on Jennifer - own up. We don't hate you - we just don't think your work is good enough to be commissioned time after time.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Marc P said:
Quote: David Chapman @ July 15 2008, 7:47 PM BSTLook - as I've said before - I don't like it and I don't find it funny.
Why are there always new people coming on trying to defend her?
OK - she might be a nice person and all these people who come on here might be her friends but nobody else seems to take things so personally.
Come on Jennifer - own up. We don't hate you - we just don't think your work is good enough to be commissioned time after time.
View original
Worst of yours versus best of hers. Best of yours versus any of hers.
Could be a line. Could be a concept. Could be a whole script.
Tell you what let's just make it a one liner.
Go on?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Marc P @ July 15 2008, 11:25 PM BSTWorst of yours versus best of hers. Best of yours versus any of hers.
Could be a line. Could be a concept. Could be a whole script.
Tell you what let's just make it a one liner.
Go on?
View original
What is the best of hers?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: Sami @ July 15 2008, 9:32 AM BSTwhy do people have to go on and on?
View original
Nobody was until you resurrected an old thread. I'm with Chappers in the observation that there is an unfeasibly large number of single-issue JS supporting posters on this thread, but if you like her stuff without question, great!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Yes, it is a little suspicious even for my liking. But heyho, everyone has fans I guess.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Marc P said:
Quote: Aaron @ July 16 2008, 10:14 AM BSTYes, it is a little suspicious even for my liking. But heyho, everyone has fans I guess.
View original
Especially in this weather.
Quote: David Chapman @ July 15 2008, 11:50 PM BST
What is the best of hers?
View original
David the pub here generally sees me arrive at about six o'clock in the evening. As a general rule I would ignore any of my posts after that time!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Quote: Marc P @ July 16 2008, 11:11 AM BSTEspecially in this weather.
View original
You must have a huge used cracker collection if your jokes are anything to go by.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Marc P said:
Lolly Sticks
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: chipolata @ July 16 2008, 11:14 AM BSTYou must have a huge used cracker collection if your jokes are anything to go by.
View original
David Chapman already controls the world supply.