Close
Little Britain's racist isn't it?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, paul toft said:
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, KJSmyling said:
Welsh isn't a race though is it... they're just slow Englishmen with an accent.
kjs
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I think you totally miss the point.
But then you are Welsh.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
This is the wrong forum entirely. Moving.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, KJSmyling said:
Perhaps he's the only welsh on the forum...
kjs
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Well we also have Gavin and roscoff. And probably some others. roscoff spends most of his time down t'mine though.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Aaron @ March 27, 2008, 10:40 PMWell we also have Gavin and roscoff. And probably some others. roscoff spends most of his time down t'mine though.
View original
They followed each other on here like sheep.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
And the Slaggs of course.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, paul toft said:
if i wrote a sketch where someone pukes at the sight of someone black i'd be lynched (sorry) it would be sent back to me before i sent it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ajp29 said:
If you wrote that sketch then you would have sold out
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Yes, I think it is. So is the Catherine Tate Show.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: paul toft @ March 27, 2008, 10:55 PMif i wrote a sketch where someone pukes at the sight of someone black i'd be lynched (sorry) it would be sent back to me before i sent it.
View original
And more's the pity for it. The media is full of so many double standards and so much hypocrisy that I sometimes don't know how it actually gets anything made at all.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Tim Faithfull said:
I think sometimes the question is who we're laughing at - if racism is the butt of the joke then it can be seen as acceptable. Some might say the vommiting ladies concept in Little Britain was poking fun at how certain old ladies have very racist views, rather than being racist itself. The Brass Eye fiasco is another good example - it wasn't laughing at paedophilia, it was laughing at the media hysteria surrounding paedophilia. There is a difference, but a lot of people failed to appreciate it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: paul toft @ March 27, 2008, 10:55 PMif i wrote a sketch where someone pukes at the sight of someone black i'd be lynched (sorry) it would be sent back to me before i sent it.
View original
The joke (as it seems you need explaining it to you)is about racism and prejudice. It's not saying it's right but a reflection of some parts of society.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, catskillz said:
Did anyone see American Dad, earlier tonight? There was a joke on there, about a girl who was famously kidnapped, when she was about 13, back in the '90s, by a rapist, who kept her captive for about 9 months.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: Tim Faithfull @ March 27, 2008, 11:12 PMI think sometimes the question is who we're laughing at - if racism is the butt of the joke then it can be seen as acceptable.
View original
I agree entirely. The Brass Eye Paedogeddon special was great, and I don't think the racist vomiting woman sketches in Little Britain are racist. But I think Little Britain as a show is racist, for the Ting-Tong sketches alone. And Catherine Tate's sketch where her character claims to be a translator and then runs through the gamut of "comedy" foreign stereotypes is one of the most odious things ever shown on British TV in my opinion.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Intent not content.
In Little Britain, it's absolutely clear it's the racism thats being mocked.
As for American Dad, it's so funny I can't tell if its offensive or not.
If it's being ironic it's so hamfisted it's hard to tell.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: sootyj @ March 27, 2008, 11:18 PMIntent not content.
View original
Could not agree more.
Quote: Badge @ March 27, 2008, 11:18 PMBut I think Little Britain as a show is racist, for the Ting-Tong sketches alone.
View original
Howso?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Badge @ March 27, 2008, 11:18 PMI agree entirely. The Brass Eye Paedogeddon special was great, and I don't think the racist vomiting woman sketches in Little Britain are racist. But I think Little Britain as a show is racist, for the Ting-Tong sketches alone. And Catherine Tate's sketch where her character claims to be a translator and then runs through the gamut of "comedy" foreign stereotypes is one of the most odious things ever shown on British TV in my opinion.
View original
Ting Tong is not racist. It's having a go at middle-aged saddoes who think they can buy love by exploiting women in the far east - and then getting their arses bitten.
And you mention Catherine Tate but there is a vast difference between the two shows. Little Britain is funny.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: Aaron @ March 27, 2008, 11:22 PMHowso?
View original
Doh! I knew it!
I'm not getting dragged in any further on a racism thing. I've blown my beans on it enough times. I think it's racist, you don't, and we ain't going to agree on it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Badge @ March 27, 2008, 11:24 PMDoh! I knew it!
I'm not getting dragged in any further on a racism thing. I've blown my beans on it enough times. I think it's racist, you don't, and we ain't going to agree on it.
View original
Yes you are. It is parodying Britishness.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: David Chapman @ March 27, 2008, 11:23 PMAnd you mention Catherine Tate but there is a vast difference between the two shows. Little Britain is funny.
View original
Well, Tim mentioned Brass Eye in the same sentence as Little Britain and there's a world of difference there too.
I think I just can't resist an opportunity to have a go at Tate ever since the news we would have to endure her for AN ENTIRE SERIES of Dr Who while the delightful Freema is relegated to guest appearances.
And is she bovvered? I expect not.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Badge @ March 27, 2008, 11:24 PMDoh! I knew it!
I'm not getting dragged in any further on a racism thing. I've blown my beans on it enough times. I think it's racist, you don't, and we ain't going to agree on it.
View original
No, it was a serious question. I don't have any particular opinion on it either way! We probably have discussed it before... But my memory is shocking.
Quote: Badge @ March 27, 2008, 11:29 PMI think I just can't resist an opportunity to have a go at Tate ever since the news we would have to endure her for AN ENTIRE SERIES of Dr Who while the delightful Freema is relegated to guest appearances.
View original
Good Lord. Almost the binary opposite! I'm fairly non-plussed on Tate, but Freema alone made the last series unwatchable for me. A vile character, played IMO by a poor actress. Can't wait to see her falling into a burning void or something.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Tim Faithfull said:
Quote: Badge @ March 27, 2008, 11:29 PMWell, Tim mentioned Brass Eye in the same sentence as Little Britain and there's a world of difference there too.
View original
Yes, I couldn't agree more - in all other respects the two shows are incomparable. My reason for juxtaposition was that both examples derived humour from extremely contentious issues, but the subject of their ridicule was commonly misunderstood.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Aaron @ March 27, 2008, 11:34 PMGood Lord. Almost the binary opposite! I'm fairly non-plussed on Tate, but Freema alone made the last series unwatchable for me. A vile character, played IMO by a poor actress. Can't wait to see her falling into a burning void or something.
View original
Makes you want Billie back.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: zooo @ March 27, 2008, 11:50 PMMakes you want Billie back.
View original
I do think Freema is a lot more attractive than Billie Piper though.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: zooo @ March 27, 2008, 11:50 PMMakes you want Billie back.
View original
I never wanted her to go! I thought she was great.
Quote: David Chapman @ March 27, 2008, 11:52 PMI do think Freema is a lot more attractive than Billie Piper though.
View original
Ew.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I think Billie can be beautiful, but can also be bizarrely weird looking.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
But then most people can.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
You make a good point!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: Tim Faithfull @ March 27, 2008, 11:49 PMYes, I couldn't agree more - in all other respects the two shows are incomparable. My reason for juxtaposition was that both examples derived humour from extremely contentious issues, but the subject of their ridicule was commonly misunderstood.
View original
Yes Tim, I know. I was only using your line as an excuse for bringing up my own pathetic diatribe about comedy queen Catherine.
Freema and Billie, together? Now you're talking.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Badge @ March 28, 2008, 12:06 AMYes Tim, I know. I was only using your line as an excuse for bringing up my own pathetic diatribe about comedy queen Catherine.
View original
I agree she is crap. She can't compare with the Goddess who is Karen Taylor.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: David Chapman @ March 28, 2008, 12:07 AMI agree she is crap. She can't compare with the Goddess who is Karen Taylor.
View original
I'd much rather have Karen Taylor in Dr Who. And vice versa, before anyone else says it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Badge @ March 28, 2008, 12:10 AMI'd much rather have Karen Taylor in Dr Who. And vice versa, before anyone else says it.
View original
No - most definitely not!
He can have zooo. Like we're sharing Gethin and Camilla.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
(sounds like a good deal!)
I'd rather they had no flipping assistant than just any random woman with television experience that comes wandering past.
Jeebus.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Wee Jimmy Krankee as an assistant?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Jezooos*
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
I still don't know who Gethin is, other than he looks a bit like Zooo does on her avatar.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Blue Peter presenter. She fell in love with him when he took part in Strictly Come Dancing last year.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Aaah! Is he the Welsh fella? I'm more of the Noakes-Purves-Singleton era myself, and I could never bring myself to fantasise about any of them
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Yes he is, and I don't blame you!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Back to point, I did initially think Little Britain was parodying the racism/attitudes here but by the third series I was thinking that they're doing it *so* much that it could possibly have *become* racist! I'm pretty sure they're not, but they certainly seemed to become a one-joke set-up by then.
Getting rid of the hypnotist really did them in... 
I don't find Tate funny, so don't watch and can't comment.
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
I think the racist accusations are misguided when it comes to Little Britain, they are mocking attitudes. However, there is open bigotry in the Yeah But No character. Chavs have become the new blacks. The underclass it's acceptable to mock and ridicule and say anything about. That said, they are a cancer destroying society so they deserve everything they get.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Quote: chipolata @ March 28, 2008, 10:06 AMI think the racist accusations are misguided when it comes to Little Britain, they are mocking attitudes. However, there is open bigotry in the Yeah But No character. Chavs have become the new blacks. The underclass it's acceptable to mock and ridicule and say anything about. That said, they are a cancer destroying society so they deserve everything they get.
View original
That's quite interesting cos they are completely unaware that they *are* chavs, (and, if anything, probably mock chavs as well in order to appear 'in'). Also, aren't chavs the kind of underclass that sit around on their arses so it's a mocking of an attitude really, rather than skin colour/sexuality/etc.
Even though your last point is a joke, there is a point that blacks/gays/etc have never been a 'cancer destroying society' whereas chavs are.
</underesearched social comment>
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: chipolata @ March 28, 2008, 10:06 AMI think the racist accusations are misguided when it comes to Little Britain, they are mocking attitudes. However, there is open bigotry in the Yeah But No character. Chavs have become the new blacks. The underclass it's acceptable to mock and ridicule and say anything about. That said, they are a cancer destroying society so they deserve everything they get.
View original
Quote: swerytd @ March 28, 2008, 10:13 AMunderesearched but entirely correct social comment
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
I think it might be possible to define "chavs" as an underclass who largely rely on benefits, live on council estates and pop out child after child after child after badly behaved child. Yeah But No girl certainly fulfills those criteria, as does Catherine Tate's Am I Bovvered. I think Lenny Henry was talking about this recently, probably to distract us from the fact that he and his wife haven't been involved in anything remotely funny for twenty years.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
re Lenny.
I'd disagree about Tate though. Lauren is a mouthy bitch alright, but I would have said more of a wannabe than a proper 'chav'. I honestly can't imagine that character popping out kids.
That Conservative councillor was right - benefit scroungers shouldn't be allowed to have kids!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
GOuverenment term is NEET (not in employment education or training). Too be honest, it's not just the choices we make it's the choices we're offered in life.
I switched streams at school from the all fail GCSE stream, to the 70% pass stream and did ok.
I did work as a youthworker for a while, and I think alot of what we call chavs, are people who made bad choices, but in choices we were never offered.
I was reading at an early age, because my parents taught me, and there were books in our house to encourage me.
A lot of the kids I met in hostels, just didn't have a vision of a different future, then benefits/prison/poverty.
If you grow up in a house without a table, where do you do your homework?
I'd bring in 3 year none military national service, get every one on an equal footing.
There's no group that deserves to be ridiculed, and none that doesn't it either.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
They deserve to be ridiculed when they cause such misery to the rest of society. And don't forget, the victims of the mouthy chav are often the old, the weak and the vulnerable. How often do we read news stories in which some poor bastard has been kicked to death by a gang of feckless baseball cap wearing wasters? Only this week there were some convicted of kicking the goth girl to death.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Those were teenagers, and thugs. What actually is a chav?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
A lowlife scumbag.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
The trouble is everyone seems to have a different definition of the word chav.
Quote: sootyj @ March 28, 2008, 10:27 AMIf you grow up in a house without a table, where do you do your homework?
View original
Yikes. That's quite a sobering thought, Thanks sooty.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
You avoid it like everyone else tries to!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Badge @ March 28, 2008, 12:27 AMAaah! Is he the Welsh fella? I'm more of the Noakes-Purves-Singleton era myself, and I could never bring myself to fantasise about any of them
View original
I dunno - Valerie Singleton isn't that bad really. Even Jonathan Ross fancies her.
Quote: sootyj @ March 28, 2008, 10:27 AM
There's no group that deserves to be ridiculed, and none that doesn't it either.
View original
Um - yes! I think I agree.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, thing said:
Quote: zooo @ March 28, 2008, 12:45 PM(the ''table'' quote of sooty's that didn't seem to work here on a repeat quote)
Yikes. That's quite a sobering thought, Thanks sooty.
View original
Sorry to add more and a bit off topic but - if you are born to a heroin addicted Mother how long will it take you to re-assimilate to average values, expectations, etc. when your very early sentient and formative years were all experiences of poverty, police raids, violence, etc.
What realistic services are available to those individuals to help them lead productive lives and/or overcome early physical and mental damage of that, all too early, experience of our 'wonderful' world.
The answer, IMHO, is never, because despite both of the individuals I've encountered being well supported by caring extended families and genuinely having seen enough life in such a short time to be well rounded and nice people there are NO realistic services.
I don't mean to offend the other professionals that work with such young people but they will probably be the first to admit they are, nowadays, forced into spending more time on 'box-ticking' exercises, producing statistics on what they have (have tried to) achieve that the overall effect is not reaslistically going to have any effect.
We all pay for the failure and the aftermath.
Point?
CHAV, Black, Asian, Gay/Lesbian, etc. (sorry if you're an 'etc.') - all just convenient labels and of no relevence to individuals whatsoever. Still, sadly, a source of amusement. (I'm gonna qualify that later though cos I love laughing at myself!)
So why am I posting such heartfelt feelings on a comedy forum - well you started talking about various groups, some disadvantaged, and how they are portrayed in media comedy - ok? That is the influential industry many people here aspire to be a bigger part of isn't it?
Peace.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Bloody ... people! *shakes fist*
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Winterlight said:
I haven't read all this thread, but I don't think it is racist.
The vomiting woman sketch is more a parody of little englanders, than an attack on black people. You're ignorant if you can't see that.
Attacking the chavs though, with Vicky Pollard, is somewhat classist. "Look at the idiotic working class" etc.
I don't know much Little Britain, so can't comment too deeply.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
The only sketches in Little Britain that have made me wonder about racism are the Ting Tong ones.
And it didn't make me think David and Matt were racist, as I know they're not, it made me think some of the fans that were laughing would be laughing for the wrong reasons, and that makes me uncomfortable.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I just thought they were very, very unfunny.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: zooo @ March 28, 2008, 11:51 PMThe only sketches in Little Britain that have made me wonder about racism are the Ting Tong ones.
And it didn't make me think David and Matt were racist, as I know they're not, it made me think some of the fans that were laughing would be laughing for the wrong reasons, and that makes me uncomfortable.
View original
I'm with Zooo (if you'll have me). I don't think for a minute that Walliams and Lucas are racist, but I think the Ting Tong sketches are racist. Why? Because they come across to me as racist. And that's good enough for me. In fact, it's pretty much the only definition for me.
Others may disagree. That's up to you.
I never thought the vomiting woman was racist - just over the top in terms of taste. They could have done the same sketch and just as funny (in fact, more inclusively) if they hadn't soaked everything in projectile vomit.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
The whole show is in bad taste - that's not in dispute!
But as I say Ting Tong is ridiculing saddoes who buy Oriental women.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: David Chapman @ March 29, 2008, 12:48 AMThe whole show is in bad taste - that's not in dispute!
But as I say Ting Tong is ridiculing saddoes who buy Oriental women.
View original
And I say I believe that's the intention but that's not how it comes across to me.
FIGHT!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Badge @ March 29, 2008, 12:52 AMAnd I say I believe that's the intention but that's not how it comes across to me.
View original
Same here.
But I won't fight, I've just eaten.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Well of course the whole thing about Little Britain is it's anti gay.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Yup. Matt hates the gays.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, thing said:
Well what do they expect.
I don't have many prejudices but if the're going to wear tight, purple shorts like that that they don't do themselves any favours.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
With Vicky, I think she'd be funny as a gormless teenager. The "she's a shit single mum as well," seems like mean spirited over statement. As for Ting Tong, the bought wives thing is a funny idea.
Monkey Dust did it better. And didn't need to say how funny Asians look and sound, which LB does.
LB does seem to like an extra, naughty joke, on top of a good joke. This can lead to some of the humour feeling a but gratuitous.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, paul toft said:
I ain't buying it. What about the Fat Fighters sketch? Taking piss out of Indian woman, not being able to understand her. I ain't a member of the PC brigade, but it's a case of double standards. They get away with it because of who they are. They're in the BBC comedy clique.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
With fat fighters, it is pretty clear it's Marjorie who doesn't get the Indian woman. It's a rare example in the show of them getting it note perfect.
As for aren't women with no clothes on funny (and how ridiculous they might consider themselves attractive), and fat black women more so!
Plus the only Gay in the Village, is Daily Mail- esque obsessing with what gay people do,
The show is at times quite funny. But there's a nasty thread to it. That feels like it's allowing it's irate of Tunbridge Wells viewers, to laugh at the funny diferent people.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: sootyj @ March 29, 2008, 10:42 AMWith fat fighters, it is pretty clear it's Marjorie who doesn't get the Indian woman.
View original
Precisely! It's not racist at all. The point of those sketches is that Marjorie is ignorant and self-centred, and has pre-decided that she doesn't understand what the Indian lady says, just because she's Indian. There's no racism to it in the slightest.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: sootyj @ March 29, 2008, 10:32 AMWith Vicky, I think she'd be funny as a gormless teenager. The "she's a shit single mum as well," seems like mean spirited over statement.
View original
Having grown-up in Bristol (where Matt Lucas lived and got the idea for Vicky Pollard) I met 'Vicky Pollards' a number of times. And I would say that if anything Lucas tried to make the character more sympathetic than the real-life Vickys.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, paul toft said:
know anyone black who finds it racist? I do.
Anyway i'm dropping it now. most of their stuff ain't funny that's all i shall say. As for naked women being funny. The TITTY BANG BANG sketch, now that's hilarious, come to think of it so is the rest of the show. no sorry i was thinking bout a burning baby int burning building.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Monkey Dust rules, and shows the way.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
Hmmm I bought the DVD of Monkey Dust series one and switched off part-way through the first episode cos I was bored. Maybe I will try watching it again. Although obviously my top priority at the moment is to educate myself about Futurama ;-)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Hey I sent a sitcom to the BBC the other day, about 2 rag and bone men 9father and son) who don't get on. One of them calls the other a dirty old man alot.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Don't think that's been done before! Sounds good, hope you get somewhere with it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
Quote: sootyj @ March 29, 2008, 11:15 AMHey I sent a sitcom to the BBC the other day, about 2 rag and bone men 9father and son) who don't get on. One of them calls the other a dirty old man alot.
View original
Dammit, I've just finished a sitcom with exactly the same premise. My pitch is also that the guys who are going to play my characters shouldn't get on in real life. And the actor who plays the father should ideally be a gay alcoholic.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, roscoff said:
It'll never work.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
This whole plagiarism area's a minefield, though, isn't it.
If I'd known about Morbo (see I've Googled it now) I wouldn't have sent that sketch into Tilt, and I wouldn't have scored my radio credit. (BTW I now have it on good authority that none of the BBC people had seen/heard of Morbo either and they're not worried about any similarities.)
So it seems the more you know about what's been done, the more difficult you make life for yourself. It's possible to worry too much about this stuff. Whatever setting and characters you choose, there's going to have been something similar done before in the millions of hours of comedy recorded since the dawn of time. As I've mentioned before, I wrote a whole sitcom episode once which turned out to be exactly like a Peep Show storyline which was broadcast a few weeks later.
So go ahead, write your rag-and-bone-men comedy. Chances are it won't be anything like Steptoe. Call them scrap merchants, or junkyard dealers, or whatever, and set it firmly in the modern day, and who knows what you might come up with. As someone else has pointed out to me, Ricky Gervais didn't hold back from writing The Office just because Colin's Sandwich had already been made.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
A cross between Empty and Steptoe and Son. Two joking misfit-ish types working at a scrap yard. Not a bad premise!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Tim Walker said:
You could always update the scrap yard motif to a recycling centre, politically more of an issue.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
Great idea!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Quote: Griff @ March 29, 2008, 11:48 AMThis whole plagiarism area's a minefield, though, isn't it.
If I'd known about Morbo (see I've Googled it now) I wouldn't have sent that sketch into Tilt, and I wouldn't have scored my radio credit. (BTW I now have it on good authority that none of the BBC people had seen/heard of Morbo either and they're not worried about any similarities.)
So it seems the more you know about what's been done, the more difficult you make life for yourself. It's possible to worry too much about this stuff. Whatever setting and characters you choose, there's going to have been something similar done before in the millions of hours of comedy recorded since the dawn of time. As I've mentioned before, I wrote a whole sitcom episode once which turned out to be exactly like a Peep Show storyline which was broadcast a few weeks later.
So go ahead, write your rag-and-bone-men comedy. Chances are it won't be anything like Steptoe. Call them scrap merchants, or junkyard dealers, or whatever, and set it firmly in the modern day, and who knows what you might come up with. As someone else has pointed out to me, Ricky Gervais didn't hold back from writing The Office just because Colin's Sandwich had already been made.
View original
I always say there's a finite number of good ideas in the world. Besides your skit was good, and I suspect atleast one of their crew is aware of Morbo, and it was good enough to beat the familiarity trap.
Anyway I've seen Garth Merenghi, and still submitted starpigs. If you couldn't do anything more than once then there'd be one GWB is a divvy joke ever.
My rag and bone men, actually belong to a world war 2 dad's army unit One of whom is a butcher, and another a pompous bank manager (who resents his senior cashier who went to public school). Except it's set in Russia, Vlads army.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, catskillz said:
Is Marjory Doors struggling to understand the Indian woman any different than alan Partridge struggling to understand Michael the Geordie?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Very good point!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: catskillz @ March 31, 2008, 2:03 PMIs Marjory Doors struggling to understand the Indian woman any different than alan Partridge struggling to understand Michael the Geordie?
View original
There is a difference I think. Alan Partridge features a character who is genuinely difficult to understand and so the joke is on Michael. In Little Britain Meera is perfectly understandable so the joke is about Marjorie's idiocy. In that sense you could argue that Alan Partridge is more offensive (but I would argue that neither show is).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I dunno about that. From what I've seen of Partridge (admittedly pretty little), Michael is HARDER to understand than Meera in Little Britain!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: Aaron @ March 31, 2008, 2:35 PMI dunno about that. From what I've seen of Partridge (admittedly pretty little), Michael is HARDER to understand than Meera in Little Britain!
View original
That's what I wrote.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Charley said:
Little Britain is not racist at all. Jeeeez!!!
Margory Dawes is made out to be a right bitch for not understanding the indian lady. She also takes the piss out of large peeps. Seeing as she is a large lady herself it works well. She is made out to be vile so IMO it is not racist, sizeist at all.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Nick @ March 31, 2008, 6:19 PMThat's what I wrote.
View original
Read more like you were saying they're equal, but no matter!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Jack Massey said:
Little Britain is definetly not racist, but will be seen as racist by the next generation no doubt. I have the same opinion about Borat. For example people now see Johnny Speight sitcoms racist (Till Death us do Part/Curry & Chips). At the time these Speight sitcoms were out, it was about the time of Enoch Powell's infamous ROB speech, so he was making fun of xenophobic twits such as Powell in TDUDP (Alf Garnett) and C & C. Yet, when watching any of the shows today, people do not know the time of its original broadcast and what was happening at the time. Little Britain is a very funny show that makes fun of the racism in our society. Are by any chance the charactors of Marjorie Dawes and the woman who gets sick likeable- I think very much not.
On to Ting Tong, well many people are like Mr Dudley. For example there is a stereotypical working class in his 50's man who drinks at my local everynight. Can you imagine him. Yes he does have a mostache. Anyway he has gone to Thailand twice this year for two months a time. His excuse- you can smoke indoors over there. Rubbish, he has a woman like Ting Tong over there- it's obvious. Surely...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, KJSmyling said:
Quote: Jack Massey @ March 31, 2008, 6:35 PMHis excuse- you can smoke indoors over there. Rubbish, he has a woman like Ting Tong over there- it's obvious. Surely...
View original
Mmmm... might not be a woman.... it might not even be an adult....
kjs
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: KJSmyling @ March 31, 2008, 7:36 PMMmmm... might not be a woman.... it might not even be an adult....
kjs
View original
Also of course the Indian woman in Little Britain is hardly what you would call overweight.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Quote: Jack Massey @ March 31, 2008, 6:35 PMLittle Britain is definetly not racist, but will be seen as racist by the next generation no doubt.
View original
I think this in an important point, but not necessarily the next generation. There are a lot of people who don't get that the joke is on them and laugh along oblivious because of the (admittedly jokey) racist vibe, missing any post-modern ironic point about racism.
(Sez me, quoting but not really understanding what 'post-modern ironic' point actually is...)
But couldn't that fuel the racism rather than hinder it? However little they've meant to offend.
I've written articles myself where a lot of people didn't 'get' what I was saying and started having a go, and it was basically the irony that was missing in their lives. And, no, they weren't all American...
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
While Little Britain is trying to poke fun AT the racists it is too close to the wire and it's pretty obvious that in the UK in 2008 FAR too many people will see the humour in puking on a paki as being the fact a paki got puked on....and nothing more.
If it was watched by 5% of the population then they could claim success but when you have kids quote the lines, dolls for sale in the shops and Christmas specials...you know that a good part of that market has missed the point.
Brass Eye is a great example - I doubt they were ever considered for a paedo toy doll or a Christmas hour long celeb packed special....and those that didn't get it were horrified. If Little Britain re-did the paedo episode in their own way they would end up with 70% of viewers laughing at the fact someone fancies a hot looking 12 year old slapper because...she's a hot looking 12 year old slapper!
(Should add - by close to the wire I don't mean LB is pushing some sort of taste boundary...simply that it is not clear enough who it is taking the mick out of.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
The idiots out there can't be allowed to much influence.
Paedos will wack off over Upsy Daisy's knickers, if there's nothing else.
Racists will watch Goodness Gracious Me, and pause on any points when the actors look silly. Or watch footage of riots in Zimbabwe.
One shouldn't play upto these silly sods. But one can't avoid them either.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: M Lewis @ April 1, 2008, 9:27 AMWhile Little Britain is trying to poke fun AT the racists it is too close to the wire and it's pretty obvious that in the UK in 2008 FAR too many people will see the humour in puking on a paki as being the fact a paki got puked on...and nothing more.
View original
Really? It's so ridiculously absurd, I honestly don't think that anyone would see it as that.
Quote: M Lewis @ April 1, 2008, 9:27 AMIf it was watched by 5% of the population then they could claim success but when you have kids quote the lines, dolls for sale in the shops and Christmas specials...you know that a good part of that market has missed the point.
View original
Now this one I disagree with from start to finish. Why does a child wanting a model/doll of a character inherently mean that they don't appreciate that that character is a fuckwit, or racist, or whatever else?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: M Lewis @ April 1, 2008, 9:27 AMWhile Little Britain is trying to poke fun AT the racists it is too close to the wire and it's pretty obvious that in the UK in 2008 FAR too many people will see the humour in puking on a paki as being the fact a paki got puked on....and nothing more.
If it was watched by 5% of the population then they could claim success but when you have kids quote the lines, dolls for sale in the shops and Christmas specials...you know that a good part of that market has missed the point.
Brass Eye is a great example - I doubt they were ever considered for a paedo toy doll or a Christmas hour long celeb packed special....and those that didn't get it were horrified. If Little Britain re-did the paedo episode in their own way they would end up with 70% of viewers laughing at the fact someone fancies a hot looking 12 year old slapper because...she's a hot looking 12 year old slapper!
(Should add - by close to the wire I don't mean LB is pushing some sort of taste boundary...simply that it is not clear enough who it is taking the mick out of.)
View original
You are a fool.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
Quote: Nick @ April 1, 2008, 10:04 AMYou are a fool.
View original
I don't think he is. He's pointing out the idiocy of the country.
When the highest viewing figures here are for soap opera, it proves that the majority of the country are stupid.
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Richard Wells said:
Honestly what has happened to just watching a show and enjoying it.
Some of you people go way to deep for my liking.
I just sit, watch it, laugh many times and then get on with my life.
It's not very hard to do you know.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Richard Wells @ April 1, 2008, 10:16 AMHonestly what has happened to just watching a show and enjoying it.
Some of you people go way to deep for my liking.
I just sit, watch it, laugh many times and then get on with my life.
It's not very hard to do you know.
View original
It is for bitter, overly-analytical writers!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Jack Massey said:
Quote: M Lewis @ April 1 2008, 10:27 AM BSTWhile Little Britain is trying to poke fun AT the racists it is too close to the wire and it's pretty obvious that in the UK in 2008 FAR too many people will see the humour in puking on a paki as being the fact a paki got puked on....and nothing more.
View original
I think the term you mean is Pakistani. Or are you just summing up all Asian people in that way- or just people from Pakistan.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
A good example of the irony being completely lost on some people...
Dan
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Jack Massey said:
No Comment...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, swerytd said:
That's even better irony!
Like that one
Dan